# -으니



## Jgon

You might recognize this passage. This is John 3:16 and in Korean, it is:
하나님이 세상을 이처럼 사랑하사 독생자를 주셨으니 이는 저를 믿는 자마다 멸망치 않고 영생을 얻게 하려 하심이니라.

in English (original text):
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

I understand the 하나님이 세상을 이처럼 사랑하사 독생자를 주셨으니 part...
But what is -으니?


----------



## Kross

The ~으니 here is like a connecting particle. It can be used when the content that has been mentioned before the particle acts as ground for the following part like since, for, because, so, etc in English.

For example,
약속을 했으니 가기 싫어도 갈 수 밖에. (Since you gave your word before, you have to carry out the promise now even if you don’t like it.)

Source: http://krdic.naver.com/detail.nhn?docid=29948500


----------



## yonh

Kross said:


> The ~으니 here is like a connecting particle. It can be used when the content that has been mentioned before the particle acts as ground for the following part like since, for, because, so, etc in English.
> 
> For example,
> 약속을 했으니 가기 싫어도 갈 수 밖에. (Since you gave your word before, you have to carry out the promise now even if you don’t like it.)
> 
> Source: http://krdic.naver.com/detail.nhn?docid=29948500


To be more precise, 으니 in the context matches the definition #2 (meaning similar to -는/은데), not #1 ("because") as the following part is a purpose/wish, not an effect/result.


----------



## Kross

yonh said:


> not #1 ("because")


 In the NIV version of Bible, for is used for because, since and something like that. 

*For* God so loved the world that he gave his one and only begotten Son...


----------



## yonh

Kross said:


> In the NIV version of Bible, for is used for because, since and something like that.
> 
> *For* God so loved the world that he gave his one and only begotten Son...


You are right but OP asked about the meaning of 으니 in the context written in Korean, not in English. Besides, '으니' and 'for' are not in the same clause.

Reason clause:
하나님이 세상을 이처럼 사랑하사 (사 [archaically] = 시 + 어 "because")
For God so loved the world

Result clause:
독생자를 주셨으니 (으니 "with that said"/"and then" [not contradictory])
that he gave his one and only begotten Son,

Purpose clause:
이는 저를 믿는 자마다 멸망치 않고 영생을 얻게 하려 (려 "intend/want to") 하심이니라.
that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


----------



## Rance

yonh said:


> You are right but OP asked about the meaning of 으니 in the context written in Korean, not in English. Besides, '으니' and 'for' are not in the same clause.



It is little tricky question.
I would not say they are not in the same clause, 
because it uses pronoun 이는 which itself is essentially the previous clause, "하나님이 세상을 이처럼 사랑하사 독생자를 주셨으니".

If we observe last clause, "저를 믿는 자마다 멸망치 않고 영생을 얻게 하려 하심이니라.",
God wants his followers to obtain eternal life.
If we simplify first clause, "하나님이 독생자를 주셨다",
God sent his son to this world.



> -으니
> *1. 앞말이 뒷말의 원인이나 근거, 전제 따위가 됨을 나타내는 연결 어미.
> 2. 어떤 사실을 먼저 진술하고 이와 관련된 다른 사실을 이어서 설명할 때 쓰이는 연결 어미.*



If we go by first definition, first clause must be the reason for the last clause.
"God wants his followers to obtain eternal life because god gave us his son."
I'm not a Bible expert, but I believe he sent his Son because he wanted his followers to obtain eternal life.
Hence I agree to yonh's opinion that second definition is used.


----------



## Kross

Here is what 국립국어원 answered about the OP's question.

"앞말이 뒷말의 원인이나 근거, 전제 따위가 됨을 나타내는 연결 어미로 '-으니'가 쓰였습니다."

You can find details from the attached file going on between me and a representative from the government-run agency in charge of Korean.


----------



## Rance

Thanks Kross, I stand corrected.
After putting a little more thought, I realized that I was too focused on "원인" which made me overlook other things.
For our particular sentence*, *"말이 뒷말의 *근거, 전제*를 나타내는 연결 어미로 '-으니'가 쓰였습니다." would have been more precise.


----------



## yonh

Thank you for your help, Kross. Maybe I'm wrong. But I'm still not sure of it. They just copy-and-pasted the definition of 으니. It would be better if there was a detailed explanation for why. I have seen their incorrect answers a few times, which they corrected later.

I have no idea what the implied meaning in the original text is. If they are right, "독생자를 주다" is the cause, ground, or premise of "영생을 얻게 하려 하다", which doesn't quite make sense to me.

One more thing I don't get is the pronoun 이 in the last clause. It refers to the action "하나님이 독생자를 주시다", and the last clause gives additional information, a purpose of it, which matches the definition #2.


----------



## Rance

yonh said:


> Thank you for your help, Kross. Maybe I'm wrong. But I'm still not sure of it. They just copy-and-pasted the definition of 으니. It would be better if there was a detailed explanation for why. I have seen their incorrect answers a few times, which they corrected later.



Here's my little confession. 
After seeing Kross's attached picture, I had this urge to try out their Kakaotalk service.
(I knew they had twitter service before, but I don't use twitter.)
Like yonh said, when I asked same question via Kakaotalk, I got same exact response(same exact wording).
Only when I pressured with the argument I had in previous reply("Is sending his Son 이유 for giving us eternal life?"),
the reply was modified to "앞말이 뒷말의 근거, 전제 따위가 됨을 나타내는 연결 어미로 '-으니'가 쓰였습니다.".
(As matter of fact, the question I came up was wrong as you will see later in the post and they should have corrected it.)
The guy simply removed the word 이유 from previous reply and I somehow bought it at the time.
This tricked me to believe 이유 is different from 근거 and 전제 which is not although their nuances may differ.
Now that I reread my earlier post, I feel quite embarrassed about the poor explanation I gave.
It's all 국립국어원's fault! 

Going back to OPs question, although my previous explanation was wrong after reviewing it,
After putting a little more thought(actually more than little...), I still think Kross's answer is correct one.

One thing I overlooked originally was -니라.
This kind of explains me why my gut feeling was telling first definition was right, but I went with second as my argument("Sending his Son is 이유 for giving us eternal life.") seemed wrong.
This was probably the case for yonh as well.



> -니라
> (‘이다’의 어간, 받침 없는 형용사 어간, ‘ㄹ’ 받침인 형용사 어간 또는 어미 ‘-으시-’ 뒤에 붙어) *(예스러운 표현으로) 해라할 자리에 쓰여, 진리나 으레 있는 사실을 일러 줄 때에 예스럽게 쓰이는 종결 어미.*



I'm no Bible expert, but as Bible is not written by God Himself, the writer took a stance of observer.
The writer, whoever he/she/they be, observed His actions and tried to understand His will based on those deeds.
Our case seems no different.
His action was sending his Son.
The deduction of the writer was God wanted to give us eternal life.
Therefore the *premise*(-으니) for the *deduction* of the writer (뒷말) was *sending his Son*(앞말).

My 2cp about 국립국어원:

- Their Kakaotalk service was really fast!
- Their answer seemed accurate, at least for mine.
- Their explanations were generally poor if not lacking.
- Words from 국립국어원 are no Gospel.

I actually do recommend using their service when seeking fast simple answer.


----------

