|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:53 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kikomom wrote: |
I think Mises may have posted to the wrong thread? What was the Lone Star fiasco?
|
Lonestar fiasco was the buy-out of KEB a few years ago. Lonestar did pretty well, the ROK got upset, and claimed Lonestar was breaking the law.
Here is one article
A WSJ article from 2006 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
If your father killed someone would you be complicit in it or report him to the police?
Of course the devil is in the details. Let's just say he ran over another business man he hates out of rage. If convicted he can go to jail for a very long time. For arguments sake we will say there is very little chance of the police ever convicting him while alive unless you report him to the popos.
What do you do?
Would you be complicit in it? Would you report your own dad? Or....maybe some other option? |
I like to THINK that I'd say yes, because I think one of the greatest achievments of modernity is that we're bound to an ethical standard higher than the absolute family loyalties that would have informed, say, Sicilian blood feuds in the 19th Century.
But it's a tough call, and I probably couldn't say for sure what I would do until I was actually in the situation. I think, though, that even if I DID cover up for my dad out of some sense of fillial loyalty, I would be conscious of having, at some level, done a bad thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kikomom
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: them thar hills--Penna, USA--Zippy is my kid, the teacher in ROK. You can call me Kiko
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Kikomom wrote: |
I think Mises may have posted to the wrong thread? What was the Lone Star fiasco?
|
Lonestar fiasco was the buy-out of KEB a few years ago. Lonestar did pretty well, the ROK got upset, and claimed Lonestar was breaking the law. |
Sorry for the sidetrack here, but Lone Star immediately reminded me of the Carlyle Group, another leveraged buy-out outfit. This one with Bush41 and defense contract connections.
| Quote: |
| Lone Star Funds is a worldwide private equity firm based in Dallas, Texas, that specializes in purchasing distressed companies and assets, often well-known consumer brands that have seen better times or gone through financial difficuties due to leveraged buy-outs. |
| Quote: |
| Carlyle has been profiled in two notable documentaries, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 and William Karel's The World According to Bush. |
But there certainly is a father/son connection there... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kikomom wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Kikomom wrote: |
I think Mises may have posted to the wrong thread? What was the Lone Star fiasco?
|
Lonestar fiasco was the buy-out of KEB a few years ago. Lonestar did pretty well, the ROK got upset, and claimed Lonestar was breaking the law. |
Sorry for the sidetrack here, but Lone Star immediately reminded me of the Carlyle Group, another leveraged buy-out outfit. This one with Bush41 and defense contract connections.
| Quote: |
| Lone Star Funds is a worldwide private equity firm based in Dallas, Texas, that specializes in purchasing distressed companies and assets, often well-known consumer brands that have seen better times or gone through financial difficuties due to leveraged buy-outs. |
| Quote: |
| Carlyle has been profiled in two notable documentaries, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 and William Karel's The World According to Bush. |
But there certainly is a father/son connection there... |
A father/son connection indeed.
Let us not lose sight of the fact that Osama bin Laden's father was also a partner in the Carlyle Group along with Bush43's father, Bush41.
Bush43 never turned in his father for all of his crimes, including murder. Not that I recommend emulating him in all respects, but blood is and should continue to be thicker than water. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kikomom
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: them thar hills--Penna, USA--Zippy is my kid, the teacher in ROK. You can call me Kiko
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ah, but is blood thicker than oil? And for the desert dwellers, are either of those more important than water? Is it karma or divine retribution that Texas is having the worst drought in 50 years? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cheonmunka wrote: |
| Quote: |
| How do you say that? 저는 한번 있었어요 ? |
내가 (제가) 먼저 줄 서있는돼(요) |
Cheers. So that means "I'm standing first in line"? What exactly does 서있는돼 mean? The internet dictionaries don't say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| What exactly does 서있는돼 mean? The internet dictionaries don't say. |
It's not really one word, it's a grammar construct. The 서 is 서다: to stand. The 있 is the verb 있다, which is used to modify the verb to stand into a continuous form (난 서 있어요: I am standing.). The 는데 (Which is the form I assume he means and that he simply misspelt it; I've never heard of 는돼, and neither has either of the Koreans I asked about it) is a grammar construct which is used to provide secondary information. Usually you'd use it as a part of a compound sentence (e.g. 비가 오는데 택시를 타세요: It's raining; take a taxi.), but if you use it at the end of a sentence, it's sort of like trailing off. I was standing here first... (so back off./what's your problem?/stop crowding. etc is implied).
Make sense? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| What exactly does 서있는돼 mean? The internet dictionaries don't say. |
It's not really one word, it's a grammar construct. The 서 is 서다: to stand. The 있 is the verb 있다, which is used to modify the verb to stand into a continuous form (난 서 있어요: I am standing.). The 는데 (Which is the form I assume he means and that he simply misspelt it; I've never heard of 는돼, and neither has either of the Koreans I asked about it) is a grammar construct which is used to provide secondary information. Usually you'd use it as a part of a compound sentence (e.g. 비가 오는데 택시를 타세요: It's raining; take a taxi.), but if you use it at the end of a sentence, it's sort of like trailing off. I was standing here first... (so back off./what's your problem?/stop crowding. etc is implied).
Make sense? |
Crystal clear, thank you. I don't know the contractions. If he'd written "서고 있는대" I could probably have figured it out for myself. Are you a gyopo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| What exactly does 서있는돼 mean? The internet dictionaries don't say. |
It's not really one word, it's a grammar construct. The 서 is 서다: to stand. The 있 is the verb 있다, which is used to modify the verb to stand into a continuous form (난 서 있어요: I am standing.). The 는데 (Which is the form I assume he means and that he simply misspelt it; I've never heard of 는돼, and neither has either of the Koreans I asked about it) is a grammar construct which is used to provide secondary information. Usually you'd use it as a part of a compound sentence (e.g. 비가 오는데 택시를 타세요: It's raining; take a taxi.), but if you use it at the end of a sentence, it's sort of like trailing off. I was standing here first... (so back off./what's your problem?/stop crowding. etc is implied).
Make sense? |
Crystal clear, thank you. I don't know the contractions. If he'd written "서고 있는대" I could probably have figured it out for myself. Are you a gyopo? |
No, I'm not.
As an aside, it's worth noting 서고 있다 and 서 있다 are two different things. 서고 있다 is the continuous act of actually standing up from a sitting position, while 서 있다 is the continuous act of standing itself; the latter is not a contraction of the former. That distinction confused me a bit at first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| What exactly does 서있는돼 mean? The internet dictionaries don't say. |
It's not really one word, it's a grammar construct. The 서 is 서다: to stand. The 있 is the verb 있다, which is used to modify the verb to stand into a continuous form (난 서 있어요: I am standing.). The 는데 (Which is the form I assume he means and that he simply misspelt it; I've never heard of 는돼, and neither has either of the Koreans I asked about it) is a grammar construct which is used to provide secondary information. Usually you'd use it as a part of a compound sentence (e.g. 비가 오는데 택시를 타세요: It's raining; take a taxi.), but if you use it at the end of a sentence, it's sort of like trailing off. I was standing here first... (so back off./what's your problem?/stop crowding. etc is implied).
Make sense? |
Crystal clear, thank you. I don't know the contractions. If he'd written "서고 있는대" I could probably have figured it out for myself. Are you a gyopo? |
No, I'm not.
As an aside, it's worth noting 서고 있다 and 서 있다 are two different things. 서고 있다 is the continuous act of actually standing up from a sitting position, while 서 있다 is the continuous act of standing itself; the latter is not a contraction of the former. That distinction confused me a bit at first. |
Ah, I thought ~고 있다 was the universal conjugation for continuous. Are there many more exceptions like this one?
I probably shouldn't guess someone is a gyopo just because he's better than me at Korean, should I? After all, my Korean is poor. The truth is that you remind me of someone I knew in university who's (I think) half-Korean. Half-Asian, at any rate. I often think I know forumers in real life, or from other websites, but in your case the resemblance is uncanny. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cheonmunka
Joined: 04 Jun 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yep, 서있는데 what I meant. .Always get mixed up with my spelling, I write it as I hear it and say it. Although people would be picklers and pronouce 돼 duway rather than day. Astute of you to realize what I meant.
The meaning of 아, 어, 여 있다?
Compare with 열러있다 as in 'it's open.' It's like it was done that way then it is that same way when you mention it. Maybe if you put a 'still' or 'remains' in front of the verb you can get the meaning. 'The doors still open,' or, 'I am and remain standing here (and haven't changed that circumstance.' But really, there's no exclamatory value in this grammar. Unless you shout it, 아직 서있거든! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Ah, I thought ~고 있다 was the universal conjugation for continuous. Are there many more exceptions like this one? |
I don't think it's an exception, I think it's two entirely separate rules. My feeling is that ~고 있다 is active continuous, and ~어/아/여 있다 is passive continuous.
I'm guessing when I say that, though.
| Koveras wrote: |
| I probably shouldn't guess someone is a gyopo just because he's better than me at Korean, should I? After all, my Korean is poor. |
Mine too. I just like grammar better than vocabulary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kikomom wrote: |
I think Mises may have posted to the wrong thread? What was the Lone Star fiasco?
|
No. I was responding to a poster who argued that western people perhaps take contracts too seriously when compared with Koreans. While I agree with his/her sentiment, the Korean relationship with contracts holds back their development to some extent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kellettp
Joined: 22 Jan 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Ah, I thought ~고 있다 was the universal conjugation for continuous. Are there many more exceptions like this one? |
I don't think it's an exception, I think it's two entirely separate rules. My feeling is that ~고 있다 is active continuous, and ~어/아/여 있다 is passive continuous.
I'm guessing when I say that, though.
| Koveras wrote: |
| I probably shouldn't guess someone is a gyopo just because he's better than me at Korean, should I? After all, my Korean is poor. |
Mine too. I just like grammar better than vocabulary. |
Fox's guess is exactly right. ~고 있다 and ~어/아/여 있다 are two separate things. Fox explained it pretty clearly, but I'll try to help further explain. "서고 있다" means "in the process of standing up" whereas "서 있다" means "standing".
The same goes for 앉다, which means to sit. "앉고 있다" means "in the process of sitting" and "앉아 있다" means simply "sitting/seated".
Also, saying "여기 있어" to someone in an imperative manner means you are commanding for someone to "be here". So it may help to think of the phrase "서 있다" as a way to say "be standing". For example, "그는 서 있다" means "He is standing." I hope that isn't as confusing as I think I made it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Confusionism FTW? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
