1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Korean
  4. >
  5. "We can't make bulgogi withou…

"We can't make bulgogi without beef."

Translation:소고기 없이 불고기는 못 만들어요.

November 5, 2017



Why is it 불고기는 and not 불고기를?


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.


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/%EB%A7%8C%EB%93%A4%EB%8B%A4#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.


Possible realisation:

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.


I'd really like to see someone elaborate on this.


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.


뭐, 그냥 돼지불고기를 만들던가 ㅋㅋ


Why is this wrong "우리가 소고기 없이 불고기를 못 만들어요"?


Why is 를 not used, if it is the object of the verb?


Could it be 없게 instead of 없이 ?


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.


Thanks a lot for both of your replies guys !


Shouldn't it be 소고기 없으면 불고기는 못 만들어요?


Why isn't 소고기 없이 불고기를 만들 수 없어요 accepted?

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