"그는 무엇을 하러 학교에 갑니까?"
Translation:What does he go to school for?
You rather mean 저는 왜 여기에 있습니까?
~습니다 is for statements, 습니까 for questions, both in formal polite speech level. It's quite important to not confuse those two
On a side note, it's not very natural to use formal polite speech level when talking to yourself... It would be more natural to say 왜 여기에 있어, or 왜 여기에 있니, or 왜 여기에 있는가?
Pentham, I am a bit off topic and I don't have a youtube or any other source to reference but it is also worth noting that in my nearly half-century of living and communicating with adult Koreans that they do not address each other by their first names unless they have known each other for a long time and are very good friends.
The phrase get down to brass tacks (not brass tax) is an Americanism dating from the 19th century. In the idiom, brass tacks means (1) the essentials, or (2) the basic facts, so to get down to brass tacks is to focus on the essentials. The phrase's exact derivation is unknown, though there are a few theories. https://grammarist.com/usage/get-down-to-brass-tacks/
그는 무엇을 하러 학교에 갑니까?
- 그는 = "Regarding him"
- 무엇을 = "what"
- 하러 = "in order to do"
- 학교에 = "at school"
- 갑니까 = "go?"
Compiling the words together we get: "Regarding him, he goes to school in order to do what?" More naturally this is: "What does he go to school for?"
그는 무엇을 하러 학교에 갑니까? ("What does he go to school for?") 공부하러 학교에 갑니다. ("He goes to school to study.")
This sentence is grammatically incorrect English; however, when I thought about its vernacular meaning--an everyday spoken phrase that is not meant to be grammatically correct--it makes sense. Be aware that not all Americans use this casual phrase. Most likely, it would be used between friends.
"what does he go to school to do" - this is just bizarre english - having seen the rest of this discussion, like I'd be more than happy to help with alternative translations on this course - i don't want to just be always posting negative things here all the time
This will likely come off a bit...well, harsh, but getting straight to the brass tax, that whole sentiment is deeply flawed and just... silly. It's wrong.
People /teach/ that you can't end a sentence with a preposition, but so what? People /talk/ that way all the time, which both is more important and is not, depending on your purposes. I would argue that if you actually care about learning a language for the intent of speaking it, you might want to consider what people ACTUALLY say, and people FREQUENTLY end sentences with prepositions.
As a linguist, it's mildly annoying to see people who, in effect, are basically policing what is and isn't acceptable to say when it comes to things like ending sentences with prepositions.
That said, I appreciate the sentiment that is likely from a more academic angle: since it's taught that way, it's worth translating it that way, but then you're really getting into practical translations, which, as far as Duolingo is concerned, they'll likely defer to the most common spoken translations, since again, that's what people are actually saying. The most helpful solution, then, would be to accept both schools of thought, but there will be some gaps there, for instance when supplying an English sentence to translate.
Consider, if you know what they are trying to say, then that's far more important than if it's "up to code" so to speak.
Finally, there are tons of grammatically correct, but pragmatically unacceptable sentences out there.
My favorite? "The rat the cat the dog chased scared hid", and sentences like it.
The actual meaning, if you're curious: "The dog chased the cat (who) scared the rat (who) hid."
Final thought/summation: Consider that practical use also has a place, not /just/ the academic teachings!
The phrase get down to brass tacks (not brass tax) is an Americanism dating from the 19th century. In the idiom, brass tacks means (1) the essentials, or (2) the basic facts, so to get down to brass tacks is to focus on the essentials. The phrase's exact derivation is unknown, though there are a few theories.
IMHO, "what for" is a perfectly acceptable grammar construction in English.
It captures slightly different nuances with respect to "for what". Check out this discussion on wordreference.
Actually, there is even a sentence there (see commenter #18) which follows exactly the pattern used here, with "what" and "for" separated by other words in the sentece.
For what? = "What, specifically, do you intend to use it for?".
Seems like there is room for discussion on the veracity of your premise.
I remember always being taught not to finish my sentences with a preposition in French, but that seems to be more like a rule from Latin grammar, as explained here.
But hey, on the interwebs, it's easy to find sources that support any side of the debate, so not saying mine is the only truth.
The beauty of evolution in language :)
This is true. Many languages have latin roots, especially the five romance languages. The idea of not ending a sentence with a preposition comes from latin. In modern, spoken tongue, many languages forgo this rule. It's important to understand that, since if you cannot accept that sentences CAN end in a preposition and make sense, then odds are you'll be left quite confused in the real world.