"할머니께서 양말하고 신발을 신으세요."
Translation:Grandmother wears socks and shoes.
43 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
Off topic history lesson: German tourists are known for this fashion crime. But our people did not come up with that. The first recorded large scale use was by roman legionaries.
"our people" so that means your German. I know this is off topic as well but I just wanted to appreciate how you stayed calm in this situation:) I probably would have lost it but I will take you as an example and try to stay calm myself:) I'm cringing but I wanted to say this
신발 are just shoes though, so 할머니 at least is innocent of this crime ;) Sandals would be 샌들.
What is the exact meaning of 께서 added to grandmother, does it have to do with respect? If so, what other situations is it applicable?
I think "shoes and socks" should also be accepted rather than "socks and shoes", because in the english translation it is natural to put shoes before socks. In my english-speacking country, nobody would say socks and shoes, only shoes and socks. I know there' is no logical reason why, its just how it is always said, so the other translation feels unnatural in english, the same way it would be unatural to translate this as "Grandma socks and shoes wears"
this might differ for different regions because I've lived in the US my whole life and I always say "socks and shoes" rather than "shoes and socks"!
782
Depends on your country I guess. I was born and raised in the U.S.A., an English speaking country, and have always said socks and shoes. Regardless, the way the Korean sentence was written, it was "socks and shoes". They could just as easily have written "shoes and socks". Duolingo has been consistent on insisting lists be translated in the order presented.
Isn't -으세요 the imperative mood for 해요체? Why is this sentence not "Grandmother, wear (your) shoes and socks" then?
-(으)세요 doesn’t have to be imperative; it’s just a contracted form of -(으)시어요. I have also seen -(으)셔요, but it seems to be very rare (and also I so far haven’t seen this one used in an imperative sense).
That said, your translation is also valid and should be accepted.
Since 신다 specifically means “to wear on your feet”, that’s not too much of a problem in Korean ;)
I wrote grandma is wearing her socks and shoes. wouldn't that work too? Technically, I'm actually Korean, but I'm still not sure.
Why does the verb 신다 get conjugated into the 세요 form when it isn't a command??? shouldn't it end with 신다 or 신어요?
-세요 is not an imperative (command) marker. It is just the irregular combination of -시- (a marker of respect for the subject) + -어요. The reason you see that formula often in the imperative is simply because then the subject is the person you are speaking to. So if you address that person politely, you will have to use -시-, so in practice polite requests will pretty much always have -시- in them. But you will also use -시- in any other situation where you want to show respect for the subject (in this case the 할머니).
ah, thanks for the detailed explanation! but can 세요 still be used as a command marker? i remember reading another comment (on another post) that "더 드세요" meant "eat more" and the ~세요 indicated that it was a command. is this translation accurate? also, what's the difference between "더 드세요" and "더 먹어주세요"? different formality levels perhaps?
더 드세요 is a perfectly good command, it just doesn’t have to be one. For example 할머님 조금 더 드세요 could be a polite command “Grandma, please eat more rice” or it could be a statement: “The grandma eats more.” Or if you put a question mark at the end it can be a question: “Does the grandma eat more?” That’s the shortcoming of the -어요 ending: It just tells you two things: That the sentence is over and that the speaker expresses respect toward the listener. But it doesn’t tell you if the sentence is a statement, question, command etc. You have to rely on context and intonation to know which one it is. In other politeness levels there are different endings for different types of sentences but the -어요 one can be either.
By the way, 먹어 주세요 is somewhat unnatural. The polite form of the verb 먹다 is 드시다 (it’s an irregular polite form), so you won’t normally use 먹다 paired with the -시- suffix, not even if there is another coverb like 주다 or 보다 in between. I would just say 드세요, unless maybe the 주다 was really meant to mean “for me” rather than just “please”. If it does mean ”for me” I’d say 드셔 주세요. I know that looks slightly strange because now you have subject politeness marked twice (on 드시다 and the -시- in 주세요) but that’s how people do say it.
thank you for the reply!!!! it all makes sense now, now that i know that it relies on context. it also makes sense that 주세요 is more like "please do this for me" (for example, 물 주세요 means please give water to ME) rather than just "please give water". again, thank you!
For example, 물 주세요 means please give water to ME rather than just “please give water”.
Unfortunately I again have to say “kind of” ;) The default implied indirect object is indeed “to me” but that default implication can be overridden by context. By itself, 주다 does tell you that the speaker does not show special respect for the recipient, otherwise they would use a different verb: 드리다. Therefore, if speaking to somebody politely and use 드리다, the default implied recipient is “to you”, whereas for non-deferential it’s “to me” (though again, context can override those defaults).
By the way, just 신다 as the verb would be incorrect I’m afraid. 신다 is the dictionary form, you need to conjugate it.
Dude no way dude. I swear why am I always wrong????? What doesn't grammatical context or not have to do with the compound object in this heinous exercise.
I’m afraid I can’t tell what might be the problem without seeing what you wrote. Assuming everything else is as in the model answer, here is a non-exhaustive list of correct verb forms in our sentence (depending on the context but since Duolingo doesn’t tell us anything about context, they should all be accepted):
- 신으십니다 (very formal)
- 신으세요 (informal but polite towards the listener)
- 신으셔 (informal, not polite towards the listener)
- 신으신다 (very casual or not directed towards anybody in particular, for example in written fiction)
All of these are composed of the verb 신다 + -으시- to show respect towards the grandmother + some ending which shows how formally and politely we are treating the listener. The respect marker -으시- is obligatory here because it would be strange not to use it when we already show respect towards the grandmother by using -께서 instead of -가.
wouldn't it be at your grandma's (place) because it says 할머니께서?? or is it not because it doesn't say 댁...?
No, -께서 means the exact same as -이/-가, only it also expresses respect towards whatever it’s attached to. It has nothing to do with -에서. So 할머니께서 = 할머니가+respect for that 할머니 (although I would prefer 할머님께서 with the polite suffix -님 as well – if you want to express enough respect to say -께서, you might as well use -님, too).
- 782
Duolingo should provide the ability to copy things, like this answer, to help the learner write down the things they learn in a lesson, as we are encouraged to do.
What is the exact meaning of 신으세요? Can someone pls give pther eg to explain.. I'm a little confused
It’s a conjugated form of the verb 신다 “to wear (on the feet)”. -으세요 is the conjugation ending: a fusion of -시- (which shows respect for the subject) + the -아/어요 ending you are probably familiar with by now. The -으- is just a filler vowel which is always inserted before -시- if the verb stem ends in a consonant. If the verb stem ends in a vowel it’s not there (e.g. 가다 “to go” → 가세요).
- 265
If the sentence were "Grandmother wears socks and gloves.", what 'wear' verb should be used? 신다 or 끼다 or both?
Thanks.
Both: 할머니께서 양말을 신고 장갑을 끼세요.
You can compare the situation to this one in English: You can watch TV and you can read a newspaper, but you can’t *read TV or *watch a newspaper. Some other languages do have a single verb that can be applied to both (including Korean: TV를 보다, 신문을 보다) but English doesn’t, so there is no way you can combine the two actions into a single verb in English. The best you can do is: “I watch TV and read the newspaper.” The same applies to situations where other languages use specific verbs even though English uses a more general one.
- 265
many thanks @AbunPang.
But in another example: "사람들은 코트와 장갑을 입고 있다." - People are wearing coats and gloves.
DLG only uses 입다 for both items. Is it because 입다 is a general term for "to wear" (ie regardless of the items of clothing)?
My gut instinct told me that 사람들은 코트와 장갑을 입고 있다 is strange as well, but since DLG uses that sentence and I’m not a native speaker, I went ahead and checked with one. She basically confirmed my feeling: 코트와 장갑을 입다 can be parsed but sounds rather awkward. She much prefers 코트를 입고 장갑을 끼다. So either that feeling is less strong for some people or that sentence is incorrect.
- 265
Thank you again for finding time to answer my question.
Incidentally, I come across "착용하다" for 'to wear' which seems to cover most items; or just "하다" for small accessories.
Not clear on their usage in daily life. But 착용 being hanja, perhaps the derived verb sounds too official?
Yes, 착용하다 definitely sounds very formal. As an illustration, Naver gives the following example:
- 보안 출입증을 항상 보이도록 착용하세요. “Please wear [your] security pass such that it is always visible.”