In a previous post
here, I talked about mistakes in one sentence of an
SBS broadcast. Now I want to talk about mistakes in the two sentences following that sentence.
Here is the problem paragraph from the SBS broadcast:
지난 12일부터 시작된 부산 APEC이 오늘(19일) 2차 정상회의를 마지막으로 대단원의 막을 내렸습니다. 오늘 정상회의에서는 무역자유화와 역내안전 확대를 주 내용으로 하는 부산 선언을 채택했습니다. 21개 나라 정상들은 이와는 별도로 도하 라운드의 성공적 타결의지를 담은 특별 성명도 채택했습니다.
Today (November 19), with the conclusion of the second round of summit talks, the final curtain came down on the Busan APEC meetings, which began on November 12. Today at the summit meetings, the Busan declaration was adopted, in which the main content is free trade and regional security. Aside from this, the 21 heads of state adapted a special statement that expressed their agreement on reaching a successful compromise at the Doha Round of talks.
I will not talk about the first sentence in the paragraph since I already talked about it
here, so I will only talk about the second and third sentences.
I see two problems with the second sentence. One is the phrase 주 내용으로
하는 부산 선언, which means "the Busan Declaration, in which the main content is...." Did SBS want to say 주 내용으로 하는 or 주 내용으로 한, which means "the main content was"? I think SBS wanted to say 주 내용으로 한 since the content was already included and adopted. 주 내용으로 하는 is possible, but it should be used to talk about future intentions. For example, it would be all right to say 주 내용으로 하는 부산 선언을 채택하
겠습니다, which would mean "a Busan Declaration, in which the main content would be ... will be adapted." In my example, the content has not been adopted, yet.
The second problem I have with the second sentence is the phrase 정상회의에서는 선언을 채택했습니다. The sentence does not say who adopted the declaration; it only says that it was adopted at the summit meeting. The "meeting" did not adopt it; the participants at the meeting adopted it, but the participants are not mentioned in the sentence. Therefore, I think the sentence should read 선언이 채택됐습니다, not 선언을 채택했습니다.
In the third sentence, the most obvious mistake is that the sentence has two topics: 정상들은 and 이와는. The markers 은/는 are topic makers, and there should be only one topic in a sentence. In the SBS sentence, I think the topic should be 이와는, so the sentence should be rewritten as "이와는 별도로 21개 나라 정상들이 ...."
The second mistake I see in the third sentence is 도하 라운드의 성공적 타결의지를 담은 특별 성명도, which simply cannot be translated as it is. What I think SBS wanted to say was "a special statement that expressed their agreement on reaching a successful compromise at the Doha Round of talks." If that is the case, then the sentence should be rewritten as follows:
이와는 별도로 21개 나라 정상들이 도하 라운의 성공적인 타결을 바라는 의지를 담은 특별 성명도 채택했습니다.
In conclusion, I would rewrite the complete paragraph as follows:
지난 12일에 시작된 부산 APEC 에서는 오늘(19일)에 제2차 정상회의가 끝난 것으로 대단원의 막이 내렸습니다. 오늘 정상회의에서는 무역자유화와 역내안전 확대를 주 내용으로 한 부산 선언이 채택됐습니다. 이와는 별도로 21개 나라 정상들이 도하 라운의 성공적인 타결을 바라는 의지를 담은 특별 성명도 채택했습니다.
Koreans often complain about a problem in their society known as 대강주의 태도, which is an attitude of just doing enough to get the job done. In the United States, we often accuse government employees of having such an attitude. In fact, an expression we have created to describe it is, "That's good enough for government work." In regard to their language, many Koreans seem to have the same attitude: "That's good enough for government work."
