"고용주는 일한 적이 없어요."
Translation:The employer has not worked.
29 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
Vㄴ 적이 ≈ experience doing V
So literally, this sentence could be interpreted as: the employer does not have experience working. When thought of this way, it’s obvious why machine translations use the word never to translate this construction.
502
Employers exploit the labor of others rather than doing work themselves. A commune would eliminate that form of exploitation
한 적이 있다 - to have done something, 한 적이 없다 - to have not done something.
Yes "never" is technically correct but it's not an accurate translation of the words.
The question is maybe how people understand the respective sentences. When you read the Korean sentence, do you understand it as the employer never having worked in his life? Or that he didn’t do it during some specific time frame in the near past – today or the last week maybe (but maybe he did work before that)? My instinct would lead me to the second interpretation for English “The employer has not worked” but the first one for Korean 고용주는 일한 적이 없어요.
(Of course you can exclude one or the other interpretation with adverbs: 그는 우리 팀에 이동된 후에 일한 적이 없어요. / 그는 평생 일한 적이 없어요. But lacking such adverbs, what would be your interpretation of the sentence?)
My interpretation is that he has never worked in his life. Like LiKenun says below us, the implication is one of "never," but the translation isn't the same thing word for word, just like how in English you say "I have not seen that movie." Of course that also means never, and of course you could change the sentence to use the word never.
그는 우리 팀에 이동된 후에 일한 적이 없어요. -> regarding this, I don't know if one would use 한 적이 없다 in this case. Someone would have to comment, but my understanding of that grammar point is that you would instead say 그는 우리 팀에 이동된 후에 일하지 않았어요.
Googling for 적 being used within a limited time frame find this example: "이별 후 한번도 슬펐던 적 없다" (I have never once been sad after we parted ways). But I agree, unless I wanted to really stress that x has never once happened since some point in the past, I probably wouldn’t use 적 either.
In any case, to come back to our original sentence, I believe that “The employer has never worked” should at the very least be accepted, maybe even be the model solution because just like you said, that is the meaning of the Korean sentence even tough it doesn’t contain the word “never” explicitly. With “not” instead of “never” that meaning is at the very least ambiguous.
An accurate translation hinges on well-informed interpretation. Going for a verbatim translation that won't automatically give the listeners in the target language the same understanding a native speaker of the base language would get is a bad translation and failure of the job. It can be informative if done with warning so language geeks can see the morphosyntax and pick it apart but it just confuses casual learners and those who just want the info in their target language.
"The employer has never worked before." The sentence actually implies this, rather than "has not worked". Though I suppose "has not worked" makes sense, but that does not imply permanence.
I live in korea. The more correct translation would be never. Thats what i have always gathered that koreans think it to be as well.
- 267
Dec06 2019.
Have suggested: "The employer has no past working experience."
일한 - past working (일하는 - working)
적 - experience
- 267
V + ㄴ 적이 없다
= have not 'at any time' + V
= have not 'ever' + V
= have 'never' V =>
고용주는 일한 적이 없어요. = The employer never worked.[Am.] / The employer has never worked. [Br.]
"The employer does not have work experience" is marked wrong. I think that's a valid translation
I think you might have taken the comparisons of 적 with English “experience” too literally. verb + -ㄴ/은 적 있다 means “verb has happened before” (and conversely, verb + -ㄴ/은 적 있다 means “verb has never happened before”). The “experience” thing is only a tool if you want to understand how that construction is formed, you shouldn’t actually translate it as “experience”. You could also translate it as “the fact that … happened”. It’s a bound noun – a noun which doesn’t really have a concrete meaning of its own but only occurs as a part of certain grammatical constructions.
- 267
Got it. From what you are saying V(으)ㄴ적이 없다 (To have never V'ed / To have not V'ed before) is the equivalent of the English Present Perfect.
How different is it to the V-지 않았다 form since Korean simple past also covers the moment of speech? Is V(으)ㄴ적이 없다 only used for emphasis?
감사합니다.
V(으)ㄴ 적이 있다/없다 is equivalent to one function of the English present perfect, yes – but not all. For example, whenever the action continues into the present (e.g. “I’ve lived here for three years”), you can’t use V(으)ㄴ 적이 있다/없다. Same if you state the point in time at which the action was done (e.g. “I have done my homework last week”). And a lot of other cases as well because the English present perfect has quite a few functions.
Basically use only use V(으)ㄴ 적이 있다/없다 where you could use present perfect + “before” to indicate that you are talking about something you have done at least once at an unspecified point in time. Also as a side note, you will very frequently see V(으)ㄴ 적이 있다/없다 combined with V-아/어보다 “to try doing V”, e.g. 김치를 만들어본 적 있어요? “Have you made (tried making) kimchi before? Have you ever made kimchi?”
V-지 않았다 (or just 안 V-았/었다) is just the negation of something which happened in the past. You don’t have this implication of discussing whether or not you have ever made the experience of doing the verb. It‘s just something which did not happen in the past. There is only one implication beyond those of English “not”: If the verb describes a voluntary action, then 안 V/V-지 않다 implies that the subject voluntarily chooses not to do the verb. If the verb just doesn’t happen due to some outside factor preventing it, you would use 못 instead of 안. So if you are apologising to your friend for not turning up for their party, you want to say 파티에 못 가서 미안해, not 안, because the latter would imply that you didn’t go because you didn’t want to.
- 267
From what @AbunPang has explained,
N 경험이 없다 = Have no experience in N / Lack of experience in N => focus is on the acquisition of knowledge, skill, or wisdom
V(으)ㄴ 적이 없다 = Have 'never before' V'ed => focus is on time factor
PS: even in English, there is a subtle difference between "work experience" vs "working experience"...
- 267
일한, worked (been doing work) is the past determiner form of the verb 일하다 to work.
일 has various meanings amongst which one; day, incident; work/job/task ...
My guess is:
일한 적임 = experience in doing work
일(에) 적임 = suitability for the job
적이 없어요 doesn't that mean "at all"? BTW, why does this sentence is written in present perfect? Could someone help? TIA
- 267
(1) General structure
—v(으)ㄴ 적이 있다/없다 = have ever/never v-ed (before)
Breakdown:
—v(으)ㄴ: [V-ed, English past participle] abdominal form of the past tense of an action verb
—> the past tense of the sentence is expressed through this part of the sentence, not through the final verb 있다/없다.
적: [at any time before; ever before] is a bound noun indicating time when an action or event has occurred or passed.
있다/없다: [have/not have]
So: 고용주는• 일한• 적이• 없어요.
= The employer• done work• ever before• has not
=> The employer has not ever (before) worked
= The employer has never worked (before)
(2) [not] at all = 전혀. (Amplifier in negative sentences)
고용주는 일을 전혀 하지 않았다. The employer did no work at all.