I just found a learning source but I want to make sure it's reliable
So, I was looking up the actual meaning of "너무해" (neomuhae meaning "so mean," I see it translated a lot as "you're so mean" and that seemed not right, so I looked it up.) and I came across this website:
And I wanted to make sure it's reliable and accurate. So I just wanted to check with the people fluent in Korean Thank you!! :)
I'm curious about this too. 너무 by itself usually means 'too', 'so', 'too much', etc. so my first guess is that 너무하다 would be to do (something) too much. After consulting Dr. Naver, 너무하다 can have the meanings:
(be) unreasonable, (too) bad, too hard
So from the link you posted it seems that what TWICE is implying in their lyrics is 너무해 can also mean for someone to be "so mean" in the given context, which can roughly mean to be unreasonable or bad. I think that lines up OK with the official definition, but I am far from fluent so hopefully someone else could chime in!
Not anymore. Since the revision made in 2015, it legitimately means either "too" or "very" depending on the context, bro. ;)
Even in these days whenever I try to answer Qs from those expat Korean learners, I always try to double check what 국립국어원 says about it/them as you cannot be always right even as a native speaker in these days. :D It is a good practice so I hope you do it from time to time. You will be surprised that sometimes things do change, move on. haha
I am aware of the change, but 너무 is still too. The NIKL did change its meaning in order for the word to be able to be used in positive contexts, but considering its real usage, see that it is usually followed by a predicate that shows one's feelings. As you mentioned above, if Hong-man Choi said, "이 양복은 기장이 너무 길다." in no context could that possibly mean it is very long that it'd suit him, while "이 양복은 기장이 매우 길다." could. However, 표준국어대사전 suggests only one meaning for 너무, "일정한 정도나 한계를 훨씬 넘어선 상태로" which is supposed to be shared across all expressions with 너무 including the Hong-man Choi example. The change in definition merely allowed us to use the word in positive contexts, which is not so different from the usage of too nowadays. Can technically be positive, but still conveys a bit of not-so-positive meaning.
Even in positive contexts, 매우 and 너무 are not synonymous.
'너무'를 쓸 수는 있습니다.
Maybe, in positive contexts very can be a not-too-bad translation for 너무, but it is indeed somewhat different in nuance, right? As too or maybe excessively sometimes can be used in positive contexts, I believe they are even better translations for the definition given in 표준국어대사전.
What you're saying undoubtfully reflects our language habits better, but as long as the NIKL doesn't list two different meanings or a more comprehensive definition, we must stay prescriptive.
If you don't mind, could you please not assume what I do and don't?
Ash-Fred MOD / What is your ultimate objective here? To preserve your sheer ego, pride at the cost of bloody confusing the majority of learners (mostly Beginners) here based on some subtle(!) differences that even vast majority of native speakers can't really define for sure between certain adjectives serving broadly the same meaning?
What you are suggesting is simply denying the very existence of thesaurus. Some thesauruses define synonyms more broadly than the others not because they hate precisions! For new learners, grasping who are the close cousins help more in understanding a meaning of a new word rather than arbitrarily defining and memrising who are the exact identical twins that can't exsit between an apple and an orange.
Even you still insist on applying some unrealistic and hard "one on one" equations in language learning, the word "too" can face many challenges as you are picking not the most frequently used meanings but the relatively rare informal(!) usage. I would have felt more convinced by your pseudo-argument if it were something more clear, close meaning-wise, less confusing as "surprisingly" since that seems close enough to "'일정한 정도나 한계를 훨씬 넘어선 상태로'의"
Really hope the course contributors should see why you get more and more push-backs, complaints and harsh criticisms from the existing and new users of the Korean course.
Beginners are literally freaking out by your absurd obsession for subtle differences exactly like this. Now I understand why more and more learners get frustrated: Despite many users busy flagging "My answers should also be accepted" you do not listen at all as your mind is set to mandate some very unrealistic level of accuracy expected by some rare professional bilingual translators of Korean literature to even beginners. I see a mum trying to push an entire peeled orange into a baby's mouth in the firm belief that an orange a day is a very healthy diet without having much consideration for how much a baby can realistically bite and swallow. While I am being a helpless baby in other courses (ex. English for French speakers, Japanese, Chinese Russian), none of the mums there expected a baby to swallow an orange at once like what you are doing here. How ironic! Anyway, I will stop here as it is not just me but others already said enough.
To preserve your sheer ego, ... native speakers ... the same meaning?
No, I am just referring to 표준국어대사전. I think it was you who mentioned 국립국어원 first. As my first comment says, I am not talking about the language habits of us native speakers, but I am saying we should refrain from teaching something that is not correct in the prescriptive view.
What you are suggesting is ... an apple and an orange.
국립국어원 states that 너무 and 매우 are not 유의어. They are 유의어 just in our language habits. Even if we were to accept very as an alternative translation, a further explanation would be required; it is just irresponsible to tell new learners that it means very in some contexts.
Even you still insist on ... close enough to "'일정한 정도나 한계를 훨씬 넘어선 상태로'의"
I was claiming 너무 is different from very according to 표준국어대사전, not there is a one-to-one correspondence in everything. Nevertheless, I get your point; too is not always the best translation. Excessively is accepted in the course, but we will talk about other alternative translations.
Really hope the course contributors ... new users of the Korean course. Beginners are ... already said enough.
표현으로 비추어 볼 때 지금까지 저희 팀에 불만이 많으셨던 것 같은데, 맞죠? 선생님께서 어떤 분이신진 모르겠지만 저도 모르는 거 국립국어원에 자주 물어봅니다. 게다가 영어와는 다르게 기본적인 것부터 학자마다 의견이 갈리는 모호한 것이 많은 게 한국어라 국립국어원에서도 연구자에 따라 의견이 다를 수 있다고 대답을 못 해 주는 경우가 꽤 있어서 전 논문도 자주 읽어요. '에'와 '에서'의 쓰임이라든지 이중주어문의 해석이라든지 (저희는 학교 문법과는 약간 달리 해석하는 거 아실 겁니다.) 여러 개념에 관해 설명하기 전에 저도 공부합니다. 그냥 제가 원어민이라고 머리에서 나오는 대로 막 쓴다고 생각하지는 않아 주셨으면 합니다. 사실 오히려 저희가 다른 한국인분들이 그런 식으로 틀린 댓글을 가끔 남겨 주셔서 애를 먹고 있기도 하고요. 전반적인 정답 처리 융통성에 관해 말씀드리자면, 다음은 듀오링고 지침입니다.
If there is an exact translation of a given word in the target language, only that exact translation and full synonyms should be accepted.
프랑스어 과정도 하셔서 아시겠지만 거기서도 any 뒤에 복수형이 오는지 단수형이 오는지까지 따지죠. 프랑스어 배우려다가 영어 배우고 간다는 댓글 심심치 않게 보셨을 테고요. 이건 저희 한국어 팀이나 프랑스어 팀이 어떻게 할 수 문제는 아닙니다. 동의어가 없지 않은 한 비슷한 단어는 지침상 저희도 인정을 해 드릴 수가 없습니다. 그리고 too를 제외하고 정말로 저희가 정확성을 위해 정답 처리를 너무 융통성 없게 한 경우가 있었나요? "나는 남자다."는 되면서 "내가 남자다."는 안 되는 것과 같이 명백히 저희가 정답을 빠뜨린 건 있어도 정답 기준 자체가 너무 융통성이 없다는 불평은 본 기억이 안 나네요. 물론 avanade 님이 지금까지 이 포럼에 건설적인 충고 많이 해 주신 훌륭한 분인 건 잘 알고 있습니다만, 이런 식으로 과장을 하며 깔보는 듯한 어투로 나오시면 저도 기분이 별로 좋지는 않습니다.
마지막으로, 저도 이 듀오링고 한국어 과정이 전혀 매끄럽지 않다는 거 인정합니다. 저희끼리도 트리 2는 처음부터 다시 하는 게 어떻겠냐 하는 말도 해 봤습니다. 다 제 잘못인 게, 제가 contributor가 된 지 꽤 되었는데 별로 열심히 하지 않아 기여도가 4%밖에 안 되네요. 그런데 한국어 과정을 보고 싶어 하는 분들은 너무 많고 하여 다른 분들이 서두르다 보니 과정이 너무 대충 짜이지 않았나 합니다. 그래도 오해를 풀어 드리기 위해 덧붙이자면, 저희가 지난주만 300개 이상의 문장을 수정했습니다. 이게 과정 전체의 크기에 비교하자면 아주 작은 부분이라 아마 저희가 flag를 무시하는 게 아닌가 하고 생각하실 수 있다는 건 이해합니다. Basic 1만 해도 report 수가 3,000을 넘었고, 보는 대로 수정은 하지만 시간이 꽤 걸릴 수 있음은 생각해 주셨으면 합니다. 또한, 인큐베이터가 flexible 하지가 못하여 한번 과정이 발표되면 베타 버전임에도 트리 2로 넘어가지 않는 이상 수정이 불가능한 게 꽤 많습니다. 그래도 저희가 flag를 무시하는 일은 결코 없음을 알아주셨으면 좋겠고, 제 권한 밖의 일이라 트리 2를 언제부터 만들 수 있는지는 저도 잘 모르겠습니다만 트리 2에서는 많이 개선된 내용을 보여 드리겠습니다.
Yeah. I was mostly just wondering about the "you're" in there, because I know Korean is contextualized, so I figured it would be "so mean" or something like that.
The subject is usually implied when it is said without you/I/she/he. Why would someone say "I'm so mean"?
That's what I meant by "contextualized." I think you misunderstood my comment. I meant that since Korean implies more in it's sentences, I figured that it wouldn't actually be "you're so mean," as many lyric videos indicate, but would actually be "so mean," and the "you're" would be implied. And no, I don't think anyone would, in the context TT is written in at least, say "I'm so mean"
장모님 = mother in law (polite form)
너무해요 => 요 added to 너무해 to make it more polite
장모님이 너무해요 = (My) mother in law is so mean, unfair (to me or possibly others)
Think "You are" can be skipped assuming you are talking directly to a person or talking as if this person is around.
Skipping "you are" in expressions like "너무해" "나빠요" in conversation or song is quite natural to keep it short and simple. Yet at the same time, some Koreans think direct speeches can be more intimidating so they prefer to say "너무해" than "너는 너무해" A kind of euphemism used I would say: The speaker is generally fond of the person talking to yet unhappy momentarily with certain things only.