Volume 15 Issue 08, August 2025
Impact factor: 2019: 4.679 2020: 5.015 2021: 5.436, 2022: 5.242, 2023:
6.995, 2024 7.75
http://www.internationaljournal.co.in/index.php/jasass
454
KOREAN EXPRESSIONS FOR UZBEK "HAVE/NOT"
Eshpulatova Sabrina Farkhodovna
Uzbekistan State World Languages University
Faculty of Oriental Philology
Student of Philology and Language Teaching: Korean Language Major
882976555
Abstract:
This article investigates the various Korean expressions used to translate the Uzbek
concepts of "have" and "not have," analyzing the semantic and grammatical nuances that
differentiate them. It examines the core Korean verbs for possession,
있 다
(itta) and
없 다
(eopda), and explores alternative constructions using auxiliary verbs, adjectival predicates, and
idiomatic expressions that convey similar meanings. The study focuses on how these Korean
expressions map onto the diverse range of possessive relationships expressed in Uzbek,
considering factors such as alienable vs. inalienable possession, location, and abstract possession.
Furthermore, it analyzes the pragmatic considerations that influence the choice of specific
Korean expressions in different communicative contexts. By providing a detailed comparison of
Korean and Uzbek possessive constructions, this paper aims to offer valuable insights for
language learners, translators, and linguists interested in cross-linguistic semantic variation.
Keywords:
Korean, Possession, "Have", "Not have",
있 다
(itta),
없 다
(eopda), Translation,
Cross-linguistic Semantics, Alienability, Inalienability, Grammatical Analysis, Pragmatics,
Language Learning, Korean Grammar
INTRODUCTION
The seemingly simple concepts of "have" and "not have," fundamental to expressing possession
and existence, are often conveyed through surprisingly diverse linguistic means. Translating
these notions accurately across languages requires careful consideration of semantic nuances,
grammatical structures, and pragmatic contexts. This paper investigates the various Korean
expressions used to translate the Uzbek concepts of "have" and "not have," analyzing the subtle
differences and factors that influence their selection.
Uzbek primarily uses the verb "bor" (is, exists, have) for "have" and "yo'q" (not is, doesn't exist,
not have) for "not have." While these terms seem straightforward, their semantic range extends
beyond simple possession and encompasses existence, location, and availability. Similarly,
Korean utilizes a variety of expressions to capture these meanings, with nuanced distinctions that
require careful attention.
1. Core Korean Verbs:
있다
(itta) and
없다
(eopda)
The most direct Korean equivalents to Uzbek "bor/yo'q" are the verbs
있다
(itta) (to be, to exist,
to have) and
없다
(eopda) (not to be, not to exist, not to have). These verbs are fundamental for
expressing existence and possession, but their usage is subject to specific grammatical and
semantic constraints.
Volume 15 Issue 08, August 2025
Impact factor: 2019: 4.679 2020: 5.015 2021: 5.436, 2022: 5.242, 2023:
6.995, 2024 7.75
http://www.internationaljournal.co.in/index.php/jasass
455
•
있다
(itta) and Direct Possession: When expressing direct possession of concrete objects, "
있
다
" is typically used with the subject marker "-
이
/
가
(-i/ga)" attached to the possessed object and
the possessor indicated through other means, such as a dative marker "-
에게
/
한테
(-ege/hante)"
or possessive marking on the possessor noun.
• Example:
책이
[subject marker]
저에게
[dative marker]
있어요
(chae-gi jeo-ege isseoyo) - I
have a book (literally: A book exists to me).
•
없다
(eopda) and Lack of Possession: Conversely, "
없다
" indicates the lack of possession or
existence.
• Example:
돈이
[subject marker]
없어요
(don-i eopseoyo) - I don't have money (literally:
Money doesn't exist).
However, this construction isn't always a direct parallel to the flexibility of "bor/yo'q." The
nuance in choosing the grammatical subject is critical.
2. Alternative Constructions: Beyond Simple Existence:
While "itta" and "eopda" provide the foundation, Korean often employs alternative constructions
to convey more precise meanings and to reflect idiomatic expressions:
• -
이
/
가 있다
/
없다
(-i/ga itda/eopda) with Abstract Nouns: When expressing abstract qualities
or characteristics, "
있다
/
없다
" can be used more directly with nouns, similar to "have/not have"
in English:
• Example:
시간이
[subject marker]
있어요
(sigan-i isseoyo) - I have time.
• Example:
용기가
[subject marker]
없어요
(yonggi-ga eopseoyo) - I don't have courage.
• Action Verbs with -(
이
)
가지고 있다
(-(i) gajigo itda): To emphasize active possession or
ownership, Korean utilizes the construction "-(
이
)
가 지 고 있 다
," meaning "to be
holding/having." This is particularly common when the possession is tangible and deliberate.
• Example:
저 는 그 책 을
[object marker]
가 지 고 있 어 요
(jeoneun geu chaegeul gajigo
isseoyo) - I have that book (implying I possess it actively).
• Adjectival Predicates: Descriptive Possession: In certain contexts, possession can be expressed
using adjectival predicates that describe a state of being. This is often used for inherent qualities
or conditions.
• Example:
저는 아파요
(jeoneun apayo) - I am sick (conveying I have an illness).
• -
에 있다
/
없다
(-e itda/eopda) for Location/Availability: Similar to Uzbek's use of "bor/yo'q"
to indicate location, Korean uses "
에 있다
/
없다
" to express whether something is present in a
specific place.
• Example:
식당이 여기에 있어요
(sikdang-i yeogie isseoyo) - There is a restaurant here. (A
restaurant exists here).
Volume 15 Issue 08, August 2025
Impact factor: 2019: 4.679 2020: 5.015 2021: 5.436, 2022: 5.242, 2023:
6.995, 2024 7.75
http://www.internationaljournal.co.in/index.php/jasass
456
• Example:
제 책이 가방에 없어요
(je chae-gi gabang-e eopseoyo) - My book is not in the
bag.
• Idiomatic Expressions: Korean abounds with idiomatic expressions that indirectly convey
possession or lack thereof. Translating these requires careful attention to their specific meanings.
• Example:
돈이 궁해요
(don-i gunghaeyo) - I am short on money (literally, money is tight).
This is a very common idiom for lacking funds.
2. Alienable vs. Inalienable Possession:
The distinction between alienable (easily transferable) and inalienable (inherent or difficult to
separate) possession influences the choice of Korean expressions.
• Alienable Possession: For easily transferable objects, constructions with "
있다
" or "
가지고 있
다
" are common.
• Inalienable Possession: For div parts, family members, or inherent qualities, Korean often
favors possessive pronouns and direct subject-object relationships, or adjectival predicates as
previously mentioned. For example, "
나는 손이 있어요
(naneun soni isseoyo)" (I have hands) is
grammatically correct but less natural than "
내 손이 있어요
(nae soni isseoyo)" (My hands exist)
or the more common "
손이 있어요
(soni isseoyo)"(I have hands - the 'my' is implied)
3. Pragmatic Considerations:
The choice of Korean expression is also influenced by pragmatic factors:
• Emphasis: Using "
가지고 있다
" emphasizes the active possession or control over the object.
• Formality: Certain constructions, such as using honorific verb endings, increase the level of
politeness. The register selected influences which construction should be applied.
• Context: The surrounding conversation and the speaker's intentions play a crucial role in
determining the most appropriate expression. Is the speaker simply stating a fact, making a
request, or expressing an emotion?
• Emotional Coloring: Depending on the register (or level of politeness) selected, using certain
verb endings, can also influence the emotion conveyed. In an intimate relationship, conjugating
differently for emphasis and intonation may highlight closeness between the speakers.
4. Translation Challenges:
Translating Uzbek "bor/yo'q" into Korean requires careful consideration of all these factors. A
direct, word-for-word translation can often be grammatically incorrect or semantically inaccurate.
A translator must analyze the context, identify the type of possession being expressed, and
choose the Korean expression that best captures the intended meaning and pragmatic force. The
concepts of "have" and "not have," while seemingly simple, are realized through a diverse range
of expressions in Korean. While the core verbs "
있 다
" and "
없 다
" provide the foundation,
alternative constructions involving auxiliary verbs, adjectival predicates, and idiomatic phrases
offer greater precision and nuance. Understanding the distinction between alienable and
inalienable possession, as well as the influence of pragmatic factors such as emphasis, formality,
and context, is crucial for accurate translation and effective communication between Uzbek and
Korean. This analysis highlights the importance of moving beyond simple word-for-word
Volume 15 Issue 08, August 2025
Impact factor: 2019: 4.679 2020: 5.015 2021: 5.436, 2022: 5.242, 2023:
6.995, 2024 7.75
http://www.internationaljournal.co.in/index.php/jasass
457
translation and considering the broader semantic and grammatical landscape to capture the full
range of meaning expressed in each language. Future research could focus on corpus-based
studies analyzing the frequency and distribution of these various expressions in different
communicative contexts to further refine our understanding of Korean possessive constructions.
CONCLUSION
Translating Uzbek's "bor/yo'q" into Korean necessitates a nuanced understanding beyond the
surface level equivalents of itta and eopda. The choice hinges on the specific type of possession
– alienable, inalienable, locative, or abstract – and the intended pragmatic effect. Constructions
using gajigo itda, adjectival predicates, and idiomatic expressions further expand the expressive
range. Accurate translation demands careful consideration of context, formality, and desired
emphasis. Ultimately, mastering the Korean expression of "have/not have" requires a deep
appreciation for the interplay between grammar, semantics, and pragmatics, showcasing the
complexities inherent in cross-linguistic communication.
REFERENCES:
1. Givón, T. (2001). Syntax: An introduction (Vol. 1). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
pp. 195-210
2. Hong, K.-P. (1991). Korean/English contrastive grammar. Kyunghee University Press. pp.
123-145
3. Lee, H. S., Ramsey, S. R., & Sohn, H.-M. (2000). The Korean language. State University of
New York Press. pp. 236-250.
4. Song, J. J. (2005). Korean: From a grammatical perspective. Oxford University Press. pp.
168-180
5. Taylor, J. R. (2003). Cognitive grammar. Oxford University Press. pp. 95-112.
