Maybe if our friend had taught the dog more english, he would understand.
So, from what I have understood, "X doesn't V" can be translated as:
- X가 V지 않습니다.
- X가 안 V니다.
Can somebody confirm if that's correct?
yes that's correct. the 2nd way is a bit less formal but they mean the same thing
I was very confused about this too. I had no idea where that 지 came from, making the word "magazine" (잡다 = to throw, 잡지 = magazine).
I had to look it up and it turns out there are two ways you can make a sentence negative:
By adding 안, typically placed immediately before the final verb or adjective.
By adding ~지 않다 to the stem of the final verb or adjective. 않다 then becomes the verb or adjective in that sentence and must be conjugated accordingly.
Articles need some work. While technically correct, "the dog does not catch a ball" sounds much more strange than "the ball" as generally you would be referring to a specific ball
없습니다 (it’s one word) means sth doesn’t exist or isn’t there, or someone doesn’t have something. 않습니다 means someone/something doesn’t do something
I made a mistake on this one, and the correction said "dogs" instead of "dog".
Without the plural marker, the word can be singular or plural, but with the plural marker, then it can only be plural. Often the plural marker is not used.
No matter how many times I throw the ball, the dog doesn’t catch the ball. We just don’t know the context. I think there might be another word added to indicate past tense.
The dog probably can catch the ball, but this time “The dog does not catch the ball.” Perhaps the dog was distracted by a squirrel.
I think that the 'ㅎ' is silent, so there shouldn't be any difference in pronouncing.