# 가지다 as an auxillary verb



## vientito

두다 & 놓다 both usually pair up with other verbs to indicate a sense of keeping the ongoing state resulting from an action.  It seems to me 가지다 also serves a very close and similar function.  My question though is whether the three are interchangeable in practical usage, in reference to this particular function?

The other day I read from webtoon a sentence as follows: 전화를 안 받으셔가지고.  Could it be alright if 두고/놓고 be used in place to bring out this sense?


----------



## Hit Girl

Hello,

No, 가지다 is not interchangeable with 두다 or 놓다 (두다 and 놓다 are not identical either). 
전화를 안 받으셔가지고 means 'because you didn't answer the phone'. 
For example: 아파가지고 학교에 안갔다 = Because I was sick, I didn't go to school.
아파가지고=아파서; 전화를 안 받으셔가지고 = 전화를 안 받으셔서


----------



## actively

Adding to what Hit Girl said, I believe 가지고 is the more colloquial form of ㅡ서,
thus it is safer to use ㅡ서 in writing (please correct me if I'm wrong).


----------



## vientito

I copied and pasted a section from a result of a google search.  Apparently it is an excerpt of a book

그러게 아침에 왜 전화를 안 받으셔가지고. 다음 기차는 아마 30 분 정도 기다리셔야 될 거예요. 제가 지금 바로 예매할 테니깐.

Why is the first sentence ended with a period whereas from your explanation it should function as a temporal link of a two logically related actions/states?

If I replace 가지고 with 두고, does it sound OK?  If yes, would it make a different sense from the original passage?


----------



## Hit Girl

It's basically the same sentence but because of "그러게 왜" (so why), which was absent in the sentence quoted in the first post, I would translate this one like this:
*
So why didn't you answer the phone in the morning* - _(_or,_ That's because you didn't answer the phone in the morning) _- the speaker is not really asking. It's a form of rhetorical question.
_The next train is 30 minutes away. 
I'll get the tickets right now_

The unsaid context is that they missed a train. They already know it. The speaker is simply explaining why. It doesn't have to be "a link". I could've also said 학교에 안갔어. 아파가지고.

Again, you cannot replace 가지고 with 두고. It doesn't sound ok. It's just not natural or logical to say 왜 전화를 안 받아 두시고.
Again in this case 가지고 is interchangeable with 서. 그러게 왜 전화를 안 받으셔서...


----------



## vientito

Hi thanks for your further clarification but I would like to dwell on this a bit more.  There are probably more than 20 ways to translate "because" in Korean language but I believe each and every single way of using it requires a careful weighing of the context of the matter at hand.    What is really bugging me about this particular verb is the definition that they lay out in Naver.

*보조동사*
(동사나 형용사 뒤에서 ‘-어 가지고’ 구성으로 쓰여) *앞말이 뜻하는 행동의 결과나 상태가 그대로 유지되거나, 또는 그럼으로써 뒷말의 행동이나 상태가 유발되거나 가능하게 됨을 나타내는 말.*

The part that bothers me most is *유지**되거나.  There is apparently a very fundamental difference of viewing an event in Korean language.  Certain action is like a singular point in time, while others are simply continuation of a state.  It might very well be the same thing but the perspective is entirely different.  An action of opening a window is quite another thing from keeping a window opened.

My focus is more on the manner of what happens to the verb that pairs up with 가지다* rather than whether it serves as a reason/ground for a subsequent action.  Sticking close to the definition in Naver, I would sense that that action is not viewed as a singular point in time at all but more as a state/consequence of the matter

In practice, apparently it does not even have to have a *뒷말* at all as my example clearly is missing one.


----------



## Hit Girl

Hi, wow that Korean definition of 보조동사 left me speechless... 
But, I've realized that this specific 가지고 you quoted is not comparable to 보조동사 - 두다, 놓다. 
I'm almost certain now that it's not a 동사.

가지고 means many things. It could be 'to have', 'to bring', 'with', etc. 
In the example above - 전화를 안 받아 가지고, it's something you add to the end of a sentence to explain the reason for the preceding or subsequent sentence. 
Unlike 두다 and 놓다, it's not an essential element of a sentence - you can easily replace it with 서 or simply omit the whole thing. 
It's just a little something (for my ignorance of a correct grammatical term) we say in casual conversations.

When 가지다 does pair up with other verbs as 보조동사, it usually goes like '가지다+verb' (different from 두다/놓다, where the 보조동사 comes after other verbs, like, verb+두다/놓다).
Just a quick example of 가지고 + 있다: 너 돈 가지고 있니? (Do you have money on you?) vs. the simple 너 돈 있니? (Do you have money?)
So it makes a certain difference but I don't know how the whole 상태의 유지, 계속... from the definition applies here. 
Maybe it should be a topic of another thread.


----------



## vientito

just would like to make sure that we are on the same page.  That definition is not the definition of *보조동사 but it can be found directly under the entry of 가지다* for its particular role as a *보조동사.  After the definition it gives several examples as well.  I am going to copy them and paste here for your reference.
*

*
서점에서 책을 잔뜩 사 가지고 왔다.

주머니를 톡톡 털어 가지고 여행을 다녀왔다.

그렇게 놀아 가지고 시험에 붙겠니?

잠자는 아기의 모습이 너무 귀여워 가지고 한동안 눈을 뗄 수가 없었다.

날씨가 너무 더워 가지고 공부를 못하겠다.

It is pretty apparent that they stick close to what they define that every example has two parts.  The first part that consists of the auxiliary verb to qualify as an origin of cause for the subsequent action.*


----------



## Hit Girl

I understand "동사나 형용사뒤에서 ‘-어가지고’ 구성으로 쓰여) *앞말이 뜻하는 행동의 결과나 상태가... *etc etc*" *was supposed to be an explanation of 가지다 as a 보조동사, not a definition of 보조동사 in general.

First, it just sounds like word salad to me...
Second, these examples are kinda hodge-podge. They don't seem to belong to one class of 가지고.

가지고 in each sentence

1. *서점**에서 **책**을 **잔뜩* *사** 가지고 **왔다**.     *
I bought and *brought with *me a bunch of books from a bookstore.

2. *주머니**를 **톡톡* *털어** 가지고 **여행**을 **다녀왔다**.  *
I took a trip *by* emptying my pocket (by using all the money I had)

3. 그렇게 놀아 *가지고* 시험에 붙겠니?
How will you pass the exam *by* playing so hard like that?

4. *잠자는* *아기**의 **모습**이 **너무* *귀여워** 가지고 **한동안* *눈**을 **뗄* *수**가 **없었다**.*
I couldn't take my eyes off of the sleeping baby *because *(the baby) was so cute.

5. *날씨**가 **너무* *더워** 가지고 **공부**를 **못하겠다**.
Because *it's so hot, I find it hard to study.

#1 is the only example where 가지고 is a verb. For the rest, it's functioning like a conjunction or preposition with completely different meanings. The 보조동사 definition doesn't make sense as a sentence; it doesn't describe any of the examples above; these examples don't belong to one another as a group. I'm not trying to argue with a dictionary but it looks like this entry was made by someone who cannot even string a proper sentence together. I'm sure this is from a community dictionary compiled by random users.

Going back to your other question, it's not possible to slap a verb to 가지고 as you do with두다/놓다:

먹어 두다 (O)
먹어 놓다 (O)
먹어 가지다 (X) This combination verb doesn't exist. 

If its 먹어 가지고 then it means something. But 가지고 here is a conjunction, not a form of the verb 가지다.


----------



## Rance

Hit Girl said:


> When 가지다 does pair up with other verbs as 보조동사, it usually goes like '가지다+verb' (different from 두다/놓다, where the 보조동사 comes after other verbs, like, verb+두다/놓다).
> Just a quick example of 가지고 + 있다: 너 돈 가지고 있니? (Do you have money on you?) vs. the simple 너 돈 있니? (Do you have money?)
> So it makes a certain difference but I don't know how the whole 상태의 유지, 계속... from the definition applies here.
> Maybe it should be a topic of another thread.



This is false.
Unlike English, auxiliary verb comes after the main verb in Korean.
Therefore if 가지다 is used as aux verb, it must go in the form of 'verb + 가지다'.
For the example shown in the quote, 가지다 is the verb and 있다 is the aux verb.
Hence this is a wrong example for vientito's issue.



Hit Girl said:


> 1. *서점**에서 **책**을 **잔뜩* *사** 가지고 **왔다**.     *
> I bought and *brought with *me a bunch of books from a bookstore.
> 
> ..........................
> 
> #1 is the only example where 가지고 is a verb. For the rest, it's functioning like a conjunction or preposition with completely different meanings. The 보조동사 definition doesn't make sense as a sentence; it doesn't describe any of the examples above; these examples don't belong to one another as a group. I'm not trying to argue with a dictionary but it looks like this entry was made by someone who cannot even string a proper sentence together. I'm sure this is from a community dictionary compiled by random users.



First of all, Naver Dictionary is based on 표준국어대사전 which was published by 국립국어원 and is definitely not wiki based dictionary.
If we break down the verb part of the sentence:
사 = first main verb
가지 = aux verb
고 = conjunction, and
왔다 = second main verb
It is indeed a conjunction, hence I understand where the confusion is coming from.


Now going back to vientito's question of : 놓다/두다 vs. 가지다.
If we look up the naver dictionary, they seem to sound all the same:

*놓다 *= (동사 뒤에서 ‘-어 놓다’ 구성으로 쓰여) *앞말이 뜻하는 행동을 끝내고 그 결과를 유지함을 나타내는 말.
두다* =
(동사 뒤에서 ‘-어 두다’ 구성으로 쓰여) *앞말이 뜻하는 행동을 끝내고 그 결과를 유지함을 나타내는 말*. 주로 그 행동이 어떤 다른 일에 미리 대비하기 위한 것임을 보일 때 쓴다.
*가지다* = (동사나 형용사 뒤에서 ‘-어 가지고’ 구성으로 쓰여)*앞말이 뜻하는 행동의 결과나 상태가그대로 유지되거나*, 또는 그럼으로써 뒷말의 행동이나 상태가 유발되거나 가능하게 됨을 나타내는 말.

Then are they interchangeable?
Nope. Like Hit Girl pointed out they aren't.

First reason is the format how they are used(basically stuff written inside parenthesis within definitions).
가지다 is exclusively used in the format of "가지고" which requires another verb/clause to follow up.
For example,
더우니 문을 열어 두어라. (O)
더우니 문을 열어 놓아라. (O)
더우니 문을 열어 가져라. (X)

Second reason is that their nuances are different.
I believe that the original meaning as a verb, not auxiliary verb, are often carried over even used as auxiliary verb.
(Someone please correct me here if I'm wrong.)

더우니 창문을 열어 *두고* 자자. (O)
더우니 창문을 열어 *놓고* 자자. (O)
더우니 창문을 열어 *가지고* 자자. (X)
Third expression sounds awkward as it implies to bring a window in opened state.

서점에서 책을 잔뜩 사 두고 왔다. (O)
서점에서 책을 잔뜩 사 놓고 왔다. (O)
서점에서 책을 잔뜩 사 가지고 왔다. (O)
All expressions sound valid, but first two implies you left the books where you bought.
Last one implies you brought over the books you bought.

Third reason is that 가지다 has additional usage as aux verb as well as 두다.
If we go back and check the definition, one can find additional meanings to these.
두다   => ....주로 그행동이 어떤다른일에 미리 *대비*하기 위한 것임을 보일때쓴다.
가지다 => ...또는그럼으로써뒷말의 행동이나 상태가 *유발*되거나 *가능*하게 됨을 나타내는말.
So 두다 can be used to prepare following event while 가지다 can be used to mean causation of following event.

그렇게 놀아 *가지고* 시험에 붙겠니? (O)
The sentence implies that playing around will *result* in failure of test.
그렇게 놀아 *두고* 시험에 붙겠니? (X)
The sentence sounds awkward as playing around can't be to prepare for the test.
그렇게 놀아 *놓고* 시험에 붙겠니? (O)
This sounds ok as 놓다 seems to be neutral expression.


----------



## vientito

Thanks very much again for your explanation.  Let us apply the knowledge that I gain so far to one of the scenes found in 미생 part 2.  I have attached the scene along for viewing.

Please note the use of 가지고 with the main verb 신중해 빠지다 which could roughly be translated as being overtly cautious. So the whole thing would be:  How come you act so overtly cautious like that ...

There is no continuation after 가지고 which is supposed to lead into something, as our discussion has concluded so far.

My question:  (1) what is the second part?  What is being understood and it is left unsaid? Is the second part exactly what his counterpart is saying that he is trying to discuss with 상장님 (2)



> Second reason is that their nuances are different.
> I believe that the original meaning as a verb, not auxiliary verb, are often carried over even used as auxiliary verb.



The original meaning of 가지다 would be "owning" or "possessing".  How exactly could we imagine combining the meaning of being overtly cautious with that of "owning"?  Does it mean as much as owning up the quality of being overtly cautious in this case?

(3) If he elects to simply say 어쩨 그리 신중해 빠져요 then I assume it's just a question and there is no further nuance whatsoever.  So comparing the two I immediately feel that the guy is not just asking a question by employing 가지고 there and there is a little bit of underlying "stuffs" apart from a simple question.


----------



## Rance

(1) Triple dot. Following clause is omitted.
The guy on the right seems to be complaining about the guy on the left being meticulous about the procedure.
So one possible expression would be something like this:
"그리 신중해 빠져가지고 사는게 안 피곤하냐"

(2) That seems right. 
신중해 빠져놓고 or 신중해 빠져두고 does not sound natural for this case.

(3) I'm not sure if i'm following you on this one.
빠지다 itself is auxiliary verb for 신중하다 which means it conveys negative feeling of the speaker.
Hence the expression is not neutral and has negative connotation.
With or without 가지고 in the expression, you can tell that the guy on the right is upset about the guy on the left.
What "가지고" adds to the expression is that the speaker has something more to say which is omitted with triple dot in this case.


----------

