verb pages

If you come across a mistake on the website (not only on the forum), you can write it here. It can be about anything: From typos and mistakes in punctuation to spelling errors and wrong explanations.
Post Reply
Grytolle
Superlid
Posts: 1390
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 12:42 pm
Country of residence: Belgium
Mother tongue: Swedish
Second language: English
Third language: Dutch
Fourth language: German
Gender: Male

verb pages

Post by Grytolle » Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:59 pm

't Kofschip or pocketfish

It is probably quite difficult to remember these letters separately. To remember them, the Dutch use the words 't kofschip ('the koff boat') or 't fokschaap ('the breeding sheep'), which both contain all of the t-verb consonants. The only consonant that is missing is the letter 'x'. This is not such a problem as there are only very few verb stems that end in -x. A common x-verb is faxen (to fax). For those of you who find it hard to remember 't kofschip or 't fokschaap, I invented a new fish: The "pocket fish". This may be easier to remember for English speakers. Perhaps you will find a better one yourself.
http://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=Verbs.re09


"sj" or "sh" is missing too in 't kofschip. "x" isnt really missing, since you hear that it's the same as ks.

Also, I think it'd be more practical to find the stem of a verb keeping z or s.

lezen
leez <- stem
leezde, leezt <- add the right suffix
leesde, leest <- apply the spelling rule saying z is spelled as s


##Factje for any verdiepingsinformation that might be added
the suffixes -de and -den that are used to form weak verbs come from "doen"(or rather, an older form of it, perhaps).
You can compare this to the English construction:
I did open that == Ik dee(d) open dat
ik opende dat

Adding "ware" to the conditional page would be nice too, atleast for passive knowledge.


For the passive voice:
A good way to memorize what verbs forms to use, is simply to think of the auxiliary verbs as forms of "worden" (which is very true)

ik word gegeten
ik werd gegeten
ik ben gegeten geworden
ik was gegeten geworden

Keeping "geworden" isn't considered standard language though^^, but that I still find this a good way to get it right.
If you use the polite imperative, you have to add the personal pronoun u
Not necessarily, it's quite already to use just the stem of the verb without the pronoun. stem+t is archaic though, and then only used when adressing more than one person

ga zitten, meneer
gaat u zitten, meneer
gaat zitten, mijne heren

Another frequent imperative-construction is using "gelieven", but maybe that is to be found in some other page - just thought I should mention it to be sure:
gelieve u te gaan zitten
gelief(t) u te gaan zitten
men gelieve zich onmiddelijk na het wakker worden een bad te nemen <- not really on topic, but it's fun to write


This is such a tiny irregularity, that willen is really regarded as a regular verb. However, it has to be mentioned, so why not mention it here.
It's a mixed verb. (forms in use are bolded)
willen, wilde(n), gewild
willen, wou(de(n))
, *gewoud
curiousa: notice the resemblance with "would"

"hij wilt" is acceptable but not as "correct" as "hij wil", much like "jij wil" is accebtable, eventhough "jij wilt" is better

Verbs not having -t in third person singular are often modal verbs, mogen, zijn/wezen, willen, etc, if i recall correctly




Regular past, past participle gets -en

For example: bannen, bande, gebannen

Verbs in this group: bakken, bannen, barsten, behangen, braden, brouwen, heten, hoeven, houwen, lachen, laden, malen, raden, scheiden, spannen, stoten, vouwen, wassen, weven.
the term "weak past" would be more suiting, since the strong verb system is regular too, in its own way. Spam with the old preterites I happen to know of the top of my head - not suggesting those be added

bakken - biek
(also: maken - miek - gemaken/gemaakt)
behangen - behing
heten - hiet
lachen - loeg
raden - ried
scheiden <- this verb would be orginally weak I think (not spelled with ij)
wassen - wies
weven - woof
Verbs in this group: beginnen, binden, blinken, dingen naar, dringen, drinken, dwingen, glimmen, klimmen, klinken, krimpen, schrikken, slinken, spinnen, springen, stinken, vinden, winden, winnen, wringen, zingen, zinken, zinnen.
Curiousa: Those verbs are historically two groups, where some of them had an a in singular. Example: winnen, wan, wonnen, gewonnen - vinden, vand, vonden, gevonden

Past and past participle end in -cht

For example: brengen, bracht, gebracht

Verbs in this group: brengen, denken, kopen, zoeken.
Curiousa: Those verbs are weak and strong at once. They both have a dental suffix -te, and a vowel/consonant change
Ik bracht(e)
ik dacht(e)
ik kocht(e)
ik zocht(e)

I think this might apply to "Past ends in -st, past participle gets -en" too.

a - oe - regular past participle

For example: jagen, joeg, gejaagd

Verbs in this group: jagen, vragen.
Like the reader of the page might guess, "gevragen" and "gejagen" were used once


iez - oor - or, past participle gets -en
Only restant of Grammatischer \o/! Also, like I've said before in a separate thread:
wezen
was
*wazen => waren
gewezen/geweest

...perhaps soemthing for verdieping in the page about "zijn", the content of that thread of mine


The present tense of hebben is not very irregular. Only the 3rd person singular has an irregular stem (heeft).
It's borrowed from the sister-verb "heven". In Floris ende Blanchefloer, you find the older form "hevet"




kunnen and zullen's regularity is better shown if you make "morphological" tables:
1s. ik kan, zal
2s. - (this is where "du" once was)
3s. hij/zij/het/u kan, zal

1p. wij kunnen
2ps. jij kunt
2pp. jullie kunnen(/kunt)
3p. wij kunnen

1 The forms of jij and u are often mixed up, which produces "u kunt" and "jij kan", "u wilt" and "jij wil".
:-)

Grytolle
Superlid
Posts: 1390
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 12:42 pm
Country of residence: Belgium
Mother tongue: Swedish
Second language: English
Third language: Dutch
Fourth language: German
Gender: Male

pronouns

Post by Grytolle » Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:55 am

http://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=Pronouns.ps02
The Flemish often say ge (unstressed) or gij (stressed) instead of u. In Holland, this form is no longer used.
Instead of "u" and "jij" would be better



http://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=Pronouns.ps05

Code: Select all

Her: haar or ze?
NNL uses preposition + unemphasised pronoun voor ze
SNL hardly does voor ze
It does sound very sophisticated if you can distinguish between feminine and masculine nouns. You should only use haar (her) when you are really sure that the de-noun you refer to is feminine. When in doubt, hem is always correct.
I know we've talked about this before, but still: "ze" is waaaay more common as inanimate object, should be mentioned somehow


http://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=Pronouns.ps06
(*) Recall that the Dutch do not have a separate unmarked form for haar (her).
'r ?

http://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=Pronouns.ps08
'em, but not 'm? o.o There should be a note that d'r/'r and ie as good as never are used in Flanders. Mentioning "'em" for a subject pronoun might be too much though :D


http://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=Pronouns.po01
We do not have a translation for 'its' in Dutch, we simply use zijn (his). Here, it does not matter whether the noun is neuter ('het'), feminine, or masculine (both 'de').
This note is completely useless, just saying this would be better
masculine: zijn
feminine: haar
neuter: zijn (before "its" happened, English used "his" here too)

Of course, "haar" isn't used that much in the Netherlands because there are very few to no feminine nouns there, but that doesn't change the system as such
When in doubt, zijn is always correct.
Really? I've always heard that it's questionable to use "zijn" for words ending in well known endings, like -ing, or -heid.


http://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=Pronouns.po03

Code: Select all

For 'its' and plural 'yours', the Dutch do not have independent possessive pronouns.
"het zijne", but you will have troubles finding contexts where it works.

"preposition + het" isn't really a good formula for finding when to make a pronominal adverb, since it's not about the neuter gender, but the inanimateness of the noun. If there would ever be a word about a person, which doesn't have a natural gender, you could use "van het", right?
Turning a proper name into a possessive noun
What's wrong with the term genitive? Posessives can be inflected (however that is rarely done in standard dutch) - haere bloemen waeren mooij (8D).
We only use an apostrophe if the name ends in a vowel (with the exception of the mute e) or the letter s.
I thought it was only for names ending in long vowels. A loan-name could end in a short vowel. I'd write "Annas" when refering to my Swedish sister for example.


http://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=Pronouns.po07

Note that "d'r" is hardly used in the south would be nice.


http://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=Pronouns.rc01
Definitely a genitive inflection, rather than a posessive.


http://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=Pronouns.rl06
Because this is a case distionction-remnant:
het meisje wiens hond ik at

not "het meisje wier".

neuter nouns are followed by wiens :)

That "wiens" often replace "wier" in...onverzorgd writing doesn't need to be mention, but could be


As you can see, the Dutch do not have a possessive pronoun for men. They simply use zijn (his).
Also "hem" as object.
http://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=Pronouns.id08
:-)

Post Reply