"We can't make bulgogi without beef."
Translation:소고기 없이 불고기는 못 만들어요.
35 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
Same doubt. Make is a transitive verb. So, I don't understand why 불고기 is not the object of 만들다. The example sentences on Wiktionary also have ~를 markers: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/만들다#Verb_2
It is the object of the sentence! 은 and 는 don't mark a grammatical function; they can be used with both subjects and objects. The purpose of 은 and 는 is to emphasize the topic of the sentence, or what the sentence is about. Still, the sentence with "불고기를" should definitely be accepted.
은 and 는 don't mark a grammatical function; they can be used with both subjects and objects.
Yup, I have learned it in the later skills and now I understand the markers better. Thanks.
Could the sentence be translated with bulgogi as the subject, i.e. "bulgogi can't make things without beef," or would that be a different sentence?
I guess in theory you could choose to understand “Bulgogi” as a name (a foreign person whose name happens to sound like “Bulgogi”??), which then in turn would force you to interpret the object to be an omitted “it”. Something like: 불고기는 육개장을 만들고 싶어요. 하지만 소고기 없이 불고기는 못 만들어요. “Bulgogi wants to make Yukgaejang [a beef soup]. But without beef Bulgogi can’t make [it].” (Even so that’s a bit strange though because there is really no reason to repeat 불고기는 in the second sentence then.)
But to be honest, that’s on the same level as it would be to interpret the sentence as “I hate Mondays” as meaning “I detest people with the first name ‘Monday’”: technically valid if you see the sentence out of context, but your chances of encountering a situation where it would actually be a possible interpretation (let alone an intended one) are basically 0. And if you did against all odds find yourself in such an impossible situation, context would still make it absolutely clear what you mean. After all, such an interpretation would presuppose that you already mentioned a person named “Bulgogi” as well as some dish that they end up being unable to make due to the unexpected beef shortage.
I think it's because it works as the subject (소고기 없이 불고기 = Bulgogi without beef), while 를 indicates object. Since it's the subject of the sentence, there's not an object, so there's no use for 를.
This is 없이 and not 없는 because it's an adverb not an adjective. In other words: Without beef we are unable to make bulgogi, instead of: We are unable to make bulgogi that doesn't have beef in.
If it were 없는, it would describe the 불고기: 소고기가 없는 불고기 "bulgogi without beef, bulgogi which doesn't have beef [in it]".
But that's not what is meant here - also because bulgogi which doesn't have beef in it is impossible because bulgogi is beef prepared in a particular way. Instead what we want to say is "without beef (under the circumstances of there not being beef) we cannot make bulgogi." So the "there is no beef" part does not describe the bulgogi but the verb action of making the bulgogi, which is why we need the adverb form 없이 rather than 없는 which would describe the following noun.
May I ask, whether 우리들은 소고기 없이 불고기를 못 만들어요 sounds awkward? Thank you in advance. Reported on Nov. 5, 2017.
It's not incorrect. Often in Korean you'd leave off 우리들은 because, in that moment, everyone would know you mean "we". But it's still not incorrect, nor implausible.
It is my understanding, it may correspond to "One cannot make bulgogi without beef". Your kind explanation is greatly appreciated.
I wrote a similar ans and it was not accepted. Would like to hear someone elaborate on this.
if i'm not wrong, this isn't wrong, it's just unnatural. normally, subjects are not specified in Korean. you would say 소고기 없이 불고기는 못 만들어요 no matter who is making the bulgogi, as long as the maker of the bulgogi can be derived from context. you can also say "bulgogi cannot be made without beef" if this is a general statement, which is possible since 는 was used after 불고기. (i honestly think this is a better answer)
of course, i'm sure that isn't the problem with your answer. i think it's the fact that bulgogi is the object in your sentence when it should be the subject. since the bulgogi is central point of this sentence and it is the one without beef, it should be 불고기는 and not 불고기를.
honestly questions like these piss me off, i genuinely don't get why duolingo doesn't make clear which part of the users' answers are wrong
In this context 못, combined with the 없이, would make this sentence into the negative form.
소고기로 불고기를 만들어요. - We make bulgogi with beef.
소고기 없이 불고기는 못 만들어요. We can't make bulgogi with beef.
no because 없다 is irregular when made into an adverb, so it becomes 없이 instead. it's like 많다 -> 많이. also i like your pfp ;)
That said, 없게 can appear under certain circumstances, e.g. if the situation specifically calls for a -게 adverb (for example in the construction -게 하다 as 없게 하다 “to cause to be missing”). And certain idiomatic pairings of 없다 may also form the adverb in -게. For example 재수 없다 (a colloquial way of saying “to suck, to be really bad”) and 눈치없다 “tactless” can become either 재수 없게/눈치 없게 or 재수 없이/눈치 없이 – in fact the ones in -게 feel probably a bit more common to me. On the other hand 맛없다 usually becomes 맛없이 and 맛없게 is rarer.
There definitely seems to be a pattern when to use which suffix when both are possible, but it’s at times difficult to put into words. -게 seems to always be used, regardless of the verb, if the adverb tells you the result of the verb action (as in -게 하다, but it can also be used more flexibly, e.g. 커피를 맛없게 끓이다 “to brew coffee [in such a fashion that it becomes] ill-tasting”).
When we’re not talking about a result, things are more difficult. I feel like x없게 sounds more like a fashion in which the main verb is performed: It is done “x-lessly”. Whereas with x 없이 it feels more like a condition/state under which the main verb is performed. But take this with the appropriate grain of salt for feelings from a non-native speaker ;)
In any case 없이 is definitely by far the most common way to form an adverb from 없다.
for those of you who are confused about 없이 and not 없는, this is because the subject is bulgogi, not bulgogi without beef.
to elaborate: 소고기 없이 불고기는 못 만들어요. can mean:
- we cannot make bulgogi without beef.
- without beef, we cannot make bulgogi. \
but 소고기 없는 불고기는 못 만들어요. can mean:
- we cannot make bulgogi without beef.
- bulgogi without beef cannot be made. (no person has been explicitly stated in the sentence, "we" is only assumed, so if you want to add a person/people X it would be 'bulgogi without beef cannot be made by X" or "X cannot make bulgogi without beef")
in other words the question as a whole is a bit confusing
I think that should be accepted, though generally speaking it’s more natural to put the part marked with -은/는 at the very beginning: 불고기는 소고기 없이 못 만듭니다.
It should be accepted as a technically possible solution. That said, putting 우리는 in explicitly would sound a bit like you want to imply that we can’t make bulgogi that way but somebody else might. Sure, it’s possible to interpret the English sentence that way, but the more likely interpretation is an impersonal “we = one” (i.e. that it’s not possible to make bulgogi without beef). And in such a case you wouldn’t use 우리 (or any other pronoun) in Korean.
못 indicates that the verb action doesn’t happen due to external reasons, without the subject having any influence on it. It can usually be translated as “can’t.”