1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Korean
  4. >
  5. "저는 한국 출신입니다."

"저는 한국 출신입니다."

Translation:I am from Korea.

October 24, 2017



just in case anyone is wondering 출신 means native :) I looked it up. I was confused about it, I wish that they would give more information on these sentences.


I guess this would be used by a Korean actually born in Korea instead of a child of Korean parents born outside Korea.

The word reeks of prejudice against the latter.


출신: Social Status, Former Title, Previous Position. 그는 하버드 대학 경영대학원 출신입니다. He is a graduate of Harvard Business School.


I really think without this chat I would not have been able to understand anything ... thanks for the help


아니요, 저는 한국 출신아닙니다 ㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠ


출신 아닙니다!

When you use 아니다, you have to attach 이/가 particle.
고양이입니다 - I am a cat. With 이다 (to be) no additional suffixes are required.
고양이 아닙니다 - I am not a cat. With 아니다 (not to be), as I said, 이/가 always has to be here.
Edit: Well, as some pointed out below, not always, these can be omitted in everyday speech. More often than not, however, I see it attached.


Particles are occasionally dropped in conversation. Also, the 가 in I am not a cat can be more of an indication of emphasis, than a specific grammatical need for the particle.


actually from what I learn from Korean class. You don't really need to add it.


What is the difference between "저는 필리핀 사람입니다" and "저는 필리핀 출신입니다" ?


My guess would be "I am Filipino" for the 1st one and "I am from the Philippine" for the 2nd. Either way they convey the same idea...


LucidWatermelon is correct.


Not really the same idea. You could be a Filipino person who is not from the Philippines, like say if you emigrated or are the child of immigrants.


Is korean speech really that vague?


I believe it is a really great language because it is based on the actual social activity. Maybe you will see its beauty when you will apply this language in real time with Korean speaking people.


Is it really more vague than English?

A guy could be an American citizen and say "I'm Korean." because his mom and dad were from there. And that same person could say "I'm a native of America." or "I'm from America."


저는 필리핀 사람입니다 means that you are a Filipino. And 저는 필리핀 출신입니다 means you are from (native to) the Philippines.


Following for answer.


I think the firs one means i am from Philippines and the second one means i am Philippines native


No I'm not that's why I'm here


저는 韓國 出身입니다


Sorry, but what did you say?


It's the same sentence. The user has replaced certain words with its hanja equivalents (which are accurate sound wise - they make the same sound as the syllables in this sentence - but I'm not too sure if they're the exact equivalents because there are many hanja characters that make the same sound but mean different things). However, Koreans do not use hanja like this so don't worry about it.


is that mixed with Chinese?


In the past, Chinese characters were adopted or required during times when China ruled/dominated across Eurasia and Japan. Hanja being adapted to Korean use and kanji adapted to Japanese. Additonally, Japan has two sets of phonetic alohabets, one for Jaoanese words and grammar, and the other fir non-Japanese words. The korean hanja is generally not necessary in common writing and conversation.

I do not have a link to the appropriate references, but I had read that at some point in this century, China had a specific goal for promoting Mandarin (Chinese) language as a lingua franca...much like English is used as one today.

It's noteworthy to see that phonetic alphabets make it easier to advance literacy.

Vietnamese uses tones, etc., has an alphabet based on phonetics, and is successfully functional. Perhaps, beyond pinyin romanization, Chinese could have an alohabet that respects the languages natural attributes.


These are hanja characters, so Chinese characters basically. In Korean, they are pronounced the same as the sentence this comment section is about but they are pronounced differently in Chinese. However, Koreans do not use hanja like this so don't worry about it.


So this refers ONLY to the place, not nationality? Like "I'm Korean" is wrong because i'm not referring to the actual place? I hope I made myself clear


The sentence doesn't even mean you're "from" the place, but means you're a native.

You probably would say that you're "from" the UK if you were born in, say, Russia but your family moved to the UK at age 3. But you would still be "출신" for Russia.


yes, this is saying that you are actually from that place, however it is not saying if you are actually of that heritage


저는 인도 출신입니다. 맞아요?


If this was true, I wouldn't be here.


what does NIDA MEANSSSSSSSS? lol


ibnida 입니다. is the verb "to be" also known as the copula which comes at the end of the word that is equal to or referring to the subject. Also it does not change form so this covers "am", "is" and "are". Sentences like "I am popular." and "He is a man." are written in Korean similarly to [I popularam] and [He manis], but I don't think we have learned "he" yet, have we? This way of adding to the end of a word in a language is called agglutinative, and the Tips and notes say that this is the only agglutinative verb. https://www.duolingo.com/skill/ko/basics-1/tips-and-notes

Please read the tips and notes, because the negative takes a different form.

So now we are introduced to another verb " 있습니다." and it has the same ending that you are asking about. It is used for sentences that say "There is..." or "...exists." or "...is located..." and even "(I) have.." I would definitely expect a verb when I see that ending now.


[deactivated user]

    Cognate to Japanese 出身 しゅっしん


    Ok so what be the difference between i am koren and i am from Korea


    I'm from Korea.:

    "저는 한국에서 왔습니다." (Literally: I came from Korea.)

    "저는 한국에서 자랐습니다." (Literally: I grew up in Korea.)

    "저는 한국 출신입니다." (Literally: I am a Korean native.)

    I'm Korean.:

    "저는 한국 사람입니다." (Literally: I'm a Korean person.)

    "저는 한국 혈통입니다." (I'm of Korean descent. or I have Korean blood.)


    저는 브라질 출신입니다


    this is what kboos would say


    "I am a korean native" should also be accepted. Technically it is correct.


    "I'm a Korean native" should be correct, I think


    저는 감보디아 출신입니다


    Isnt it everyone's dream(^^)


    English question: are "come from" and "be from" really different?


    As a native English speaker, I would not say, "I come from Korea", I would instead say "I am from Korea" or even "I am Korean". There is difference though. "I am from Korea" tells me you were born there or lived there. "I am Korean", could mean that as well, but I might then ask for clarification and say "Were you born there or did you grow up there?" I hope that helps.


    "I am Korean." could also just be a statement of culture and heredity. You could be born and raised in a totally different country, but have Korean parents. That would be wrong as a translation for this Korean sentence.


    The sentences: "I come from Korea" and "I am from Korea" are both equally valid English sentences which essentially mean the same thing. Having said that, "I come from Korea" probably isn't used very much, although listeners would understand from it that you were born in Korea. If you said: "I am coming from Korea", that would meaning that you were travelling from Korea.


    I think there can be a subtle difference although it can also be used interchangeably. I think that if I were raised in Korea, but my parents were not Korean that I might say that "I come from Korea." while if I were not just from the country but also rooted to it by ancestry that I would more likely say "I am from Korea." Then again, I will say "I am from California, but my parents came from Canada." because I was born and always lived here but my parents moved here before I was born. So, "I come from Korea." can mean that I may have moved from Korea, while "I am from Korea." could mean that I am more likely visiting or still have ties to the country.


    why didnt we write 한국에 instead of한국


    Person = 사람 Korean person = 한국 사람 Food = 음식 Korean food = 한국 음식

    Native = 출신 Korean native = 한국 출신


    한국 in this case acts like an adjective modifying 출신. A better way to reflect this in the translation would be: "I am a Korean native", though not many people would say that in English.


    In this case "from" is part of the meaning of the verba?


    https://papago.naver.com/?sk=ko&tk=en&st=%EC%B6%9C%EC%8B%A0 -> This reports 출신 meaning ancestry, (가정이나 지역) a native, origin, birth, affiliation, (학교나 직업) a graduate... as such the answer should allow us to answer with "I am from Korea/n family" and also I am from korea" not just the second only, in my opinion.


    What is the difference between 입니다 and 있습니다?


    With 이다 (입니다), you take something that exists and describe it by equating it with another thing.

    Ex: 저는 미국사람 입니다. (I'm an American. - it equates me with Americans.)

    있다 (있습니다) - means "to be" (as in telling you that the thing exists) and sometimes means "to have"

    Ex: 저는 한국에 있습니다. (I'm in Korea.) 저는 아내가 있습니다. (I have a wife.)


    That ture... creeeeeepyyyyy....


    can this mean I'm in korea


    No. 출신 means "native" and sometimes can mean "origin" (like for your school/Alma Mater).

    The sentence means that your a Korean native.


    How can I recognize when I have to use 에 for places? for instance, I thought since this reads "I am from (location) Korea" '한국에' would be used, but it wasn't. Does this have to do with 출신?


    You could write "I'm from (place)." and use the location marker.

    "저는 (place)에서 왔습니다." is used for that a lot. But it literally means "I came from (place).", so it only makes sense if you're not actually in your hometown/home country.

    In "한국 출신", 한국 is acting as an adjective, modifying 출신. 출신 primarily means "native". 저는 한국 출신입니다 really means "I'm a Korean native." or a native of Korea. Not quite the same as "I'm from Korea." since you could be born somewhere but grew up someplace else.


    oh I see, it's more or so the translation that confused me, but what i'm getting from this is that any noun can turn into a verb placing -입니다 in front of it? like "사람" = person "사람입니다" = to be person... is that it?


    If "adjective + noun" makes sense, then sure. But there are lots of times where it wouldn't make sense and would be said differently.


    Why they consider 한국(韓國) as Korea even Hanguk is South Korea? Korea is different from South Korea. If they are referring to the whole Korea it must be 남북 or South and North.


    According to both South Korea and North Korea, there is only one Korea. And technically/officially, neither country recognizes the other as legitimate.

    South Koreans call Korea "한국" and if they need to specify that they're talking about North Korea, they'll say "북한".

    And North Koreans call Korea "조선". If they want to refer specifically to South Korea, they will usually say "남조선".

    That's simply the way it is.


    저는 인도 출신입니다, I wish I lived in Korea ㅠㅠ


    저는 독일 출신입니다.


    저는 독일 출신입니다


    when I'm going to introduce my self, i used to say "한국에서 왔습니다" . Or is it have a different means?


    well, that literally means you came from korea. i guess it would kinda imply that you were in korea and then left it to go to whatever country you are in now. it is a bit different to the sentence in the lesson, as that one only says you are from there, not saying anything about whether you left it or are still living there. hope that made sense!


    While it's that "(place)에서 왔다" literally means "I came from (place).", it's the most common phrase I've heard used in Korea for describing where you're from.

    And the sentence in this lesson isn't necessarily about where you're from, but where you're a native of. 출신 means "native". If you were born in Korea but grew up in, say, Australia you might both say "I'm from Australia." while still being a "한국 출신".


    Google translate has its uses, friend. The application is not meant as a DIRECT translation, but it IS meant to give you a jist of the sentence. Often times in Korean the words have different meanings depending on the context, so there should be a "more" option to let you see other possible meanings for the word.

    These may not always be the best options, but likewise, not all Korean use the same words because of thier dialect. Even something so simple as the months are a little different from Seoul to Busan.


    Isn't the same as "I am Korean" ?


    Not exactly.

    출신 primarily means "native".

    If you were born in America to American parents, but grew up in Korea, you might say "I'm from Korea." but you would not be a "출신". And such a person is unlikely to say "I'm Korean."

    Similarly, a person born in Korea who grew up in America, might not describe themselves as from Korea, but they would be a "출신" and definitely are "Korean".


    저는 韓國 出身입니다.


    Why they change the word over and over


    Why ㅈ sometimes sounds as ㅊ??


    Is this the same a 한국사람입니다?


    Not exactly.

    출신 primary means "native" / "birth", but can also simply mean origin/affiliation. So, it "한극 출신" primarily means someone born in Korea.

    한국 사람 means Korean person, but someone born outside of Korea to Korean parents might call themselves that.


    I accedently wrote "I am room Korea"... nice..


    Does someone know what the difference is between using 제가 or 저는 and when to apply them?


    They're interchangeable.


    안녕하세요 저는 방탄소년단 화금막네 존종국 임 입니다 annyeongasayo jeonan bangtan Sonyeondan hwaggeum makne jeon jungkook imnida :D


    Why does 한국 not need a particle after it?


    Because in this case, 한국 is an adjective describing the "출신"

    Korean person = 한국 사람 Korean food = 한국 음식 Native = 출신 Korean native = 한국 출신


    Does anyone know the Korean translation of Belgium?


    벨기에, so if you were to use that in this sentence, you'd say: "저는 벨기에 추실입니다."


    That is not the verb used in this sentence? What is that verb?


    Hmm soo what is the translation of Slovenia then (tho we add j pronounced as ya there.. Slovenija if it helps) >


    i believe that would be 슬로베니아


    why is "I am korean" not allowed?


    because that mostly has the meaning that you are of korean heritage, meanwhile the sentenc in the lesson wants you to say that you are only from korea, giving no information about your heritage


    That's actually not true. The Korean sentence implies both/either and even neither meaning.

    출신 actually means "native" but can also mean origin/heritage. It's not exactly where you're from; a guy born in Korea who grew up in Canada would be "한국 출신" even though he might not that he's "from" Korea.

    And for what it's worth, in Korea, I've never heard anyone ask "Where are you from?" using this verb.

    I've had many people ask me, "어디에서 왔어요?" (Literally, "where did you come from?).


    The word is Korea how can you that FROM


    What are you asking?


    The English sentence is not a literal translation of the Korean one, just the closest meaning. It's the usual problem: sometimes a precise translation makes for an ugly sentence in the target language so you end up taking the most natural sentence which conveys the meaning you want.


    The closest meaning to the Korean sentence would actually be "I'm a native Korean."

    Although, this isn't (in my experience living in Korea for a few years) the most common way to say where you're from. Usually, people say "(country)에서 왔어요."


    저는 영국 출신입니다


    jeoneun hanguk chulshinibnida


    I am from Korean. Obviously


    google translate says that hankuk is England, not Korea????


    Never use google translate to learn/assist with learing a new language, it's basically always wrong


    hanja form is 英國(영국)


    영국 is both England and the UK.

    Note: I know that England and the UK are not the same thing; they use the same word for both, in Korean regardless.

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