1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Korean
  4. >
  5. "This restaurant does not sel…

"This restaurant does not sell portions for one person."

Translation:이 식당은 일 인분은 안 팔아요.

November 25, 2017



I'm confused... shouldn't 인분 have 을 as an ending because it's the object?


The 은/는 particle can be put in place of other particles in order to put emphasis on given word. It's quite confusing, because it has not been introduced in this course. Anyways, the sentence 식당은 일인분은 안 팔아요 means that "the restaurant doesn't sell precisely portions for one person. This indirectly implies, that it does sell different portions, but not the one person ones.

There is nothing wrong with sentences such as "나는 그 책은 읽어요" or "내가 오늘 학교는 안 가요" (는 replaces 를 and 에 respectively). The first one simply means that "I am reading THAT book" (not some random book but some very particular book). Imagine a situation with two people talking about some book. A third person approaches them, overhears the conversation and says "Oh, I am just reading THAT book (that book you were talking about)".
The next sentence means "I am not going just to the school". The person is probbably going somewhere, but precisely not to the school.

Please, correct me if I am wrong with something.


Correct. It's called "marker ellipsis" when the marker is omitted because the role of the word is clear from context.

은/는 topic tags are discourse setters. They cannot be omitted. They do not replace markers although in the absence of markers, it may appear that way.


이 식당(이)는 1 인분(을)은 안 팔아요 =

이 식당은 1 인분을은 안 팔아요

  • This is called "marker obscuration/ellipsis". The markers are there, just hidden from sight (as not to overburden the sentence). This happens often when the role of the related word in the sentence is obvious.

  • 은/는 are just tags indicating topics for possible further discussion. They do not replace markers although they are often misinterpreted as such (*especially when the markers are 'obscured', as in this example).


You don't need to have an object marker for simple sentences, but you can always flag it if you're concerned.


This is all confusing as ❤❤❤❤, god knows how many of my answers they marked as wrong for not using the particles on every single noun


Agree! I do feel the same way!


I'm sorry but I'm very confused with this sentence. Where is the for one person? If 일분 is portion, where is 사람 한 명에게?


The "일" part of 일 인분 implies it is a serving for one person, so you don't need 사람 한 명에게. The Korean language is all about efficiency and getting your point across in as few words as possible, so 일 인분 can be used as either "one serving" or "a serving for one person".


It would make more sense for this sentence to be translated as "This restaurant does not sell single portions." Because two or more people can share a single portion, and it doesn't specifically say it's only for one person.


There might be a cultural implication hidden in the sentence. Generally, people in Korea don't eat single servings by themselves. They eat family style, with all the food in the middle of the table and everyone around just taking what they want from each dish. I think that's what the sentence is referring to, but I see your point.

  • 1659

Hey thanks, BobPancakes! I didn't think of that implication. I live in Korea, but the restaurants around here are more geared toward American-style of single servings. Of course, right now no one is eating at restaurants! It's all take-out.


Please don't dislike this comment if you think I am wrong. I know that I am. Help me


Have seen excellent feedback from the 'community'. Here is my contribution to your query:


인분 [ 인 person; (부)분 portion ] stands for "-person portion". It is sometimes simplified to just "인" ( person/head )

When used in the catering and restaurant industries, it is called "-person serving" and is only used with hanja (sino-korean) numbers.

"일 인"분 = "one-person" serving / serving for one. Also written as 1인분.

"이 인"분 = "two-person" serving / serving for two. 2인분.


"Serving for one" usually means a portion deemed adequate by the restaurant for one person's consumption, and not necessarily a portion to be eaten by one person only. In that sense,

Serving for one = single portion (basic unit portion) = 1인분

Serving for two = double portion = 2인분

  • 1659

Last time I used "식당" for "restaurant" and got marked wrong. So this time I used "음식점". It marked me wrong. How in the world am I supposed to know which term to use? People say they're interchangeable but obviously not!


Flag them. Both words should be recognised.


This question is wrong?this restaurant question will be like this....this restaurant sell portions for one person.


I just got an "You have an extra space" correction in my answer. wtf

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