# 다는



## vientito

I dug this up from an example in naver.  나는 그녀가 임신했을 지도 모른다는 것을 눈치챘다.   My question is as follows: why 모른다는 것을 instead of simply 모르는 것을 ?  What does that 다는 serve as here?    Usually ㄴ다 servers either as to quote or to give a cause for something.  But here I see neither of the two.


----------



## Superhero1

나는 그 사실을 눈치 챘다.
나는 그녀가 임신했다는 사실을 눈치 챘다.
나는 그녀가 임신했을지도 모른다는 사실을 눈치 챘다. = 나는 그녀가 임신했을지도 모른다는 것을 눈치 챘다.

in this case, 것 = 사실

~ㄹ지도 모른다 : supposition


----------



## vientito

Superhero1 said:


> 나는 그 사실을 눈치 챘다. 나는 그녀가 임신했다는 사실을 눈치 챘다. 나는 그녀가 임신했을 지도 모른다는 사실을 눈치 챘다. = 나는 그녀가 임신했을 지도 모른다는 것을 눈치 챘다.  in this case, 것 = 사실  ~을 지도 모른다 : supposition


  Let me highlight this more precisely with your quote.  If I were to say "나는 그녀가 임신했을 지도 모르는 사실을 눈치 챘다" while omitting the ㄴ다 element in there, am I technically wrong?    This ㄴ다 element here, is it similar to the neutral speech such as 간다 that we often hear between friends?


----------



## vientito

there's another quote I dug up from a blog  it goes like this  허세 부리지말고 모르는 것은 모른다고 하는 것이 중요하다  Notice both instances of 모르다 the first one is 모르는 것은, while the second 모른다고 하는 것이.  The difference again is that ㄴ다는!


----------



## kenjoluma

1. 나는 그녀가 임신했을지도 모른다는 것을 눈치챘다.
You should really memorize this as a whole: "~지도 모르다". One of fixed expressions.

2. 허세부리지 말고 모르*는* 것은 모른다*고* 하는 것이 중요하다.
~는 here is a present participle. The verb 모르다 becomes 모르는, which works like an adjective.
~고 here is used for a quotation. And again, it is a rule: -다 is followed by this quotation marker '고'.


----------



## Superhero1

Logically, how can we become aware of the matter of choice? we can't realise whether she might be pregnant or not, simultaneously.

so, 나는 그녀가 임신했다는 사실을 눈치 챘다 or 나는 그녀가 임신하지 않았다는 사실을 눈치 챘다 is correct.

If you want to reveal your supposition, you can say : 나는 그녀가 임신했을지도 모른다고 생각했다.


----------



## Superhero1

vientito, I apologise for my spacing. 했을지도 모른다 is correct.


----------



## vientito

Superhero1 said:


> Logically, how can we become aware of the matter of choice? we can't realise whether she might be pregnant or not, simultaneously.  so, 나는 그녀가 임신했다는 사실을 눈치 챘다 or 나는 그녀가 임신하지 않았다는 사실을 눈치 챘다 is correct.  If you want to reveal your supposition, you can say : 나는 그녀가 임신했을지도 모른다고 생각했다.


    If I understand you correctly, ㄴ다는 here still functions sort of as a type of quoting our conjecture.  Here is the big difference between Korean and English because in english  "I have a hint of the (rumour/fact) that she might be pregnant" is perfectly ok on its own.  We need not state explicitly as such "I have a hint of the  (rumour/fact) that she might be pregnant".  I guess I sort of have to force myself to adapt to this pattern before this logic has yet to become more instinctive to me


----------



## vientito

sorry for reposting this the processing has dropped my key word  Here comes again:  If I understand you correctly, ㄴ다는 here still functions sort of as a type of quoting our conjecture. Here is the big difference between Korean and English because in english "I have a hint of the (rumour/fact) that she might be pregnant" is perfectly ok on its own. We need not state explicitly as such "I have a hint of the {said} (rumour/fact) that she might be pregnant". I guess I sort of have to force myself to adapt to this pattern before this logic has yet to become more instinctive to me


----------



## Superhero1

vientito said:


> sorry for reposting this the processing has dropped my key word Here comes again: If I understand you correctly, ㄴ다는 here still functions sort of as a type of quoting our conjecture.




No. ㄴ다는 is just a quote that changes the sentence ending '~다' into phrase form. it doesn't reveal any conjecture at all.


I give you an idea.

1. 창수에게 말했다.

2. 영미는 학교에 간다.

3. 창수에게 '영미는 학교에 간다'고 말했다. (Actually, we don't use the quotation mark here).

This step can be applied to your question.

1. 나는 눈치 챘다.

2. 그녀가 돈을 훔쳤다.

3. 나는 '그녀가 돈을 훔쳤다'는 것을 눈치 챘다. (Actually, we don't use the quotation mark here.)


 (sentence)는 사실을 눈치 챘다. or (sentence)는 사실을 알아차렸다 is widely used in Korea.


----------



## wonlon

vientito said:


> I dug this up from an example in naver.  나는 그녀가 임신했을 지도 모른다는 것을 눈치챘다.   My question is as follows: why 모른다는 것을 instead of simply 모르는 것을 ?  What does that 다는 serve as here?    Usually ㄴ다 servers either as to quote or to give a cause for something.  But here I see neither of the two.



I actually checked my Japanese grammar book to understand this pattern, since I searched all my Korean grammar books without finding a satisfactory explanation. I just found only one Korean grammar book which mentions about something called "reported-speech-like" structure (類間接引述法), but that grammar part of the book is too general (being too general is a problem of all books of systematic grammar, they try to present everything, but you feel that they can't reach the heart of your problem).

It is similar to the Japanese pattern *...というN - (something) called*.

1. N*というN [similar to "이라고 하는" N]
*これは,　プリマラという花です。 This is a flower called prmula.
Korean: 이것은 프리마라*라고하는*꽃입니다. (naver Jp > Kr machine translation)

If you see a thing (like a flower), and don't know its name, you use this pattern.

Let's get down to the point:

2. *...というN (similar to ... 다고 하는/다는/... + N)*
i. この会社には,　*仕事は五時までだという規則*がある.　This company has a rule *which is working until 5 o'clock*.
이 회사에는, 일은 5시까지*라고 하는* *규칙*이 있다. (naver Jp > Kr machine translation)

ii. *タバコの煙が体によくないという事実*は誰でも知っている。 Everyone knows the fact *that smoking is not good to health*.
담배 연기가 몸에 좋지 않*다고 하는 사실*은 누구라도 알고 있다.  (naver Jp > Kr machine translation)

My Japanese grammar book writes: the things stated in ...*という(by analogy to ... 다는)* is used to _describe the content of_ *N*. The *N* can be what someone says, hears, comments, or *other things which has some content in it, like a rule, a news, an event, etc*.

(my understanding)
In this way, the pattern *... 다는 *does not function as quotation or reported speech. It is simply a quotation-like pattern to describe the content of a noun.
I don't know exactly why, in your sentence, 모른다는 것을 cannot be replaced by simply 모르는 것을.
I really can't find an answer from the too-general grammar books, but I want to make a guess.

나는 *그녀가 임신했을 지도 모른다는 것*을 눈치챘다.

Since we are just _making an attempt_ to describe the content of 것, we are not confident that what we stated is the complete content or the fact itself, so we say it like something we heard from elsewhere, "somthing called...". 모르는 것을 without 다는 will mean it is the whole fact, rather than just a temporary reference.

I refer back to this sentence:
i. この会社には,　*仕事は五時までだという規則*がある.　This company has a rule *which is working until 5 o'clock*.
이 회사에는, 일은 5시까지*라고 하는* *규칙*이 있다. (naver Jp > Kr machine translation)

"Working until 5 o'clock" is just a temporary description, not the whole truth of the "rule", not the "rule" itself.

Anyway, it is my guess, I really need you Koreans to confirm.


----------



## vientito

A while ago I downloaded a grammar text and now it comes in handy to the question I asked here.  I will copy the relevant section down below:

22.2.2 Adnominal clauses involving quotes Nouns such as 사실, 소문, 말, 소리, -거/것, and so on are often accompanied by a preceding quote or report followed by an adnominal suffix. These constructions are useful in situations such as the following.  

(a) To express the nature (fact, rumor, etc.) of a quote/report  ex: 아들이 전사했다는 사실을 아직 모르고 있어요. They still don’t know the fact that their son died in the war. 
(b) To quote a proverb  ex: 인생은 사십부터라는 말이 있잖아요. There is a saying that life begins at 40.  
(c) To emphasize something  ex: 시차가 있다는 걸 잊었다. I forgot the fact that there’s a time difference.  
(d) For certain set expressions  ex: 하면 된다는 신념 the belief that it will get done if you do it  

So quoting itself does not necessarily mean someone is saying something to me and the listener.  It could very well be just hearsay, a report, a fact, a promise, a piece of evidence, a sign, an old saying, or simply something that one wants to attach FOCUS to.  I suppose the example that I put forth could be interpreted as a hearsay so the use of ㄴ다는 is fully justified.  The curious one about quoting is the use of emphasizing.  So it folllows that by omitting the ㄴ다는 from ex (c) it will effectively lessen the focus given to the fact of time difference.  This will invariably depend on the context in which the sentence finds itself.  So if for whatever reason I want to draw attention to something in question I would just slip in a 라는 or 다는 to highlight it.  Sounds to me a very useful feature indeed.

My difficulty at first is that I always have an impression that 다는 /라는 has to associate with with verbal gesture such as asking, begging, telling, ordering.  That was my mental block.  Quoting in fact is more general than that.


----------



## wonlon

Vientito,

Would you tell me the link of your grammar source? Just to see more of it and know about the scholar or so.

By the way, if you post the context of your example 모른다는 것을 눈치챘다, it may help see what 다는 means there.


----------



## vientito

wonlon said:


> Vientito,
> 
> Would you tell me the link of your grammar source? Just to see more of it and know about the scholar or so.
> 
> By the way, if you post the context of your example 모른다는 것을 눈치챘다, it may help see what 다는 means there.



use this link to get the pdf file

http://www.mediafire.com/?qykte2emngk

The section I referenced is on the last chapter.

It's a nice piece of work.

I don't have any context to that because i came across it as an example in naver on-line dictionary.  It's not in full text.

It is also interesting to note that thoughts, beliefs also constitue valid actions to require indirect quotation.  Like I am thinking to myself "I have to do this ..."


----------



## wonlon

vientito said:


> use this link to get the pdf file
> 
> http://www.mediafire.com/?qykte2emngk
> 
> The section I referenced is on the last chapter.
> 
> It's a nice piece of work.
> 
> I don't have any context to that because i came across it as an example in naver on-line dictionary.  It's not in full text.
> 
> It is also interesting to note that thoughts, beliefs also constitue valid actions to require indirect quotation.  Like I am thinking to myself "I have to do this ..."



I also think it is nice piece of explanation. It quite confirms what I tried to summarize as rules during my learning of Korean and Japanese, too.

I haven't used English source of Korean grammar, so your introduction of this source is really helpful to me!

But I don't know if it is really a kind of "requirement", since this quotation-like pattern seems to be a matter of tone.


----------



## vientito

I have finally found a good explanation of it

this link gives many examples and fully explain the role of 다는 

http://www.koreangrammaticalforms.com/entry.php?eid=0000000731


----------



## yj85

"모르는 것" means : things that you do not know.
"모른다는 것" means : the fact that you do not know (something)

니가 모르는 것을 나는 안다.  : I (even) know the things you do not know. (I know things more than you do)
니가 모른다는 것을 나는 안다. (그러니 아는 척 하지마) : I know (the fact) that you do not know. (So, do not pretend that you know).

However, even if we Koreans hear someone say the first sentence, we figure that he might mean the second sentence above.
I mean the first sentence above can mean the first sentence of course, and in some cases also the second sentence.
I think someone saying the first sentence while wanting to mean the second sentence must have been confused with the correct grammar rule.
Korean speakers also get confused with correct grammar, but they just speak, you know, even with the risk of getting ideas misunderstood.
We have things called 'context' so it is not as much hard to tell what the speaker's intention is.

Although the thread is two months old, I hope my explanation would help you.


----------

