영어 Hint of the Day #24: RT @Fr33S0ul: "건성으로 듣다. I listen to someone in an absent sort of way." Wrong.

Recently, I read this on Twitter.
RT @Fr33S0ul:  건성으로 듣다. I listen to someone in an absent sort of way.

This is a gramatically incorrect sentence.  As has been posted here, and here, learning English via Twitter doesn't always work.  That is particularly true when the teacher is not fluent.

Correct translations of "건성으로 듣다" would be:
(o)  I am only partially paying attention to what is being said.
(o)  I am only partially listening.

The reason that the sentence "I listen to someone in an absent sort of way" is that the word "absent" is an adjective which only describes nouns.  However "건성으로 듣다" requires a description of the word "listen," which is a verb.  In order to describe a verb, the word must be an adverb, not an adjective.  Therefore, the use of the word "absent" in the translation, "I listen to someone in an absent sort of way" cannot be correct. 

As usual, you can expect loud tirades (with no reasoning attached ) in response to this blog entry.  The Lost Seoul's response?
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."  -W. Shakespeare

The Real Victims of KORUS FTA Failure? Korean Citizens

The G20 Seoul Summit Was Anti-Climatic in Many Ways....

Before the G20 Seoul Summit, there was great preparation, great anxiety, and not-so-great anticipation of a final agreement to ratify the KORUS (Korea-U.S.) Free Trade Agreement.  At best, the G20 delivered on one out of the three.  Perhaps the only certain outcome?  Continuing inflation in South Korea to the detriment of Korean citizens.

War of Words Among the Largest
In a strange twist, Ben Bernanke was the target of most of the verbal attacks by foreign leaders around the world.  As a result of QE2 (Quantitative Easing 2), which is a program where the US Federal Reserve Bank will purchase between USD $500-750 Billion in U.S. government bonds, foreign central bankers roundly criticized "Helicopter Ben."  Of course, this is somewhat ironic, given that governments around the world have also propped up their domestic economies in various ways.  The EU, Japan, China, and yes, South Korea have embarked on massive government spending programs in order to prevent deflation and the resulting loss of consumer confidence.  That, in turn, would start a spiral in which consumers don't spend, which creates another round of economic duress.  In South Korea, the Bak administration has spent a great amount of money in buying vacant apartments outside of Seoul (신도시) to avoid further losses by Korean construction companies.  In Europe, the ECB has purchased government bonds of Greece and now, Ireland is next in line to received direct financial aid.  Countries are trying to preserve their domestic economies but the result is artificial currency depreciation.  For global leaders to point at Helicopter Ben is irony at its height.

No KORUS FTA = Increasing Inflation for Koreans
The bottom line is that both the U.S. and Korean governments are being foolish by not reaching final agreement on the Korea-U.S. (KORUS) Free Trade Agreement.  Beef and autos continue to the main points of contention.  However, the fact that many other common goods would be imported into Korea at much lower prices would have created downward pressure on inflation.  That is very important to the average working Korean, where food inflation is rampant to the point where even cabbage used in making kimchi has become unaffordable to many.  Now, The Lost Seoul isn't stating that final ratification of the KORUS FTA would result in instaneous downward pressure on all prices, but the fact is that greater competition due to lower tariffs on many goods can do nothing other than help mitigate the increasing pressure on the cost of living in Korea.  So while special interest groups are delaying ratification of the KORUS FTA, the victims are Korean citizens who are struggling to make ends meet.  The Bak administration would do well to attempt to break the impasse, or pressure will increase on the Bank of Korea to increase interest rates to strengthen the Won.  Doing so would jeopardize the competitiveness of Korean products on the international marketplace.  That is a vicious cycle that may be difficult to stop, at precisely the wrong time if the global economic recovvery continues to be painfully slow.  Korea has difficult choices in its immediate future:  pressing the U.S. to finally ratify the KORUS FTA should be a top priority.

Korea-US FTA: Why Hasn't This Passed Yet? Both Sides Are Being Equally Ridiculous

The leaders of the largest 20 economies in the world are going to gather in Seoul this week.  Presidents Lee (South Korea) and Obama (United States) have been trying, at various speeds over the past 3 years, to ratify the the Korea-U.S. (KORUS) Free Trade Agreement.  Apparently, according to Reuters, there are two areas where disagreements still exist: autos and beef. 

It's hard to decide whether South Korea or the U.S. is being more ridiculous in this 3-year delay:  let's just call it a draw.

Autos
Ford took out a full page advertisement against the KORUS FTA late last week, with claims that Korean manufacturers would be allowed to ship 52 cars to Korea for every American manufacturer.  This advertisement has received a fair amount of publicity in the United States' press, including from think tanks, and via newspaper coverage.
Most people in the United States are well-aware of Ford Motor Company's dramatic strides.  It declined government aid during the financial crisis and bankrupcies of both General Motors and Chysler; now Ford is generally-considered to be the best managed U.S. auto manufacturer.  Equity investors have been handsomely rewarded as well:  Ford stock has risen by 62.1% in the past 52 weeks alone.  Senator Carl Levin, Michigan Senator, has also voiced concerns to support his contituency.  American complaints against the  KORUS FTA concern tariffs, and adherence to emissions standards.  Not only are both areas without merit, but neither addresses the fundamental problem:  Korean consumers won't buy a Ford passenger car in large numbers anytime soon.

This is a quote from the Reuters' article,

"Levin and others had advocated the United States phase out the 2.5 percent U.S. auto tariff over at least 15 years, but allow for a quicker elimination if sales of American cars to South Korea hit certain levels." 

Linking the elimination of U.S. tariffs to the level of American car sales to Korean consumers?  Let's be frank and honest here:  the U.S. auto manufacturers are worried about the increasing market share of Hyundai and Kia in the U.S.  That's it.  GM is silent, which is being interpreted as neutral.  Do you know why?  In Korea, GM owns Daewoo Motor, which failed as a result of the Daewoo Group's enormous debt, coupled with the Asian currency crisis.  So GM, if it complained a la Ford, GM would be criticizing itself. 

For its part, Korea should also drop any price barriers, and let Korean consumers decide.  Ford would have a long, long way to go:  it has no dealer network, no maintenance facilities, and most importantly:  what Koreans would buy a Ford Focus instead of Hyundai Elantra for essentially the same price?  There will be some, of course, that want to buy as a result of being different.  That would be the extent of it. Until a foreign-made product is unquestionably superior, everyday Koreans won't buy it.  One day, take a Korean Air flight from Seoul to the U.S.  Do you see all the Koreans onboard?  They pay, easily 10% higher prices for a ticket on Korean Air than on United Airlines or Delta Airlines.  Nevertheless, those seats do not go unfilled.  Long gone are the days when Korean-made products are objectively inferior to American counterparts.  When you add this simple fact to everyday Koreans' affinity for domestically-made products, Ford has a long uphill battle.  It knows this and that is why it wants to tie the phasing out of the 2.5% U.S. auto tariff to the level of American car sales. 

On emissions standards, the complaints of American manufacturers are easily answered by one simple statement.  Lexus, Honda, BMW, Audi, and Mercedes-Benz all comply with Korean emissions standards.  We can have all sorts of other discussions about the inequity of Korean emissions standards, etc.  None of them matter in the least.  Other, foreign-based automanufacturers know the laws, and comply. 

In short, the U.S. objections do not make a lot of sense.  They reveal two worries: the loss of domestic market share, and the inevitable failure to gain a foothold in Korea.

Beef

Koreans love the idea of conspiracy, and do not quite understand the power of the fear of litigation.   There is good reason for this.  The large conglomerates (chaebol) have dominated almst every facet of Korean life for as long as anyone can remember.  When there is a production problem in some area which causes illness, there is little recourse for a consumer to complain, or sue.  A couple of years ago, it was found that some lunches prepared for schools was defective.  There was little press coverage, and no report of compensation to the students. 

The nature of the complaints against U.S. beef, in The Lost Seoul's view, are tied to this lack of belief in consumers' rights.  There would not nearly be the "fear" of BSE (mad cow disease) if Korean citizens fundamentally believed in the concept of consumers' rights.   Think about U.S. corporations' actions.  If you think about the recent over-the-counter drug epidsode, the manufacturers pull everything off their shelves immediately.  Why?  The public good?  Yes, you can make that claim, and the companies certainly state that.  However, it is a fact that there are HUGE legal liabilities that need to be avoided.  To everyday Koreans, this is not a part of the psyche. 

The fact is that Americans eat beef of all ages, without knowing the age, and without asking any questions.  If there was a problem that was known by the company responsible, the legal consequences would be severe to the point of potential extinction of the company. Have any Americans asked at a restaurant, "How old is the beef that is being served in this dish?"  Nope. 

There is the issue of wagyu, which is similar to Japanese kobe beef.  It is indeed tender, and expensive (although not as pricey as kobe).  Korean objections to American imports as a result of potential are also pointless:  the number of Koreans that insist on buying, or choosing restaurants because wagyu is being served are relatively few, and they won't change their consumption of wagyu because of the fact that there is filet mignon available. The downside of the tariffs on U.S. beef?  Inflation on existing products.  Food inflation is a major problem in Korea.  Any Korean complaints against the import of U.S. beef are outweighed easily by the benefits that everyday Koreans will enjoy due to greater supply, and lower price inflation.  Even if this benefit were small, the average Korean household would benefit. 

Not suprisingly, special interest groups are blocking the passage of the KORUS FTA.  They do so without merit, and at the cost to both American and Korean consumers. 

영어 Hint of the Day #23: Don't use the word "because" to start a sentence unless you are an expert

영어 Hint of the Day #23: Don't use the word "because" to start a sentence unless you are an expert

Today, I read this on http://www.twitter.com/.  It is a common error, and can be corrected easily.

(x)  Because the test is an important step to make my life happy.

Sentences should not begin with the word "because."  Why is that?  Read the sentence above again.  There is no subject or verb.  The word "because" is the first word of a clause, which answers the question "why?"  In verbal (spoken) English, it is common to begin a sentence with the word "because."

For example, this is in spoken English.
Question:  Why do you think that Shin Min-a is pretty?
Answer:   Because she has large dimples.

Strictly speaking, the answer is grammatically incorrect (even if factually correct).  In this case, the person giving the answer has shortened the sentence.  If the person giving the answer spoke correctly, it would've been this:

Answer:  She is pretty because she has large dimples.

If you are an advanced English speaker or writer, there is a correct way of beginning a sentence with the word "because."

(o)  Because she has large dimples, Shin Min-a is pretty.
(o)  Because I am ugly and have bad breath, I don't have a girlfriend.

In these cases, there are subjects and verbs, and therefore, the sentences are grammatically correct.  Remember that The Lost Seoul is trying to advise native Korean speakers to use simple sentence structure correctly first, and then make it more complicated after you have mastered the simple cases.  One way to make it easy and correct:  don't use the word "because" as the first word in a sentence, especially in written English.