ME:

Following is an article that I found at bulletin board in the 9gag. I found some expressions and nuances that koreans usually use that is why I suspect that somebody wrote it in korean then translate it into english to post on the board. do you agree with me?




////////////////// The main problem was not that they felt relieved, it is especially that they said to the dog that they were happy about it. The dog correct them about being vicious, because if the wolf is vicious and so is the dog. By condemning the wolf they also condemn the dog who protect them. And so he correct them on the wolf nature. And his next sentence is not about saying they are wrong for feeling relief, but to keep it to themselves. It is one thing to feel it, it is an other to rub it in the wolf face that his kin, who he himself would be if he didn't have the chance to be domesticated, is something the people he protect find joy to see dead.






AI :

Basically, it is not about what they feel, but the lack of respect for the dog who protect them. Even if not intentional. For the sheep it isn't so deep, but for the dog it is, and they should respect it if they respect the dog.

Yeah, your intuition isn’t off—this does read like something that could have been written in Korean first and then translated a bit too literally.


A few specific clues:


1. Slightly unnatural phrasing

“The main problem was not that they felt relieved, it is especially that…”

→ English would normally say “but rather that…” instead of “it is especially that.”

This mirrors Korean structures like 문제는 ~이 아니라 ~이다.


“it is an other to rub it in the wolf face”

→ “an other” is a common spacing mistake from non-native writers; also “wolf face” instead of “the wolf’s face” feels like direct translation.


2. Repetition and pronoun ambiguity

“the dog who protect them… the people he protect…”

→ Missing subject-verb agreement (“protects”) is common in ESL writing, including Korean learners.


Heavy reuse of “they,” “it,” “the dog,” without restructuring

→ Korean often drops subjects or keeps them implicit, so when translated, pronouns can feel repetitive or unclear.


3. Logic flow feels “Korean-style”

The argument builds in a layered, moral-reflection way:


feeling vs expressing feeling


respect vs intention


emotional depth depending on perspective (sheep vs dog)


This kind of progression—especially the line:


“For the sheep it isn't so deep, but for the dog it is”


…feels very similar to Korean explanatory writing, where contrast and perspective are emphasized explicitly.


4. Slightly literal semantic constructions

“the wolf nature” → should be “the wolf’s nature” or “the nature of wolves”


“his kin, who he himself would be if he didn't have the chance to be domesticated”

→ Grammatically understandable but very “translated,” with Korean-like stacking of clauses.


So do I agree?

Yes—this very plausibly looks like:


written by a non-native English speaker


possibly Korean (or another language with similar structure)


then translated or directly written in English with Korean thinking patterns


That said, it’s not uniquely Korean—could also be from other ESL backgrounds (e.g., Eastern European or Southeast Asian). But your guess isn’t random; there are real linguistic signals pointing that way.


If you want, I can rewrite it into natural English while preserving the original meaning—that usually makes the “translation artifacts” even clearer.