The Great Korean Spiral Arm: A Hitchhiker's Excursion

[Jiwon]

Well, I'm hesitant to argue with a native Korean speaker, but I just checked more than 30 sentences that contain 만나다 in my Anki decks (they are from grammar books and TTMIK mostly) and none of them used -와/과, -하고, or -랑. All of them used 를 (or nothing) so I feel confident saying it's the standard particle that should be learned with 만나다. I mean, if the book had introduced all of these particles for 만나다, I wouldn't complain, but they left out 를, and that's not right.

Yes, I understand the frustration about the book. So let's keep it to the grammar.

After reading your post I just checked up the massive Korean dictionary at school, and the distinction I described as "direction" is actually the matter of transitivity.

In short, 만나다 can be both transitive and intranstive. For the former, two parties meeting will often be joined by -를 because there is a clear actor and someone that is being "met". When it is used as an intransitive verb, you tend to use -과, -하고(which 국립국어원 interprets as an older version of -과) and -랑, since both parties are actively creating this encounter. But these are just tendencies, and since Korean doesn't have a streamlined grammar you can easily find exceptions. Maybe your materials have a tendency to use -를, because they are mostly directed towards non-native learners who (presumably) are more comfortable with 만나다 as a transitive verb.

I also notice more -를 in formal writing, but -랑 is the most common in everyday speech. e.g. 오늘 누구랑 만났어?

PS: please feel free to argue about Korean with me. Even though I am a native speaker, that does not mean I know all the finer details of Korean, because I never had to learn them. I love to discuss with you guys learning the language, because this is the only way I will think about Korean grammar and learn more about it - just like today.

[outcast]

I don't have much too add really except that I appreciate you guys making your experiences known so that I can choose my materials as best as possible. It seems the 1st book of Koreanfromzero while far from perfect (and even I noticed discrepancies which are not too acceptable), has been of use for me. But I am not your average language learner (meaning mainly I have tons of experience), so the inconsistent points did not rattle me. For a newcomer to language learning however they could be devastating so I would not recommend the free online version to beginners with no prior language learning experience. For me though, passable, and it is free.

As I have seen in other threads over the years, ultimately I go through 4 or 5 different courses and one of the reasons is to spread out the error factor.

I have another question entirely and I have tried googling it but I can't seem to hit what I want. I am interested in reading a little about Hangul spelling rules and Korean pronunciation history and change over the years. There are many words with silent consonants in Korean, and complex word and intra-word boundary rules. At first glance, given the reasons for this in languages I have studied, it is because those consonants were pronounced at some earlier stage in the language. Is this the case with Korean? If not where did these silent consonants originate from?

I would like to know to know when Korean spelling was formalized, have there ever been "spelling reforms" where word spelling has been changed? In fact more basically, is there a Korean entity that issues dictum on how the Korean language should be?

Finally, even in recent times Korean pronunciation seems to have experience some changes. How far back can you go until Korean pronunciation becomes so radically distinct that natives feel it is no longer "comfortable"? Finally, is it or not the case that Middle Korean was tonal and is there a known time when it lost tones?

Sorry for all the questions, but I find it all fascinating and any literature on the matter would be great!

[Evita]

Jiwon, now that you mention it, the phrase '누구랑 만났어?' does sound like something I have heard a lot in dramas or on the radio.

outcast, I will attempt to answer some of your questions. I'm no expert in Korean, though, so I may be wrong.

There are many words with silent consonants in Korean, and complex word and intra-word boundary rules.

I am not sure what you mean by silent consonants. The starting ㅇ? I believe there was never a starting consonant there, the hangeul creators simply decided that all syllables must start with a consonant, so they added a silent consonant to the ones that started with a vowel.

If you mean the way the ㅎ disappears in words like 말하다, well, it is still there if you sound the word out or say it slowly, it only disappears when you say it quickly and the reason is ease of pronunciation. In fact, that's the reason for most sound changes (according to TTMIK). When 합니다 sounds like 함니다, 원래 sounds like 월래, and so on, it's to make saying the words easier.

Another reason does exist, though. Well, I don't know the exact reason, but the result is that many Chinese-origin nouns double the first consonant of the second syllable. For example, 사건 sounds like 사껀. If someone knows the reason for this sound change, I'd be glad to hear it.

I would like to know to know when Korean spelling was formalized, have there ever been "spelling reforms" where word spelling has been changed?

Well, hangeul was invented in the 15th century but wasn't used widely until the 20th century, so I don't think there have been many, if any, reforms. I think I remember reading that the original hangeul had a few more vowels that are not used anymore.

About the tonality, you probably already saw this post if you did a Google search. I don't know anything more than that.

I do know that Koreans like to contract words. Just like 거를 becomes 걸 and 어떻게 하다 becomes 어떡하다, I suspect that many words with double final consonants like 괜찮다, 늙다, 닮다, 닳다 were originally longer.

[qeadz]

I visited the Hangeul Museum just a few weeks back when I was in Korea. If you are interested in the writing system and get the opportunity to go to Seoul, it's quite interesting. You'll see the original form it was written (with additional symbols no longer used). It also houses a lot of interesting extras like first newspapers in Hangeul, typeset thingies when they first started printing and such like.

Anyway I came to just add 2c to the discussion of 만나다. I asked my wife, since she is a native speaker. She feels like she would use 랑 however all the others are acceptable too. In fact I first asked her how she would say "I met my friend" to test without suggesting anything first and it was the case.

However she feels that 랑 is not something she would write.

I've had many a little question for her based on my TTMIK exposure and she's always differed from them - especially if I show her a transcript.

She grew up in Seoul too so it's not like she's got some regional accent.

[leosmith]

Since you guys have been talking about Korean From Zero a bit here, do you know why they teach 지 않다 instead of 안 in book1? 안 is much easier for me, and I heard it was more colloquial, which I thought was supposed to be KFZ's claim to fame.

[Evita]

Since you guys have been talking about Korean From Zero a bit here, do you know why they teach 지 않다 instead of 안 in book1? 안 is much easier for me, and I heard it was more colloquial, which I thought was supposed to be KFZ's claim to fame.

I agree with you, 안 is much easier and definitely should be taught first. It's just further indication that the authors don't know how to teach very well. Check out Click Korean instead or my Anki grammar deck, I built it with good teaching principles in mind.

qeadz, I don't know if this is relevant or not, but some TTMIK teachers grew up far from Seoul and only moved there when they started university. Maybe that explains some of the differences your wife pointed out.

[Jiwon]

Since you guys have been talking about Korean From Zero a bit here, do you know why they teach 지 않다 instead of 안 in book1? 안 is much easier for me, and I heard it was more colloquial, which I thought was supposed to be KFZ's claim to fame.

I agree with you, 안 is much easier and definitely should be taught first. It's just further indication that the authors don't know how to teach very well. Check out Click Korean instead or my Anki grammar deck, I built it with good teaching principles in mind.

In many Korean schools, Koreans are usually taught that 지 않다 is a more "proper" and "formal" expression than 안. Despite its widespread use in spoken language, the use of 안 to negate verbs is seen as an English influence on the language by some Korean scholars, adapted for a word-for-word translation of "not"

안 is considered to be the contracted form of 아니, which is the adverb of negation.
-지 않다 is considered to be a contraction of -지 아니하다.
So let's consider the expression "I do not read"
나는 안 읽는다 -> 나는 아니 읽는다.
나는 읽지 않는다 -> 나는 읽지 아니한다.

When I read the non-contracted versions of the Korean sentences, the first one sounds very odd. The second sentence "나는 읽지 아니한다" does sound very literary and formal, but is still an acceptable way of expressing "I do not read".

[qeadz]

qeadz, I don't know if this is relevant or not, but some TTMIK teachers grew up far from Seoul and only moved there when they started university. Maybe that explains some of the differences your wife pointed out.

Which is in part my point - you made a point that you had a decent number of examples which used ~를 but all were from a small group of people. This was in reply to Jiwon who had a different preference.

It is probably an oversight that KoreanFromZero left out the one usage you found to be most frequently occurring, but the only way to talk about how 만나다 is most commonly used would be to get a lot of examples from a lot of people from different areas of the country. In any case I've not used KoreanFromZero but rather a combination of TTMIK and HowToStudyKorean. Both differ a bit in how they explain just about everything and I occasionally find usages of grammar patterns which dont seem to fit either of their descriptions!

So the conclusion I've come to is: Allow for study guides to be incomplete. Work from a number of sources to improve understanding. And ultimately let volume of authentic native input be the definitive guide - I have to believe that if I read and listen to enough Korean, I'll develop some kind of intuitive understanding which surpasses the various attempts to explain any grammar point.

[leosmith]

I've not used KoreanFromZero but rather a combination of TTMIK and HowToStudyKorean.

TTMIK free stuff or their books?

[leosmith]

But maybe the biggest transgression I saw was the incorrect use of -ㄹ 수 있다. It's a grammar construction that is used to say "can", for example, "I can lift this box". In English, this word is also used for permission (Can I do this or that?) but Korean has a different grammar construction for that and you can't use -ㄹ 수 있다 for that. But this book did it. I was speechless when I saw it. As I said, my impression about this book is "amateurish" and "incompetent". I don't recommend it.

I found one example of this in book 1. It was a conversation in the exercises of lesson 16; the grammar explanation looked fine to me.

A: 네 노트북을 쓸 수 있어?
B: 아니, 지금 내가 쓰고 있어. 조지한테 물어봐.
A: 조지야, 지금 노트북 쓸 거야? 내 노트북은 집에 있어. 네 것을 쓸 수 있어?
C: 응, 써. 선생님한테 이메일 보낼 거야?
A: 아니, 내 어머니한테 보낼 거야.

A: Can I use your laptop?
B: No, I am using it right now. Ask George.
A: George, are you going to use your laptop now? My laptop is at home. Can I use yours?
C: Yes, you can. Are you going to send an email to your teacher?
A: No, I will send it to my mother.

In Pimsleur I learned "may I" phrases like "노트북 좀 써도 됩니까? = May I please use your notebook?", so I'd be curious to hear Jiwon's take on "노트북을 쓸 수 있어?". Is it possible that it's an acceptable form, but the nuance is more like "is your notebook available to use" rather than "may I use your notebook"?