# S+V that after S+v



## jjshin

Although new female sales reps were not having any stereotype of gender discrimination, they can question *that after* they see male sales reps doutb their ability. 





I wonder my English sentences. Is it right? 
I would like to say this
"비로 새로운 세일즈 우먼들이 성차별에 대한 고정관념이 없었더라도 남자 세일즈맨들이 의심을 갖고 그들으 보기 시작하면 그들도 의심을 갖게 될 것이다."

that 은 지워야 할까요?


----------



## 조금만

I'm sorry to say that the main problems as I see them lie outside the construction you focus on, which is actually acceptable in itself. However, as I attempt to address what I think are more fundamental issues in your version, I think think that specific issue your title identifies will be resolved, almost as a by product.

The first problem-cluster is in the translation of the construction 고정관념이 없었더라도 where both your choice of translation for the nominal 고정관념 and the tense (or rather, aspect) of the verb require attention. 

Although there is an overlap between the way "stereotype" is used in English and the range of meanings of 고정관념, that doesn't really help here. We need to go back to the fundamental sense of 고정관념,  with 고정 [固定] amounting to a doublet meaning "rigid" and 관념 [觀念] another doublet meaning "view, opinion, way of thinking". Such "rigid views" can apply both to what we believe people or existing situations to be like, in which case "stereotype" will do nicely, or to what we think is likely to happen or be the case in our future experience. In the latter case, a view fixed in advance about what may or may not happen is more commonly termed a "preconception" or "prior expectation" in English. 

Now possession of a preconception is a state, not a process, and for that reason a continuous past form is not appropriate. So not: "were not having", but "did not have". Supposing by contrast the verb had been one referring to an ongoing process, learning a language, for example. Then indeed we would need a continuous form "Although they were not learning English (at the time X happened). Not here though: a simple past is required.

고정관념 is here linked in the Korean to 성차별 using the expression ...에 대한. It is indeed possible to translate that by "of", but that preposition has so many uses in English that it can introduce unwanted ambiguities. So although "prior expectations of gender discrimination" would be acceptable, I personally would prefer "prior expectations about [or: concerning] gender discrimination"

So, thus far we have 

Although new female sales reps had no prior expectations about gender discrimination...

Let's handle the very end of the entire sentence next

그들도 의심을 갖게 될 것이다

The main problem with your English translation at this point is the absence of any clear referent for the "that" in "they can question that". Question _what[/] precisely?  To use "that" diegetically in this way, there must be something for it to point to. And in your translation of the earlier part of the sentence, there is no such target for your "that". This is one of the main things that makes your original translation rather challenging for native speakers of English to understand. 

But there's a simple remedy. There's nothing corresponding to your "that" in the Korean, because there's no verb there that requires an object to which "that" points. And we can translate your Korean into English in a way that similarly requires no object: 의심을 갖다 = to have doubts. Now we need to add in the 될 component, which has got a little lost in your version, giving "come to have doubts."  Finally in this section, the modal. "Can" is incorrect. The modality here is possibility, not ability - "may", not "can". So:

"they may come to have doubts"

All we have to do now is fit in the middle part (in the Korean, though of course it comes last in English), which is relatively straightforward. 남자 세일즈맨들이 의심을 갖고 그들으 보기 시작하면 . My only query about your version here is that you appear to have "lost" the 시작하다. I think it's desirable to retain it ... "when they start to see"

Beyond which, your version is fine, except that to avoid a possible uncertainty about the grammatical relationship of "see" and "doubt" on a first reading, I would prefer a participle rather than a truncated infinitive "see... doubting..."

Bolting the pieces back together, that gives us

Although new female sales reps had no prior expectations about gender discrimination, they may come to have doubts when they start to see male sales reps doubtins their ability.

Though it would be possible, and arguably desirable, to retain the overall semantic sequencing of the the Korean like this:

Although new female sales reps had no prior expectations about gender discrimination, when they start to see male sales reps doubtins their ability, they may come to have doubts.

Stylistically, of course, the repetition of "doubt" is a little unfortunate. I would for that reason prefer to say "male sales reps questioning their ability". It could be countered that since there is indeed a re-use of the same verb in Korean, there is no reason why that re-use shouldn't be mirrored in the English version. But that would be to overlook the fact the the whole way Korean syntax operates means that what sound like repetitions to speakers of languages where there is a different repertoire of pronouns are not felt to be such by Korean speakers. After all, behind an English sentence such as "That's mine!" there most likely lies in Korean a structure that if literally translated might read "That thing is my thing", but that's no argument for having "thing" twice, or indeed at all, in the English version._


----------



## jjshin

Wow,I highly appreciate it.
How come do you know well both Korean and English?
Nobody explains clearly. I am about giving up English…..
Because I think I cannot overcome English…


----------



## 조금만

jjshin said:


> Wow,I highly appreciate it.
> [...]
> I am about giving up English…..
> Because I think I cannot overcome English…



Please, please don't give up on English. You _can_ make it! That's not mere feel-good talk or polite rhetoric: I can see from this post and a few others by you I visited after your cry of despair that although you do, to be honest, still have quite a few problems with English, your great strength is that you know where those problems lie and you aren't afraid to come out and ask. 

The fact that you know on your own initiative where the problems are (even though you understandably have to ask for help solving them after you've identified them) shows that you have a strong basic grasp of how English works and the key aspects where Korean structures simply won't transfer into English without substantial rebuilding work. That's a sound basis that you can build on if you stick at it.

Where languages are so distant in grammar and syntax (not just in vocabulary) as Korean and English are, it often helps try to "get behind" the actual structures and words used in the source language and see how else the meaning might be expressed in that source language itself before attempting to translate into the target language. And with the target language also, if you find your translation sounds somewhat odd though you can't put your finger on why, it can help sometimes to attempt a paraphrase of the sense in the target language, too. This can sometimes lead you to another, more appropriate target language formulation. 

That was what I was trying to do, for instance, in my discussion of 고정관념 above. I did worry for a moment that this looked as though I was trying to "teach" a native speaker very simple things about her own language, but that wasn't my intention. My point was that sometimes it helps to think about why and how a word means what it does in the source language, because that can then offer pointers to an appropriate equivalent in the target language that may not be in dictionary entries for the source word concerned. Breaking the dictionary-enforced tie between 고정관념 and "stereotype" by reflecting on the Korean components of the source word was the kind of stratagem I have in mind.

I fear there are millions of people in Korea who have, sometimes openly though mostly in their inmost hearts, given up on English, despite having benefited from what ought to be the most effective English-language teaching programme on the planet, given the resources, time and effort expended on learning English across the nation and at all age-levels.

I think I know why they've concluded that English is unlearnable for many Koreans, no matter how smart they are or how hard they try. But I'm sure they're wrong. No language is intrinsically unlearnable for members of another language community. It's all a matter of method and approach. And confidence...


----------



## jjshin

No worries!
I meet the high wall everytime.
I can't distinguish subtle differences at all. 
I have tried to look up an English-English dictionary.
I know the answer to improve my English skill!
I have to practice and read more!!!

I think I change my method to study...

English hurts me!
haha~

Anyway~
Thank you so much~


----------

