0

피우다 needs a direct object complement.
가다 prohibits direct object complement.
Are there korean verbs which admit optionaly direct object complements ?

7
  • 1
    I'm not sure I've heard the term "direct object complement" before - could you add an example sentence to show what the direct object complement would be for 피우다?
    – topo morto
    Apr 5 '17 at 21:46
  • I think you're confusing terminology. 피우다 requires a direct object, not direct object complement. A direct complement would be the word "Spot" in the sentence "He named the dog Spot." It's quite normal for verbs to have optional direct objects - any verb in the dictionary labeled 타동사 / 자동사 is an example
    – gaeguri
    Apr 5 '17 at 23:21
  • @MujjinGun That's what I was saying - 피우다 takes a direct object, not a direct object complement. Korean uses quotative forms like -라(고) where English has a direct object complement, that's why my example of a direct object complement was in English.
    – gaeguri
    Apr 7 '17 at 5:04
  • Yes, 가다 can take an object. I believe 앉다 is an example of a verb that is always intransitive i.e. never takes a direct object. But few verbs are always intransitive.
    – gaeguri
    Apr 7 '17 at 5:07
  • @MujjinGun It wasn't my question. TripleDragonVolant asked the question. I just wrote a comment saying that 피우다 requires a direct object, not a direct object complement.
    – gaeguri
    Apr 7 '17 at 5:48
1

There are direct objects and there are complements. These are two different things, at least they are in Korean.

For example, a direct object comes before a transitive verb, and is marked with 을/를. In the "The man drinks the coffee" (남자가 커피를 마신다.) "coffee" is a direct object of the verb "drink".

Only two verbs in Korean take a complement. 되다 (become) and 아니다 (not be, not identified as). Complements are marked with 이/가.

For example: 씨앗이 나무가 되었다. (The seed became a tree.)

For the record, actually since many other verbs are formed by adding 되다 to a (usually Chinese-derived) noun, you could probably argue that those take a complement too...

There is no overlap here between direct objects and complements.

With regards to "optionality" strictly speaking complements are not optional with those two verbs, they are required. However, there are times when 이/가 is replaced by 은/는, 도, 만, etc. And of course in speaking the marker is often dropped, but still, there is a complement.

Some verbs are both transitive and intransitive, such as "kick" (He kicks a ball. The baby kicks.) but with a transitive verb you need an object to really make sense, eh?

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.