Anyway, the Korean explanation was as follows:
'동티'란 건드려서는 안 될 땅을 파거나 돌을 다치거나 나무를 베었을 때 지신이 성을 내어 받게 된다는 재앙을 가리키는 말이다.
The portion of the expression I have highlighted in red caught my eye because nothing was mentioned about what was received (받게 된다). For example, shouldn't it have been written as either "지신이 성을 내어 받게 된 재앙을" or "지신이 성을 내어 벌이 받게 된다는 재앙을"?
If you use 받게 된다, then there should be a full sentence in front of it, shouldn't there? However, since nothing was mentioned about what was received, it is an incomplete sentence, isn't it?
I assume that the writer wanted to say that a "disaster" (재앙) would "be received" (받게 된다는 재앙을), but is such a construction grammatically correct? It doesn't seem right to me, but both my dictionary and the book I am reading wrote it that way.
Jerry, it was the person who did the action of the first part
ReplyDelete'동티'란 건드려서는 안 될 땅을 파거나 돌을 다치거나 나무를 베었을 때
thank you for the explanation of 동티 I will try to remember that one.
actually, you are correct, on reading it a second time, it looks like it's just modifying 재앙 , but if your conclusion is correct (with which in this post I am agreeing with) I fail to see a problem with the post as this would be a relative clause modifying 재앙, for example, "the disaster which should be delivered" so in English as well the object (?? the person to whom the disaster should be delivered :) ) ... is not spoken, either.
ReplyDelete