Taalklas vragen

[werkwoorden]
Regular verbs, irregular verbs, auxiliary verbs, compound verbs... When do we use which tense? What about those strange constructions the Dutch use to make a continuous? "Staat" my book on the shelf or "ligt" it? Ask all about Dutch verbs here.
Post Reply
Feanor
Waardevol lid
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:11 pm
Country of residence: Russia
Mother tongue: Russian
Second language: English (Great Britain)
Location: Kazan, Russia
Contact:

Taalklas vragen

Post by Feanor » Sun Nov 15, 2009 6:54 pm

I've just come across with a sentence from taalklas.nl:
Kees leest Tim voor.
I wonder how to translate it
1. Kees reads aloud for Tim
Or simply
2. Kees reads for Tim.?

Overlezen means "read aloud". But shouldn't it be Kees leest voor Tim voor. I mean, he reads for Tim, not just reads aloud, but where's preposition then?
Last edited by Feanor on Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Quetzal
Retired moderator
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:51 pm
Country of residence: Belgium
Mother tongue: Dutch (Flanders)
Location: Belgium

Re: voorlezen

Post by Quetzal » Sun Nov 15, 2009 7:11 pm

Nah, "voorlezen" can be transitive, i.e. can be used without a preposition. "Voorlezen" is not just to read aloud as such, it's to read aloud specifically for someone else. If you're reading aloud but there's nobody there, you can't call that "voorlezen".

Feanor
Waardevol lid
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:11 pm
Country of residence: Russia
Mother tongue: Russian
Second language: English (Great Britain)
Location: Kazan, Russia
Contact:

Re: voorlezen

Post by Feanor » Sun Nov 15, 2009 7:17 pm

Okay, I understand it now. And which word means to read aloud when there's nobody around?
Nah, "voorlezen" can be transitive
Do you mean that it can be intransitive as well? Couldn't you give me some examples, please?

User avatar
Quetzal
Retired moderator
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:51 pm
Country of residence: Belgium
Mother tongue: Dutch (Flanders)
Location: Belgium

Re: voorlezen

Post by Quetzal » Sun Nov 15, 2009 7:21 pm

Reading aloud in general is "hardop lezen", usually.

And I don't know about it being intransitive, your sentence of "Kees leest voor Tim voor" didn't sound that wrong to me, but I guess the preposition is never required, so it's always transitive... it can also be doubly transitive: "Kees leest Tim een verhaaltje voor", for instance. Although I guess you could argue that "Tim" is really more an indirect object than a direct object.

User avatar
Bieneke
Site Administrator
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:18 pm
Country of residence: Netherlands
Mother tongue: Dutch (Netherlands)
Second language: English
Gender: Female
Location: Maastricht

Re: voorlezen

Post by Bieneke » Sun Nov 15, 2009 7:31 pm

Quetzal wrote:Reading aloud in general is "hardop lezen", usually.

And I don't know about it being intransitive, your sentence of "Kees leest voor Tim voor" didn't sound that wrong to me, but I guess the preposition is never required, so it's always transitive... it can also be doubly transitive: "Kees leest Tim een verhaaltje voor", for instance. Although I guess you could argue that "Tim" is really more an indirect object than a direct object.
Tim is indeed the indirect object. The direct object is the object that is being read; the indirect object is the object to/for whom the subject reads. You can omit 'aan' or 'voor' ('voorlezen aan', 'voorlezen voor'), but omitting the preposition does not turn the indirect object in a direct object - it only makes it harder to recognise it as an indirect object.

The verb 'voorlezen' is not necessarily transitive, but it is of course often used in a transitive way. You can compare it with 'to eat'. It is usually transitive (you usually eat something), but you can also use it in an intransitive way (e.g. in "We will eat a bit later tonight").

[Added later]: Just remember that the verb is only used in a transitive way when you use a direct object. The sentence "Kees leest Tim voor" does not contain a direct object (and 'voorlezen' is, thus, not transitive here).
Bieneke

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

Re: voorlezen

Post by Grytolle » Sun Nov 15, 2009 10:11 pm

(doubly transitive => ditransitive)
:-)

Feanor
Waardevol lid
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:11 pm
Country of residence: Russia
Mother tongue: Russian
Second language: English (Great Britain)
Location: Kazan, Russia
Contact:

Re: Taalklas vragen

Post by Feanor » Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:19 pm

Another question concerning verbs.
There's a sentence:
Kees glijdt uit over de schil.
Now, in dictionary I've not found such verb as "glijden uit". However there was uitglijden and even given a context: uitglijden over een bananenschil. So my question is which usage is correct glijden uit or uitglijden? Also I should like to know if uitglijden a separable verb and if it is separable, shoudn't it be "Kees glijdt over de schil uit"?

Also, verb schommelen, to swing. How come in sentence "Tim schommelt" the е isn't doubled? I mean schommelen - schommeelt.

[edit by Joke] The question about schommelen is aswered here [/edit]

User avatar
Quetzal
Retired moderator
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:51 pm
Country of residence: Belgium
Mother tongue: Dutch (Flanders)
Location: Belgium

Re: Taalklas vragen

Post by Quetzal » Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:38 pm

It is indeed a separable verb, so "uitglijden" is indeed the verb in that sentence.

As for the word order, no, it's right the way it is... what you put between the two parts of the separable verb in sentences like, I don't know, "Hij maakt het cadeau open", is the direct object of said separable verb. That is obligatory, you can't say "Hij maakt open het cadeau". However, "uitglijden" is intransitive, so there is no direct object to put between the two parts, and they remain together. Your alternative word order wouldn't be wrong, but it is less common.

Feanor
Waardevol lid
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:11 pm
Country of residence: Russia
Mother tongue: Russian
Second language: English (Great Britain)
Location: Kazan, Russia
Contact:

Re: Taalklas vragen

Post by Feanor » Wed Nov 18, 2009 2:21 pm

Quetzal wrote:It is indeed a separable verb, so "uitglijden" is indeed the verb in that sentence.

As for the word order, no, it's right the way it is... what you put between the two parts of the separable verb in sentences like, I don't know, "Hij maakt het cadeau open", is the direct object of said separable verb. That is obligatory, you can't say "Hij maakt open het cadeau". However, "uitglijden" is intransitive, so there is no direct object to put between the two parts, and they remain together. Your alternative word order wouldn't be wrong, but it is less common.
So, if I understand correctly, it's not correct (well let's suppose that only common word order is the correct one) to put anything between glijden and uit because the verb is intransitive. So there's no way to say (again I mean generally), for example, Hij glijdt op ijs uit. As I understand there are some separable verbs, i.e. intransitive separable verbs, whoose preffix never gets to the end of the sentence because there can't be direct object to put between a preffix and a main verb, and still they are separable because the preffix goes right after the main verb like "glijdt uit". It's a bit confusing, I hope I'm making my thoughts clear.

Kristoff
Lid
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:39 am
Country of residence: China
Mother tongue: Dutch (Flanders)
Second language: French
Third language: English
Fourth language: Mandarin
Fifth, sixth, seventh, ..., languages: basiskennis Italiaans
Gender: Male
Location: Qingdao

Re: Taalklas vragen

Post by Kristoff » Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:25 am

Hi Feanor,
I agree with Quetzal: your example 'Hij glijdt op ijs uit' is correct, but less common. It's possible to imagine a situation where this can be used correctly, but that wouldn't be in everyday life I guess. If you want to put the emphasis on the fact that it's ice, and not something else:

"Je zei dat hij zo makkelijk uitgleed, maar nu is hij toch niet gevallen?"
"Nee, maar dat was een olievlek, daar glijdt hij niet op uit, hij glijdt alleen op ijs uit."

Feanor
Waardevol lid
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:11 pm
Country of residence: Russia
Mother tongue: Russian
Second language: English (Great Britain)
Location: Kazan, Russia
Contact:

Re: Taalklas vragen

Post by Feanor » Thu Nov 19, 2009 12:41 pm

No, in that example I'm only trying to say that he slipped on ice, no emphasis on ice. I'd still like to know if a prefix of an intransitive separable verb could be placed not immediately after the main verb? So as far as I understand it he construction "glijden indirect object or other part of speech uit" is uncommon. More common is "glijden uit + indirect object or other part of speech

Feanor
Waardevol lid
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:11 pm
Country of residence: Russia
Mother tongue: Russian
Second language: English (Great Britain)
Location: Kazan, Russia
Contact:

Re: Taalklas vragen

Post by Feanor » Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:28 pm

Can anything else, except direct object, be put between verb and its prefix? For instance in sentence "Kees loopt snel door" snel isn't a direct object, in fact doorlopen is intransitive and thus cannot have any direct object at all. Would it be correct to say "Kees loopt door snel"?

User avatar
Joke
Retired moderator
Posts: 1974
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:14 pm
Country of residence: Netherlands
Mother tongue: Dutch (Netherlands)
Second language: English
Third language: German
Fourth language: French
Fifth, sixth, seventh, ..., languages: Russisch (in progress...)
Gender: Female

Re: Taalklas vragen

Post by Joke » Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:26 pm

Feanor wrote:Would it be correct to say "Kees loopt door snel"?
No, you can't say it like that.

If you have a compound verb such as doorlopen, with a separable prefix (door, in this case), the prefix normally comes almost at the and of the sentence. In the 'default' word order, the only thing that can come after it are the so called 'other verbs': all verbs except the finite verb (if there are any, of course).

If doorlopen is the only verb in the sentence, this makes door the last word of the sentence:
Kees loopt snel door.
But you can add some other verbs to see what I mean:
Kees zal altijd door blijven lopen. (means something like: Kees will always keep walking on)
There are only verbs after door.

As I said, this is a kind of default word order. Some variations are possible, in particular, it is possible to take one part of the sentence out and place it at the very beginning or at the very end of the sentence. This usually gives this part extra stress.
There is one part of the sentence that extremely likes to be at the very end of the sentence (i.e. after the prefix and/or all verbs) and that is the so called prepositional object. This is, as the name already tells us, a part of the sentence that starts with a preposition.

Going back to your previous example:
Hij glijdt op het ijs uit is not wrong; it actually is formed according to the standard way of making a sentence. But Hij glijdt uit op het ijs, sounds better, because the part op het ijs, starting with the preposition op likes to be at the end of the sentence.

There is a lot of information about word order in the grammar pages of this website.
At this page, and the following pages, you can read more about the prefix of a separable verb.
Here, you can read about deviations from the standard word order.

Groetjes,
Joke

Post Reply