What's the difference between 밥맛이 없다 and 밥맛없다?

ANSWER: One means you are not hungry; the other means you can't stand someone.

밥 means "boiled rice" or "food," and 맛 means "taste," so 밥맛 literally means "food taste." That means 밥맛이 있다 literally means "The food tastes good," and 밥맛이 없다 literally means "The food tastes bad," which usually translates as "I'm not hungry," or "I have no appetite."

Even though the subject marker (이 or 가) is often dropped in spoken Korean, you should keep the 이 and say "밥맛이 없다" when you want to say, "I'm not hungry," because 밥맛없다, without the 이, means you do not like someone and do not want to associate with him or her. For example, if a girlfriend is trying to set you up with a guy you do not like, you could say, "그 남자가 밥맛없다," which can translate as "I can't stand that guy." However, if you were to say, "그 남자가 밥맛이 없대," then you would be saying, "He said he is not hungry."

In the United States, when we are eating and then see something so disgusting that it causes us not to want to eat anymore, we sometimes say, "I just lost my appetite." Also, if we are eating and someone at the dinner table does or says something we do not like, we sometimes show our displeasure by saying, "I've just lost my appetite," and then get up and leave the table. The Korean expression 밥맛없다 is also used to express one's displeasure.

What's the difference between 매우 어렵게 and 어렵사리?

ANSWER: There is no difference in meaning, but one seems easier to say.

My dictionary says that 어렵사리 means "매우 어렵게," which means that it is an adverb that translates as "very difficultly" or "very strenuously," but it does not tell me what "사리" means. I can, of course, guess that 사리 means "very" (매우), but why isn't that definition in my dictionary?

My dictionary also says that the word 쉽사리 means "아주 쉽게," which means that it is an adverb that means "very easily" or "quite easily." So, the 사리 in both 쉽사리 and 어렵사리 seems to mean either 매우 or 아주, both of which can translate as "very."

Anyway, why isn't there a definition for -사리 in my dictionary? I suspect it is because scholars are still unsure of the origin of -사리 and are, therefore, not confident enough to list it as a suffix meaning "very," especially since it seems to only be used to make adverbs out of 어렵다 and 쉽다.

So, why do some Koreans prefer to say 어렵사리 and 쉽사리 instead of 매우 어렵게 and 아주 쉽게? I am not sure, but 어렵사리 and 쉽사리 do seem to roll off the tongue much easier than 매우 어렵게 and 아주 쉽게.

By the way, I found it interesting that my dictionary used 매우 with 어렵게 and 아주 with 쉽게 to define 어렵사리 and 쉽사리. I am not sure of the difference between 매우 and 아주, but, for some reason, 아주 쉽게 sounds more natural than 매우 쉽게." I am not sure if 매우 어렵게 sounds more natural than 아주 어렵게, or if there is a difference in meaning, but it makes me wonder what slight difference there might be between 매우 and 아주, something I might write about later.

Is the Chinese character 的 (적) destroying the Korean language?

ANSWER: Maybe not, but Koreans do seem to use it too much.

In his book “우리글 바로쓰기,” the late writer and author Lee O-deok (이오덕) mentioned six Chinese characters that he believed were destroying the Korean language: 的(적), 化(화), 下(하), 再(재), 諸(제), and 對(대).

I disagree with some of what Mr. Lee wrote about the six Chinese characters, but I do think Koreans use 적 (的) way too much. The following is an example from Mr. Lee’s book in which 적 was used five times in just one short sentence in a 1989 Hankyoreh (한겨래) newspaper article talking about a painting:

이 대작은 ‘형식적으로는 추상적이나 내용적으로는 표현주의적’인 추상표현주의 화가의 작품 세계를 단적으로 보여 준다.

Here is Mr. Lee’s rewrite of the sentence:

이 큰 작품은 ‘형식으로는 추상(화)이나 내용으로는 표현주의’인 추상표현주의 화가의 작품 세계를 바로 보여 준다.

Notice that 적 does not appear even once in Mr. Lee’s rewrite of the sentence. Why? Because it is unnecessary. Even 단적(端的)으로 was reduced from a 4-syllable phrase to a 2-syllable one by using the pure Korean word 바로 instead.

However, notice that Mr. Lee also changed “이 대작은” to “이 큰 작품은.” This is one of the times where I disagree with Mr. Lee because 대작 (大作) translates as “a great work” or “masterpiece,” but 큰 작품 could also refer to the physical size of the work, making its meaning less clear.

Anyway, there is a movement in Korea to try to eliminate Chinese characters, or at least as many as possible, from the Korean language, similar to what was done in North Korea, but Mr. Lee did not seem to be that extreme. Here seemed to want to get rid of only the Chinese characters that were unnecessary or that were making it harder for Koreans to understand their own language. For example, he wondered why some Koreans would choose to use the difficult to pronounce and understand 의의(意義) instead of the simpler pure Korean word 뜻. He suggested that some Koreans use difficult words just to show off instead of speaking and writing in the clearest way possible.

Mr. Lee essentially believed that Koreans should write the way they speak, and speak the way they live.

You can click on the 미리보기 (Preview) button on the linked page HERE to get an idea of what Mr. Lee wrote about in his Korean book.

Which is bigger, a 갈치 or a 풀치?

ANSWER: A 갈치 is bigger because a 풀치 is just a baby 갈치, and a 갈치 is long thin fish known in English as a “hairtail” or “cutlass fish.” LINK

So, I have a question. If Koreans have a specific name for a baby cutlass fish, why don’t they have a specific name for a baby cat (kitten) besides 새끼 고양이? And what are the Korean names for a baby sheep and a baby goat besides 새끼 양 and 새끼 염소?

My English-Korean dictionary defines 새끼 as follows:

새끼 1) [새의] a chicken; a chick; a young bird; a brood (한배의); [동물의] the young (총칭); a cub; [말의] a foal; a colt; [개의] a pup; a puppy; [괭이의] a kitten, a kitty; [양의] a lamb; [염소의] a kid; [물고기의] a fry

So, 새끼 is just a general term (총칭) for the “young” of animals. But Koreans also have specific words to refer to the young of many of the animals mentioned in the definition above. So why aren't there specific Korean words for "kitten," "lamb," and "kid" besides those that use 새끼?

Korean words for specific baby animals:

• Bear: 능소니 (a cub)
• Chicken: 병아리 (a chick)
• Cow: 송아지 (a calf)
• Dog: 강아지 (a puppy)
• Dolphin: 가사리 (a calf)
• Fish: 모이 (a fry)
• Frog: 올챙이 (a tadpole)
• Horse: 망아지 (a foal)
• Pheasant: 꺼병이 (a chick)
• Tiger: 개호주 (a cub)

 For some reason, Koreans have specific names for the babies of certain fish. Some are listed HERE.

What's the difference between 대접 (待接) and 접대 (接待)?

ANSWER: They are the same in one respect and different in another.

The problem with 대접 (待接) and 접대 (接待) is that they each have two definitions, and one of the definitions is the same for both. Here is how my Korean-Korean dictionary defines them:

대접: 1) 손님을 맞아 음식을 차려 올려 먹게 함. 접대. – the act of receiving guests and preparing food for them to eat. [Also,] 접대.

접대: 1) [Also,] 대접

So, the first definition for both 대접 and 접대 is “the act of receiving guests and preparing food for them to eat.” That means the two words are synonyms in this regard and can be used interchangeably. This meaning could be translated as "to entertain guests with food." It is their second definitions where the words differ:

대접: 2) 어떤 인격적 수준으로 사람을 대우하거나 대함. – treating or dealing with people using some characteristic standard.

접대: 2) 손님을 맞이하여 시중을 듦. – receiving guests and waiting on them.

So, the second definition for 대접 seems to be just the general meaning of the word “to treat.” In other words, one could treat someone well, badly, politely, impolitely, or even like a dog.

The second definition of 접대 could be translated as “to greet and wait on guests,” including guests at a restaurant or bar. In fact, the Korean word 접대부 can be translated as “hostess” and refers to a woman who greets people at a restaurant or bar.

So, if one is entertaining at one's home, 대접 seems to imply that the host or hostess supplies the food and lets the guests help themselves, while 접대 seems to imply that the host or hostess not only supplies the food but is also running around waiting on the guests, such as at a big party.

What does the 푸 in 푸대접 mean?

ANSWER: I'm not sure, but I have a theory. 

But first, I have a few questions about the Korean language: 

1. What is the difference between 대접(待接) and 접대(接待), besides just the switching of the Chinese characters? My dictionary says that both 대접하다 and 접대하다 can be translated as “to treat” or “to entertain,” so when do Koreans use one and not the other?
2. The Chinese character 不 (부) means “not,” so if 대접 (待接) means “hospitality,” then 부대접 should mean “inhospitality,” but Koreans do not say 부대접; instead they say 푸대접. Why? Does 푸 mean “not”?
3. If Koreans can use 푸대접 to mean “cold or unkind treatment” or “inhospitality,” why can’t they also say 푸접대?
4. The Korean word 푸접없다 means “unfriendly or cold and distant treatment.” That implies there should be a 푸접있다 or at least a 푸접, and, indeed, there is such a word. 푸접 means “to treat someone in a warm and friendly way,” and that implies that the 푸 in 푸접 means “warm and friendly. So my final question is the following:
   
   Why does 푸대접 mean “cold, unfriendly treatment” instead of “warm and friendly treatment," considering that the 푸 seems to mean "warm and friendly"? Could 푸 come from 품, which means "to hug someone"?
   

I think 푸접 is just an abbreviated form of 푸대접 and that, somewhere along the way, Koreans got the word 푸대접, meaning "warm and friendly treatment," confused with 부(不)대접, meaning "inhospitality." Like Americans, Koreans sometimes confuse the sounds of 푸 and 부.

Moreover, I think 푸대접 was once 품대접, meaning "hospitality that begins or ends with hugs." After all, hugs are warm and friendly.

What does 모금 mean?

ANSWER: a sip, a gulp, or a draft

In my Chinese character dictionary, which lists over 8,000 characters, there is only one character pronounced "끽" (喫). That character can mean "to eat" or "to drink." So, cowards "eat fear" (끽겁 喫怯), parents with teenagers “eat suffering” (끽고 喫苦), the English “drink tea” (끽다 喫茶), smokers “eat smoke” (끽연 喫煙), we all “eat food” (끽반 喫飯), and some of us “eat and drink to the brim” (만끽 滿喫).

The reason I mention this is that I just read in a Korean book that when Deng Xiaoping (등소평 鄧小平) was asked his secret to longevity, he answered "喫煙" (끽연). I am not going to tell you the name of the book because no one really cares, right? I will just say that it is a good book.

Anyway, it makes me wonder why Koreans consider 모금 to be the standard spelling of the Korean word for "a sip," "a gulp," or "a draft." Since 먹다 is the pure Korean word for "to eat," it seems that 먹음 (or 머금) would be the more correct spelling. But Koreans consider 먹음 to be a dialectic form of the word, not the standard form.

By the way, the expression 끽다거 (喫茶去) literally means "drink (喫) tea (茶) and go (去)," which could be translated into Korean as either "차 한잔 마시고 가세요" or 차 한잔 드시고 가세요. 드십시오 is used as the polite form of 마시다 and comes from the verb 들다, which can mean either "to eat" or "to drink." Apparently, using 마시십시오 as the polite form of "to drink" is considered too awkward for many, probably because there are too many 시's in it. However, if you wanted to use the polite form of 마시다 to say "Breathe in the fresh air," you would say, "신선한 공기를 마시십시오," not "드십시오."

The following song is entitled "끽다거":

여보게 세상살이 다 밀어놓고
차나 한잔 드시게나
생이란 무생사는 원래가 허망한 것

맘자락 편히 내려놓고 만상을 들쳐보게나

여보게 세간살이 면이란 다 그런것
있으나 없으나 모두 버리고갈 유산인데
우에 그리 얽메이나
여보게 세상살이 다 밀어놓고
차나 한잔 드시게나