# choice of tense



## vientito

I have encountered this issue of choosing of appropriate tense

Here two examples:

(1) 호랑이도 있단 말입니다
(2) 허리를 다쳤다는 말을 들었을 때

Please focus on 단 말 in ex (1) and 다는 말 in ex(2)  They both are formed from 다고하 + ㄴ/는.  In ex(1) it is put into past form whereas in (2) it is presented in present form.

This has caused me one of the most confusion.  The choice of tense has nothing to do with the rest of the sentence.  There's no tense agreement per se with regard to the tense in the primary verb stem.  Note that in ex(2) all the rest of the tense are in past form 었 but the 다는 말 is obviously in present tense.  In ex(1) it is very strange to me because 단 말이다 is very familiar and used very often in conversation yet even while the speaker is speaking it as of NOW, the choice of tense here is 단 말 not 다는 말 - that is in past tense.  I always interpret this as perhaps the speaker is quoting what has just been said in the past.  However, it still feels very strange to me about the choice of tense here.

It seems that there is no tense agreement in korean language.  Like the present and past form can happily mix altogether.  I don't know the logic very well at all.  Check back at ex (2) even when the context is apparently in the past yet 다는 말 is chosen, which to me, is very unsettling.  I hope someone could help me in this mystery.  Particularly why tense is chosen this way.


----------



## kenjoluma

(1) 호랑이도 있단 말입니다.

This one "있단 말", is *just shortened *for "있다는". Not a past tense. 
If you think very carefully, you should know '~다는' doesn't have to be time-specific. In order to make it easier to pronounce, we can also say '있단', which is *completely same *as '있다는'.

I understand your confusion, but think this way. Let's think of -있다는 as something else than a verb. Maybe something like postposition. 


Even in English:



> "When I heard the news saying there was a tiger as well"



Every tense in verbs above is *past*, but you see there is a little strange verb *'saying'*, which looks like a present (continuous) tense. But can you say it doesn't agree with other parts?
Now you get the idea.


----------



## Superhero1

vientito 님이 제기하신 문제는 시제에 전혀 문제가 없습니다.


1. 호랑이도 있단 말입니다. 

1번 문장의 어디에도 과거 시제를 나타내는 어미가 존재하지 않습니다. 의미상 화자가 호랑이의 존재를 이미 알고 있었다는 유추가 가능할 뿐입니다.

2. 허리를 다쳤다는 말을 들었을 때

2번 문장의 경우, '다쳤다'의 '였'이 대상의 과거 시제를 나타내고 또한 '들었을 때'의 '었' 역시 대표적인 과거,완료 어미입니다.


오히려 외국인의 입장에서 궁금할 문제는 두 문장의 '말'의 의미일 것으로 예상됩니다. 1번 문장의 '말입니다'의 사용은 현대 국어에서 바람직하지 못한 용법으로 인식되고 있으며, 2번 문장의 '말'은 소식이나 소문의 의미로 사용되고 있습니다.


----------



## vientito

in ex2.. if one says "허리를 다쳤다던 말을 들었을 때",  for the sake of illustrating my issue, what effect does it have as compared to "허리를 다쳤다는 말을 들었을 때"?
and what about "허리를 다쳤단 말을 들었을 때"?  Is it just a contraction as seen in the other example, same as "허리를 다쳤다는 말을 들었을 때"?


----------



## Superhero1

허리를 다쳤다는 말을 들었을 때 = 허리를 다쳤단 말을 들었을 때 = 허리를 다쳤다던 말을 들었을 때

허리를 다쳤단 말을 들었을 때 is slightly more colloquial.

허리를 다쳤다던 말을 들었을 때 has sort of a superfluous expression.


----------



## Superhero1

Well.. maybe you can clarify that the man had ruptured his back, using '허리를 다쳤다던 말을 들었을 때' compared to the past tense.


----------



## vientito

Yes thank you.  I think I finally get it.  There aren't any contradiction in tense in the original examples. 

But I notice in a lot of cases there are difference between choice of 는 / ㄴ at the end of a clause to describe the following noun.  It is not about contraction.  Sometimes it is a difference between present and past.  At least that's the case for action verbs.  If you start contracting things like that would it make it ambiguous to distinguish between tenses?


----------



## Superhero1

vientito said:


> If you start contracting things like that would it make it ambiguous to distinguish between tenses?



Can you give me an example or explain with more specific situation? I can't guess what makes it ambiguous.


----------



## vientito

I have to quote examples from my grammar text again.  Please bear with me

(1) 옆집에 사는 사람을 만났다. I met a person who lives next door.

you don't say 산 you say 사는.  You neighbour is well alive and kicking!

(2) 이미 본 영화를 또 빌려 왔어요. He rented a movie that we had already seen.

you don't say 보는 you say 본 

There's a reason to all that.  It's TIME.  Time determines the form of 는 or ㄴ

Now getting back to the question of 단.  you said that it was a contracted form of 다는.  And we know that 다는 in turn forms from 다고하는.  What about 다고한?  That surely looks different from 다고하는.  Previously I have stated that time decides 는/ㄴ Now it looks amazing to me that both forms embed a difference in the sense of time yet when you start contracting things they become the SAME 단.  So 단 could have meant  다고하는 (present) or 다고한(past).  Just by contraction we now lose the sense of TIME.  So when I hear 단 it could have meant present or past viola here we come again with ambiguity and possibly require contextual aid to tell things apart.

I have to admit this 는/ㄴ has driven me insane.  They look so similar and in a passage, depending on their neighbour words, could serve different functions.  I come across ㄴ가, ㄴ지 not surprisingly there are 는가 and 는지 as well.  They look so close yet there are differences.  Sooner or later I got a brain freeze just by thinking about this.  Now there's an added complexity about contraction.  I think that one is my last straw.


----------



## kenjoluma

Actually 단 should be memorized as 'shortened form of 다는'. That's all.

다고 하는 and 다고 한 are different. And you already know why. The former, present, the latter, past.
But 하다 is a verb. And this 'past/present' can apply. 

But what about 다는 and 단? Is it a verb? No. So 'past/present' doesn't apply here.
Don't complicate any further. 단 is shortened for 다는. That's all.


----------

