When do Korean children learn to swear and hate Japan?

I am not sure, but the kids using vulgar language to spew hate on Japan in the Gangneung (강릉) dialect in the video below are supposedly in the second grade at the Wansan Elementary School (왕산초등학교) in Gangneung.

민경:	오늘 여게 사람들이 이리 마니 모였으니 내가 가슴에 담아 도던 얘기를 한 마디 할게요. 내가 이 얘기를 안하면요 살아도 산기 아니고요. 내가 쌔가 빠져 죽어도요 눈을 못 감을 정도로 한이 될기래요.
성령:	이런 진생 같은 간나가 꼴깝하고 자빠졌네. 지 나이가 몇 살이라고, 뭔 놈의 한이 우째고 우쨌다고?
민경:	이런 씨 니처럼 맨재기중에서도 찰 맨재기 같은 인간이 우트게 내속을 알겠나? 시상이 우트 돌아 가는 지 알기나 하고 그래 찌꺼래 되나?
성령:	벨희얀한 소릴 다듣겠네야 내 참 그래 뭔 누무 한이 그래 맺혔는지 어디 한 번 니 힘 가지껀 찌꺼래 봐라.
민경:	이런 쿵하면 담 배락에서 호박 떨어지는 소리고 뽕하면 니 똥구영서 똥가루 날리는 소리는 소리라고, 어. 내가 지금부터 얘기해 줄 테니 귓구영을 후비고 똑띠기 들아. 알았싸어.
성령:	알았다.
민경:	저짜 바다 건너 일본놈들이 요새 독도가 지들 땅이라고 복날 개훌기 듯이 우겨된다는데 니는 테레비도 안 보나 이런 판진생 같은 인간아!
성령:	뭐이 우째.
민경:	우째긴 뭘 우째 가들이 그 날리를 치는 바람에 여게 저게서 열통이 터져서 복장을 치는 사람들이 울매나 많은데.
성령:	그 놈의 종자들이 날은 더와 죽겠는데 왜 그 지랄들겠나? 어, 그 전에도 그 난리를 볶아 때리더니 요새 또 그런다 말이야.
민경:	야 그럴 내가 이래 열을 내는게 아니나? 그것들이 아직 된변을 못 봐서 그렇치 내인데 한 번 걷아들리기만 하면 내가 아주 쌕딜가 뭐나 쌕딜을 잡아 빼놀 낄되, 뭐.
민경:	어니야라 뭔 간나가 말을 해도 억쎄 빠지기 시래 쌕딜가, 남사 시럽지도 안나. 여게 사람들이 이래 많은데 그래갔구 시집이나 겠나?
민경:	뭐이 이런 판진생 같은 인간아. 이 판국에 지금 시집이 문제야? 이거는 뭐 똥인지 된장지 천지를 모르고 찌꺼래 되네야. 아이 내가 여복 부애가 났음 거러겠나? 그런 인날 임진왜란 때 말이야. 그것들이 사람들을 마큰다 아주 씰몰살 시킬려고 쳐들어왔던 걸 뭐이 벌써 까먹었부랬나?
설령:	내가 그럴 우트 까먹겠나? 가들이 그 조총이란 걸 갔구 들이 쏴단 걸 내가 까먹을 리가 있나?
민경:	말도마라. 말도마 우리 할머어이가 그러는데 그 총알이란 게 날아가지고 대가빠리에 정통으로 들이 맞으면 뇌진탕으로 히떡가고, 또 그게 누까리에 들이 걸리면 눈까리가 다 박살이 나고 그 뭐나어 배때기에 들이 걸리면 창지가 마카 게 나와 가지고 하이고 뭣이 대뜨번에 쌔싸리가 빠진다더라.
성령:	야, 말이 싹다 마자요. 나도 우리 할아버한테 들었는데요 자들이요 생각하는 것까지도요 울매나 얍쌉한지요 우리들 같지 안타니까요.
민경:	마자요, 마자. 자들이 울매나 얍삽한지요. 뙈놈보다 더 하다니까요. 요새 이 독도문제도요 시시하게 대처해서는 되지도 않아요. 그저 순순히 우리가 대해 주시깐 저것들이 우릴 만만보고 저 지랄들이지 우리가 빡쎄게 나가면 찍소리도 못 할기래요. 아이 내 말이 맞으면 박수를 한 번 쳐주야.
성령:	뭔 간나가 참 억쌔게도 지꺼려 되네야 이 좋은 날 우째 그리서럽그리 둘어대나 여기 앉아 있는 사람들도 그놈의 독도 얘기만 나오면 복장이 터질낀데 왜 그다타나 아이 내 말일 맞아요 안 맞아요.
민경:	알았다 내가 이 얘기 한 마디만 더 하고 내겨갈 끼네.
설령:	뭐이? 여태 찌거려 놓고 뭘 또 지꺼린다고 알았다 알았다 정 그러면 지꺼려 봐 얼른 지끄리고 내려가자 내 배때기 고파 죽겠다.
민경:	아이 시끄루와 그놈의 배때기 고프단 소리는 몸썰나게 해 대내야. 여 앉아 있는 사람들요 내 말을 마저 들어봐요, 야. 그렇다고요. 그짝 나라 사람들이 다 그리 얍삽하다는 게 아니래요. 모르긴 몰라도요 여 강릉에 해마다을 사람들도 있다든데 그 양반들은 안 얍삽해요. 여기 강릉교육관 한마음 축제 오신 여러분들도 그 양반들 만나면 괘찮으니 그 사람들 만나면 반갑게 맞아줘요 알았지요.

I may translate it later.

Have you read "Outline of Classical Chinese Grammar"?

It cost me an arm and a leg (72,000 won), but I bought Edwin G. Pulleyblank's book, "Outline of Classical Chinese Grammar." When it first arrived, I thought I had been ripped off because it was only a flimsy, little 206-page book, including Contents and Index pages. It did not look like it was worth 72,000 won, which is the most I have ever paid for any book, but after reading the first forty pages, I have changed my mind. It was a good investment.

.

Though the book is not that well written or organized, it is crammed full of short-and-sweet grammar rules with one or two example sentences for each rule. There is little or no fluff in the book. It seems like Mr. Pulleyblank just gathered up his teaching notes and made a book out of them, which might explain why it is only about 200 pages.

.

The book's 597 example sentences, which are numbered, have Chinese pronunciations and English translations, but, except for the grammar point being focused on, there are few if any detailed explanations of the sentences. The reader is pretty much expected to match, on his own, the English translation with the Chinese.

.

I wish the book were better organized and had Korean pronunciations instead of Chinese, and I wish that Mr. Pulleyblank had used more punctuation in his English explanations, but the book gives so much insight into classical Chinese grammar that such complaints seem trivial. I am a happy man.

What does 苟且偸安 mean?

Yesterday, I bought a Korean book entitled "이이화의 한문 공부," which teaches the basics of classical Chinese writing. I bought the book not only because it was the only book in the store that taught the basics of classical Chinese, but also because it looked pretty good, at least in the store. However, after getting it home and reading more of it, I noticed a few problems.

One of the problems with the book is that it assumes the reader already knows the Korean pronunciations for the Chinese characters used in many of the book's example sentences. In other words, the book gives you the Chinese sentences and their Korean translations, but it does not give the Korean pronunciations for the Chinese characters. That is not a big problem for me since I know the pronunciations of most of the characters used in the book, but I would still like to have the pronunciations. Another problem is that some of the translations seem to be incorrect. Could such a thing be possible? Is it just because I am a beginner and do not know any better? Consider the following example:

苟且偸安(구차투안)

구차하게 눈앞의 안일함만을 취함 Clumsily take only the peace in front of our eyes.

The Korean is the author's translation of the Chinese, and the English is my translation of the author's Korean, but is it correct?

In Korean, 苟且 (구차) can mean "poverty" or "clumsiness," and 偸安 (투안) means "desire the peace in front of one's eyes" (눈앞의 안일을 탐냄), so the author seems to have just combined and then tweaked the two sentences for his translation, which seems awkward either way. Does "Clumsily take the peace in front of our eyes" make much sense?

Separately, 偸安 (투안) means only "steal" (偸) and "peace" (安), so where did "in front of our eyes" (눈앞의) come from? I think it came from the 且 (차) in the original sentence since 且 can mean "in the future" (장차). In other words, 苟且偸安 (구차투안) may have originally been translated as "[They] clumsily (苟), in the future (且), take (偸) the peace (安)," except that "in the future" was translated as "in front of our eyes" (눈앞의). Later, when 苟且 and 偸安 were separated and placed in the dictionary, the meaning "in front of our eyes" stayed with 偸安 portion. Anyway, that is just my theory.

I think the above Chinese sentence has been mistranslated by Koreans. Why not simply translate it as follows?

"Poverty (苟且) steals (偸) peace (安)."

My translation makes much more sense because, generally speaking, peace and prosperity go together, but poverty tends to lead to unrest, which can be paraphrased as, "Poverty steals peace."

Does 乳以 mean the same as 以乳?

Today, I was reading the 四字小學(사자소학), which was a book that Korean children used to study in traditional Korean schools (書堂 - 서당), when I came across something I did not understand. Why does 以 come after the nouns in lines 3 and 4, but before the nouns in lines 5 and 6?

父生我身(부생아신)	[My] father (父) gave life (生) [to] my (我) body (身).
母(모)鞠(국)吾(오)身(신)	My] mother (母) raised (鞠) my (我) body (身).
腹以懷我(복이회아)	[Her] stomach (腹) was used (以) to shelter (懷) me (我).
乳以哺我(유이포아)	[Her] milk (乳) was used (以) to feed (哺) me (我).
以衣溫我(이의온아)	With (以) clothes (衣) [she] warmed (溫) me (我).
以食飽我(이식포아)	With (以) food (食) [she] filled (飽) me (我).

From what little I know about classical Chinese, the order of the characters was important to determining the meaning of a sentence. Therefore, I suspect that 以 coming before the noun had a different meaning from 以 coming after the noun. However, the only difference I noticed between the two sets of sentences above was that the nouns in sentences 3 and 4 were either a part of the mother (her stomach) or originated from her (her breast milk), but the nouns in sentences 5 and 6 were just general references to food and clothing.

When 以 came after a noun, did it imply that the noun belonged to the subject of the sentence or originated from him or her? In other words, does 乳以 mean "with her milk," and 以乳 mean just "with milk"?

UPDATE: I think I have figured out the difference in meaning when putting 以 before a noun and after a noun. When used before the nouns above, it means "with": "with clothes" (以衣), "with food" (以食). When used after the nouns above, it means "was used to": "Her stomach was used to" (腹以 ), "Her milk was used to" (乳以 ).

Was 之 (지) used to make causative verbs?

According to THIS WEB PAGE, the Chinese character 來 (내) was used in classical Chinese to mean, "[He] comes," and 來之 (내지) was used to mean, "[He] makes him come." In other words, the 之 (지) seems to have made "to come" (來) into a causative verb. In classical Chinese, was 之 sometimes used to make causative verbs?

I am curious because I want to know if the following translation is correct:

一僧寺 與餠茶粥醬以食之

A temple (一僧寺) gave (與) [us] rice cake (餠), tea (茶), rice gruel (粥) and soy sauce (醬) and had us eat them.

Does the 之 (지) change 食 (식) from "to eat" to "to have someone eat" ( 食之), or is 之 being used as a direct object pronoun to refer back to the food?

What's the problem with "뭐가 불만이냐"

뭐가 불만이냐 means "What's your problem" or "What's your complaint." It is a low form that is usually used among friends. If you use it with someone who is not your friend, you are asking for a fight. The problem with the expression is that 뭐가, strickly speaking, is an incorrect construction since 뭐 is a contraction of 무엇, so it would be like saying 무엇가, which is incorrect. The correct contraction for 무엇이 is 뭬. However, since few Koreans say "뭬 불만이냐," you could just drop the subject marker and say, "뭐 불만이냐." I think I will try to use 뭬.

The following are the correct 1-syllable contractions for 무엇 and its subject and object markers:

• 무엇 = 무어 = 뭐
• 무엇 = 뭣
• 무엇이 = 뭬
• 무엇을 = 뭘

Unfortunately, it is probably too late to save the 뭬 contraction because 뭐가 and 머가 have become so ingrained in the Korean language that it would be difficult to get rid of them now. I think I remember reading that sometime in the past 가 used to be the only subject marker in Korean, which may help explain why 뭐가 is so ingrained.

By the way, if you do use 뭬, do not add the subject marker 가 to it since its meaning already includes the subject marker. Some Koreans even add the object marker 를 to 뭬, which, of course, is also wrong since it would be like saying 무엇이를.

A foreigner teaching Koreans how to teach Korean?

According to a Chosun Ilbo article entitled "American Professor Prepares Korean Language Teachers," American Robert Fouser is teaching Seoul National University students how to teach the Korean language to foreigners, which makes me wonder what exactly he does. For example, does he teach them the English they will need to explain the Korean language or does he teach them language teaching techniques? Or does he teach them both with a focus on dealing with the special problems of teaching the Korean lanaguage?

Mr. Fouser says that Koreans lack a systematic approach to teaching Korean to foreign learners, which I think is true, but I wish he or the article would have given some examples of exactly what Koreans are doing wrong. More on Robert Fouser in ENGLISH and in KOREAN.

Here are some of my suggestions for teaching Korean.

The very first thing that should be taught to foreign learners of Korean is hangeul, which is the easiest thing about the Korean language. Why bother learning Romanized Korean when hangeul can be learned in just a couple of days?

Next, the teacher should give the students a brief summary of how the Korean language works while introducing simple vocabulary words to be used in examples of the language. In other words, the teacher should give a general description of such things as Korean word order and how markers are used to indicate such things as subjects, objects, and verb tense. Korean and English are so opposite each other that without such an explanation many English speakers may waste weeks wondering what the hell is going on. When I first started learning Korean, I wasted about thirty-two weeks wondering what was going on because no one bothered explaining to me the basic concepts of the Korean language. Therefore, I think having a native English speaker teaching a Korean linguistics course concurrently with a native Korean speaker teaching a conversation class would be a good idea. English would be used in the linguistics class, but not in the conversation class.

After teaching hangeul and explaining the basic concepts of the Korean language, I would start piling on the vocabulary while making sure students understand the differences among Korean adjectives and transitive and intransitive verbs. I would have students juggling active and passive voice with every new verb they learn instead of saving passive voice for some future date. If the students were studying in Korea, I would teach them the seven basic Korean sentence patterns from the get-go so that they could start listening for them out in Korean society and start filling in the blanks with the new vocabulary they learn. I also believe in teaching past, present, and future tenses together rather than separately because they will be hearing them all together when they walk outside the classroom if they are learning in Korea.

A Korean language classroom in Korea should just be the staging area for preparing students for the real learning experience outside the classroom. Instead of trying to teach all the language inside the classroom, teachers should focus on teaching the concepts and structure of the language and have the students learn the meaty parts on their own outside the classroom. A sample homework assignment might be to give the students ten questions or statements to ask or say to Koreans outside the classroom, and then have the students record the responses they get. The students could then compare and discuss the responses they get the next day in class. That is more interesting and effective than reading the responses in a book.

Korean language teachers need to start thinking outside the four walls of the classroom.

Why do many Koreans like to eat fish heads?

When you buy a fish at a supermarket in Korea, it usually comes with the head. Moreover, when cooking the fish, Koreans usually cook the whole fish, including the head. My ex-wife, who was Korean, was no exception. She always cooked the whole fish and always ate the head.

I used to think my ex-wife ate the head of the fish so that I could have more of the juicy parts. In other words, I thought she was sacrificing her taste buds for me. I have since learned that many Koreans consider the fish head to be a delicacy, which suggests that my ex-wife's fish-head eating may have been more of a selfish act than a sacrifice.

Today, I came across an old Chinese saying, which suggests that the heads of fish have long been considered a delicacy in Asia:

魚頭一味 (어두일미)
A fish's head is the most delicious

魚(어) - fish
頭(두) - head
一味(일미) - the most delicious

Why not use 먹이 for human food, too?

Koreans generally use 먹이 to refer to animal "food," "feed," or "prey," and 음식(飮食) or 먹거리 to refer to human food, but why can't 먹이 also be used to refer to human food? I am asking because 먹거리 seems to go against grammar rules since -거리 is usually added to nouns, not verb stems. Here are some acceptable -거리 nouns:

• 국거리........foodstuff for soup
• 김칫거리.....foodstuff for kimchi
• 반찬거리.....foodstuff for side dishes
• 저녁거리.....foodstuff for dinner

거리 is a noun meaning "material" or "makings," so if it is used with a verb like 먹다, then people should say 먹을 거리, not 먹거리. However, why not just say 먹이 for both animal and people food? If it is possible to say 쇠먹이 (cattle feed) and 말먹이 (horse feed), why not 사람먹이 (people food)?

On a completely different topic, while looking up one of the above words in my dictionary, I came across 사람 멀미, which means "sickness from being in a crowd." I had heard of 차멀미 (carsickness), 뱃멀미 (seasickness), and 비행기멀미 (airsickness), but had never heard of 사람 멀미 (crowd sickness).

Should Koreans say 세겹살 instead of 삼겹살?

삼겹살 are cuts of pork from around the ribs, which is an area that includes layers of fat (비계). When cut into strips, the strips show what generally look to be three layers of fat and meat, which is why Koreans call it 삼겹살. The name 삼겹살 literally means "three layers of meat." It looks like bacon except that it is usually cut into thicker strips and is not cured or smoked.

Actually, the name 삼겹살 violates Korean language rules, which say that Sino-Korean numbers should not be used with pure Korean words. 삼(三) is the Sino-Korean number for "three," and 겹살 is a pure Korean word meaning "layers of meat"; therefore, the correct name should be 세겹살 since 세 is the pure Korean number for "three." In fact, up until the early eighties, Koreans commonly referred to it as 세겹살. (See this Korean ARTICLE.)

Korean dictionaries still list 세겹살 as a synonym for 삼겹살, so if you are a purist and want to mess with the minds of Korean restaurant employees, order 세겹살 the next time you visit a Korean meat restaurant.

Why do many people say 맞다?

In Korea, when people are discussing an issue and one of them says something that hits the nail on the head, so to speak, you will often hear people respond to the comment by saying "맞다." However, 맞다 is the wrong response because it is an uninflected form.

맞다 is a verb meaning "to be right" or "to be correct," among other things, so when you use it in a sentence, you must use inflection because Korean verbs are inflected in speech. In other words, you cannot use the word straight out of the dictionary. You must say 맞는다 or 맞아 when talking with friends, or 맞습니다 or 맞아요 when talking with others. By not using inflection with 맞다, people are treating it as if it were an adjective, which it is not. In Korea, adjectives can be used in their blunt forms without inflection. For example, if you want to comment with an uninflected word, then you could use the adjective 옳다, which means "right" or "correct." Consider the following examples:

A: 문제는 그가 허락없이 한 거야.
B: 맞아 (맞는다).

A: The problem is that he did it without permission.
B: That's right.
-----------------

A: 문제는 그가 허락없이 한 거야.
B: 네 말이 옳다.

A: The problem is that he did it without permission.
B: What you say is correct.

Was a male slave or female slave more expensive?

According to THIS WEB SITE, the poster below was in North Korea's Koryo Museum. The poster says that a female slave between fifteen and fifty years old once cost 120 pil (120필) while a male slave of the same age cost only 100 pil. Female slaves under fifteen and over fifty cost sixty pil while males slaves in the same age brackets cost only fifty pil. If you had the money, you could have gotten a cow for 400 pil.



Matt also has a link to a better picture on HIS SITE.

Is it really correct to say 몇 학년이냐?

몇 essentially means "how many," "how much," or "how long," so if you say, 몇 학년이냐, you are really asking "how many grades." If you want to ask someone "which grade" they are in, it would make more sense to say, "어느 학년," rather than "몇 학년." Consider the following examples:

1. 너는 어느 학년이냐?
   Which grade are you in?
2. 이 학교는 몇 학년 있어요?
   How many grades are there in this school?
3. 그 학교에서 몇 학년 다녔어요?
   How many grades did you attend at that school?

Nevertheless, Koreans probably say 몇 학년이냐 more than they say 어느 학년이냐. I also say 몇 학년, but I may start using 어느 학년.

Why use (으)로서, (으)로써, & (으)로 이하여?

The markers (으)로서, (으)로써, and (으)로 인하여 can all be replaced with (으)로 without any difference in meaning, so why not just use (으)로?

 (으)로서 is an adverb marker used to establish status or authority:

• 학생으로서 = 학생으로 As a student....
• 자식으로서 할 일= 자식으로 할 일 Something one does as a child
• 학자로서 = 학자로 As a scholar....

(으)로써 is an adverb marker used to show the purpose, method, or tool used for doing something:

• 약으로써 낫게 할 수 없는 병 = 약으로.... A disease that cannot be cured with medicine
• 생각만으로써 되는 일이 아니다 = 생각만으로.... This is not something that can be solved by just thinking about it.
• 석유로써 재산을 모으다 = 석유로.... make one's fortune in oil

(으)로 인하여 is used to show cause or reason:

• 불결로 인하여 병이 생기는 경우도 있다 = 불결로.... Some diseases are attributable to lack of cleanliness.
• 그 사건으로 인해서 우리 회사가 유명해졌다. = 그 사건으로 Our company because famous from that incident.
• 올해 지진으로 인한 피해가 컸다. = 올해 지진으로 생긴.... The damage from this years earthquake was enormous.

Also, do not use the -으로해서 and -므로해서 makers.

Simplify your life by just using (으)로. Why make Korean more difficult than it already is?

Are you ready for the future--장래 or 장차?

장래 (將來) is a noun that means "the future," and 장차 (將次) is an adverb that means "in the future." Here are some examples of how they are used:

장래 (the future)

• 밝은 장래....................a bright future; bright prospects
• 어두운 장래.................a dark future; gloomy prospects
• 가까운 장래에..............in the near future
• 먼 장래에.....................in the distance future
• 장래의 계획을 세우다...make a plan for the future
• 장래를 점치다..............predict the future

장차 (in the future)

• 장차 어떤 일이 일어날지 아무도 모른다.
  No one can tell what will happen in the future.
• 너는 장차 무엇이 되고 싶니?
  What do you want to be in the future?
• 그렇게 돈을 함부로 쓰면 장차 무일푼이 된다.
  If you spend money so freely, you'll wind up penniless.
• 장차 사용할 수 있도록 이것을 간수해 두어라.
  Keep this for future use.

If you place an -에- after 장래 (i.e. 장래에), it will have the same meaning as 장차, which means "in the future." Never place an 에 after 장차 because it is not needed.

미래 (未來) is a noun that also means "the future," but, according to Mr. Nam Yeong-sin (남영신), there are some slight differences between 미래 and 장래. Mr. Nam says, for example, that 장래 is used to talk about your own future and the future that affects you, but 미래 is used to talk about a more distant future. The future (미래) is infinite, but your future (장래) ends when you die. Accordingly, there is more emotion attached to 장래 than to 미래. Therefore, maybe it would be better to say 먼 미래 rather than 먼 장래, and 장래의 계획 rather than 미래의 계획.

By the way, the American movie "Back to the Future" was translated into Korean as "백 투 더 퓨쳐," which is just a transliteration of the English title. However, if you were to translate it into Korean, I think it should be 장래로 돌아가다. I used 장래 in my translation because it was the future of one person rather than a distance future.

Do you understand "알았어, 알겠어"?

Today, I came across the Korean pop song "알았어, 알겠어," which means, "I understand, I will understand." One of the meanings of 알다 is "to understand." I am posting the lyrics to the song at the bottom of this post because the songwriter seemed to understand the difference between 알았어 and 알겠어. I just hope other Koreans will finally understand it, too.

Even though 알다 has several meanings, including "to know," "to understand," and "to remember," when it is used in the past tense, Koreans usually mean, "I understand." However, when 알다 is used with the future tense (-겠-), the meaning is not as clear, so you have to consider the context in which it is used. Consider the following examples:

1. (보면) 알겠습니다.
   (When I see it,) I will know it.
2. (앞으로 당신 마음을,) 알겠습니다.
   I will understand (your feelings in the future).
3. (하신 말씀을) 알겠습니다.
   I will remember (what you said).

It would be easier to distinguish the meanings of 알다 if Koreans used only 기억하다 for "to remember" and 이해하다 for "to understand," but 기억하다 and 이해하다 are Sino-Korean words that most likely do not have the same traditions and warm feelings as 알다, which is a pure Korean word that has probably been spoken by Koreans for as long as there have been Koreans, so I do not think the meanings of 기억하다 and 이해하다 will completely disappear from 알다 anytime soon. However, with 기억하다 and 이해하다 as options, Koreans, especially younger Koreans, seem to be forgetting about and confusing the different meanings of 알다, especially when it is used with the future tense form -겠.

When Koreans use -겠- with 알다, or any verb, they should try to avoid using it in situations that go against the dictionary definitions of -겠. Consider the following dialog:

A: 오늘 만나자.
B: 오늘 안 돼. 약속 있어.
A: (그래, 알았어.) or (그래, 알겠어.)

A: Let's meet today.
B: I can't today. I have an appointment.
A: (Ok, I understand.) or (Ok, I will understand.)

In a dialog similar to the above, Koreans respond with both 알았어 and 알겠어, but 알겠어 does not make sense because it literally means "I will understand," not "I understand." When you ask the Koreans who respond with 알겠어 why they do it, they often say it sounds more polite, but such "polite" usage is not explained in the Korean dictionaries that I have, which suggests that it is just a misusage of the language.

It seems that 알겠어 has become a trendy, catch-all response for Koreans who do not want to be bothered with Korean grammar. However, since Koreans have a habit of reducing sentences down to just their verbs, I think it is important for them to pay more attention to the tenses used with those verbs and the context in which they are used.

Here is my translation of the lyrics to the Korean pop song "I understand, I will understand" (알았어, 알겠어), which can be heard HERE. Notice that the songwriter used 알겠어 and 이해하겠어 interchangebly:

"알았어 알겠어"
.
알았어 알겠어 이제야 너를 알겠어
수많은 꿈들은 너를 고민하게 했겠지
알았어 알겠어 너를 이해하겠어
수많은 꿈들이 나를 포기하게 했단 걸
.
사랑이란 언젠간 식어가는 거라고
젊은 날의 주체못할 열기일 뿐이라고
늘 넌 말해왔었지 하지만 바보 같은 난
그게 오늘이 될 줄은 몰랐던거야
.
알았어 알겠어 이제야 너를 알겠어
수많은 꿈들은 너를 고민하게 했겠지
알았어 알겠어 너를 이해하겠어
수많은 꿈들이 나를 포기하게 했단 걸
.
추억이란 잊어도 잊혀지지 않는 것
사랑은 떠나도 곪아버린 옛상처처럼
너는 나를 잊어도 추억은 잊지 못 할 걸
우리의 추억에 때론 잠도 못 이루겠지
.
알아 나도 너의 마음을 이해해
사랑과 꿈 사이 많이 망설였단 걸 알아
너에게도 사랑은 단순한 열기가 아닌
죽어서도 잊혀지지 않는 추억이었다는 걸
.
알았어 알겠어 이제야 너를 알겠어
수많은 꾸들은 너를 고민하게 했겠지
알았어 알겠어 너를 이해하겠어
수많은 꿈들이 나를 포기하게 했단 걸
.

"I understand, I will understand"

I understand, I will understand. Now, I will understand you.
Many dreams likely caused you to agonize.
I understand, I will understand. Now, I will understand you.
The many dreams that caused you to leave me.

Love dies over time, you always said,
It's just wild, youthful passion,
But like a fool I never knew
Today it would really happen.

I understand, I will understand. Now, I will understand you.

Many dreams likely caused you to agonize.

I understand, I will understand. Now, I will understand you.

The many dreams that caused you to leave me.

.

It's said memories can be ignored, but not forgotten.

Though the love is gone, and I'm no longer on your mind,

like festering old wounds, memories cannot be forgotten.

Sometimes our memories may even keep us awake.

.

I know. Your heart I also understand.

Much you wavered between love and dreams.

Love to you, too, is more than simple passion,

A memory not forgotten, even after death.

.

I understand, I will understand. Now, I will understand you.

Many dreams likely caused you to agonize.

I understand, I will understand. Now, I will understand you

The many dreams that caused you to leave me.

Why do Koreans say 모르겠습니다?

When Koreans do not know the answer to a question, they often reply with 모르겠습니다, but why do they say 모르겠습니다 instead of 모릅니다?

Besides being used to refer to the future, -겠 can also be used to guess at something or to speculate. When the subject of a sentence is first person (I), the reply 모르겠습니다 (I guess I don't know) does not make sense because there is no reason to guess about your own lack of knowledge. You either know it or not, so instead of 모르겠습니다, it would be more logical to say 모릅니다 (I don't know) when referring to your own lack of knowledge.

However, you can speculate on someone else's lack of knowledge, so you could use 모르겠습니다 when the subject of a sentence is a third person. Consider the following dialog:

A: 그 사람 6시에 시작하는 걸 알아?
B: 그 사람은 (아마) 모르겠습니다. (그 사람은 모를 겁니다.)

A: Does he know it starts at 6?
B: He probably doesn't know.

In the above conversation, Koreans would normally say 모를 겁니다 when the subject is a third person, but 모르겠습니다 means the same thing and, therefore, should be able to substitute.

I think what has happened is that Koreans used to use 모르겠습니다 only with a third-person subject, but, over time, they started misusing it with the first person (나) until it has now become pretty much standard. However, I would still recommend using 모릅니다 instead of 모르겠습니다 when the subject is first person (I) since 모릅니다 is more logical and works just fine. In other words, when someone asks you a question to which you do not know the answer, it would be better if you said 모릅니다 instead of 모르겠습니다.

How fast do Korean telecasters speak?

According to THIS DOCUMENT, Korean telecasters speak between 330 and 350 syllables per minute (SPM) when reading the news, while THIS PDF DOCUMENT timed six American newscasters speaking at an average rate of 300 SPM. It also said that the normal rate of English speech was 265 SPM.

Also, according to THIS PDF DOCUMENT, people tend to speak faster the more informal the conversation, which might explain why Koreans seem to speak faster when talking with their friends.

Have you heard these homework excuses before?

These videos are fairly entertaining, especially the first one, but there are parts I do not understand. Maybe they are using some expressions I do not recognize, or maybe it is because they are speaking so fast, especially the guy who is dressed up like Superman. I wonder where Koreans rank on the international scale for fast talkers?

What is a problem with many people these days?

모르면서 아는 체하거나 알면서 모르는 체한다.
They pretend to know when they do not, or NOT to know when they do.

I think the above expression describes the source of many of the problems in societies today. I also think the Korean sounds better than the English.

Are Japanese interested in learning Korean?

I found the following video on Matt's blog, Occidentalism. It appears to be a comedy skit of a Japanese man learning Korean. I could get some of the jokes by just listening to the Korean, such as, 코를 성형해주세요 (Please do plastic surgery on my nose), but most I could not understand. I wish I knew Japanese.

Is "너무 출출해서 밥을 먹는다" correct?

출출하다 means "to feel 'somewhat' hungry" (but not really hungry), so it would not make sense to use with it the adverb 너무, which means "excessively." If you want to use an adverb with 출출하다, you should use 좀 or 조금, which mean "a little." Therefore, you could say the following sentence:

좀 출출해서 밥을 먹는다.
I am eating because I was feeling a little hungry.

If you do a Google search on "너무 출출해서," you will get an idea of how common the mistake is.

Why do Koreans say 알겠습니다?

After being admonished by a parent, teacher, or boss, Koreans often respond to the admonishment by saying, 알겠습니다, which always seemed a little strange to me. Why would Koreans use the future tense (겠) with 알다 (to know)?

Well, today I looked up 알다 and found that it has many meanings, including the meaning of "to remember." Therefore, I am guessing that 알겠습니다 means, "I will remember" (what you said). Instead of 알겠습니다, you can also say, "명심하겠습니다," which means, "I will take (your words) to heart."

Mr. Lee Su-yeol (이수열) does not like 알겠습니다, but I do not see any problem with it, at least, not after learning that 알다 can mean "to remember."

Mind if I get off topic?

I have just looked at a Web site entitled "Smartest Detective in the Room," which belongs to one of our commenters, Lance Sleuthe, and was quite impressed. The only problem is that he does not seem to write very often.

Lance,

If you wrote the stuff on your blog, I think you should be writing much more of it because that is good stuff. Are you writing a book or have you already written one? If not, you should consider it. I am not literary, but it seems more than good enough to publish.

By the way, have you tried writing anything in Korean?

Who created "hangeul" (한글)?

In his book, Lee Su-yeol (이수열) wrote that the following sentence was incorrect:

한글을 창제하신 분은 세종대왕이시었습니다.
King Sejong was the person who created hangeul.

Mr. Lee said the sentence was incorrect because the portion I have shown in red should be changed to "이십니다." In other words, he was saying that the ~이었습니다 pattern should not be used in such situations. He explained that since the person who created hangeul could not have changed over time, the 었 in 이었습니다 should be dropped.

To give you an idea of what Mr. Lee was trying to say consider the following English sentences.

1. Thomas Edison is the man who invented the light bulb.
2. Thomas Edison was the man who invented the light bulb.
3. Bill is the man who passed out at the party.
4. Bill was the man who passed out at the party.

Mr. Lee was essentially saying that among examples 1 and 2, example 1 would be the more correct choice since the act of inventing the light bulb could only be applied to Thomas Edison. However, among examples 3 and 4, example 4 would be the correct choice since Bill would not be the only person capable of passing out at a party.

Does Korean need ~고 있다 and ~어 있다?

Korean verbs inherently have a continuous aspect about them, so the ~고 있다 and ~어 있다 patterns do not seem to be needed. Consider the following examples:

• 아이가 울고 있다 = 아이가 운다
  The baby is crying.
• 학생들이 공부하고 있다 = 학생들이 공부한다
  The students are studying.
• 비가 오고 있다 = 비가 온다
  It is raining.
• 내 아들은 학교에 가있다 = 내 아들은 학교에 갔다.
  My son is at school.
• 교실에 난로를 설치해 있다 = 교실에 난로을 설치했다.
  A heater is installed in the classroom.

As you can see from the above examples, the ~고 있다 and ~어 있다 patterns seem to be unnecessary.

Another interesting thing about the Korean language is that adverbs play an important role. For example, a simple adverb can change a sentence from present continuous to simple present tense. Consider the following examples:

• 아이가 운다.......................The baby is crying.
  아이가 자주 운다................The baby frequently cries.
• 학생들이 공부한다..............The students are studying.
  학생들이 매일 공부한다.......The students study daily.
• 비가 온다...........................It is raining.
  비가 자주 온다....................It frequently rains.

Can anyone think of a situation where ~고 있다 or ~어 있다 is necessary? Couldn't 산다 even replace a phrase like 살아 있다 (to be alive)?

Which is correct: 결혼식 때 입던 옷 or 결혼식 때 입은 옷?

I think one could say either 결혼식 때 입던 옷 or 결혼식 때 입은 옷, depending on the circumstances.

In regard to clothes, we wear them, take them off, and then wear them again later, so 어제 입던 옷 (the clothes I wore yesterday) seems more appropriate than 어제 입은 옷 since 입던 would imply a interruption in wearing the clothes, in other words, a change of clothes. Then, what would 어제 입은 옷 imply? It might imply one wore the clothes yesterday, but no longer has the clothes to wear again today.

In regard to a wedding gown, many women in the West wear them just once, but still keep them for sentimental reasons, and some mothers may even allow their daughters to wear their old wedding gowns when they get married, so, in the West, I think a wedding gown could be treated like any other piece of clothing by saying 결혼식 때 입던 옷.

In Korea, however, Koreans normally do not buy their wedding gowns, but rent them, so in Korea, it might be more appropriate to say 결혼식 때 입은 옷 since Koreans would no longer have the wedding gowns to wear again.

Koreans also seem to use 입던 옷 to refer to clothes they no longer wear because they are either out of style or because they no longer fit. Therefore, 입던 옷 seems to refer not only to clothes that we wear on a regular basis, but also to clothes we no longer wear but still have. The common denominator seems to be that one still has the clothes, whether they are worn or not.

The above is just a theory. I do not know for sure if 입은 옷 really implies one no longer has the clothes.

Any opinions?

What looks like a dog house and is called 방활사?

UPDATE:

.

The explanation I had given below for 방활사 was completely wrong. The same reader who first asked me about the word has sent me another email saying that he found that the Chinese characters for 방활사 were 防滑沙, which literally mean "Prevent (防) Slipperiness (滑) Sand (沙)." In other words, it is sand that is spread on slippery roads in the winter to give vehicles traction.

.

However, the word 방활사 (防滑沙) is a non-standard word and does not appear in any dictionary that I have. The word has confused not only me, but others, as well. In a Korean article HERE, the word was used as an example of how Korean government officials and others are creating new words from Chinese characters that that few can figure out without also seeing the Chinese characters. The article asks what good are government information and warning signs when people cannot understand what they mean.

.

By the way, Korean government officials are not the only ones who invent language. When I was in the US navy, I was exposed to a bewildering set of acronyms and initialisms that seemed to grow day by day. The US navy loved acronyms, but I hated them and finally gave up trying to learn them all. However, many of my fellow sailors loved using them because, I suspect, it showed that they had special knowledge that many others did not have. Maybe that is why Korean officials also like using them.

.

I agree with the Korean article I linked to above: What good is a public sign if the general public cannot understand what it says?

.

Below is my original post.

-----------------------------

A reader sent me the following photos of what looks like a dog house and asked me what they were. He said he saw them spaced at different intervals along a road in Gangwon Province.



The sign on the second photo reads 방활사, which is meant to mean "sand for preventing fires," so the structures are for storing sand to be used for smothering fires that may occur along the highway. The ㄹ at the end of 화 is a future tense marker that can be translated here as "for."
,
"Fire prevention sand" is written as 방화사, so 방활사 is a misspelling. If they had intended it to be read as the phrase, "Sand for Preventing Fires," then they should have written it as "방화할 사" or "방화할 모래." It looks like Inje County (인제군) officials need to not only work on their spelling, but also need to refill their sandboxes.

By the way, that is a pretty nice road.

Is 서로가 서로를 좋아했다 a good sentence?

My English-Korean dictionary defines 서로 as "mutually," "reciprocally," "with each other," and "with one another," which implies that it considers 서로 to be an adverb. However, my Korean-Korean dictionary describes 서로 as being both a noun and an adverb and gives the following sentence as an example of it being used as a noun.

서로가 서로를 좋아했다
They (each other) liked each other.

Notice that the Korean literally says "Each other liked each other," which reads and sounds pretty silly and suggests that 서로 was probably not meant to be used as a noun. A better sentence would be the following:

그들이 서로 좋아했다.
They liked each other.

In the above Korean sentence, 서로 is being used as an adverb and sounds more natural than when it was used as a noun, but the English translation of the sentence confuses things because "each other" is considered a pronoun in English, which is probably why some Koreans feel inclined to write 서로 as 서로를.

In his book "우리가 정말 알아야 할 우리말 바로 쓰기," the author 이수열 argues that 서로 was only meant to be used as an adverb and says that using it as a noun or pronoun is a distortion of Korean grammar. He makes a good argument and gives several real-world examples of how sentences using 서로 as a noun can be corrected by simply using it as an adverb. Here are some of the examples.

1. 한, 일 요트 경기를 벌여 서로 상호간의 친선을 과시했습니다.
   * Replace the phrase in red with just 서로 or 상호.
2. 우리는 서로가 서로를 위하고 도와야 한다.
   * Replace the phrase in red with just 서로.
3. 친구와 가족은 이미 상대자를 잘 알고 있으므로, 서로의 관계가 우호적일 뿐 아니라.
   * Replace the phrase in red with 관계가 서로.
4. 학습 활동을 중심으로 서로의 의견을 주고 받는 것이 좋은 방법이다.
   * Replace the phrase in red with 의견을 서로.

Notice that the Korean in Examples 1 and 2 was made more complicated than it needed to be, and that in Examples 3 and 4, the nouns were placed after 서로 instead of before it.

In Korean, there is no need to use 서로 as a noun or pronoun, so why do some Koreans use it as a noun? I think it is because they have been influenced by the English translation "each other," which is a pronoun.

In Korean, the meaning of "each other" is achieved by using the adverb 서로 in combination with a noun that precedes it. Even the English pronoun "each other" is not a normal pronoun because it is dependent on a noun being in the same sentence. For example, you cannot say, "Each other liked." Therefore, I think using 서로 as a noun is unnecessary and is just another example of Korean being polluted by the English language.

By the way, I have written about 서로 before: "How should we use 서로?"

Does 빈정거리다 confuse you, too?

빈정거리다 is one of those words that I have looked up a hundred times, yet still have trouble remembering. So, I have decided to write something about it with the hope that it may help me remember the word in the future.

빈정거리다 can mean "to poke fun at," "to ridicule," or "to make sarcastic remarks." I think one reason I always forget the meaning is that 빈정 and 거리다 do not seem a good match for each other. If the word were just 빈정하다, then maybe I could remember it, but the 거리다 suffix confuses me.

The "-거리다" suffix is added to words to give them a sense of repetitiveness. For example, 중얼거리다 means "to murmur," which is "to make a low, continuous, indistinct sound." 두근거리다 means "to pulsate," which is "to expand and contract rhythmically." 비틀거리다 means "to stagger," which is "to move or stand unsteadily." There is repeated sound or movement clearly inherent in the meanings of such words, which makes them good "-거리다" words. However, the repetitiveness in the meaning of 빈정거리다 is not as clear to me.

You can "ridicule" someone repeatedly, or you can do it just one time. You can make two "sacastic remarks," or you can make just one. 비꼬다 is a synonym for 빈정거리다, yet it does not have any 거리다 attached to it. Why? Even if the word "ridicule" has some kind of implied repetitiveness in it, it is not as clear "to me" as it is in many other 거리다 verbs, which may be why it is harder for me to accept and remember it.

Another reason I may be having trouble with 빈정거리다 is that it can be used as both a transitive and an intransitive verb. See the following examples:

• 그 남자가 나를 빈정거렸다. (transitive)
  He ridiculed me.
• 그 남자가 빈정거렸다.
  He made sarcastic remarks.

According to the definition, the two sentences above should be correct, but they still seem strange to me, and I think it is because of the 거리다 ending.

Also, it seems like 빈정하다 should be an adjective, but there is no such word. However, there is a 빈정빈정하다, which is a verb that means the same thing as 빈정거리다.

Which is correct: "값이 내린다" or "값을 내린다"?

Both 값이 내린다 and 값을 내린다 are correct because 내리다 can function as both an intransitive and a transitive verb.

• 값이 내린다 (intransitive)
  Prices are falling.
• 그 가게에서 값을 내린다. (transitive)
  That store is lowering prices.

Notice that the intransitive 내리다 can be translated as "to fall," and the transitive 내리다 can be translated as "to lower." Since 내리다 can function as both an intransitive and a transitive verb, there is no real need for a passive form. For example, there is no need to say 값이 내려진다 (Prices are being lowered) since 값이 내린다 (Prices are falling) essentially conveys the same meaning. Besides, 값이 내린다 is more Koreanese.

Do we really need to use 했던?

My grammar book (외국인을 위한 한국어 문법2) defines 던 and 했던 the same way:

명사를 수식하게 하고 과거 상황을 회상하거나 그 상황이 완료되지 않고 중단되었음을 나타내는 표현.

It modifies nouns and is used in expressions to show reflection on the past or to show a situation that was uncompleted or discontinued in the past.

Since 던 and 했던 mean the same thing, there is no reason to use 했던. All the example sentences using 했던 in my grammar book can be written with 던. (The English is my translation.)

1. 어릴 때 한 동네에서 살았던 민수를 어제 만났다.
   어릴 때 한 동네에서 살던 민수를 어제 만났다.
   Yesterday, I met Min-su, who had lived in the same village as me when we were children.
   .
2. 작년에 읽었던 책은 어제 다시 읽었는데 여전히 재미있더라.
   작년에 읽던 책은 어제 다시 읽었는데 여전히 재미있더라.
   Yesterday, I read a book I had started reading last year and found it still interesting.
   .
3. 내가 전에 근무했던 회사가 아주 많이 발전했더라.
   내가 전에 근무하던 회사가 아주 많이 발전했더라.
   The company I used to work at has grown a great deal.
   .
4. 고등하교 때는 키가 작었던 영수가 지금은 몰라 볼 정도로 키가 컸더라.
   고등하교 때는 키가 작던 영수가 지금은 몰라 볼 정도로 키가 컸더라.
   Yeong-su was short in high school, but he has now grown so much that I didn't recognize him.
   .
5. 어렸을 때 예뻤던 순이가 지금은 아줌마가 다 되었다.
   어렸을 때 예쁘던 순이가 지금은 아줌마가 다 되었다.
   Sun-i, who was pretty when she was young, has now become an average-looking housewife.
   .
6. 10년 전 초등학생이었던 순이가 벌써 결혼을 한대.
   10년 전 초등학생이던 순이가 벌써 결혼을 한대.
   Sun-i, who was an elementary school student ten years ago, says she is already getting married.

Notice that 던 replaced 었던 in the above sentences without any change in meaning; therefore, why bother learning the 었/았/였던 pattern?

As mentioned above, 던 can be used to show not only reflection on the past, but also to show that an action was uncompleted or interrupted in the past. In Example 2, 읽던 책 means the person started reading the book in the past, but did not finish it. It would be translated as "a book I had started reading (last year)." If he had wanted to say he had already completed reading the book (last year), he would have said 읽은 책, which translates as "a book I had read (last year)."

See the following examples:

1. 어제 마시던 우유가 어디에 갔지?
   Where is the milk I was drinking yesterday?
2. 어제 마신 우유가 무엇이었지?
   What was the milk I drank yesterday?

In Example 1, the person did not finish drinking all the milk yesterday and wanted to drink some more today. In Example 2, the person had drank all the milk yesterday and is curious what brand it was.

Another Reference: "Is 던 better than 한?"

What are the ten usages of 에게 (한테)?

My grammar book lists ten different usages of 에게, which is a grammar marker that acts like a preposition and attaches to the ends of nouns that indicate people and animals. It is most commonly translated as "to" and "by." In most cases, 한테 can substitute for 에게.

The reason that 에게 has so many different usages is that its function and meaning change with different kinds of verbs, which is why foreign learners of Korean are often confused by some of its usages. In fact, even some Koreans are confused.

Here are the ten usages that my grammar book ("외국인을 위한 한국어 문법2") lists for 에게. I have translated the explanations and the example sentences from the book into English.

1. 에게 is used to indication the person or animal that will be influenced by the action.
   .
   * 제가 친구에게 책을 주었어요.
   ...I gave a book to my friend.
   * 선생님은 학생들에게 노래와 춤을 가르쳤다.
   ...The teacher taught song and dance to the students.
   * 어른에게는 존댓말을 써야 합니다.
   ...You should use polite speech with adults.
   * 그 남자는 나에게 취미가 뭐냐고 물었어요.
   ...That man asked [to] me what my hobbies were.
   * 동생이 친구에게 전화를 겁니다.
   ...My younger sister is calling [to] her friend.
   * 닭에게 모이를 주었나?
   ...Have you given feed to the chickens?
   .
2. When used with such verbs as 가다, 오다, or their derivatives, 에게 indicates the direction or destination of the subject.
   .
   * 미영 씨는 왜 재훈 씨에게 왔습니까?
   ...Why did Mi-yeong come to see Jae-hun?
   * 나는 머뭇머뭇 그에게 다가갔다.
   ...I approached [to] him hesitantly.
   .
3. When used with such verbs or adjectives as 있다, 없다, 남다, 많다, 적다, and 생기다, the marker 에게 indicates who is in possession of something that could be material or immaterial.
   .
   * 동생에게 급한 일이 생긴 것 같아요.
   ...It seems my sister is faced with an urgent matter.
   * 여전히 저에게는 큰 문제가 남아 있습니다.
   ...I still have a difficult problem.
   * 김 선생에게 그만한 돈이 있을까?
   ...Do you think Mr. Kim has that much money?
   .
4. When used with such verbs and adjectives as 맞다, 알맞다, 어울리다, 비하다, and 뒤지다, the marker 에게 is used to indicate the object to which something is being compared or measured.
   .
   * 그 옷은 저에게 너무 큽니다.
   ...Those clothes are to big for me.
   *이 옷이 학생에게 어울린다고 생각하니?
   ...Do you think these clothes are suitable for a student?
   * 이 사전이 학생들에게 알맞을 거예요.
   ...This dictionary is suitable for a student
   * 동생은 키는 작지만 공부는 친구에게 뒤지지 않았지요.
   ...My younger sister is short, but in her studies, she keeps up with her friends.
   .
5. When used with such verbs as 잡히다, 빼앗기다, and 발견되다, the marker 에게 indicates who performs the action. (Notice that the verbs are passive verbs, so 에게 would normally be translated as "by.")
   .
   * 숨어 있던 도둑이 경찰에게 잡혔다.
   ...The thief that was in hiding has been caught by the police.
   * 땅 속의 보물이 100년 만에 집주인에게 발견되었다.
   ...After being buried for 100 years, the teasure was discovered by the house owner.
   * 친구에게 깜빡 속아서 일요일에 학교에 갔다.
   ...I was completely fooled by my friend and went to school on Sunday.
   * 호랑이에게 물려 가도 정신만 차리면 살 수 있어.
   ...Even if you are being carried off by a tiger, you can survive if you keep your wits about you.
   .
6. When used with such verbs as 받다, 당하다, 얻다, and 배우다, the marker 에게 indicates the person who causes the action. 에게서 can also be used with these kinds of verbs. (I think 듣다 can also be included among these verbs.)
   .
   *아직 부모님에게 용돈을 받아요.
   ...I still get pocket money from my parents.
   * 이 선생에게 한국말을 배웠지요.
   Yes, I learned Korean from instructor Lee.
   * 이 책을 친구에게 얻었다.
   ...I got this book from a friend.
   * 저는 동료들에게 놀림을 받고 많이 울었어요.
   ...I cried a lot after being teased by my colleagues.
   .
7. 에게 is used to indicate the person who is instructed or made to do something.
   .
   * 엄마가 아이에게 제시간에 숙제를 마치게 했어.
   ...The mom made the child finish his homework on time.
   * 여자는 누워 있는 남자에게 시원한 물을 마시게 했다.
   ...The woman had the reclining man drink some cool water.
   * 선생님께서 내 짝에게 책을 읽히셨어요.
   The teacher had my partner read the book.
   .
8. When used with verbs and adjectives that express feelings and evaluations, 에게 is used to indicate the person who is the subject of that feeling or is in the situation.
   .
   * 지금 딸에게 필요한 것은 아버지의 사랑입니다.
   ...What the daughter needs now is her father's love.
   * 우리에게 참으로 귀한 것은 무엇일까?
   ...What is really precious to us?
   *그 일이 너에게는 쉬울지 모르지만 그 아이에게는 매우 어렵다.
   ...It may be easy for you, but it is very difficult for that child.
   .
9. When used with verbs and adjectives that show emotion, 에게 is used to indicate the person who causes the emotion.
   .
   * 아주, 이제는 나 자신에게 실망했다.
   ...Damn it! Now I have disappointed myself.
   * 여자는 상대방에게 호감을 느낀 듯했다.
   ...The woman seemed to show interest in the other person.
   * 그에게 느끼는 감정이 사랑이야.
   ...The feeling I have for him is love.
   .
10. In the salutation of a letter, 에게 is used to indicate the receiver of the letter. (한테 is not used because 한테 is usually used in spoken Korean, not written Korean.)
    .
    * 사랑하는 벗에게
    ...To my loving friend
    * 보고 싶은 동생에게
    ...To the younger brother I miss
    * 친구에게
    ...To my friend

Among the ten usages, using 에게 with the Number 6 usage seems the most strange to me, but since it says that 에게서 can also be used, I can learn to live with it. Also, I have not been using 에게 in the way shown in the Number 7 usage, but I will try to remember to do so in the future. As for the other usages, I do not seem to have much of a problem with them.

My grammar book says that 한테 can replace 에게 in all the different usages, except for Number 10. 한테 is usually used with spoken Korean, not written, so it would not normally be used in a letter. It also says that 에게 can be used with both spoken and written Korean.

My book also says that 더러 and 보고 can replace 에게 in usages Number 1 and Number 7. It also says that 에게로 can also be used with the Number 2 usage, but I do not like 에게로, for some reason, so will probably just be using 에게 in the case of usage Number 2.

Also, 나에게, 저에게, and 너에게 can be abbreviated to 내게, 제게, and 네게, respectively.