- Forum >
- Topic: Korean >
- "그는 무엇을 하러 학교에 갑니까?"
38 Comments
I ask myself this every day, along with other existential questions like 저는 왜 여기에 있습니다
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?
Is this like 'why does he go to school' or 'what does he go to school to do'?
I'm confused by the 'in order to' translation of hareo
When a verb ends with -러 and is followed by 가나, it can be translated as "going in order to verb"
So -hareo here means what he goes to school to do (-러 is being attached to the verb "하다," which means to do)
Basically asking about person's chosen major, minor, career, area of study.
I dont know if 하러 includes more.
If a boy go to school on sunday, his mom wonders why he goes to school and what he will do there.
엄마: 뭐하러(무엇 하러) 학교에 가니?
아들: 친구와 축구하러요.
The question has almost same meaning 학교에 왜 가니?
Does this mean that the "he" is a real nuisance and so someone asks this or they actually don't know what "he" does in school?
30
It's worth pointing out that Koreans won't normally use 'he' and 'she' in spoken language. Here is a great video explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2250kOXVaGE
- 578
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.
If by "go to school" you mean get admitted, then: 그는 학교에 입학 허가를 받기 위해서 무엇을 해야 합니까?
Does 러 also mean “for” because “he what do-in order to school-to go” Makes most sense being translated to “what does he do in order to go to school” or “what does he do to go to school” like asking how they get ready to go to school?
2 weeks later I’m still getting the wording wrong on this. This time “what does he go to school to do?” I really don’t get this sentence~
The way it was phrased seemed a bit weird since it said "In order to do", but I still understood.
When you don't want your child or someone else's child to go to school; this is the question to ask.
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/
This is the first time i listened to the audio file slow and fast and was like wtf both times
- 119
can someone please explain the translation of this sentence. which part translates to 'for'?
- 83
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 sentence isn't even grammatically correct in English. Should be "For what does he go to school." It threw me off.
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.
We need to know the correct grammar and definitions first, then introduce colloquial, slang, etc.
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?".
Technically ending a sentence with a preposition is incorrect. So the translation is technically wrong.
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.
Oxford dictionaries and Mirriam Webster also advocate a clear position that, yes, you can end a sentence with a preposition.
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.
- 881
That's originally a Busted song... I didn't realised that's guys had done a version with modified lyrics...
