31 Comments
Mostly in Canada, too. Never got the sense of walking around with outside shoes in your house.
Why is it 한국에서NEUN and not just 한국ESEO? Is the reason why that is is that "In Korea" is the topic?
I think it's like how you turn words in adjectives by adding 는 after them, so here it turns into something like "houses that are in Korea" But I'm just guessing, might be completely wrong
Yes, just like Japan. You take off your shoes just by the door of the house
Yeah, you get yelled at if you are familiar to the person owning the house. You'll get politely asked to take them off if you are some kind of honored guest. And to top it off, there are floor drains in a lot of the bathrooms, so sometimes the bathroom floors are wet. So there are "common" rubber slippers in a lot of bathrooms for you to put on so you don't get your socks wet. Oddly enough, it's not polite to go barefoot in someone else's house either. So if you're a girl used to wearing heels barefoot you either don't or bring socks or hope they have some closed toe slippers for you wherever you're going. And there are certain restaurants where you sit on the floor (and therefore you take your shoe off ... you see the same here in the States in Japanese restaurants). And, strangely, sitting on the floor is considered a more formal dining experience than on chairs. And in Korea that is the main reason you don't wear shoes indoors ... you end up sitting and many time sleeping on the floor.
How do you translate "does not become?" A closer translation of this sentence could be "Wearing shoes in the house is not acceptable."
This is from McPwny's response to another similar comment:
되다 is complicated because it has a lot of usages, in this one though (으)면 안 되다 is a set phrase just meaning "one should/must not"
(으)면 되다 is the opposite, and suggests someone should/can
되다 is complicated because it has a lot of usages in many set phrases
어/아서는 안 되다 real similar to (으)면 안 되다
(으)면 안 되다 says "one should, must not, is not okay if.."
(으)면 되다 says someone can.
어/아도 되다 "one may, can, has permission to do"
지 않아도 되다 "one may not" as in "doesnt have to"
어/아야 되다/하다 "one must" as in "has to and should do smth"
the difference between (으)면 되다 and 어/아도 되다 is
어/아도 되다 refers to one being allowed to do smth, where
(으)면 되다 refers to what you can do, to accomplish or get smth done
you can use it by itself or like an adjective too.
안 돼 dude you cant
그것이 안 된다. that is not okay.
학업이 잘 되고 있어요? are your studies going well?
Does "신발을 신어면 안 되요" literally translate to something like, "If you wear shoes, it is not right"? (Forgive me if i spelled the Korean incorrectly)
I always translated it as "may". But, unfortunately, Duo did not like "In Korea you may not wear shoes in the house". My experience is 되다 is used in the same sense as "may" in English. Example: 화장실에 가면 돼요? "May I go to the restroom?" Literally "If I go to the restroom is it permitted?"
Why is "Wearing shoes inside the house in Korea is not allowed" not acceptable?
290
I'm from Singapore and generally we don't wear shoes at home too. How about other countries? Let's share the different culture. :)
"In Korea, it is not right to wear shoes inside the house" should also be accepted. Reported 20190126
Why is it 한국에서는 and not just 한국에서? Is the 는 a modifier in this case or...? someone please elaborate :)
its just adding feeling. that 는 is indicating 한국에세 as the target of interest and contrast. it being there is just emphasizing it, as if to say "in korea (not other places, or even unlike other places) etc"
you could omit it here and it would be fine.
- 103
Could someone explain why "In Korean, do not wear shoes in the house" is incorrect? Thank you
Yea this is true, my parents are always bugging me about taking off my shoes at the door... It does keep the house ten times cleaner than the average American homestead.
Me reading the comments of DuoLingo that ask questions not relating to Korean grammar:
"I'm surrounded by idiots"
I konw korean. the answer "in korea your not suppose to wear shoes in the house" works
