When I first went to Korea in the late '1970s, I thought the Korean word for "pillow" was 벼개 since that was the way most of the Koreans I met at the time seemed to say it. There were some who said 베개, but I thought that was just a regional dialect. Well, I was wrong. Now I know that I got it backwards. 베개 is the correct pronunciation, and 벼개 is not even in my dictionary.
There are two 베다 entries in my Korean-English dictionary. One means "to cut" or "to chop," and the other means "to rest one's head on (a pillow)." The suffix -개 is attached to verb stems and can translate as "a tool," as in 지우개 (an eraser), 덮개 (a quilt), and 깔개 (a rug), so the word 베개 literally means "a head-resting tool," which can translate as "pillow."
I wonder why some Koreans started saying 벼개 for "pillow" instead of 베개. Maybe they were afraid that some people might think that 베개 means "a cutting tool" instead of "a pillow" since the 베다 that means "to cut" is used more often than the 베다 that means "to rest one's head on."
I also wonder why Koreans say 베개를 베다 instead of 머리를 베다. Is it because "head" is already implied in the verb "베다"? Or is it because some people might think 머리를 베다 means "to cut off a head" since that is what 목을 베다 means? Anyway, why say 베개를 베다 instead of 베개에 베다? Is it because the preposition "on" is also implied in the verb 베다?
So, it seems that the best translation for 베다 would be "to pillow" since 베개를 베다 could then translate as "to pillow a pillow."
So then, why does Article 14 of the Korean Constitution read, "모든 국민은 거주, 이전의 자유를 가진다" instead of "모든 국민에게 원하는 곳에서 살다가 이사할 자유가 있다"?
And why does Article 15 read, "모든 국민은 직업 선택의 자유를 가진다" instead of "모든 국민에게 직업을 선택할 자유가 있다"?
In other words, why does the Korean Constitution read, "Every Korean citizen (모든 국민은) . . . has the right to (자유를 가진다)" instead of, "It is the right of every Korean citizen to (모든 국민에게 . . . 자유가 있다"?
Maybe the person or people who wrote the Korean Constitution got advice from American English speakers since "to have the right to" seems like the way most Americans would say it. For example, American cops usually say, "You have the right to remain silent" instead of "It is your right to remain silent."
ANSWER: My dictionary says that 전말 means "particulars," "details," "a full account," "the course of events," or "the circumstances," and the following three example sentences are given with the definitions:
사고의 전말을 이야기하다. "Give a full account of the accident."
전말을 상세히 보고하다. "Report all the circumstances in detail."
사직하게 된 전말을 설명하다. "Explain the circumstances which led to one's resignation."
Today, I came across the word 전말 in the following sentence:
그가 입을 떼는 순간 사건의 전말이 드러나리라 기대하는 사람들이 많습니다.
There was no English translation to the above sentence, but Google translates it as follows:
"Many people expect that the whole story will be revealed the moment he opens his mouth."
So, Google translated the word 전말 as "the whole story," which is how I would have translated it because the first thing that popped into my head when I saw the word 전말 was the Chinese character 全 (전), which can mean "whole," "entire," or "complete," and the pure Korean word 말, which besides meaning "a talk," "language," or "speech," can also mean "a rumor," "a report," "news," or "an account." So, if you combined the Chinese character 全 (전) with the pure Korean word 말, it could translate as "the whole story."
However, when I looked up the word 전말 in my Korean-English dictionary, I found that the Chinese characters in 전말 are 顚 (전), which means "to fall down," and 末 (말), which means "end." So, according to my dictionary, the word 전말 literally means "the fall down end." Well, something about that smells fishy to me.
The Chinese characters that make up the word 전말 do not make sense to me, even after listening to the explanation in the video below. Instead of the word 顚末 (전말) for "the whole story," the Chinese use the word 始末 (시말), which literally means "from the beginning (始) to the end (末)." I like the Sino-Korean word 시말 (始末) better than the Sino-Korean word 전말 (顚末), but if 전말 were a combination of the Chinese character 全 (전), which again can mean "whole," and the pure-Korean word 말, which again can mean "story," then I would like it much better. I wonder if it is just a coincidence that the words 전말 (顚末) and 전말 (全말) could both translate as the same thing.
The Sino-Korean word for "anti-aircraft gun" is 고사포 (高射砲), which literally means "high (高) shooting (射) cannon (砲)." But "setting that aside," this morning, after I had looked up 고사포 in my Korean-English dictionary to confirm the Chinese characters used in it, I noticed the word 고사(姑捨)하고 and became curious about the Chinese characters used in the word.
The word 고사(姑捨)하고 means "setting aside," but the Chinese characters used for 고사 are the characters for "mother-in-law" (姑) and "to throw away" (捨). That didn't make sense to me. In other words, I couldn't understand how "throwing away one's mother-in-law" could mean "setting aside." So, I looked up the Chinese character for "mother-in-law" and noticed, for the first time, that it can also mean 잠시, which means "a short while" or "a little while."
So, the 고사 (姑捨) in 고사하고 does not literally mean "to throw away one's mother-in-law." It literally means "to throw away for a little while," which can translate as "to set aside for a little while."
ANSWER: Well, it is the first definition under 인 in my Korean dictionary and is defined as 늘 되풀이하여 배다시피 한 버릇, which can be translated as "a habit formed by almost constant repetition."
And listed with that definition is the idiom 인이 박이다, which is defined as 버릇이 되다시피 깊이 배거나 빠지거나 굳어지다. So, 인이 박이다 can be translated as "To become deeply ingrained or hardened to the point of becoming a habit."
Interestingly, the above 인 is the only pure-Korean 인 listed under "인" in my Korean dictionary, if you do not count the particle 인 or the 인 that refers to the English preposition "in." And the fact that it is the only pure-Korean 인 is probably why it was listed before all the Sino-Korean 인s.
So, basically 인 means "a habit formed by almost constant repetition," but, for some reason, that definition is not listed among the 인s in my Korean-English dictionary. Why?
ANSWER: Maybe because it is not used by itself and is only used in the idiom 인이 박이다, and if that is true, maybe it is not really a pure-Korean word. Maybe, it was originally the Sino-Korean 인 (印), which means "a seal" or "a stamp"?
Now, let's look at the 박이다 part of the idiom. My Korean-English dictionary lists the idiom 인이 박이다 under the second definition of the verb 박이다, which is defined as "to become a habit." But that seems a little odd since 인이 박이다 would then literally translate as "a habit becomes a habit." It makes me think that the only reason 박이다 is defined as "to become a habit" is because of the idiom 인이 박이다. Why not just use the third definition: "to be put into print"? Then, 인이 박이다 could be translated as "a habit becomes imprinted."
Finally, there is also the Korean verb 박히다, which can be defined as "be nailed," "be driven into," "be stuck in," and also "be printed." So, besides having similar pronunciations, 박이다 /바기다/ and 박히다 /바키다/ seem to have similar meanings, but 박히다 is a verb that is more commonly used in Korea than 박이다, which makes me wonder if 박이다 is just a misspelling of 박히다.
And, to add to the confusion, my "Korean Language Example Dictionary" (국어용례사전) shows that the idiom is NOT 인이 박이다 but 인이 박히다.
So, which spelling and pronunciation do Koreans use: 인이 박이다 or 인이 박히다? Well, it seems to depend on the Korean:
ANSWER: No, the 야 in 야하다 is the Chinese character 冶 (야), which besides meaning "to smelt" or "to cast," can also mean "to be seductive in appearance." I don't know why the definition in my Korean-English dictionary uses "gaudy" instead of "seductive."
And here is an example of 冶 (야) being used with the meaning "to smelt" or "to cast."
Finally, 冶容 (야용) can literally translate as either "a seductive (冶) face (容)" or "to cast (冶) a face (容)," which means to put on makeup to make one's face more seductive. Korean "kisaengs" (기생 妓生) apparently used to use makeup, and 황진이 was one of the most famous.
ANSWER: Both words have the syllables 나 and 다 in them.
My Korean-English dictionary lists about 20 different definitions for 나다, but the definition that seems to be missing is the one that can mean both 나가다 and 나오다, which means that 나다, by itself, can mean either "to go out" or "to come out." Luckily, however, my Dong-A New Korean dictionary (동아새국어사전) does list the 나다 with those meanings but claims that is it is an old (옛) usage of the word.
Since I do not like the example sentence in the above definition--because I am not sure what it means--here is the example sentence from my "Korean Language Example Dictionary (국어용례사전):
"길동이 부모를 이별하고 문을 나매 일신이 표박아여 정처없이 행아더니" (고전 - "홍길동 전")
"After parting with his parents, Kil-dong came out of the gate and wandered alone aimlessly," (Classical Literature: "The Tale of Hong Gil-dong")
NOTE: I hope I got that English translation right. The 매 after the 나 in the above example is a sentence connector, so I think 나매 is similar to saying "나와서."
Some may be wondering, "Why should I learn an old definition for 나다?" Because Koreans still seem to use some expressions that use that old definition.
In Korea, there is the idiom 의가 나다. The 의 in 의가 나다 is an abbreviation of 정의, but which 정의? Is it the one that means "righteousness" or "justice," the one that means "a definition," the one that means "friendship" or "friendly feelings," or the one that means "the exact meaning"?
ANSWER: It's the 정의 (情誼) that means "friendly feelings," which is not as popular as the 정의 that means "justice" or the 정의 that means "a definition." In fact, the 의 (誼) in 정의 (情誼) is not even among the 1800 Chinese characters that Korea used to teach in its middle schools and high schools. It would have been more of a college-level character.
The 誼 (의) in 정의 (情誼) means "right" (옳다), but it can also mean 정분 (情分) and 교분 (交分). 정분 means "a cordial friendship," "affection," or "intimacy," and 교분 (交分) means "friendship," "friendly relations," or "intimacy," so 誼 (의) is the 의 used in the idiom "의가 나다."
Now, what about the 나다 used in the idiom 의가 나다? Is it the 나다 that means 생기다 (to come out," "to grow," or "to spring up")? Or is it that old 나다 that means 나가다 ("to go out")? If it is the 나다 that means "생기다," then the idiom 의가 나다 could translate as "Friendly feelings grow," but if it is the old 나다, then 의가 나다 would translate as "Friendly feelings go out."
Well, as some may have already guessed, 의가 나다 literally means, "Friendly feelings go out," which could be translated as "a loss of intimacy" (친한 사이가 나빠지다) or "to have a falling out [with a friend or relative]." It is similar to saying 의(誼)가 상하다, which is used in the following sentence from my Korean-English dictionary:
"사소한 일로 그 친구들은 의가 상했다." "A small matter divided the friends." / "They fell out over some trifling matter."
Now, here is an example of the use of 의가 나다 from a book I have:
"형제가 돈 때문에 의가 나서 연락도 하지 않고 산다니 도대체 그게 말이 되는가?" "Does it make any sense that brothers would live without contacting each other because they had a falling out over money?"
Finally, what would Koreans do without the verb 나다?
