≡ Menu

Did Roh give up the NLL, or didn’t he? And if he did, what does it mean?

This whole mess over the NLL is getting more interesting that I thought it would get.

The main opposition Democratic United Party (DUP) said they plan to take legal action against presidential security secretary Chun Yung-woo and an unspecified official responsible for record keeping at the country’s spy agency, for violating existing laws governing non-disclosure of highly classified files.
[...]
Chun said Thursday during a parliamentary audit session that he saw a transcript of the 2007 inter-Korean summit two years ago that is held by the National Intelligence Service (NIS), although he declined to elaborate on its contents.

The NIS has confirmed that it has a copy of the official summit transcripts.

The NIS director, for his part, doesn’t think the transcripts should be made public, and what’s more, there’s no “secret transcripts” of conversations between ex-president Roh Moo-hyun and Kim Jong-il.

The Hankyoreh thinks the NIS’s testimony should have brought the NLL issue to a conclusion. As Korea’s paper of progressive record sees it, Chung Moon-hun’s claim that the NIS and Unification Ministry possessed a secret transcript—given to them by the North Koreans!—in which Roh tells KJI that Seoul would no longer claim the NLL since it was simply a line drawn by the Americans to grab more territory was revealed to have been a lie, and it’s that lie that kicked off the Saenuri Party’s calls for a parliamentary investigation and even President Lee’s visit to Baengnyeong-do. Sure, since we can’t release the official summit transcript in the NIS’s possession, you can think maybe something’s in there, but the officials who accompanied Roh to Pyongyang all say he never gave up the NLL, so the Saenuri Party should just shut up and repent.

The Dong-A Ilbo, of course, begs to differ—they want to see what’s in the transcript. Harmonizing protecting secrets with the right to know and all that. The head of the National Assembly Intelligence Committee has asked the NIS to allow him to see the documents, which I’m guessing he can as secret documents can be viewed by anybody with clearance (which I would certainly hope he has). I confess, even if Chung Moon-hun was talking out his ass (and the Saenuri Party says he ain’t), the opposition’s, well, opposition to even reviewing the documents—and the Hankyoreh’s concern for state secrets—have got me quite curious. What’s in there they don’t want the Saenuri Party to see?

Something else has me curious. A couple of days ago, I read an interview in OhMyNews with Professor Moon Chung-in, who served in the Roh administration and is frequently cited in the Western press. He argued the NLL wasn’t a territorial line—either under Article 3 of the ROK Constitution (which claims the entirety of the Korean peninsula) or according to American CIA documents—and to claim it as a territorial line would violate Article 3 since this would in effect be recognizing North Korea as a sovereign state, and then the NLL would become a UN Law of the Sea issue. It’s an interesting interview—if you read Korean—and while he says he’s certain Roh didn’t tell KJI he’d give up the NLL, Moon does say that even if he had, it wouldn’t be a problem.

Moon is also on record—not by his own choosing—discussing the summit and the NLL in a 2007 US State Department cable leaked via Wikileaks:

(C) Moon said the NLL (Northern Limit Line) issue should not be considered a military or sovereignty issue since that would be an acknowledgement of perpetual division of the Peninsula. Instead, the NLL was simply a fisheries issue and, while complicated, could be solved by the two Fisheries Ministers so that both North and South Korean boats could fish in the West Sea. This issue was pressing, Moon said, since PRC fishing vessels were already encroaching in West Sea fishing grounds.

Anyway, it’s got me thinking Roh is recorded saying something about the NLL.

About the author: Just the administrator of this humble blog.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    Take a break for a couple of weeks, and the politics coverage of this blog goes to the toilet. This whole thing started on the false claim by the NFP that there existed some crazy secret transcript from North Korea. As it turns out, there was no such transcript. So why is this an issue again?

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    :rollseyes:

  • gbnhj

    I love how the transcript exists, despite the RMH administration’s attempt to hide it by destroying their copy (presumably at the same time they erased the hard drives at the Blue House upon their departure). I hope its contents are somehow finally revealed.

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    RMH’s body should be dug up and hanged.

  • R. Elgin

    Review my posts on the special presidential repository of hidden things Roh created:

    http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/10/07/roh-gate/

    There is a lot more that Roh hid away too and more to why he did a jumper off a cliff.

  • Hamilton

    #5 Yes, buckets and buckets of bribes, money, bling, and property he tried endlessly to blame on his family…My press Secretary, my wife, my brother, my children…oh yea I took some stuff but I dumped it into a rice field that no one can find and what the hey I deserve tribute. The investigators did not want to find anything but kept tripping over huge bags of money.

    Millions in cash, millions in property both foreign and domestic, millions in gifts and none of which he could explain beyond “someone else in my immediate family took it.”

    The spectacular double standard of TK and his ilk is that they will lay laurels on the grave of any “progressive” no matter how ineffective, corrupt or traitorous they were and yet deny any effectiveness of any past conservative or their children and ignore ANY good they accomplished and seize upon any rumor no matter how speculative.

    NMH was scum. He paid a Kings ransom to meet a brutal dictator and sell out his country. His entire family took massive bribes, he deleted terabytes of official records, suppressed free speach and personally took gifts in the sum or 10′s of 1000s of dollars. Based on his craptastic record of deceit and criminal behavior I find the charge of turning over the NLL to the DPRK not without circumstantial support.

    It’s pretty much exactly what he would say, but as TK says “Why is this an issue?”

    Uh…duh…the heirs to his throne are about to win the Presidency; are you really that stupid? Oh yes you are, you still support this scum bag.

    The best part of this is that the NLL dispute all begins in a huge lie that the DPRK has sold TK and the progressives on “territory grab”. BSx1000 Read the Armistice Agreement! There was no NK Navy in 1953, nor a PRC proxy, the UNC sank it all.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    In this comment, I am going to lay out just the facts that are not disputed. In the next comment, I will lay out why this entire row is pointless, and in the following comment, I will point out the errors of the OP, and the usual suspects of this thread.

    1. This entire issue arose because Jeong Mun-heon, NFP Assemblyman, claimed that: (a) there was a secret meeting between RMH and KJI during the 2007 summit meeting, in which; (b) RMH gave up the NLL to North Korea. (c) That meeting was transcribed by North Korea, which secretly handed the transcript to South Korea’s intelligence agencies.

    All three claims are, at this point, proven to be false. There was no unreported secret meeting. Accordingly, there is no transcript, and no handover of that transcript. Who confirmed this? None other than Ryu Woo-ik, the Minister of Unification for the LMB administration, and Won Se-hoon, the head of the NIS for the LMB administration.

    2. By the way, nothing happened to the NLL during the RMH administration — the line is the same as it ever has been since the end of the war. If RMH wanted to actually give up the NLL, he had plenty of chances during the 2007 summit. In the 2007 summit, North and South Korea attempted to establish a shared zone for fishing in the Yellow Sea. Predictably, North Korea wanted to have the zone stretch below the NLL, which broke the deal. In other words, that negotiation failed because RMH administration would not give up on the NLL.

    3. There does exist, however, the full transcript of the the (normal, regular, and previously scheduled) summit meeting between RMH and KJI, stored with the NIS. And that transcript is not available for a public viewing, for all the understandable reasons of national security. (The same principle applies to ANY transcript in ANY summit meeting, no matter who the summits are.) When the National Assembly Intelligence Committee asked to view the transcript, the head of NIS refused. The transcript, however, can be designated into a lower confidentiality level if 2/3 of the National Assembly votes in favor.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    Now, my argument:

    Against the RMH administration, there are three allegations that are, if true, problematic. They are:

    (1) RMH had a secret meeting with KJI.
    (2) RMH destroyed the records of that meeting.
    (3) RMH gave up on the NLL.

    (1) is already proven false. The LMB administration — which has absolutely zero incentive to help RMH or the progressives — confirmed that it was false. Because (1) is false, (2) is necessarily false.

    As to (3), the fact no. 2 in the comment above clearly shows that RMH administration did not give up on the NLL. There simply is no evidence — not even circumstantial evidence — that conservatives can offer to show that RMH administration gave up on the NLL.

    Then why does the NFP keep fighting this stupid battle? Because the NFP is well aware of the fact that a certain segment of Korean conservatives will buy into ANYTHING that besmirches RMH, with zero regard to any facts. This entire NLL controversy is the diplomatic equivalent of birtherism — it is an irrational expression of irrational hatred. Which leads to my next comment.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    As much as I like and respect the owner of this blog, in this particular post he shows a lack of initiative to explore the full facts, and commits several factual errors that tend to reaffirm his dislike of RMH. To wit:

    I confess, even if Chung Moon-hun was talking out his ass (and the Saenuri Party says he ain’t), the opposition’s, well, opposition to even reviewing the documents—and the Hankyoreh’s concern for state secrets—have got me quite curious. What’s in there they don’t want the Saenuri Party to see?

    The bolded part is a load of shit. The entity that is actually blocking Assemblyman Seo is not the progressives, but the head of the NIS — appointed by the LMB administration!

    There has been no opposition from the progressives for Assemblyman Seo Sang-gi to simply review the documents for himself, as long as he does not turn around and make the entire document public. The best argument that one can make about the progressive’s stance on this issue is that the progressives are objecting to Seo’s review of the transcript, because they are concerned that Seo might turn around and make the entire document public — which is obviously a legitimate concern. If the NFP can act as an officially sanctioned WikiLeaks for any conversation that a progressive South Korean president had, what idiot of a head of state would ever speak honestly to a progressive president?

    Thus, the JoongAng Daily article to which Robert linked stated a position from the progressives that provides a reasonable alternative. Moon Jae-in said: “문 후보는 지난 27일 본지 인터뷰에서 ‘대화록 공개는 외교 근간을 무너뜨리는 행위’라며 ‘대화록에 노무현 전 대통령의 NLL 포기 발언이 있는지 여부만 특정해 원세훈 국정원장이 확인해 주면 된다’고 말했다.” Oh look, the progressives are saying the LMB-appointed NIS chief can review the transcript for himself and confirm whether there is anything about giving up the NLL in the transcript. But the progressives have so much to hide, right? What, did they somehow brainwash the LMB-appointed NIS chief now?

    This minor point in the OP, by the way, is also false:

    The head of the National Assembly Intelligence Committee has asked the NIS to allow him to see the documents, which I’m guessing he can as secret documents can be viewed by anybody with clearance (which I would certainly hope he has).

    There is a legitimate legal question as to whether Assemblyman Seo can actually review the documents. The issue is — is the transcript covered by the Presidential Archive Act, or general laws regarding diplomatic confidentiality? If the former, the transcript requires 2/3 of the National Assembly votes to review; if the latter, the NIS chief in his discretion may allow limited review. Assemblyman Seo is claiming that it is the latter, and if the NIS chief refuses the review, it is an abuse of discretion.

    Next, I will address the knuckleheads of this thread.

  • R. Elgin

    “TK”, Roh was a gambler and did things that would not be easy to explain away. That is why his administration records are missing. The bribes attributed to his family would be easier to overlook in comparison and I really do not know if the truth will ever come out at all.

  • CactusMcHarris

    TK,

    You sure you have enough time for that? Oh, wait, you said this thread. Please proceed – it’s interesting that the President would be accused of doing this and his accuser not be sued, right?

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    gbhnj @3:

    I love how the transcript exists, despite the RMH administration’s attempt to hide it by destroying their copy (presumably at the same time they erased the hard drives at the Blue House upon their departure).

    This comment confuses two different transcripts — the fictional transcript of a fictional meeting, and the official transcript of the official meeting. The official transcript is exactly where it should be, i.e. at the NIS. Nothing was destroyed.

    Elgin @5:

    Review my posts on the special presidential repository of hidden things Roh created:

    This is completely irrelevant, because again, the official transcript is exactly where it should be.

    Hamilton @6:

    Based on his craptastic record of deceit and criminal behavior I find the charge of turning over the NLL to the DPRK not without circumstantial support.

    Out of his lengthy arm-waving generally expressing his dislike of RMH (which is itself completely irrational, but discussion of that would be irrelevant,) only the above-quoted portion was relevant to this particular thread. And obviously, it is a ridiculous charge. If he, or anyone who hates RMH, has ANY circumstantial evidence that RMH intended to give up on the NLL, he can present one and we can talk about it. But there is no such evidence. It’s as simple as that.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    “TK”, Roh was a gambler and did things that would not be easy to explain away. That is why his administration records are missing. The bribes attributed to his family would be easier to overlook in comparison and I really do not know if the truth will ever come out at all.

    Elgin, what does that have to do with any of the issues raised in this thread? This post is about North-South relations, is it not? Can you make ANY connection between the purportedly “missing” records and this issue? (Especially considering that, as far as this issue is concerned, the records are exactly where they should be?)

  • gbnhj

    I intend no confusion: the official transcript is said to exist, and is in the possession of the NIS. A copy of it was given to the Roh administration but was reportedly destroyed by them. Hope that’s clear.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    I intend no confusion: the official transcript is said to exist, and is in the possession of the NIS. A copy of it was given to the Roh administration but was reportedly destroyed by them. Hope that’s clear.

    Thanks for the comment, but the comment does not help clarifying the ultimate issue — why does it matter?

    The article you linked basically says this: the NIS has the official transcript, and gave the Blue House a review copy. The Blue House reviewed the transcript, then (allegedly) destroyed it to prevent general circulation, while being fully aware that a copy of the official transcript still remains with the NIS. There is nothing untoward about what the Blue House allegedly did.

    Surely, you did not make the comment to say that you relished the fact that RMH followed the standard protocol for confidential documents. Most likely, you were insinuating that RMH had something to hide. But if the RMH Blue House had something to hide, why did it leave the NIS copy alone? It’s not as if RMH did not know that the NIS had the transcript — the transcript came from the NIS. It’s not as if RMH could not control the NIS — the NIS served at RMH’s leisure.

    What would really clarify your position is to give a concise statement of what you think RMH did, and why you disapprove what you think RMH did.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    Actually, gbhnj, I read your initial comment again, and I will amend a couple of things from my last comment:

    - You weren’t insinuating that RMH had something to hide — you actually said RMH was attempting to hide the transcript.

    - Strike the last paragraph of my last comment, because you did make a concise statement of what you think RMH did already. But please do respond to this question, which addresses your initial point: if the RMH Blue House had something to hide, why did it leave the NIS copy alone?

  • Benjamin Wagner

    Good (and short) background reading on the problematic legal status of the NLL here:
    http://38north.org/2010/07/the-maritime-boundary-between-north-south-korea-in-the-yellow-west-sea/

  • Charles Tilly

    Mr. 김종배 of “이슈 털어주는 남자” had an interesting conversation in a recent episode with two government archivists that offered some interesting knowledge and insight regarding the government’s archiving system that might help us all to better understand the controversy surrounding these documents.

    LINK

  • CactusMcHarris

    CT,

    Where the fuck have you been? I mean that kindly, too.

    이슈 털어주는 남자 – ‘Issue-Dropping Man’?

  • Charles Tilly

    ^Something like that I guess.

  • gbnhj

    @16,

    I couldn’t tell you. I wasn’t involved.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    @21,

    I couldn’t tell you. I wasn’t involved.

    Do you still think the RMH Blue House was trying to hide the existence of the official transcript, as you indicated in your comment @3?

    If your answer is yes, how do you square that answer with the fact that nothing, in fact, was hidden? Recall that it is a standard practice to keep a confidential transcript of every summit meeting with the NIS. From the moment the summit ended, the standard protocol says the NIS has a copy of the transcript of the summit. So how did RMH try to “hide” anything, when he did not touch the original transcript kept at the NIS, the government body that the president controls?

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Cactus wrote (#19):

    이슈 털어주는 남자 – ‘Issue-Dropping Man’?

    No, it means “A man who steals issues for you,” so I guess you can call him “The Issue-stealing Man,” but it should be 이슈 털는 남자, not 이슈 털어주는 남자.

  • gbnhj

    I believe that they were trying to hide what the transcript contained. That might seem like a distinction without a difference, but consider that the official transcript is accessible only rarely, while their copy, as you’ve noted, could become available to others.

    I find it curious that Roh, who was so interested in record-keeping that he had the entire records of his administration’s activities preserved on a mainframe he had installed at his home, was apparently also so fastidious as to delete the majority of his administration’s records from the Blue House computers, so that the only way for the incoming administration to learn what they had been doing would have been for them to have petitioned for their release from the NIS. I can’t recall having heard of any previous administration having done that.

    Anyway, that’s why I think what I do.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    I believe that they were trying to hide what the transcript contained. That might seem like a distinction without a difference, but consider that the official transcript is accessible only rarely, while their copy, as you’ve noted, could become available to others.

    The fact that Blue House’s copy could become available to others is precisely the point — confidential documents are not supposed to be generally available. In that sense, the only “hiding” that RMH administration sought to do is to follow the protocol and make sure that confidential documents are not shared willy-nilly. Are you saying that’s inappropriate?

  • hamel

    gbevers wrote (#23):

    No, it means “A man who steals issues for you,” so I guess you can call him “The Issue-stealing Man,” but it should be 이슈 털는 남자, not 이슈 털어주는 남자.

    Gerry:

    1) Why would the present participle (or whatever it is called) of 털다 be 털는, and not 터는?

    2) If the title translates to “A man who steals issues for you” [emphasis added], then what is wrong with 이슈 털어주는 남자?

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    “털다” here is not “steal.” “털다” here is to “shake”. The meaning of “steal” is ascribed later, as a slang-ish extension of “shake”. (i.e. “shaking someone down”).

    이슈 털어주는 남자 = Man who shakes down issues for you.

    And once again, Gerry’s translations prove to be shit.

  • JW

    Gerry, thanks for the laugh. Along with Jeremy Lin’s debut with the Rockets today, this night is turning out to chock full of entertainment.

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    The best argument that one can make about the progressive’s stance on this issue is that the progressives are objecting to Seo’s review of the transcript, because they are concerned that Seo might turn around and make the entire document public — which is obviously a legitimate concern.

    Seo’s only asking to review the part about the NLL:

    http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=100&oid=001&aid=0005906041

    Perhaps it IS a legitimate concern he may leak the content, but the guy’s still head of the National Assembly’s intelligence committee.

    Maybe this is all “North Wind” stuff, but there’s too much smoke. Sure, comments like this are highly political, but not necessarily untrue:

    http://view.asiae.co.kr/news/view.htm?idxno=2012103115591833126&nvr=Y

    And of course statements like this by the late Rohmeister himself don’t allay suspicions:

    http://andocu.tistory.com/entry/%ED%97%89-%EB%85%B8%EB%AC%B4%ED%98%84-%EA%B9%80%EC%A0%95%EC%9D%BC-%EB%B9%84%EB%B0%80%EB%8C%80%ED%99%94%EB%A1%9D-NLL%EC%9D%80-%EB%AF%B8%EA%B5%AD%EC%9D%B4-%EB%95%85%EB%94%B0%EB%A8%B9%EA%B8%B0%ED%95%98%EB%A0%A4%EA%B3%A0-%EA%B7%B8%EC%9D%80-%EC%84%A0-%EC%82%AC%EC%8B%A4%EC%9D%B4%EB%9D%BC%EB%A9%B4-%EC%B1%85%EC%9E%84%EB%AC%BC%EC%96%B4%EC%95%BC

    Come on, TK—clearly you’re just a little curious what’s in there. And just to be clear, you’re saying that if the opposition had won the last general election and opened up parliamentary investigations into what LMB said to the Japanese prime minister about Dokdo or what he told the US president about beef imports, you’d have opposed that, too, if it involved DUP politicians looking at presidential transcripts?

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    Seo’s only asking to review the part about the NLL:

    If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell to you. Why wouldn’t Seo accept the alternative that MJI proposed? What other reason could there be to insist that he review the document himself?

    Sure, comments like this are highly political, but not necessarily untrue:

    Have you been hanging out with a lot of 어버이연합 people or something? What part of that comment is true?

    Come on, TK—clearly you’re just a little curious what’s in there. And just to be clear, you’re saying that if the opposition had won the last general election and opened up parliamentary investigations into what LMB said to the Japanese prime minister about Dokdo or what he told the US president about beef imports, you’d have opposed that, too, if it involved DUP politicians looking at presidential transcripts?

    Honestly, no, I’m not that curious. I am satisfied by the fact that the NLL is there, as it always has been. That’s the only result that I care about; the rest is just hot air.

    The same goes to what LMB said. I really don’t care. Unlike most people, I understand how valuable confidentiality is, since I have at my disposal thousands of documents that cost people millions of dollars and/or completely destroy people’s lives.

  • gbnhj

    I agree that confidentiality is important, but I also think that an outgoing administration’s willful destruction of approximately 75% of its records goes well beyond that need for confidentiality. And it’s destruction that which makes me suspicious here. Perhaps that suspicion isn’t firmly founded – I accept that – but given the extreme measures taken by the Roh administration to keep the vast majority of its actions secret from even the incoming administration, it isn’t firmly dispelled either.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    The Korean wrote (#27):

    이슈 털어주는 남자 = Man who shakes down issues for you.

    And once again, Gerry’s translations prove to be shit.

    이슈 털다 must me a very new idiom or it must me a some kind of slang expression of which I have never heard. Can you link me to the definition because it is not in any of my books.

    Anyway, in English we do not “shake down an issue.” So does it mean to “explain an issue,” “break down an issue,” “delve into an issue,” or something else? You forgot to give us the definition.

    Hamel wrote (#26):

    1) Why would the present participle (or whatever it is called) of 털다 be 털는, and not 터는?

    Because 털다 is not an irregular verb.

    2) If the title translates to “A man who steals issues for you” [emphasis added], then what is wrong with 이슈 털어주는 남자?

    Cactus translated it as “Issue-Dropping Man,” but 털어주다 does not mean “to drop.” Cactus was thinking about the verb 떨어뜨리다, which means “to drop.” Cactus did not translate the ~어주다, so I did not either. I simply replaced “dropping” with “stealing” since “Issue-Dusting-off Man” or “Issue-Shaking-off Man” did not make sense.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Correction to #32: “must be,” not “must me.”

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    @31, that’s another canard that I will deal with when it is a relevant topic, but for now, let’s stick with the topic at hand. Please give a yes or no: did RMH do anything inappropriate by destroying the Blue House copy of the official transcript?

  • gbnhj

    Regarding your question in #34, again, I can’t answer for the man. How would I know if he did anything inappropriate?

    What terrible luck – my idea deals with a canard. I’ll leave it to you to continue with what you termed ‘the ultimate issue’, then.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    I notice The Korean did not respond to my questions in Comment #32. I didn’t think he would. He did not give us a definition of “이슈 털다,” beyond giving a literal translation that does not make sense in English. Why would he do that? Afterall, it is not as if The Korean’s English is so bad that he cannot give a definition that makes sense. I think it is because he does not know the meaning. I think he was simply talking out of his behind. He is probably scouring the Internet right now looking for something that does not exist.

    One of the problems with the Korean language is that Koreans frequently misuse it and then try to justify their mistakes by claiming its a colloquial style of speaking. Another problem is that Koreans like to invent slang that no one outside their small groups of friends understand.

    If 이슈 털다 were a legitimate idiom, it would be in the dictionaries. If it were slang, it would be on the Internet. It’s neither. It is just someone’s misuse of the language.

  • http://regraftedbranch.blogspot.com/ sewing

    I don’t have an opinion on this story and I don’t have a dog in the fight between The Korean and Gerry, but on the question of the verb 털다, the 표준국어대사전–and it doesn’t get more formal, stuffy, or official than that–gives the following (http://stdweb2.korean.go.kr/main.jsp, then enter 털다 as the search term):

    The forms of 털다 are listed as 털다, 터니, 터오. On the analogy of 터니, this would indicate that the present participle of 털다 would be 터는.

    As for 털어주다, no examples are given, but would that not fall under the category of using 주다 as an auxiliary verb to modify a verb denoting an action that you do for somebody else?

    And regarding the definitions, they denote shaking something out or off, revealing something, stealing something, or empty out (?–#4 below)

    「1」달려 있는 것, 붙어 있는 것 따위가 떨어지게 흔들거나 치거나 하다.
    ¶ 먼지 묻은 옷을 털다/노인은 곰방대를 털며 이야기를 시작했다.

    「2」자기가 가지고 있는 것을 남김없이 내다.
    ¶ 사재를 털다/그는 전 재산을 털고 빚까지 얻어 사업에 투자했다.

    「3」남이 가진 재물을 몽땅 빼앗거나 그것이 보관된 장소를 모조리 뒤지어 훔치다.
    ¶ 금품을 털다/은행을 턴 강도를 수배하다./강도가 집에 있는 돈을 털어 갔다.

    「4」일, 감정, 병 따위를 완전히 극복하거나 말끔히 정리하다.
    ¶ 과거를 훌훌 털어 버리다/그녀는 악몽 같은 세월을 털고 일어섰다.

  • http://regraftedbranch.blogspot.com/ sewing

    On the other hand, as for the actual idiom 이슈를 털다, it seems to be unique to Mr. Kim and no, not in the dictionary.

    Does he mean sense #1, shaking at an issue until things emerge (like dust off of dusty clothes), or shaking something else until issues come out (like 먼지를 털다–an example given in Naver)?

    Presumably he doesn’t mean #2 or #4–emptying himself of issues! And stealing issues (#3) doesn’t make much sense either.

  • http://regraftedbranch.blogspot.com/ sewing

    Sorry, interesting questions of language come up so rarely around here (ironic, since half or more of the folks here use Korean as a first or second language).

    Didn’t mean to take things sideways, but they were already going that way. Go about your business…

  • http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/ jefferyhodges

    “One of the problems with the Korean language is that Koreans frequently misuse it and then try to justify their mistakes by claiming its a colloquial style of speaking. Another problem is that Koreans like to invent slang that no one outside their small groups of friends understand.”

    I know nothing about this, but if Koreans really use their language in this way, perhaps the Korean language is genuinely flexible in this way.

    German speakers coin words very frequently, even in writing, by combining nouns to make compound nouns. We have compound nouns in English, but we don’t compose them as freely as Germans do.

    If a language — or, rather, the mindset of a people — is more flexible than we are with English, then perhaps this means that we have something more to learn about that language and the people who speak it.

    Jeffery Hodges

    * * *

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Sewing wrote (#37):

    The forms of 털다 are listed as 털다, 터니, 터오. On the analogy of 터니, this would indicate that the present participle of 털다 would be 터는.

    You’re right, of course. I don’t know what I was thinking. The ㄹ always drops before ㄴ.

  • Q

    이슈 털는 남자? Mr. Bevers still in confusion could not understand hamel’s correction.

  • Charles Tilly

    To Gerry and those of you engaging him: all of you are FUCKING RETARD.

  • http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/ jefferyhodges

    Retards! CT, surely you mean “persons of special needs.”

    Jeffery Hodges

    * * *

  • yuna

    of an extra brain

  • Q

    Retard… 띨띨이(Tilly)

  • http://www.chinasmack.com/tag/funny/page/3 Jakgani

    Roh was a confused man – rode into power on the back of the 368 generation and did whatever they wanted.

    Even his funeral was confusing – half Catholic and half Buddhist.

  • hamel

    Gerry: I think you were certainly confused, and on both points.

    You have already realized that 터는 is correct, so I won’t comment any further on that.

    2) If the title translates to “A man who steals issues for you” [emphasis added], then what is wrong with 이슈 털어주는 남자?

    Cactus translated it as “Issue-Dropping Man,” but 털어주다 does not mean “to drop.” Cactus was thinking about the verb 떨어뜨리다, which means “to drop.” Cactus did not translate the ~어주다, so I did not either. I simply replaced “dropping” with “stealing” since “Issue-Dusting-off Man” or “Issue-Shaking-off Man” did not make sense.

    I think you are confused here, too, because in #23 you wrote: “No, it means “A man who steals issues for you.” “

  • hamel

    Sewing, thanks for your input. Long time no see. I too like language based discussions, and wish we had more of them here.

    Unfortunately, when we do venture into a language discussion, someone always says something like “If XXXXX were a legitimate idiom, it would be in the dictionaries.” And then it kind of goes off the rails.

    As if dictionaries spring from the ground fully loaded…..

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Hamel wrote (#48):

    The ending ~아/어 주다 means someone does something for someone. That is why I translated it as “steals issues for you,” but in keeping with the form of Cactus’ translation of “Issue-dropping Man,” I did not translate the 아/어 주다. I simply substituted “stealing” for “dropping.”

    I assumed that an 이슈 털어주는 남자 was someone who “took issues” that other people had raised and made them his own.

  • yuna

    The worst student of a language is he/she who finds fault with the language before he can even conjugate a basic verb without looking it up (that’s you GBEVERS)

    *However* having said that,

    as a native-level speaker of both languages it’s not a very natural combination of the word “issue” and the verb “털다”, i.e. 이슈 itself is a non-Korean word, and in making it into a Korean word, the radio show host might have paired it with a verb which doesn’t have a natural equivalent of English usage when used with “issue”. It’s what Koreans like to do. You can find many more examples like these in Japanese.

    Don’t fault the language. So, have a piece of humble pie, Gerry.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Hamel wrote (#49):

    As if dictionaries spring from the ground fully loaded…..

    No, dictionaries do spring from the ground fully loaded; they evolve over time by being discerning and including only commonly accepted language. They help to maintain order in a language.

    Without dictionaries, people like Q might invent a word like “beverize” and give it the meaning of “making something anti-Korean” instead of “making something rational and refined.”

  • hamel

    Bevers:

    Alas, “beverize” might ultimately end up in a published dictionary with the meaning “making something anti-Korean”, if enough people use it that way, and just those here on this blog.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Yuna wrote (#51):

    The worst student of a language is he/she who finds fault with the language before he can even conjugate a basic verb without looking it up (that’s you GBEVERS)

    No, the worst student of a language is someone who does not question the language.

    As for my forgotting the ㄹ rule, I have no explanation. It is one of the first rules I learned when studying Korean. 털는 just sounded right for some reason.

    Maybe I affected by the same solar flare as the Joongang Ilbo reporter HERE.

  • yuna

    No, the worst student of a language is someone who does not question the language.

    I am sure that I can hold a much more coherent in Korean with somebody who is into Korean dramas than with somebody with a stubborn mindset like you. It’s impairing your progress (or used as an excuse for the lack of), I know from personal experience.

  • yuna

    coherent conversation

  • http://regraftedbranch.blogspot.com/ sewing

    To be fair to Gerry, “이슈를 털어주다” doesn’t really jive as an expression, when you think about it. I can make sense of it grammatically and semantically, but apart from Mr. Kim’s moniker, 이슈를 털다 is not a common collocation.

    As for 털어주다, a quick search suggests the most common meaning is “give all [of something] away,” like “give all one’s money away.” But in this case, “give all one’s issues away” doesn’t make much sense either. Clearly, Mr. Kim means something more like “shaking issues out,” but how often would you hear (for example), “먼지를 털어 주세요”? Perhaps he means it as an all-in-one verb like 도와주다 or 알려주다, but in that case, he’s just making up a word, like others have said.

    And Yuna, not that I’d presume that you’re referring to me vis-a-vis having a coherent Korean conversation, if your criterion is liking Korean dramas, it ain’t me. Sorry, but I’m just not a K-drama fan.

  • yuna

    Me neither, I don’t blame you because I don’t like Korean dramas either, but I am saying that rather than concentrating on finding scholarly faults, the most natural way to pick up a language is to just immerse yourself in it (be it dramas, songs, books, movies, women).

    I don’t think finding historical documents is the way to become fluent if one is still making basic mistakes over basic verbs.

  • JW

    but how often would you hear (for example), “먼지를 털어 주세요”? Perhaps he means it as an all-in-one verb like 도와주다 or 알려주다, but in that case, he’s just making up a word, like others have said.

    What on earth is going on here? Sewing, you are not a native Korean speaker right? I feel like I’ve just come in contact with an alternate universe for the Korean language. Lesson learned — DO NOT come to Marmot’s Hole for Korean language lessons.

  • yuna

    JW, I know, but to our own fault, it’s often because when a question gets asked the people who speak the language just cannot be bothered and stay silent. And by the time GBevers gets involved, it’s like Charles Tilly says, the discussion has already dropped to the duh level beyond redemption.

  • Charles Tilly

    Lesson learned — DO NOT come to Marmot’s Hole for Korean language lessons.

    I have a better lesson: take this bullshit to one of the open threads.

  • JW

    Come on Tilly, a lesson has to be a generalization of some type — such as “bullshit such as this should always be exchanged in the open threads”. But no thanks, you’re not the blog owner. AAAHHAHAHA :D

  • http://regraftedbranch.blogspot.com/ sewing

    Wow, this place is such a free-for-all, but don’t trying jumping in and raising the bar by discussing the finer points of the Korean language! :)

    Yes, I am a non-native speaker living outside of Korea, so when it comes to empirical observations on language use, you can take my observations with a grain of salt…but at least I enjoy learning the langauge, can read a dictionary, and know how to use search engines as a barometer of linguistic usage.

    Now, just so I don’t sound all high-falutin’, most of my day-to-day encounters with written Korean are not treatises on 16th-century potttery-making in the Andong region, but rather the goofy captions on variety TV shows.

  • dogbertt

    I had always understood 털다 in that context to mean something akin to “break open and become widespread”.

  • dogbertt

    I find it far more enjoyable to converse with Koreans colloquially rather than to be pedantic about grammar. To do otherwise is to risk becoming a “Q”, who repeatedly writes of thing such as “VD sequelae”, which marks one either as a sexually-frustrated autistic boy or a habitual user of Babelfish; in either case someone it is painful to try and converse with, if not utterly pointless.

  • gbnhj

    Nothing wrong with that, sewing. As I’m sure you know, the captions don’t always reflect what people are saying, or how they’re saying it, but it offers a good source of broad-based communication on things like feelings or emotions, which can be hard to find elsewhere except in a cleaned-up, massaged form. Basically, watching variety shows is more low- to mid-falutin’ :) , but it’s also likely to provide you with massive quantities of authentic casual communication. I think of it as medicine: hard to take, but good for you.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Dogbertt wrote (#64):

    I had always understood 털다 in that context to mean something akin to “break open and become widespread”.

    You’re thinking about 터지다.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    JW wrote (#59):

    What on earth is going on here? Sewing, you are not a native Korean speaker right? I feel like I’ve just come in contact with an alternate universe for the Korean language. Lesson learned — DO NOT come to Marmot’s Hole for Korean language lessons.

    If you, The Korean, or Yuna, the super-smart Koreans here, knew the meaning of “이슈 털어주다,” you would have told us already. “Shake down an issue” is simply “one” literal translation, but it makes no sense in English. You are not fooling anyone.

    Charles Tilly wrote (#61):

    I have a better lesson: take this bullshit to one of the open threads.

    Why don’t you and Obama take your “bullshit” comments to the Open Thread since you obviously have nothing to contribute to this thread.

  • jk641

    이슈를 털어주는 남자:
    A man who deciphers issues for you?

  • jk641

    Or getting to the bottom of an issue.

    Something along those lines.

    It appears to be a newfangled expression.
    Learning Korean is always a work in progress.

  • JW

    I think it’s obvious what it means. “털어서 먼지 안 나는 사람 없다” which is a well known idiom means if you “shake” a person enough the (dirty) truth comes out. Likewise “이슈를 턴다” means to “shake” an issue enough so that the truths about the issue come out. STEALING has nothing to do with this context which means that Gerry, you were just mad funny. Hey man, we all make mistakes, why don’t you just laugh it off.

  • jk641

    Likewise “이슈를 턴다” means to “shake” an issue enough so that the truths about the issue come out.

    JW, bingo!

  • Arghaeri

    No, dictionaries do spring from the ground fully loaded; they evolve over time by being discerning and including only commonly accepted language. They help to maintain order in a language.

    they do spring from the ground fully loaded, whoops no they evolve over time. :roll: Classic, how to contradict yourself in one sentence 101. Marvelous.

    The balance is not correct either, some dictionaries seek to be prescriptivist including only usage they deem correct, others seek to record the language as used. This in itself takes time, in particular with colloquial usage since dictionary compilers tend to rely on a terms recorded use, i.e newspapers, books, etc before inclusion where more formal language tends to be used and more colloquial and more lewd language eskewed.

    hence it can take twenty years or more for commonly used language to make it into say the Oxford Englush dictionary, by which time ironically it may have changed its meaning!

  • Arghaeri

    The thing I find funny in GBevers “campaigns” is that in showing his inabilty with his second language he frequently simultaneously shows how little he understands of his first.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    Eskewed?

    Better be careful if u want to take the Bev to task

  • Arghaeri

    I hardly think a minor spelling error has any significant effect on the point made, and if it does your inability to spell “you” disqualifies “u” completely from the debate. :-)

  • Arghaeri

    Do I take it you’re a Noah Webster precriptivist like Gerry :-)

  • Pingback: Ahn comes up with policies

  • yuna

    Don’t forget to include Contrafibularity

  • Arghaeri

    10 years to finish my book, “well yes I’m a slow reader myself” LOL, good link Yuna :-)

  • Arghaeri

    I’ve always rather liked the real word “discombobulation” myself.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    JW wrote (#71):

    I think it’s obvious what it means. “털어서 먼지 안 나는 사람 없다” which is a well known idiom means if you “shake” a person enough the (dirty) truth comes out. Likewise “이슈를 턴다” means to “shake” an issue enough so that the truths about the issue come out. STEALING has nothing to do with this context which means that Gerry, you were just mad funny.

    Obvious?

    Agreeing with JW, JK641 wrote:

    JW, bingo!

    Yuna, however, has not offerred an opinion, one way or the other. Why? Because she is not sure of the meaning and is much smarter than JW and JK641, who are only making wild guesses. Obvious, JW?

    I have done a little more research and have found that North Koreans use 털어내다 to mean 끄집어내다. One of the meanings of 끄집어내다 is “to start a conversation.” For example, 말을 끄집어내다” means “bring up a subject.”

    So, does 이슈를 털어주는 남자 mean “The man who shakes issues to find the truth,” or does it mean “The man who brings up issues”?

    Arghaeri wrote (#73):

    they do spring from the ground fully loaded, whoops no they evolve over time. Classic, how to contradict yourself in one sentence 101. Marvelous.

    Yes, I noticed right after I posted Comment 52 that I forgot to write the “not” after “do,” but I figured people could figure out the meaning for themselves and did not post a correction. I guess I was wrong to assume that. Here is the corrected sentence:

    No, dictionaries do not spring from the ground fully loaded; they evolve over time by being discerning and including only commonly accepted language.

  • http://bcarr.com Brendon Carr

    they do spring from the ground fully loaded, whoops no they evolve over time. Classic, how to contradict yourself in one sentence 101. Marvelous.

    Don’t pick on a guy for an obvious typo!

  • Arghaeri

    Normally people in agreement don’t start with the word “No”, Gerry, hence “not” being missed is not obvious.

    BC a typo is when you mistakenly type a word wrong, missing it altogether is called amnesia. :-)

  • http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/ jefferyhodges

    Or a senior moment . . . sometimes conflated with a flatulent solar flare, much to my discombobulation.

    Jeffery Hodges

    * * *

  • yuna

    Yuna, however, has not offerred an opinion, one way or the other. Why?

    eh? Would you like some cream with your humble pie?

    I offered an opinion in #51.

    I actually held your hand up, saying expressly it is not the most natural expression to combine the English verb and the Korean noun that way, but added it’s what Koreans do, it’s not WRONG and that you should learn not to make mistakes like 털는 before finding faults.

  • yuna

    sorry the English noun and the Korean verb

  • Arghaeri

    Is that the solar flare that follows a few too many Moon Bear IPAs :-)

    Age is a bane to us all….

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Arghaeri wrote (#87):

    Normally people in agreement don’t start with the word “No”, Gerry, hence “not” being missed is not obvious.

    Agreement? No, I was disagreeing with Hamel’s #49 Comment, where he suggested I thought “dictionaries spring from the ground fully loaded.”

    Jeffery Hodges wrote (#84):

    Or a senior moment . . . sometimes conflated with a flatulent solar flare, much to my discombobulation.

    I have mentioned this before, but I do have a tendency to drop words or confuse them in writing sometimes. I say the word in my mind, but I forget to type it or type a different word. For example, in this thread or the other, I typed “me” instead of “my,” for some reason. I do not know what such an ailment is called, but I definitely have to proofread anything I write. The problem is that I do not proofread what I write here until after the fact.

    It may be getting worse with age. I don’t know.

    My “solar flare” comment was a reference to the unexplainable reason for my writing 털는 instead of 터는, which is a separate issue. Maybe it has something to do with old age or the fact that I have not been using or really studying Korean for about three years.

    Yuna wrote (#51):

    I offered an opinion in #51.

    I meant you did not offer an opinion as to the meaning of the phrase 이슈 털어주다. Do you agree with JW and JK641 that it means “to shake something until the truth falls out”?

  • yuna

    It could very well be, it sounds the most close to what one would guess the meaning would be, if one were only a native speaker of Korean. Like a piece of abstract painting, the only one who would know what he/she meant is the one who came up with it (the program host/planner).

    And you’re still missing the point like you always do, in that it doesn’t matter. It’s a newfangled combination, which might catch on, might not, which is what the Koreans do.

  • http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/ jefferyhodges

    It’s old age, Gerry — I have the same problem.

    Jeffery Hodges

    * * *

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Yuna wrote (#89):

    And you’re still missing the point like you always do, in that it doesn’t matter. It’s a newfangled combination, which might catch on, might not, which is what the Koreans do.

    I’m missing the point? Even if the phrase is a “newfangled combination,” it still has to have a meaning. You have just admitted you don’t know the meaning, yet The Korean, JW, and JK641 have tried to make people believe that the meaning “obviously” is “to shake down an issue,” which is not a meanig because it makes no sense in English.

    If 털어내다 means 끄집어내다 in North Korea, why couldn’t the meaning be “bring up an issue,” which means 이슈 털어주는 남자 would mean “The man who brings up issues”? That makes more sense to me than “the man who shakes issues until the truth falls out.”

    As for your comment that it is “what the Koreans do,” I already know that Koreans like like to invent new words, but what good are new words if people don’t know their meaning?

  • JW

    Notwithstanding the fact it doesn’t matter whether the particular english translation makes sense in english — it’s only important that these SOUTH KOREAN words and their intent are understood in a SOUTH KOREAN context, not NORTH KOREAN or AMERICAN, but SOUTH KOREAN. SOUTH, OK??? — but despite all that the phrase “shakedown an issue” makes perfect sense even if it’s a newfangled english expression. “Shake down” means to “thoroughly search” so “Shakedown an issue” or “Shakeout an issue” would mean to “thoroughly investigate or search through an issue”. Come on Gerry, this is not that hard.

  • yuna

    ARRRRGH. Do you not know the way language evolves?

    The fact that this particular one is not “natural” doesn’t mean people don’t know the meaning. I would go with TheKorean JW and the rest if I had to choose as a person in possession of a pair of native Korean ears than your convoluted non-native misfit but, being a fair person that I am, I was just not ruling out other possible crazy meanings you wanted to attach.

    코에 걸면 코걸이, 귀에 걸면 귀걸이.

    The density level of this conversation is approaching that of a black hole.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    JW wrote (#92):

    Notwithstanding the fact it doesn’t matter whether the particular english translation makes sense in english — it’s only important that these SOUTH KOREAN words and their intent are understood in a SOUTH KOREAN context, not NORTH KOREAN or AMERICAN, but SOUTH KOREAN. SOUTH, OK???

    When I worked as a translator in the early 1990s, I used to have to deal with small ad agencies (기획) that would write Korean copy that was nothing but convoluted, emotional goo that would read terribly if translated into English as written. Many of you have probably read those kinds of advertisements, translated into English by Koreans who don’t give a rat’s behind how it reads in English.

    The Korean secretaries in the office would read the Korean copy and see no problem with it until I started asking them for the meaning of individual parts. Then they would have to admit they did not know what the writer was trying to say. In such cases, I would have to go to the ad agency and ask the Korean copywriter himself what he meant by a certain a sentence or phrase.

    Guess what? Many times they couldn’t tell me what they meant to say because they couldn’t remember what they were feeling at the time. In other words, for many Koreans, it is the feeling that’s important, not the meaning of the words.

    These days Koreans are writing much clearer than they did in the early 1990s, but many Koreans still seem to be satisfied with just feeling the meaning of a sentence or expression without really understanding it.

    For people like JW, the phrase 이슈 털어주는 남자 feels good to them even though they don’t really understand its meaning.

  • http://regraftedbranch.blogspot.com/ sewing

    Do you realize that this thread has been an application of the meaning of the term 이슈를 털기!?

    이슈를 계속 털어서 마침내 뜻이 분명해 진다: If you shake at the issue long enough, the meaning will finally become clear.

    JW wrote:

    “털어서 먼지 안 나는 사람 없다” which is a well known idiom means if you “shake” a person enough the (dirty) truth comes out. Likewise “이슈를 턴다” means to “shake” an issue enough so that the truths about the issue come out.

    Well, you sold me on it. I was already getting to that in #37-38. And that was the Korean’s original translation…but I can see how Gerry was unconvinced; and for my part, if a word or phrase isn’t in the dictionary, I’ll Google it to see how it’s used (because I’m a descriptive andprescriptive kind of guy). But nothing was coming up except links/references to 이슈를 털어주는 사람, which is kind of circular…

    I know that Gerry brings this stuff on himself, but I felt bad for helping out with the pile-on by pointing out 터는 vs. 털는, so I decided to poke things up a bit in #57, at which point you teased us for being a parallel universe of Korean.

    But after that, how long did it take to offer up some examples of actual idiomatic language use (as you have done here), which could have cut this all of at the pass days ago (actually, probably not)? What are us second-language learners to do if the first-language (1.5-language?) users don’t help out?

  • http://regraftedbranch.blogspot.com/ sewing

    …being in a parallel universe…
    …cut this all off at the pass…

    Wow, it’s like I never left this place!

  • JW

    Sewing, I have to disagree if you’re claiming that you looked hard enough. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but just that your claim is wrong) Because if you look up the word ‘털다’ many dictionaries will also reference that expression ‘털어서 먼지 안 나는 사람 없다’ as an addendum to the definition.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Sewing wrote (#95):

    I know that Gerry brings this stuff on himself, but I felt bad for helping out with the pile-on by pointing out 터는 vs. 털는, so I decided to poke things up a bit in #57, at which point you teased us for being a parallel universe of Korean.

    There is no reason to feel bad for pointing out my mistake, but the pile on did not start until after both you and Hamel pointed it out, which makes me wonder why the Koreans here did notice it even after Hamel had pointed it out to me? Maybe because it is a common mistake even among Koreans?

    “은행 털는 관계자들”

    JW wrote:

    “털어서 먼지 안 나는 사람 없다” which is a well known idiom means if you “shake” a person enough the (dirty) truth comes out. Likewise “이슈를 턴다” means to “shake” an issue enough so that the truths about the issue come out.

    First, it is a proverb, not an idiom. Second, it means “everyone has their faults.” 먼지 refers to “faults,” not “truth,” so if you are going to use that proverb to come up with a meaning for 이슈 털어주다, that should be considered.

  • yuna

    There is no reason to feel bad for pointing out my mistake, but the pile on did not start until after both you and Hamel pointed it out, which makes me wonder why the Koreans here did notice it even after Hamel had pointed it out to me? Maybe because it is a common mistake even among Koreans?

    It’s not a common mistake. Maybe some people wanted to have a laugh at how much further a fool you would make of yourself, some people didn’t care.

    You’re really something, Gerry.

    I don’t like the gang-up on a retarded child bullying so I try to stay away but you do bring it on yourself I must say.

  • yuna

    And speaking of myself, I really don’t read every single comment, especially if it’s not something which interests me in the first place. I still haven’t read half the comments on this, your mistake just caught my eye because it was glaring.

    A deaf man says to another deaf man.
    “Hey! are you going fishing today?”
    “No, I’m going fishing today.”
    “Oh, I thought you were going fishing today.”

  • JW

    HEY HEY HEY Gerry, if you’re gonna nitpick, you should also mention that

    1) A proverb has to be composed of one or more IDIOMS.

    2) A fault has to be a TRUE thing in order to count as a fault.

  • JW

    OOPS, spoke too soon. On second thought, I’m not so sure about the claim that a proverb has to have idioms. But what about this question — if a proverb contains idioms, can you justifiably refer to it as an idiom also? Serious question.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Yuna wrote (#99):

    It’s not a common mistake. Maybe some people wanted to have a laugh at how much further a fool you would make of yourself, some people didn’t care.

    You’re really something, Gerry.

    I only “asked” the “question” because just two weeks ago a news article with the title “은행 털는 관계자들” appeared on Yahoo News – Korea, on Daum News, and on a Joongang Ilbo News.

  • jk641
  • http://regraftedbranch.blogspot.com/ sewing

    JW

    Yes, it is there under 속담 in the Naver 한영사전–but it’s not in the Naver 국어사전, where I looked first; nor is it in the 국립 국어원’s 표준국어대서전. Can you fault me for going directly to Korean-only dictionaries?

    And no, I did not look in most of the half-dozen 한한 and 한영 dictionaries we own, but the one that I did look (to verify 터는) did not list it.

    Moreover, the Naver 국어사전 lists 19 different expressions using 털다, none of which are that one at all among a list of 19 different expressions (http://krdic.naver.com/search.nhn?query=%ED%84%B8%EB%8B%A4&kind=idiom).

  • http://regraftedbranch.blogspot.com/ sewing

    None of which are like that one at all. Sheesh!

    Hey, I’m like this with English, too. It riles me whenever I hear anyone say “liberry” instead of “library”–and native speakers do it all the time.

  • http://regraftedbranch.blogspot.com/ sewing

    And don’t get me started on “whom.” That’s a lost cause, anyhow.

  • JW

    Fair enough. I agree, you tried reasonably hard enough. But next time, would you please go to the Korean-English dictionary first? Hahaha I’m kidding. :-)

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Thank you for the link, jk641 (#104). It appears we are not the only ones debating the meaning of “이슈 털다.”

    은행 (banks), 먼지 (dust) 뭘 턴다고요?

    그날의 이슈를 탈탈 텁니다, 몸을 뺄 때까지

    Notice that when he was asked if 털다 meant “to rob” as with banks or “to brush off” as with dust, he did not clarify it. They seem to want to leave people guessing.

  • http://regraftedbranch.blogspot.com/ sewing

    The irony of all this is crazy.

    “이슈를 털다”의 이슈를 계속 털어 있다.
    We keep on shaking (or whatever) the issue of “shaking the issue.”

    It’s like looking up the definition of “definition” in a dictionary, or taking a picture of a picture.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Sewing wrote (#110):

    “이슈를 털다”의 이슈를 계속 털어 있다.
    We keep on shaking (or whatever) the issue of “shaking the issue.”

    Or “stealing the issue.” The man, himself, avoided clarifying the meaning.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    By the way, Sewing, it’s 털고 있다, not 털어 있다.

    Sorry.

  • http://regraftedbranch.blogspot.com/ sewing

    You are correct, sir.* Present continuous.

    *That’ll make some eyes roll.

  • http://regraftedbranch.blogspot.com/ sewing

    But just to clarify, make people happy, and maintain the status quo, you are incorrect about every other subject. :)

  • jk641

    gbevers,

    It’s not ‘몸을 뺄 때까지’.
    It’s ‘뽕을 뺄 때까지’.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    jk641 wrote (#115):

    It’s not ‘몸을 뺄 때까지’. It’s ‘뽕을 뺄 때까지’.

    You may be right.

  • Q

    뽕을 뽑다(“get one’s money’s worth,” “to receive good value for the amount you have paid”) sounds more familiar to me.

    보리/수수를 털다 might be quite frequently used expression when harvesting barley/millet in farming culture of Korea, which involves 도리깨질 (threshing).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKjBby8xIbQ

  • dogbertt

    You’re right, Gerry, that’s the word I was thinking of.

  • CactusMcHarris

    I want to thank all of you for the excellent language lessons – all of you.

    Makes me wish for a cup of boricha just readin’ y’all.

  • Awarren

    Sorry Gerry, but I think The Korean’s opinion was valid from the very beginning. I can see 털다 being used as shake or shake down, as in a police shakedown to get drugs out of a criminal. Remember that awful song with the lyrics – “shakedown, shakedown, you’re busted …”

  • Awarren

    탤런트 김선영 가슴 성형 사실 털어놔

  • Awarren

    “If you shakedown an issue enough you might get to the root cause of the problem.”

    Alright, I admit it is not something I would say but it is possible.

  • slim

    Nothin’s shakin on shakedown street, where I come from at least, but what about the friggin NLL? Is Roh a traitor or just a tool?

  • http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/ jefferyhodges

    “Is Roh a traitor or just a tool?”

    Neither. He is dead. But as for whether he was one or the other (or neither) . . . that is the question.

    Jeffery Hodges

    * * *

  • Arghaeri

    Agreement? No, I was disagreeing with Hamel’s #49 Comment, where he suggested I thought “dictionaries spring from the ground fully loaded.”

    He did not suggest it Gerry, you did which is what he pointed out. You stated that if it was a genuine idiom it would be in a dictionary, despite the clearly obvious fact that it cannot get into a dictionary until after it has become established, i.e you inferred that a dictionary was fully formed.

    So make up your mind do you agrre with Hamel that dictionaries do not spring up fully formed or not, because first you started your sentence with no, and the balance of the sentence was consistent disagreement. Then you “corrected” it saying you do agree and that you’d merely missed out the word “not”,

    and miracle of miracles you are saying that you were disagreeing with Hamel that dictionaries don’t spring up fully formed by saying dictionaries don’t spring up fully formed. :roll:

  • Arghaeri

    “and now miracles….”

  • Arghaeri

    which is not a meanig because it makes no sense in English.

    Gerry, its Korean, it only has to make sense in korean not english. There are numerous idioms in english which have a meaning which makes no sense in english let alone korean and yet it is still english with a meaning of its own.

  • Arghaeri

    Take it straight from the horses mouth Gerry, everyone is going to keep taking everything you say with a pinch if salt of long as you keep trying to pull the wool over their eyes. Don’t miss the boat Gerry, stop adding insult to injury, drop this hot potato, it won’t cost you an arm and a leg.

  • Arghaeri

    Damn none of that makes sense in korean, so obviously it cannot possibly be valid english :-)

  • CactusMcHarris

    Arg,

    You do note that in #116 he implied that he possibly was wrong. That’s a long way come.

  • Arghaeri

    :-)

  • Arghaeri

    Then they would have to admit they did not know what the writer was trying to say. In such cases, I would have to go to the ad agency and ask the Korean copywriter himself what he meant by a certain a sentence or phrase.

    What’s your point Gerry, I’ve had exactly the same issues with English copy that we couldn’t understand in order to translate into Korean.