"이것은 저쪽에 있습니다."
Translation:This is over there.
Wouldn't something being "over there" disqualify it from being called "this"?
im getting lost on the differentiation between 이것은 저기 있습니다 and 이것은 저쪽에 있습니다 based off of the accepted translations. whats up there??
The difference is if the subject of the sentence is the object or the object's location. So -기 always refers to a tangible object but -쪽 is a place or direction. 저기 implies "the object we were discussing is in fact the object right there," and 저쪽 implies "the object we are discussing is located there or that way."
Or when looking on a map and pointing to something on it saying "this" and then pointing in the real world "is over there"
In ENGLISH (and, perhaps, other languages) it is semantically strange to say this construction, though still, technically, grammatically correct.
Remember, friends, other languages treat the concepts you know differently and may even think in different ways, so don't get too hung up on it
I can imagine this turn of phrase would pop up doing inventory, like the situation somebody mentioned above. "This -points to item on list- is over there -points to object on shelf-"
can "this thing is on that side" also not be accepted?
also for "this is over there" why isn't it "이것은 저기에 있습니다" since 저기 means over there?
What if we dont add the subject markers while speaking? Will the sentence be wrong or acceptable?
저쪽 means roughly "that place over there"; 저 refers to something that is far from both the speaker and the listener, and 쪽 literally means "side". Nothing here implies the speaker is indicating a direction, so "that way" is not an accurate translation.
I guess it was too literal to put, "This thing is in that direction over there." （｀・ω・）ゞ
Would this really be acceptable to say in Korean? How can "this thing" (next to you) be "over there" (away from speaker/listener)?