Glossary entry (derived from question below)
English term or phrase:
My father went to Pusan in order to earn money.
Korean translation:
우리 아버지는 부산에 돈을 버시러 가셨어.
Added to glossary by
D. I. Verrelli
Dec 12, 2019 02:29
4 yrs ago
11 viewers *
English term
Australia
Translator with Ph.D. in engineering.
Native in: English (Variants: US, British, UK, Australian, New Zealand, Singaporean, Canadian) 
Works in: German to English, Indonesian to English, English
My father went to Pusan in order to earn money.
Non-PRO
English to Korean
Other
General / Conversation / Greetings / Letters
Grammar
I have a question about word ordering in Korean when using "러" (or "려고"). Most of the published examples that I consulted (see below) are consistent, and show this operating as a "connective" part of speech — not merely a particle — which demarcates a boundary between two clauses.
"아버지는 돈을 버시러 부산에 가셨어." = "My father went to Pusan in order to earn money." (Sohn, 2001, p. 308)
"버스를 타러 정류장에 갔다." = "I went to the bus stop to catch a bus." (Lee, Jang & Seo, 2017, p. 21)
"엄마의 심부름으로 두부를 사러 시장에 갔다." = ["I went to the market to buy tofu on/for my mum's errand."?] (Naver website entry for "-러")
"기분 전환 하러 잠시 밖에 나갔다 왔어요." = "I went out for a bit to refresh myself." (TTMIK, Level 9, Lesson 15)
"호텔에 가려고 그는 택시를 탔다." = ["He caught a taxi in order to go to the hotel."?] (Lee, 1989, p. 180)
Italic marks a part of speech associated with the second verb (in bold).
~~~~~
However, I have been told that variations like the following are also completely correct in Korean, with no changes in meaning from the original sentences.
"아버지는 부산에 돈을 버시러 가셨어." = "My father went to Pusan in order to earn money."
"정류장에 버스를 타러 갔다." = "I went to the bus stop to catch a bus."
"시장에 엄마의 심부름으로 두부를 사러 갔다." = ["I went to the market to buy tofu on/for my mum's errand."?]
"밖에 기분 전환 하러 잠시 나갔다 왔어요." = "I went out for a bit to refresh myself."
So, is that true? If so, why is the clause boundary not respected?
Is there any (subtle) change in emphasis/connotation?
~~~~~
One published exception is in the Naver dictionary 'app':
"Ⓐ 너 어디 가?
Ⓑ 응. 도서관에 책 빌리러 가."
= ["Ⓐ Where are you off to?
Ⓑ Um. Goin' to the library to borrow a book."?]
This is notably conversational, and seems relatively casual. So is this type of word-order variation associated mostly with spoken Korean?
~~~~~
Previously I would have assumed that the following wouldn't be accepted...
"그는 택시를 호텔에 가려고 탔다." = ["He caught a taxi in order to go to the hotel."?]
...but the logic is similar to that applied above, and I've been told that sentences like
"아버지는 부산에 돈을 버시려고 가셨어." = "My father went to Pusan in order to earn money."
and
"정류장에 버스를 타려고 갔다." = "I went to the bus stop to catch a bus."
would be acceptable.
Are these all acceptable?
~~~~
Does the flexibility in word order extend to "위해(서)"??
"아버지는 돈을 벌기 위해(서) 부산에 가셨어."
=? "아버지는 부산에 돈을 벌기 위해(서) 가셨어."
"버스를 타기 위해(서) 버스 정류장에 갔다."
=? "버스를 정류장에 타기 위해(서) 버스 갔다."
~~~~~
I believe that clause boundaries are respected in other constructions, such as the following.
"피곤해서 집에 갔다." = "I was tired, so I went home."
≠ *"집에 피곤해서 갔다." = [ungrammatical] "I was tired 'to' home, so I went."
~~~~~
If "러" (or "려고") doesn't demarcate clause boundaries, is there any simple explanation as to why?
Are there any similar "connective" parts of speech with this property?
"아버지는 돈을 버시러 부산에 가셨어." = "My father went to Pusan in order to earn money." (Sohn, 2001, p. 308)
"버스를 타러 정류장에 갔다." = "I went to the bus stop to catch a bus." (Lee, Jang & Seo, 2017, p. 21)
"엄마의 심부름으로 두부를 사러 시장에 갔다." = ["I went to the market to buy tofu on/for my mum's errand."?] (Naver website entry for "-러")
"기분 전환 하러 잠시 밖에 나갔다 왔어요." = "I went out for a bit to refresh myself." (TTMIK, Level 9, Lesson 15)
"호텔에 가려고 그는 택시를 탔다." = ["He caught a taxi in order to go to the hotel."?] (Lee, 1989, p. 180)
Italic marks a part of speech associated with the second verb (in bold).
~~~~~
However, I have been told that variations like the following are also completely correct in Korean, with no changes in meaning from the original sentences.
"아버지는 부산에 돈을 버시러 가셨어." = "My father went to Pusan in order to earn money."
"정류장에 버스를 타러 갔다." = "I went to the bus stop to catch a bus."
"시장에 엄마의 심부름으로 두부를 사러 갔다." = ["I went to the market to buy tofu on/for my mum's errand."?]
"밖에 기분 전환 하러 잠시 나갔다 왔어요." = "I went out for a bit to refresh myself."
So, is that true? If so, why is the clause boundary not respected?
Is there any (subtle) change in emphasis/connotation?
~~~~~
One published exception is in the Naver dictionary 'app':
"Ⓐ 너 어디 가?
Ⓑ 응. 도서관에 책 빌리러 가."
= ["Ⓐ Where are you off to?
Ⓑ Um. Goin' to the library to borrow a book."?]
This is notably conversational, and seems relatively casual. So is this type of word-order variation associated mostly with spoken Korean?
~~~~~
Previously I would have assumed that the following wouldn't be accepted...
"그는 택시를 호텔에 가려고 탔다." = ["He caught a taxi in order to go to the hotel."?]
...but the logic is similar to that applied above, and I've been told that sentences like
"아버지는 부산에 돈을 버시려고 가셨어." = "My father went to Pusan in order to earn money."
and
"정류장에 버스를 타려고 갔다." = "I went to the bus stop to catch a bus."
would be acceptable.
Are these all acceptable?
~~~~
Does the flexibility in word order extend to "위해(서)"??
"아버지는 돈을 벌기 위해(서) 부산에 가셨어."
=? "아버지는 부산에 돈을 벌기 위해(서) 가셨어."
"버스를 타기 위해(서) 버스 정류장에 갔다."
=? "버스를 정류장에 타기 위해(서) 버스 갔다."
~~~~~
I believe that clause boundaries are respected in other constructions, such as the following.
"피곤해서 집에 갔다." = "I was tired, so I went home."
≠ *"집에 피곤해서 갔다." = [ungrammatical] "I was tired 'to' home, so I went."
~~~~~
If "러" (or "려고") doesn't demarcate clause boundaries, is there any simple explanation as to why?
Are there any similar "connective" parts of speech with this property?
Proposed translations
(Korean)
| 5 | 우리 아버지는 부산에 돈을 버시러 가셨어. |
BoHwa Kim
|
| 3 | 벌러갔다/타러갔다/사러갔다. |
Jeonggil Lee
|
Proposed translations
1 hr
Selected
우리 아버지는 부산에 돈을 버시러 가셨어.
Is there any (subtle) change in emphasis/connotation?
☞ As a native Korean, your guess is right.
Koreans speaks like this when there be a meaning of emphasis.
"아버지는 부산에 돈을 버시러 가셨어." ☞ emphasis on the reason of going Busan = to earn money
"정류장에 버스를 타러 갔다." ☞ emphasis on the reason of going Bus stop = to take a bus
"밖에 기분 전환 하러 잠시 나갔다 왔어요." ☞ emphasis on the reason of going out = to refresh
Therefore,
1. "그는 택시를 호텔에 가려고 탔다."
2. "아버지는 부산에 돈을 버시려고 가셨어."
3. "정류장에 버스를 타려고 갔다."
&
"집에 피곤해서 갔다." ☞ emphasis on the reason of going home = feeling tired
These all are acceptable in context of your intention to emphasize of some reasons.
According to National Institute of Korean Language,
https://www.korean.go.kr/front/onlineQna/onlineQnaView.do?mn...
'-러' is connective part that is used when you indicate the purpose of an action to go or come
'-려' is connective part that is used when you indicate an intention or desire to do something or a change in state or movement that will happen soon.
(You have to choose one of them correctly because they have different meaning, or there can be grammatical mistake.)
Accordin to the page 302~306 of this pdf file,
http://www.inhakoreanology.kr/science/kor_study_dn.php?sq=53...
'-고자' is also can be used when you indicate the purpose of action or desire to do something.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2019-12-12 05:50:52 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I asked the meaning of sentences to my Korean friends, and there was someone who can't know the difference between them, but they told me that all sentences are grammatically correct.
I think they have a subtle nuance.
I apologize for answering your question from my personal point of view, but I still think that Korean people switch word order to emphasize specific meaning if it is grammatically correct.
There are so many connective parts like '려, 러, 려고, 어서, 니까, 니, 므로, 듯이, 다가, 도록, 거든, 아서, .....', but there are no connective parts that can't be switched in the order.
(at least I think so)
I am sorry if my answer was too personal and unprofessional.
I just tried to tell you how I use that word in my conversation.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 hrs (2019-12-12 08:31:59 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Dear D. I. Verrelli,
As for your query,
I can tell you "접수처에 회의에 늦어서 갔다." is grammatically correct, and many Koreans will understand the meaning and your intention of the sentence with a specific context.
However, most Koreans will not use it because the sentences doesn't come naturally.
The main reason for that is '-에' is used repeatedly.
If I were you and wanted to say it fluently, there are several choices.
"접수처에는 회의에 늦어서 갔다."
"접수처는 회의에 늦어서 갔다."
It could be the answer if someone asked me why did I go to the reception.
I will answer like that when I explain why I went to the reception.
"-는" can be used behind the noun when you want to emphasize it.
☞ As a native Korean, your guess is right.
Koreans speaks like this when there be a meaning of emphasis.
"아버지는 부산에 돈을 버시러 가셨어." ☞ emphasis on the reason of going Busan = to earn money
"정류장에 버스를 타러 갔다." ☞ emphasis on the reason of going Bus stop = to take a bus
"밖에 기분 전환 하러 잠시 나갔다 왔어요." ☞ emphasis on the reason of going out = to refresh
Therefore,
1. "그는 택시를 호텔에 가려고 탔다."
2. "아버지는 부산에 돈을 버시려고 가셨어."
3. "정류장에 버스를 타려고 갔다."
&
"집에 피곤해서 갔다." ☞ emphasis on the reason of going home = feeling tired
These all are acceptable in context of your intention to emphasize of some reasons.
According to National Institute of Korean Language,
https://www.korean.go.kr/front/onlineQna/onlineQnaView.do?mn...
'-러' is connective part that is used when you indicate the purpose of an action to go or come
'-려' is connective part that is used when you indicate an intention or desire to do something or a change in state or movement that will happen soon.
(You have to choose one of them correctly because they have different meaning, or there can be grammatical mistake.)
Accordin to the page 302~306 of this pdf file,
http://www.inhakoreanology.kr/science/kor_study_dn.php?sq=53...
'-고자' is also can be used when you indicate the purpose of action or desire to do something.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2019-12-12 05:50:52 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I asked the meaning of sentences to my Korean friends, and there was someone who can't know the difference between them, but they told me that all sentences are grammatically correct.
I think they have a subtle nuance.
I apologize for answering your question from my personal point of view, but I still think that Korean people switch word order to emphasize specific meaning if it is grammatically correct.
There are so many connective parts like '려, 러, 려고, 어서, 니까, 니, 므로, 듯이, 다가, 도록, 거든, 아서, .....', but there are no connective parts that can't be switched in the order.
(at least I think so)
I am sorry if my answer was too personal and unprofessional.
I just tried to tell you how I use that word in my conversation.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 hrs (2019-12-12 08:31:59 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Dear D. I. Verrelli,
As for your query,
I can tell you "접수처에 회의에 늦어서 갔다." is grammatically correct, and many Koreans will understand the meaning and your intention of the sentence with a specific context.
However, most Koreans will not use it because the sentences doesn't come naturally.
The main reason for that is '-에' is used repeatedly.
If I were you and wanted to say it fluently, there are several choices.
"접수처에는 회의에 늦어서 갔다."
"접수처는 회의에 늦어서 갔다."
It could be the answer if someone asked me why did I go to the reception.
I will answer like that when I explain why I went to the reception.
"-는" can be used behind the noun when you want to emphasize it.
Reference:
https://www.korean.go.kr/front/onlineQna/onlineQnaView.do?mn_id=216&qna_seq=121433
http://www.inhakoreanology.kr/science/kor_study_dn.php?sq=53&att_sq=541
Note from asker:
| Thank you, BoHwa Kim. The National Institute of Korean Language entry provides similar information to the Naver website (including one example I quoted before). The 2016 article by Yi seems to be quite amazingly detailed, characterising the (sometimes subtle) discrepancies in the definitions of several "connective endings" ("연결 어미") found in different Korean dictionaries. Although, unfortunately, I cannot follow all of it: it is a shame (for me) that the author didn't include more sample sentences. It is noteworthy that Yi's paper includes both "-러" and "-서" as examples of so-called connective endings in Korean. In accordance with that — albeit against my expectation — I was very interested to learn from you that "집에 피곤해서 갔다." is acceptable, along with "그는 택시를 호텔에 가려고 탔다." and others you have enumerated. One last example to query.... Consider first "회의에 늦어서 접수처에 (바로) 갔다." = "I was late to the meeting, so I went (immediately) to the reception [desk]." I was specifically told that "늦어서 접수처에 갔다." is consistent with that, whereas "접수처에 늦어서 갔다." would be inconsistent, because it would be read as indicating that I was late to the reception. But theoretically, from what I have now learned, it seems that it shouldn't be 'wrong', but merely _ambiguous_ (because the particle "에" can be linked with either of the two verbs). To clarify the meaning (i.e. avoid ambiguity) with this 'emphatic' word order I suppose one should be able to write "접수처에 회의에 늦어서 (바로) 갔다." Would you agree? |
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thank-you for your explanations. I tagged this query as 'non-PRO', so your responses, from your own experience as a well-educated native speaker of Korean, are entirely suitable. I appreciate that you took the time to check with some friends too, as each person may perceive slightly different nuances. "
1 hr
Jeonggil Lee
South Korea
South Korea
Native in Korean
South Korea
M.A. in Classical Philology
Native in: Korean 
Works in: English to Korean, Romanian to Korean, Korean to English, and 1 more.
벌러갔다/타러갔다/사러갔다.
I think your sentence shows transformation of 용언. Due to change of sentence structure, remaining 용언 had to be combined, making them 본용언+보조용언.
아버지는 돈을 버시러 부산에 가셨어. for example
1.버시러 is 벌다+러->벌러 then + 시->버시러 (ㄹ탈락). It is transitive verb requiring 돈을.
2.가셨어. 가다->갔어->가시+었+(past)어->가셨어. It is intransitive verb so 부산에 is adverbial.
1+2.벌다(본용언)+갔다(보조용언) -> 벌러 갔다 or 벌러갔다.
As far as I can see, all change of position in above sentences are of adverbial, which is quiet flexible in position. (Isn't English same in this matter?)
I think with '위해서' which is same as '-러' in function, one can go even further by saying:
1.(부산에) 아버지는 돈을 벌기 위해서 (or 벌러) 가셨어.
2. 아버지는 돈을 벌러 (or 위해서)가셨어 (부산에).
I hope above explanation makes sense to you.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 hrs (2019-12-12 05:14:16 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Dear, Verrelli, I succeeded in decoding your cryptic message! They are engaging, may I answer it tomorrow? For now, I want to correct my answer above on term I used. It is to be 본용언+본용언, that is meaning of both verb remain intact. It means they should be written separately: 벌러갔다 is not permissible, only 벌러 갔다 is correct use.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 2 mins (2019-12-13 02:32:04 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Hi Verrelli, I gave some hard thoughts on the matter.
There are two ways to see the given sentence:
1. 피곤해서 집에 갔다.(I was tired, so I went home.)
- (나는) 피곤하다. 그래서 (나는) 집에 갔다. Sentences are 'connected' by 그래서 (피곤하+-어서. -어서 is called 연결어미 (connective ending). Two independent sentences are connected, so '-어서' is called 'connective'. This is the position of authoritative Korean dictionary. However, question arise why 집에 is moving across to the other sentence when both sentences are independent. I think your question calls for alternative view as following:
2. 집에 피곤해서 갔다. (Because I'm tired, I went home.)
- (나는) 집에 피곤해서 갔다. '피곤해서' is seen as adverb clause, dependent on the main sentence 집에 갔다. Note that 집에 has moved forward, whereas in English, the main sentence is not intruded. It seems to me it is due to degree of integration. Korean sentence looks seamless, even changed position of (나는) looks more natural. We call this sentence 안긴문장, as it is kind of hugged sentence into the main of sentence. (Compared to this, English sentence looks still independent when it is dependent adverb clause.) Here, similar analysis is applied as above: 피곤해서(
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 4 mins (2019-12-13 02:33:48 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
피곤해서(
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 7 mins (2019-12-13 02:37:16 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
피곤해서 (
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 10 mins (2019-12-13 02:39:31 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
피곤해서(
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 10 mins (2019-12-13 02:40:27 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
??
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 14 mins (2019-12-13 02:43:49 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
(
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 18 mins (2019-12-13 02:48:21 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I can't send you reminder.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 20 mins (2019-12-13 02:50:17 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Mainly I want say that it is not called 전성어미 (transformative ending), not connective ending in the alternative view.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 29 mins (2019-12-13 02:58:48 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I mean it is called 전성어미 not 연결어미 in the last analysis.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 42 mins (2019-12-13 03:11:29 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
-----------------
(
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 43 mins (2019-12-13 03:13:06 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
-------------------
But difference is that, '-어서' can't be called connective anymore, but transformative ending. (전성어미) It is now called 부사형 전성어미, (transformative ending of adverb-type) as it changed sentence to adverb clause.
Same principal can be applied to '-러-' as connective ending, viewing it instead as transformative ending. Although in this case comparison to English sentence is difficult to render.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 14 days (2019-12-26 08:20:31 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
Dear. Your reasoning is solid, and further look on number of the 'subject' of the sentence is relevant. I think it also serves as good criteria on deciding the character of 'ending' at issue. Although, first sentence from new examples calls for further discussion on who is 'real' subject, I think no one is interested on further step and it doesn't serve any real need here. Further step belongs to linguistics.
Note from asker:
| Hello, Jeonggil Lee. Thank-you for your input. <br> Although I agree generally with your careful analysis, it has not completely answered my question(s). In particular, consider my final example: "<b>집에 피곤해서 갔다.</b>" Would you consider that to be natural Korean too? <br> Can an analysis similar to what you have outlined above be applied? Namely: 1. 피곤해서 is 피곤하(다)+서. It is an intransitive verb (adverb optional; not present in this example). 2. 갔다 is 가(다)+었+다. It is an intransitive verb, so 집에 is adverbial. 1+2. 피곤하다(본용언)+갔다(보조용언) -> 피곤해서+갔다 or 피곤해서갔다. However, I would have guessed that "피곤해서갔다" would not be natural in Korean. <br> On the other hand, I think you are saying that with "러" the verbs could be 'connected' in a way a bit like "나갔다 왔어요" in one of my cited examples, which is derived from two separate verbs, namely 나가(다) + 오(다) [given in past tense with the polite sentence ending in the example quoted].<br> ~~~~~<br> Regarding English, there is some flexibility, but not in an equivalent way. In English the following are all acceptable:<br> "My father <b>went</b> <i>to Pusan</i> in order to earn money."<br> "In order to earn money, my father <b>went</b> <i>to Pusan</i>."<br> "My father, in order to earn money, went to Pusan." or "My father — in order to earn money — <b>went</b> <i>to Pusan</i>."<br> The following does <u>not</u> look idiomatic to me in English, <br> "My father <b>went</b> in order to earn money <i>to Pusan</i>."<br> due to the insertion of a longish phrase (with its own verb!), between "went" and "to Pusan", which are associated with one another. Although shorter interposed phrases (without their own verb!) may be acceptable, such as <br> "My father <b>went</b> long ago <i>to Pusan</i>."<br> "My father <b>went</b> by train <i>to Pusan</i>."<br> "My father <b>went</b> with his colleague <i>to Pusan</i>."<br> |
| Sorry, the HTML formatting tags seem to have been incorrectly parsed in my note to you. I hope you will still be able to read it. It was displayed correctly when I checked the Preview, but I apologise for the inconvenience nonetheless. |
| If the HTML tags are too distracting, you can also copy the above text into a plain-text file, save it with a name like "proz.html", and then open the saved file in your browser. The HTML tags should then be correctly interpreted (it works for me). |
| Thank-you again for your further thoughts and analysis of this grammatical structure. I tried searching on the terms "전성어미", "안긴문장" and "연결어미", but with 'mixed' results. E.g. http://edutown.kr/files/doc/curri/good-sentence-3.html , http://contents.kocw.net/document/TIK10%28sentence%20expansion%29.pdf & https://www.korean.go.kr/front/onlineQna/onlineQnaView.do?mn_id=216&qna_seq=3763 |
| I think, upon reflection, that I prefer your later analysis of the 'hugged' clause as acting something like an adverb, rather than the earlier analysis of treating the sequence of verbs at the end of the sentence as a kind of combined-verb-group. The main reason I am thinking that is because of the grammatical subject of each 'clause'. If the subject must be the same in each clause, then it could make sense to treat the verbs at the end as a single group (a bit like "나갔다 왔어요"). Coincidentally, I think all/most of my original examples had the same subject for each of the two clauses. However, that doesn't seem to be a requirement. [Furthermore, in structures like "나갔다 왔어요" it seems necessary for the meanings of the verbs to be somehow related, which is evidently not a requirement in the 'hugged' clauses.] Some examples with "서" in which the two clauses have different subjects are as follows. "배가 아파서 병원에 갔어요." = "My stomach hurt, so I went to the hospital." and "가방이 비싸서 안 샀어요." = "The bag was expensive, so I didn’t buy it." and also "월요일이어서 학교에 가고 싶지 않아요." = "Because it’s Monday, I don’t want to go to school." [Source: https://su-eop.tumblr.com/page/5 ] Assuming that these can still be transformed (e.g. "병원에 배가 아파서 갔어요." and "학교에 월요일이어서 가고 싶지 않아요."), the adverbial explanation makes more sense to me. [Other explanations may also be feasible.] |
| Both respondents have provided helpful answers, but regretfully I am only able to select one as "most helpful". I still very much appreciate your time and effort to explain this grammatical phenomenon. |
Something went wrong...