"남자는 한국 출신입니다."
Translation:The man is from Korea.
"the man is from korea" is the translation that sounds most natural in english but does not catch the meaning of 출신.
출신 ... Native - as in "Ainu are the Native Population of Hakkaido" - is more than just "the man comes from there" - it is more like "The man has Korean roots"
"came from korea" ... 한국에서왔습니다 - does not make sense, because it could be a japanese coming from korea, as in from a direction, but not as in land of origin "a korean" ... 한국 사람 - would make sense and is the form i heard most often so far
so "the man is from korea" is the most fitting translation after all.
and i guess they want to familiarize us with 출신
Yeah, I've been using 사람 too as in
저는 미국 사람입니다.
Which literally means I am american people, if I have written that correctly.
I thought 출신 meant native. But my sentence that "The man is a native Korean" which is the same meaning just in different words.
Native Korean still implies that he is a korean person which is not what this is saying...it is saying he is native. You can't translate it to english the same you have to break it down.
"the man is korean" would require you to basically say "the man is a Korea person" so:
"남자는 한국 사람입니다."
by using 출신 (native) it wants you to know they are from Korea...it could possibly mean they might be from Korea, but aren't Korean. lol You can be a native somewhere, but not be that nationality. =)
Sounds like the Japanese "shyusshin" which means "origin", which is how they express where you're from, just like in Korean.
I can guess the sentence. But im not getting the adjectives at all
it would have been great if they kept the adjective part first.
Help me pls
"A man is from Korea." is wrong. It is like generalizing that men are all from Korea. It can be "The man is Korean." instead.
I imagine that there's a group of people, and we mention that a man in the group is from Korea
It can be translated as the man is from korea...if it was he is korean it would have 사람 after korea
why don't they use the 에 particle after 한국, it's clearly a location so i don't get why they don't use it.
Because 에 means something is there or happening there...this is saying he is native to korea.
Because that's not right. You can be a different nationality and still be native to somewhere. So just because it says he is native to korea, does not mean he is korean.
would you not put 에 after 한국? or would that just mean that the man is in korea?
No because it is not saying he is born there its just saying he is from there in a native sense.
I feel like they should add the Hanja into the lesson plans. I know it's not necessary, but as someone who speaks Cantonese, I found that looking up the Hanja actually helped me understand the meaning of different words.
Can anybody help me to identify when it is "a man", "the man" or just "men"?
I think it should be '남자는 한국사람 입니다.' (Namjaneun hangug salam ibnida.)' bcs 한국사람(hangug salam) means a person from Korea/someone who is Korean. Correct me if I'm wrong^^
Is Korea the subject? As in, "About the man, Korea is (his) origin." Is that what's grammatically going on here?
So, the man is from korea cant be the man is korean???? Someone explain me please
Can't you use this sentence I got this from my Korean teacher : 저는 한국 사람이에요. Meaning: I am Korean.