1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Korean
  4. >
  5. "아이가 먹는 닭고기 수프는 매워요."

"아이가 먹는 닭고기 수프는 매워요."

Translation:The chicken soup that the child eats is spicy.

October 23, 2017



Anyone else think of chicken soup that eats a child? No? Just me? 알겠어...


I got confused and thought it was, "The child eating the chicken soup is spicy" if that makes you feel any better


i got the same can somebody pls explain me how these two sentences are different ??


If you restructure the sentences to get rid of the modifier clauses, the sentences would be:

1) The chicken soup eats the child. That soup is spicy. 2) The child is eating the chicken soup. That child is spicy.

Both sentences are really weird. 1) Soup doesn't normally eat anything, let alone children, and 2) children aren't spicy (I assume - I've never eated one, lmao). The correct answer, which makes a lot more sense, would be reworded as "The child is eating the chicken soup. That soup is spicy."


1) Soup doesn't normally eat anything, let alone children

고기가 저를 먹습니다 (The meat eats me) shows up in the Food lesson.
That's why I'm barely phased at the idea of soup that eats children.


I also wrote "the child eating the chicken soup is spicy"


내가 아이를 먹는 닭고기 수프는 맛있다고 생각해요 ^-^


you are not the only one hahaha


I write "The chicken soup the child is eating is spicy" and got it wrong. Can someone tell me where i went wrong translating this? I feel like what i put is pretty much what the answer said..


"The chicken soup the child is eating is spicy." is now accepted.


The child eats spicy chicken soup...should also be accepted Nov 2021


The difference between the DL answer and your one would be :

is eating-"먹고 있다."


But in actual context their difference is minimal. Your answer is also good.

Korean course is yet in beta state.


You're correct — whoever wrote the question didn't add alternative phrasings for the answer.


Plus, given sentence is more like "The chicken soup for children is spicy" and yours would be "그 아이가 먹고 있는 수프는 매워요", as


Should be right - you are inly missing the word "that" which can usually be omitted in English


This is by far the most difficult sentence I've encountered on this Korean course!


"The chicken soup the child eats is spicy" is also right. "that" is contextual and can be ommited


Any tips on how to not fall for this ....and by this I mean not to translate it like: the child who eats chicken soup is spicy ? XD ^^;


I also wrote that


So in these sorts of sentences, do you need to put the subject (chicken soup) right next to the verb? Seeing the answer makes me understand the child is not the subject, but part of an adjective phrase (if that's a proper grammatical term). But before seeing the answer, it is a difficult sentence to understand.


I am not sure which order you're thinking but there is only one possible order for this particular sentence.


Why is "The child eats spicy chicken soup" not accepted?


because in your sentence,

""The child eats spicy chicken soup" "

the verb is [eats], and "the child" is the subject.

But in this sentence,

"아이가 먹는 닭고기 수프는 매워요."

[매워요.] is the verb, or really, adjective/state of being. And the topic is the chicken soup.

The child eats spicy chicken soup would be 아이가 매운닭고기 수프를 먹어요.

I think.


The by-child-eaten chicken soup is spicy


At this point, I understand the Korean better than I can translate it in English


The only way I can understand this sentence in English is "The child-eaten chicken soup is spicy". The given translation sounds natural, but it's also very confusing because it translates the content but destroys the structure.


Based on the sentence, could it be translated as 'the chicken soup that is eating a child is spicy'? Even though it is an absurd statement


Nope cuz the subject for 먹다 is 아이


"the chicken soup that the child is eating is spicy" didn't work


"The chicken soup that the child is eating is spicy." is now accepted.


I got a wrong response for "The chicken soup eaten by the child is spicy". Am I actually wrong, or this just a variant answer that hasn't been put in yet?


"The chicken soup eaten by the child is spicy." is now accepted.


"The child eats chicken soup that is spicy." Why is this incorrect? (Sept 2020)


Because it's totally different.

"아이는 매운 닭고기 수프를 먹어요."


English translation is more like "The child is eating a spicy chicken soup."


The chicken soup that the child eats is spicy, has the same meaning as , The child eats chicken soup that is spicy.


The latter can be an answer to "What does the child eat?" but the former cannot. The information the speaker wants to deliver is different.


Playing with semantics in this one. In useful English these are the same.


Wrote "The child eats the chicken soup that is spicy" and got it wrong


I wrote "The child eats spicy chicken soup" can someone explain how im wrong?


Is it wrong to say "The child eats chicken soup that is spicy"?



"아이는 매운 닭고기 수프를 먹어요."


This translation puts the soup as subject, right? Am I misreading '가?'


Why is it not The child eats spicy chicken soup. I am confused as i thought the topic was who is eating and then what they are eating.


"The child eats chicken soup that is spicy" was marked wrong. Does it just make sense in my head?


It makes sense, but it doesn't fit the structure of the sentence. The primary verb in the sentence is 매워요 (is spicy), so an accurate translation should be "(something) is spicy." The something in this case is the chicken soup, 닭고기 수프는. The other words are just modifiers to the chicken soup: it's eaten by the child (아이가 벅는).

Thus we get the Duo translation, with the adjective phrase in parentheses: "the chicken soup (that the child eats) is spicy." In my opinion, notstarboard's translation of "The (child-eaten) chicken soup is spicy" is quite helpful, because it preserves the sentence structure (at the expense of sounding a bit awkward in English).


Can somebody explain this word per word? Thank you so much in advance.


The chicken soup that the child eats is spicy. Why is this not accepted?


Why not the child is eating spicy chicken soup.


why isn't "the child that eats the chicken soup that is spicy" accepted?


I put the child eats spicy chicken soup


so based on context, "먹는" can mean "the X that's eating" or "the X that's being eaten? "먹는 수프는" is the soup that's being eaten and "먹는 아이는" is the child that's eating? i wish there was an object marker 를 to help my brain figure out what's what xD

Learn Korean in just 5 minutes a day. For free.