" 남자 가 공원 에서 뜁니다 . " 
 Translation : The man runs at the park . 
 ShannenCassidyW 
 If 뜁니다 can be run or jump how do you know which one it is ? 
 We have a lot of that in English . 
 Her run of luck seemed to run out with a run in her stocking . 
 He wound the bandage around the wound . 
 They rocked the rock back and forth to clear it away before the rock concert . 
 The information on the seal ' s death was put under seal . 
 There was scream at a high pitch as the man gave the first pitch with the pitch - covered ball while others worked to pitch a tent on the pitch . 
 TWICEx 2 
 I think this is more of a case in which two different words mean the same . Your examples are single words with different meanings . 
 You can ' t without context . Both run and jump are accepted . 
 KathySou 
 That is my exactly my question . 
 I think I will need to watch a lot of video classes before try to finish this . I didnt get most of the particles 
 Flows 9 
 Difference between 달립니다 and 뜁니다 ? 
 nbnsldv 
 달립니다 is only " run ", while 뜁니다 is " jump " and " run " 
 sarabenhmida 
 Should ' t it be " to the park " ? 
 euxsy 
 It should be in the park because 에서 suggests something taking place in the location . 까지 ( to / until ) should be used if you want to say to the park . 
 Ms . Reed 
 Isn ' t " 에서 " supposed to be " from "? 
 George 526247 
 It means " at ", almost always , i . e . the location where an action takes place . Only when there ' s also a destination mentioned , does it translate to " from " in English . 
 junnietrbl 
 That ' s 에게서 
 No , that ' s an indirect object version of from . 
 " 남자 가 공원 으로 뜁니다 . " 
 seagudinski 7 
 How do you know if 뜁니다 means jump or run ? 
 男子 가 公園 에서 뜁니다 
 " 뜁니다 " Oh , that takes me back ! To Peace Corps training , specifically , and this children ' s song . 
 산 톢이 톢이 야 
 어디 로 가 는 야 
 깡쭝 깡쭝 뛰 면서 
 Can either 뜁니다 or 달립니다 be used in this case ? 
 angelika 1102 
 " 뜁니다 " is means Jump , and Run . So it would be better to use " 달립니다 " 
 Is " The man at the park runs " also correct ? Because the English grammar in this is rather off 
 KrystleChe 
 Korean sentences have a different format than English ones . 
 LeasaToled 
 That ' s how it is in Spanish they put the action before 
 How do i know when it can translate to " run " or " jump " ? 
 i don ' t get how to know when it ' s " to " and when it ' s " at " lmao can someone please explain ? 
 chaejjang 
 How was 뜁나다 formed 
 Felix 455765 
 I think 뛰 다 is the jump \ runs verb , and ㅂ 니다 is a official formal style 
 khadija 571558 
 I google translated 뜁 and it says its to skip ? 
 CelineSlowTurtle 
 Its because 뛰 is the actual word , and ㅂ 니다 describes you doing it . Together it is 뜁니더 . So it ' s like 뛰 that means to jump and with ㅂ 니다 it means jumping . 
 I meant 뜁니다 
 DarthMalcolm 
 The man jumps in the park , should also be correct am I right ? 
 Yes , and it is currently accepted . 
 FoxyJeon 
 For fr , who even jumps to the park 
 bey 0 ndtan 
 The " 뙵니다 " means " runs at " while " 달립니다 " means just " run " 
 MoriahThom 8 
 남자 가 공원 에서 뜁니다 . 
 YanaEvgeni 
 How would you add 메일 to the sentence ? 
 rainy 3000 
 I said " the man runs in the park " and got it right . But is there a difference between " in " and " at "? 
 FriedJessicaaaaa 
 Just for a tip : You can ' t figure out whether 뜁니다 is either jump or run because of context clues . 
 It is more common to see a man running in a park rather than jumping without reason . 
 Think of that before you answer ! Talk to me in Korean ' s YouTube channel has a Q and A titled " 감사 합니다 or 고마워요 " and they have a whole discussion on 뜁니다 
 Wokie 1 
 Think a better translation is ' the man runs in the park ' 
 This man might be a thriathlete 
 I think it should be " The man runs to the park ", not at the park . That ' s grammatically incorrect . 
 There is a problem within the engrish language cause at means on the boarfer or boardering . Good english would be like he is running within the park or running around " in " the park . Because around again would imply that he runs in circels around , sorry for my bad english , the park . So what do you think ? Please delete this garbage and start over . 
 " At " can mean on the border or having recently arrived or " in the vicinity of ", but it can mean a lot of things , and prepositions are usually used inconsistently in any language that has them . " At the park " is more commonly said than " in the park " in my experience , but they can mean the same thing , and neither necessarily implies on the boarder ( though you ' re right , at can imply on the boarder ) . Similarly , " at the airport " is used more commonly than " in the airport " to mean the exact same thing . At can also specify a target : " I fire a missile at the park " means that the missile is intended to hit the park . 
 Sproule 1 
 " to the park " or " in the park " is correct . You dont run " at " the park . 
 Joshua 7373 
 Nope . You definitely can run " at " the park . Just like you can run at the gym , or at the track . 
 I think " at the track " is less common . I would say " on the track . " In fact you can run on the track at the gym , or you can run on the track at the park . 
 Caveat : in almost any language , there are many inconsistencies in how prepositions ( and postpositions ) are used . For example , in English , we say " in the car " to mean inside the vehicle , but we " on the bus " and " on the plane " and we mean the same thing by " on " in those other examples as we mean by " in " in " in the car . " So please understand that the explanation I am about to give probably has some exceptions that I did not take into account . 
 In English , " to " usually implies a destination or reception of some kind , while " at " ( or sometimes in , or on , often in different ways but sometimes merely used for different nouns ) usually implies just a location where an action is done . In other cases , " at " sometimes it implies a direction or target , in particular when the noun following the " at " is not a location and / or when the verb can have a target . Here are some examples . " I ' m running at the park . " " park " is a location and " run " does not have a target , so " at " means that the park is the location where I am running . " I ' m running in the park . " Means the same thing as " at ", but " at " is more commonly used than " in " when used with park . " I ' m running to the park . " The park is my destination , but not the location where the action of running occurs . ( Once I am at the park -- that is , once the park is where I am -- I have reached my destination , and so I probably am not running anymore unless the context says otherwise . ) " I throw the ball at John . " John is not a location , and " throw " can have a target ( the ball is intended to hit the target ) , so " at " implies the direction of the ball , and a target that the ball is intended to hit . The sentence means that I throw the ball , intending for the ball to hit John . " I throw the ball to John . " In this case and in many other cases where the noun ( John in this case ) following " to " is not a place or the verb ( throw in this case ) can have a target , " to " implies reception ( or at least the intent of reception ) , which in this case means John catches the ball ( or at least , that the person throwing intended for John to catch the ball -- you could throw the ball to John and he may not catch it if he wasn ' t paying attention or if he tried but didn ' t succeed ) . " I fire a missile at the park . " The park is the target of the missile . " I fire a missile to the park . " This would usually not be said . It sounds weird , as if the park were to receive the missile . " I fire a missile in the park . " The park is the location where the missile is fired . The missile may or may not leave the park . " I fire a missile from the park . " The park is the location where the missile is fired , but " from " implies exit , so the missile is in the park when it ' s fired , but not in the park at some point after it ' s fired . " I run to my child . " Even though " child " is not a location , " to " still implies a destination . * " I run at my child . " This one is difficult to explain , but it ' s kind of like having a target and might be used in the context of sports . " John caught the ball , so we all ran at him . "