Subject and Topic Particles I've tried to make a summary of what I understood from my book about the subject and topic particles. Are my assumptions correct? I've added them in brackets. - 이/가 no added meaning, refers to a specific entity 사과(가) 맛있어요. The apple is delicious. (this specific apple) - 이/가 - with added meaning, it's focused (with high pitch); refers to a general class; exhaustive listing ('this and only this') 사과가 맛있어요. Apples (not other fruit) are delicious. (I'm guessing it's apples from a selection of fruits) - 은/는 - topic marker 사과는 맛있어요. Apples (in general) are delicious. (broad statement about apples) - 은/는 - contrast 사과는 맛있어요. Apples are delicious. (other things are not delicious, but apples are) 돈이 민우가 없어요. Minu doesn't have money. 돈은 민우가 없어요. Minu doesn't have money (but has other things ..) - expressing old information A: 떡은 누가 먹었어요? B: 떡이 있었어요? 나는 못 봤는데. (if the information is new to B I use subject particle) B: 떡은 안 남았어요? - is this correct if the information is not new to B?
Apr 22, 2016 2:31 PM
Answers · 4
I think you got it right for the most part, but there are a couple of weird sentences. You also seem to be going very deep and applying too much logic to them. For example, 이/가 in most cases just directs the listener's attention to something. Saying it has the sense of "this and only this" seems to be attaching too much meaning to it. The two funny sentences I mentioned are: 1) 돈이 민우가 없어요 (Wrong) => 민우가 돈이 없어요. 2) 돈은 민우가 없어요 (Weird) => 민우가 돈은 없어요. (natural) "돈은 민우가 없어요" is not wrong, but it's in unnatural order which might only be used in some rare contexts. (For example: "민우는[가] 머리 좋고, 직장 튼튼하고 돈도 많잖아?", "돈은 민우가 없어요."). About the last example, A: 떡은 누가 먹었어요? B1: 떡이 있었어요? 나는 못 봤는데. B2: 떡은 안 남았어요? This example is a case where the topic/subject particles (for 떡) are not that important. In real life, A and B2 (and maybe even B1) are likely to be said without the particles for 떡. (If there are other foods before them too, 은 in A would be necessary, though) B2 sounds a bit strange. Since 떡 has been mentioned twice, saying 떡은 again is not necessary. Most would just say "더 안 남았어요?". So it would more likely go like: "떡 누가 먹었어요?", "떡이 있었어요? 난 못 봤는데. 더 안 남았어요?". Overall, it appears you have a good understanding of their usage, and your grammar book seems to be going deep on the subject :-)
April 22, 2016
April 22, 2016
Still haven’t found your answers?
Write down your questions and let the native speakers help you!