# 일도 이나었다



## 82riceballs

Hi all,

I came across the following sentence in the book I'm reading, where the author is saying that everyone needs to find the joy in learning a language so they can stay motivated.:

누군가의 입에서 "우와"라는 감탄사가 나오기만 한다면 문장 1,000개쯤 달달 외우는 건 일도 이나었다. 

My question is about 일도 아니었다. After thinking about this for quite some time, I think it means something like "doesn't feel like a job," so the sentence would be like "even memorizing 1,000 sentences was WORTH IT (i.e. was no longer a tedious task) once someone complimented my English."

Is this right?


----------



## Rance

Quite close yet still far.
It's comparable to "no sweat" in English.
The task is so easy that you won't even sweat (in English version)/ or that you won't even feel like a job (Korean version).

"Even memorizing 1,000 sentences _is as easy as pie_." would be more correct translation.


----------



## jakartaman

누군가의 입에서 "우와"라는 감탄사가 *나오기만 한다면* 문장 1,000개쯤 달달 외우는 건 일도 *이나었다*. 

This sentence doesn't sound right. 

First of all, I think it was just a typo but it should be "*일도 아니었다*" not "*일도 이나었다*."

Second, you need to change "*일도 아니었다*" to "*일도 아니다*," which means ""*is *nothing" or "*is*n't anything difficult" 

because the subordinate clause--*as long as I can impress* someone--is in the present tense.

일도 아니*었*다 means "*was *nothing," "*was*n't anything difficult," or "*was *no longer a tedious task as you said.


----------



## vientito

jakartaman said:


> 누군가의 입에서 "우와"라는 감탄사가 *나오기만 한다면* 문장 1,000개쯤 달달 외우는 건 일도 *이나었다*.
> 
> This sentence doesn't sound right.
> 
> First of all, I think it was just a typo but it should be "*일도 아니었다*" not "*일도 이나었다*."
> 
> Second, you need to change "*일도 아니었다*" to "*일도 아니다*," which means ""*is *nothing" or "*is*n't anything difficult"
> 
> because the subordinate clause--*as long as I can impress* someone--is in the present tense.
> 
> 일도 아니*었*다 means "*was *nothing," "*was*n't anything difficult," or "*was *no longer a tedious task as you said.





I have long thought that tense is only indicated at the main verb and there is no such thing as tense agreement within a sentence in Korean.

I seem to find tense agreement is something quite optional and is not required for the most part.


----------



## 82riceballs

Ok thank you all for your help!!


----------



## jakartaman

vientito said:


> I have long thought that tense is only indicated at the main verb and there is no such thing as tense agreement within a sentence in Korean.
> 
> I seem to find tense agreement is something quite optional and is not required for the most part.



You made a great point. Come to think of it, I made a mistake--I was probably caught up by 이나었다 and got myself confused. 

I appreciate your excellent observation. It can go either way.

누군가의 입에서 "우와"라는 감탄사가 나오기만 한다면 문장 1,000개쯤 달달 외우는 건 일도 아니었다.
(Recalling how I was when I was in high school) As long as I could impress someone, even memorizing 1,000 sentences was nothing.


----------



## vientito

Jakartaman, much appreciated for your confirmation

I am also wondering if instead of 일도 아니었다 could I say "대수도 아니었다"?


----------



## jakartaman

Yup, 대수도 아니었다 or 대수롭지 않은 일이었다 is just as good--less common, though.


----------



## Rance

vientito said:


> I have long thought that tense is only indicated at the main verb and there is no such thing as tense agreement within a sentence in Korean.
> 
> I seem to find tense agreement is something quite optional and is not required for the most part.




Tense restrictions/requirement might look little lenient in Korean, but I believe it's good to have tense agreement.
Let me try with another example for better clarity.

1) When main verb is present tense with varying tense in subordinate clauses:

치맥 주문을 한다면 금방 배달이 올 것이다. If you order chicken and beer (now), you will get it soon.
치맥 주문을 했다면 금방 배달이 올 것이다.  If you have ordered chicken and beer (a while ago), you will get it soon.

You can observe clear differences in meaning.
First sentence implies delivery is fast and you haven't ordered yet.
While second sentence implies delivery will arrive soon only if you have ordered already and if delivery is on time.

2) When main verb is in past tense with varying tenses in subordinate clauses:

치맥 주문을 했다면 금방 배달이 왔을 것이다. If you had ordered chicken and beer, you would have received them already. 
치맥 주문을 한다면 금방 배달이 왔을 것이다. This sentence wouldn't make sense. You can't order chicken and beer now and expect to have it received already in the past.
However this present + past tense combo are often used in other occasions, but definitely not this example.

3) Let me try second case with another example.

너가 건강했다면 좋았겠지. If you were healthy, it would have been better.
This would be normal/common expression.
We are strictly talking about past only.
The current health status is not clear.
If you say, "그 때 너가 건강했다면 좋았겠지.", then it's pretty safe to guess that the person of interest is healthy now.

너가 건강하다면 좋았겠지. If you were healthy, it would have been better. 
But I think it also connotes current health status as well.
The person was sick and is still sick till present.
Thus I think one should avoid using an expression like "그 때 너가 건강하다면 좋았겠지".

4) Let me try another example.

눈빛만으로 살인이 가능하다면 그녀는 이미 그 남자를 수 십번도 죽였을 것이다.
눈빛만으로 살인이 가능했다면 그녀는 이미 그 남자를 수 십번도 죽였을 것이다.
They practically mean the same, and I believe cases like this is when rules for tense agreement look lenient.
When conditional clause is universal fact, or simply a fact that still holds true, you can probably go either way.
Gazing alone could not kill someone and that still holds true at present time.
If someone finds ESP to be true, then I think you can't use second phrase anymore, but that will probably never happen. 

Anyhow punchline is tense agreement should be done carefully even in Korean.


----------

