"저는 한국 출신입니다."
Translation:I am from Korea.
100 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
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 really think without this chat I would not have been able to understand anything ... thanks for the help
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.
back then there weren't really any Koreans born outside of Korea. the word was just used to distinguish between Koreans and foreigners. i dont really think its offensive to anyone
출신: Social Status, Former Title, Previous Position. 그는 하버드 대학 경영대학원 출신입니다. He is a graduate of Harvard Business School.
1573
출신이 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.
고양이가 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.
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...
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.
저는 필리핀 사람입니다 means that you are a Filipino. And 저는 필리핀 출신입니다 means you are from (native to) the Philippines.
The first is "I am a Philippine person." or simply, "I am a Filipino."
The second is "I am a Philippine native."
Everyone who identifies as Filipino can use the first one, but it would be incorrect for a Filipino born-and-raised in, say Japan, to use the second one.
In Filipino, the first one could be translated to "Ako ay Pilipino." whereas the second would be "Ako ay tubong Pilipinas."
the first sentence means i am filipino and the second means i am from filipin
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.
They did until formal use of Hanja was abolished in the 1980s. If you try to read something like the Korean Constitution, or documents written prior to 1980s, you will see them. Also in some scientific or mathematical writings today.
- 1573
In North Korea chinese characters were phased out even earlier, in 1949, with all North Korean texts after that date being written exclusively in Korean script. Though interestingly Hantcha was still used to write dates for a decade longer or so.
Also, in contrast to South Korea, Hantcha-phase-out was accompanied with ortography reform aimed at reducing numbers of homophones and irregular spelling which both appeared aplenty due to removal of said characters. They went as far as adding some new characters to Korean writing, though this very idea was abandoned quickly
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
Duolingo needs to give more information on the 'tips' section about the sentences included in this part!!
when I'm going to introduce my self, i used to say "한국에서 왔습니다" . Or is it have a different means?
It's subtly different.
출신 = native
저는 한국 출신입니다. = "I'm a Korean native."
왔습니다 = came 저는 한국에서 왔습니다. = "I'm from Korea" as in "I came here from Korea".
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.
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".
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.)
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.
출신입니다 = formal/respectful 출신이에요 = respectful but not formal; kinda normal 출신이야 = really informal. only normal to use with someone "beneath" you in the social hierarchy (like with kids) or with really close friends/family
Since I am not Korean I can't use this sentence. I am Maldivian so can I say "저는 머디브에서 왔습니다."?
Maldives is 몰디브, not 머디브, but otherwise what you wrote is correct. It's a common way to say "I come/same from (country).", but it is what you'd say if you were no longer in the Maldives.
You could also say "몰디브 출신입니다", "몰디브 사람입니다", and "몰디브인 입니다."
This lesson is becoming harder but i will prefer 저는 한국 사람 since im not korean native and i won't be using that sentence much...its hard to get use to that word since i don't interact with people in korean
They're actually not cognates, per se, but are the exact word.
출신 is 出身, which the Japanese pronounce as shusshin.
It's totally correct. You should report it and select "my answer should have been accepted".
unrealated but please can someone explain the meaning of "지금" and "이제". please
지금 just means "now".
이제 also means now, but includes/implies a change of the situation.
Can someone please explain why the ㄹ in 출신 is silent? I looked at the batchim rules but it isn’t mentioned anywhere so I can’t figure it out. Is ㄹ before a ㅅ always silent?
It isn't? I hear "chushin". Is it more like "chulshin" just I can't notice for some reason?
It's definitely not silent.
But it's not as strong of a sound as the surrounding consonants, so it would be easy to not notice it or, if someone were saying it quickly, to drop the sound.
Thank you so much for the clarification. I can hear it perfectly in Google Translate, it seems inaudible to me only on Duolingo.
