Slow-cooked Korean

[outcast]

In part all of this is showing me that what I really want is not Korean Grammar In Use, but rather Korean: A Comprehensive Grammar. I don't have the latter but I wonder what it might say on the topic.

I checked. It says that -서 is for "natural consequences" and "generally accepted opinions". For example: City X is close to the equator so it's always warm there. If you want to say something that is contrary to the general opinion, you should use -니까. For example: I'm rich so I have many worries. You should also use -니까 when you make a guess or an assumption. For example: She's good-looking so she probably has a boyfriend.

-니까 marks subjective reasoning. That's what it all boils down to. If you say "prices are high so life is hard" using -서, it means that you think it's a generally accepted truth. If you say the same sentence using -니까, it means you are just expressing your opinion.

-기 때문에 is more similar to -서, it can't be used in commands. It's more often used in writing and formal speech.

This is a timely post and topic because last couple of days I have been on this same grammar point. 니까 introduced by Click Korean and the other one by Korean from Zero in book 2 (now I know many people here don't really recommend book two, but I am using it mainly for vocab building that said I am looking at the grammar points as a general overview, I'm not getting down gritty just yet).

So my two problems are that if K from 0 has any errors I may not know. Second, the frames in Click Korean still don't work for me and it is becoming a problem now that the explanations get longer for the grammar: I can only read the first sentence... So in a way I am glad Click Korean is almost over (I am in lesson 17), because there is just some bug either in my computer or in their system that does not display it correctly.

Anyhow, based on what I could read from Click Korean (the examples!), I was able to figure out that this difference you guys have mentioned was part of it. One is for logical conclusions to a premise, the other is for recommendations or actions reflecting individual opinion. But this reminded me that I want a good Korean grammar source so that I can go and read a specific grammar point. I would much prefer a book that is arranged by "category", that is to say, if for example we all did not know about the difference between these two just yet, we could go to this book and under a category "because, cause and effect, premise and conclusion", etc, we could see all the major grammar constructions the language uses for this purpose, so we can compare them side by side. Is there such a book? I am buying it first thing back in the USA!

I know I was recommended Integrated Korean and Korean Grammar in Use when I first started the language. I don't want to deviate the thread and people are welcome to reply to this message in my Korean log (viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3129), for people that have seen the books which one is more like what I described above? If neither are so, which one is the more "nerdy" for grammar? I'm good with grammar so I can get pretty technical and don't need my hand held.

[qeadz]

A short update as I have done a little bit of my new routine, starting before the end of last year. The new routine incorporates a lot more output mostly centered around a little notebook I am beginning to fill with sentences and grammatical patterns I wish to understand more fully.

Output is substantially more time consuming than I thought it would be. I just spent 40 minutes of my lunch break during which time I copied out by hand the corrected versions of previous sentences, wrote some new ones in the book, and then typed them out on PC to be sent off for correction.

Today has, in general, not been a good day for me. It began with cracking egg shells into breakfast, and segwayed quite nicely into stubbing my toe, dropping things and forgetting my headphones at home (which means no Korean on my walk to/from work). *sigh*.

So, todays headphone-forgetting mishap aside, I'm hoping to get into some kind of routine again. I'm keeping an eye on my Korean study quite closely. It is clear that I am reading substantially less than I was last year because significant chunks of that time is now taken up with output.

I expect, or hope, that the net result of this will be: I'll progress slower in terms of new language acquisition because I am getting a lot less new input (and input in general), but the sustained listening levels coupled with output should help me cement what I have covered thus far giving me better consistency in my use and understanding of the principles and vocabulary I have obtained thus far.

As I have lamented before, it really feels like this process of learning Korean really demands more time. Several hours a week is just really slow progress. Several hours a day is, of course, much more preferable. But priorities dictate how much I can devote to it.

I was thinking of making a short list of grammatical principles which I would like to have covered by June-July-ish when I do my next review of my progress. Nothing too serious. I'll just rotate through them choosing a couple each week to be the 'theme' of my week. So when I write my sentences in my notebook or speak, I'll look for opportunity to use them.

[qeadz]

Almost the end of the first week of 2017 already! Although a rocky start, my Korean study has picked up.

I've been getting back into the habit of researching things. What I mean is that toward the end of last year I got into the habit of doing much more reading and listening but not looking up grammar points or particulars of word use. Which is, of course, why I found myself in the position of being able to understand what I was reading (tested by translating texts for which I had not yet seen the English translation) but really unable to apply that to my output.

So just this week I've looked up:

- 것 같아요 which, like much of Korean grammar, can take on a variety of translations in English depending on context. While I have understood this grammatical principle for a long time, it's clear that in my output I am only ever using it to mean "I think" (or perhaps "it seems that"). So I've set about improving my usage of this - starting by looking up example sentences to see the variety of nuances it can take on.

- I've had a look at the difference between 이제 and 지금. I've known what the difference *is* for almost a year but I keep forgetting which one is which. Since these are two words I've known from the earliest days of study, it's clear to me that if I am *still* getting them confused then I'm going to have to practice them in my output to hopefully cement them in my brain.

- 있다 vs 가지다. While 있다 has multiple uses, I'm talking here about its meaning of "to have". I had a mostly correct understanding until this week. So this is also in the queue for me to use in writing just to fix my understanding.

- 거에요 vs 거예요. I'm going to say that I don't think this is a biggie. Koreans seem to get confused by this regularly (even those who correct my writing disagree in their corrections on this!), but in the quest for writing something which deserves no correction, I figured it is worth sorting out.

There were a few others but they were more advanced grammar forms which I was not really familiar with. My current focus is shoring up the shortcomings in the Korean I acquired last year, so the above are the ones I want to mention in this log.

As for the list of grammar points I would like to focus on in the next 6 months, I've decided that I will follow the order in HTSK still. However along-side it, I'll use Korean: A Comprehensive Grammar as a primary source of explanation. Which is to say HTSK introduces the concept and the order in which I'll encounter the concepts, but after reading it, K:ACG will be the detail I want.

Will see how this goes.

[leosmith]

I'm sort of like your regarding grammar. I finished KFZ1, but instead of doing a higher level of systematic grammar study, I'm going through the TTMIK pdfs and figuring out which points I need to focus on. This is a lot more enjoyable and practical imo.

[qeadz]

I'm sort of like your regarding grammar. I finished KFZ1, but instead of doing a higher level of systematic grammar study, I'm going through the TTMIK pdfs and figuring out which points I need to focus on. This is a lot more enjoyable and practical imo.

Yeah I agree. I think it works out better to go through a number of items, and then revisit them in detail. All the input and output in the interim is a familiarization process which seems to really aid understanding when one goes through the grammar points again in detail.

It's rather arbitrary how various study guides and courses decide to split up the grammar points, so I'm hesitant to use terms like "intermediate", "advanced", etc. One book's intermediate might be another's beginner and so forth. Just taking a look through the TOC for KFZ Book 1, it's ordering is quite different to HTSK once the basics are out of the way.

So what I've thought about on and off since I started learning Korean is: Are there really intermediate, upper beginner, advanced grammar points? Many of them can easily be shuffled around. Perhaps frequency of use might make some less useful to learn early on than others, but while reading TTMIK Iyagi series, I've encountered loads from all over the spectrum.

Perhaps it matters a little less as to which specific items one knows, but more how many one knows? In which case I would rate myself as 'Intermediate' in reading despite not knowing all of the lower-intermediate grammar points. I'd be balancing it out with the supposedly "upper-intermediate" grammar which I am familiar with. But I'm not sure this is a reasonable way to measure myself since what I am about to say casts some doubt on it.

I've now just taken to testing myself. If I translate some Korean for which there is an English translation and then compare, it shows up pretty quickly how far off I am in terms of my understanding. Ultimately this is what counts I think, so since I can reasonably translate lots of TTMIK Iyagi but not all of it, "Lower-Intermediate" might be the more accurate assessment of my ability. There are bits here and there where I didn't just misunderstand, I actually didn't know at all what was being said and my translation was a "best guess".

Similarly writing corrections show up where I am at for my understanding of how to apply the grammar correctly. For this I suspect "Beginner" might be more apt given the volume of corrections I receive.

As you can tell, measuring my progress is very important to me. I do not want to be 2 years into studying Korean with the realization that I still don't know whats going on and having that sinking feeling that I've spent my time poorly.

[outcast]

Yeah, and to be honest the above is one of the main reasons that in my profiles I never specify in the languages I am learning but cannot claim to speak what my learning level is (beginner, intermediate, advanced but not speaker yet, etc). Exactly because my experience learning languages and seeing so many courses has made me see how grammar is introduced is quite literally all over the place at times. The only thing that is generally predictable is how tenses and major grammatical categories are introduced: present before past, past before future. Copulas or existential verbs before action verbs, then passive voice. Adjectives before adverbs. Everything else though is quite fluid.

The other reason is personal: All the languages I learn, my goal is fluency. So to fret over what grammar is basic, intermediate, or advanced has become irrelevant for me. Personally I felt it even hurt my acquisition since I tended to minimize or neglect many advanced points exactly because they were advanced and thus "not essential to master thoroughly". Now, I see all the grammar and vocabulary as just one giant level. This may not work for everyone but it works for me. In my Chinese studies I take just as seriously studying about 把 (essential) as I do studying about how to use 乃 (a very formal alternative "to be"). The former one must master to speak and comprehend Mandarin, the latter is completely trivial for mastery but it was still presented in volume 8 of a series, so I learn it. I figure if you will use this language for the rest of your life at a fairly high level, eventually you will see all of these things so may as well get it over and done with.

[lichtrausch]

But this reminded me that I want a good Korean grammar source so that I can go and read a specific grammar point. I would much prefer a book that is arranged by "category", that is to say, if for example we all did not know about the difference between these two just yet, we could go to this book and under a category "because, cause and effect, premise and conclusion", etc, we could see all the major grammar constructions the language uses for this purpose, so we can compare them side by side. Is there such a book? I am buying it first thing back in the USA!

I know I was recommended Integrated Korean and Korean Grammar in Use when I first started the language. I don't want to deviate the thread and people are welcome to reply to this message in my Korean log (viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3129), for people that have seen the books which one is more like what I described above? If neither are so, which one is the more "nerdy" for grammar? I'm good with grammar so I can get pretty technical and don't need my hand held.

I think the grammar you're looking for is Korean: A Comprehensive Grammar from Routledge. One, it groups grammar points by topic. For example, there is a section called Causal Connectives that covers -(아/어)서, -아/어, -(으)니까, -(으)니, -(으)ㄹ테니까, -(으)므로, -길래, -느라고, -더니 and (았/었)더니, -(으)ㄹ라. And two, it goes into all the detail you could want, using linguistics terminology wherever it is helpful. There is a 7-page glossary of linguistics terms at the back of the book for those who need it. Check out the preview on Amazon for more details.

[qeadz]

I've had a slower start to this week than anticipated. Largely because I remembered that I have a variety of forms to fill out - lengthy government forms requiring me to go find out various bits of information and dig up old documents. So all of that ate up time which might otherwise have been Korean study over the weekend and yesterday. However I did manage to get some listening, reading and spot of revising grammar done.

While I made a commitment to find non-TTMIK material to work through, I have not done anything about this. So this week I will find a lunch hour in which I'll get a Hangeul subtitled Korean drama and start on that. A Korean series was recommended to me (by Leosmith I think?) so I'll try recommendations first, however it appears that it's slim pickings for community-subtitled material so I'll be limited by whichever is the most complete.

I don't really know how to approach watching a drama. Unless someone has suggestions for me to consider, I'll probably just go through it scene by scene. Watch a scene, pausing to read the Hangeul (looking up words I dont know), then re-watch the scene without reading hoping to listen for what I have just read. I am not expecting to stay on any particular area until I understand it fully - this is more of a quantity over quality I think. Just getting through all the scenes having taken time to have an idea of what is being said and then listening for it.

I've somewhat decided on finishing Unit 2 of HTSK by July this year. By HTSK's breakdown, finishing Unit 2 is what they define as "Lower Intermediate Grammar". As said in an earlier post, I think the rankings of 'beginner', 'intermediate' and 'advanced' are somewhat arbitrary so I'm less focused on where they claim I'll be at with Korean. Its more just setting a goal - choosing a chunk of material which I aim to have worked through and practiced using in my output.

For quantity, this is not an ambitious goal at all. It's (I think) fairly achievable. My aim is to spend the time to understand the grammar points well and have practiced them.

[leosmith]

A Korean series was recommended to me (by Leosmith I think?)

Yes, that would be Signal (시그널). If you happen to find any drama with a script, or even a separable soft-sub file please let me know. I haven't seen Korean subtitles for Signal, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Regarding your method, it may be just fine depending on what you want to get out of it. You probably already know this, but if you read subtitles you are getting much more of a reading exercise than listening. I don't know about you, but I just can't ignore subtitles when they are up on the screen. Because I'm after listening, I don't use subs at all anymore. A nice compromise might be to watch a scene without subtitles, then again with subtitles (or vice versa). I messed around with this method a little for Russian movies, and I liked it, but it could be a little frustrating having to watch everything twice.

[Sayonaroo]

I have no idea of this was mentioned because this thread is really long but I recommend doing song lyrics. I personally don't find most of the articles lingq interesting and song lyrics really work for me for beginner stage and even now because it can be an effortless way to remember stuff whether it be grammmar or vocab