1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Korean
  4. >
  5. "마신 물"

"마신 "

Translation:Water that was drunk

November 16, 2017


  • 1070

Go home, water


Is this past tense? Could we also say 마시는 물? Whenever I review this I keep writing "drinking water" on my first guess


adding ~는 makes it present tense. ~(으)ㄴ is past and (으)ㄹ makes it future.

마시는 물 - drinking water 마신 물 - water that was drunk 마실 물 - water that will be drunk


Often in similar grammar patterns, 는 relates to present tense, ㄴ to past tense and 을 to future tense.


Yes it's past tense. 마시는 물 is water that you are drinking now.


Yes 마신 물 is past tense!


I put 'drunken water' like that even makes sense


What you mean is drunk water, as opposed to drunken water which is water that has had too much alcohol...

  • 1195

마신 물 means the water that was drunk. 마시는 물 means the water is drinkable.


I'm getting 마실 수있는 물 for water that is drinkable . . .


식수 = drinking/potable water

비 식수 = non potable water


This is more of an english question, but why is it drunk and not drank? Are both drank and drunk acceptable past tenses for drink?

  • 1070

"Drunk" is the past participle. ("I have drunk some juice.") "Drank" is the simple past. ("I drank some juice.")

The past participle is what you use to make a verb into an adjective. ("He chose poorly" vs. "He is the chosen one." Another example: "They broke the game." vs. "The game is broken.")

We don't think about it because lots of times the past participle and simple past form of a verb are identical. Above, I used examples that aren't, but: "I finished my homework" vs. "I have finished my homework" vs. "Finished assignments should be handed in tomorrow." "Finished" looks identical in both cases but isn't.


ok, so if you tried looking at this in an "intelligent" way, you would notice you can use both drank and drunk for the sentence: "I drank water." It would also be correct if you replaced drank with drunk in the sentence: "I drunk water."

Edit 4/18/2021: Guys please stop commenting on why "I drunk water" would be a grammatically incorrect statement. I was a very dumb 12-year-old.


Drunk is a participle like drinking, and so needs a verb after a subject. You can't say "I drunk water" any more than you can say "I drinking water". It's "I've/'d drunk water" and "I am/was drinking water" and so on. A lot of Americans I've encountered think drunk means you've had too much alcohol likely because it has a separate dictionary entry saying so. Drunk, though, is also the past participle listed under the verb drink ...

I'm getting (술)취한 for (dizzy/having trouble walking) drunk/drunken, 음주 for drunk as in drunk driving meaning having drunk alcohol (술 마셨다), 취하게 한 (like had been got drunk?) for inebriated, under-the-influence-of-alcohol gets 알코올(/술)의 영향(을 받아)?


As an American, I've never heard anyone say "drunk" in regards to anything but as the state of being drunk (alcohol). Unless they are under 5 years old. Then we correct them to say "drank" for past tense. "Who drank all the soda?" "We drank it all yesterday."


I've been an American a lot longer than you, and I've drunk a lot of stuff in my lifetime. Those of us who speak school grammar (we who "lie down" but don't "lay down") know that "drunk" is the proper past participle of "drink." BTW, I'm 85.8.


My dad would have been 81 this year, (he passed in 2013). Though I never heard him (or anyone) use "drunk" in this way, I understand what you are saying and consider myself smarter for it. Thank you.


If that's your profile pic, you're my parents' generation. Respect. I've been drunk on lots of stuff, but I drank it to get that way. Maybe the word is a regional or generational thing... (EDIT: This does not mean I think the word is technically wrong; it means I think it's usage in this way may be influenced by other things)

  • 1070

It's not generational or regional. I'm 31 years old and I'm here to say that Gerald is a hundred percent right. This is not an Okay-Boomer,-agree-to-disagree moment.

"Drunk" is the past participle of "drink." It's what your pair with "have" to make the present perfect, or "had" to make the past perfect. E.g., "I have never drunk cat milk before," or "Had she drunk enough water?"


Why do people on here get downright hostile when you have a different view about word usage? I didn't "Ok Boomer" anyone. He brought up age, and I respected that & took it into consideration. I did not say that the word was wrong, I said that I, (51 years old), have never heard it used that way and gave examples as to how I do use it. It makes more sense to me when paired with "have/has" and possibly "was", but, in my experience, people would just say "the elephant drank all the water" instead of "the elephant has drunk all the water". Since the subject is the water, I guess that changes things, but I'd probably twist it around some way to make it "drank" since that's what I'm accustomed to saying.


"Water drunk" is water that was drunk, no matter what DL says about it. "Water drunk is water unwasted." But actually, 마신 물 does not mean "Water that was drunk" in the passive, it means water someone (you? I?) drank.


Water that drank too much!


can't you just say "water was drunk?"


Water was drunk = 물이 마셔졌다 (<-- past tense of the passive verb 마셔지다, to be drunk)

마신 물 = water that one drank/has drunk [ => (우리가) 마신 물 = water that we drank, where the subject is omitted ]

마셔진 물 = water that was/has been drunk


마신 호랑이


마신 호랑이 (맥주) ?


It was a pun of the Korean rap band Drunken Tiger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_Tiger


Could someone use 마신 물 in a sentence that might actually be uttered by a human mouth?


제가지금마신물은나빴어요? (Trying for "The water I drank now was bad.")


Good example. Suggest some minor changes.

방금 마신 물은 맛이 좋지 않았다. (The water I just drank tasted bad.)

I think for past tense, it's better to use 방금 or 바로 지금 (just now). 지금 (now) on its own indicates the present.

맛이 to indicate you are talking about the taste.

나쁘다 "bad". Not sure if it can be used for taste. I understand it as "nasty, naughty, evil etc." => 뒷맛이 나쁘다 = have a nasty aftertaste


Believe it or not, creeping dementia temporarily robbed me of the word 맛, and maybe even 좋다. So I decided not to talk of its taste, just its quality like maybe it was full of dirt. Not entirely sure I ever knew 방금 but I probably did 60 years ago. Will remember it now, thank you.


Many thanks for the example, a good one at that.


this doesnt make sense at all


It is confusing because of the lack of space for an explanation.

Basically, this is about the usage of passive verb form in Korean. Just like in English, Korean often tends to shun from using the passive form and uses instead the active form, when the subject is non-specific (people; they; one ...), i.e.

[passive] be done (by someone/something in general) => in usage: [active] someone/something has done.

In this instance,

To drink/consume = 마시다 (active form)

To be drunk/consumed = 마셔지다 (passive form)


Water that was drunk should be translated as "마셔진 물" e.g.

Water that was drunk by one(/people) = 사람에 의해 마셔진 물 [Literal translation]

In common usage however, this would be expressed as "마신 물"

= (사람이) 마신 물(water that one drank/has drunk)

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