"개가 거의 없습니다."
Translation:There are almost no dogs.
10 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
This is the near to listener that, right? So how could we write the far from both that in this sentence?저의? But that would be my, right?
Nope. 거의 means 'almost'. There are no dogs would be 개가 없어요. But there are almost no dogs would be 개가 거의 없어요.
985
I think he was talking about the terms 여기 거기 저기 the second implying a "close/nearby, there". I guess the "there" used in this sentence is a general one, not specifying place.
That's not grammatical English. When talking singular in English it's either "there is a dog" or "there is no dog". There is no between "almost".
"There is almost no dog." would be different in Korean, but it implies that part of a dog is there, but not all of that one dog. We would say "There are almost no dogs", meaning that there are only whole dogs here, but there aren't many of them. You could also add "There are almost no dogs in sight." using the same structure; you wouldn't use singular unless you are specifically saying "there is one dog" or "there is a dog". Saying "There is no dog." would only make sense in response to someone saying, "Is that a dog?" and it's really a different animal that they mistakenly thought was a dog. I can't think of any other uses of "There is no dog." unless you're waxing philosophical about Schrödinger's Cat thought experiments.
- 1665
I find it hard to distinguish 거의 from 별로. Does anyone have a good explanation on when to use which? Thanks.
- 1119
They seem similar, but I read something that said 거의 is more like almost whereas 별로 is more like seldom or rarely, basically none. Hope that helps.