Zijn or hebben - strong verbs

[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.
radamfi
Lid
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:57 pm
Country of residence: United Kingdom
Mother tongue: English (Great Britain)
Gender: Male

Zijn or hebben - strong verbs

Post by radamfi » Sun Jun 03, 2012 4:48 pm

I'm trying to learn the list of strong verbs here:

http://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=Verbs.Ir03

I have looked up the first three words in Wiktionary

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bakken
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bannen
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/barsten

and for bakken and bannen it says the pp can take either zijn or hebben, and for barsten the pp only takes zijn.

These verbs are not indicated by *, @ or ! in http://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=Verbs.Ir03

Are these mistakes or am I failing to understand something?

ngonyama
Superlid
Posts: 1299
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:15 am
Country of residence: United States
Mother tongue: Dutch (Netherlands)
Second language: English
Third language: German
Fourth language: French
Fifth, sixth, seventh, ..., languages: Russisch, Xhosa

Re: Zijn or hebben - strong verbs

Post by ngonyama » Sun Jun 03, 2012 6:23 pm

Perhaps you should look at nl.wiktionary rather than en.wktionary? We usually indicate whether a verb is overgankelijk, inergatief or ergatief rather faithfully...

Overgankelijk:
Ik bak brood - ik heb brood gebakken
{passive) Het brood wordt gebakken - het brood is gebakken

Inergatief:
De man grinnikt - de man heeft gegrinnikt
(impersonal passive): er wordt gegrinnikt - er is gegrinnikt

Ergatief:
De pijp barst - de pijp is gebarsten

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: Zijn or hebben - strong verbs

Post by Quetzal » Sun Jun 03, 2012 6:45 pm

radamfi wrote:I'm trying to learn the list of strong verbs here:

http://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=Verbs.Ir03

I have looked up the first three words in Wiktionary

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bakken
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bannen
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/barsten

and for bakken and bannen it says the pp can take either zijn or hebben, and for barsten the pp only takes zijn.

These verbs are not indicated by *, @ or ! in http://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=Verbs.Ir03

Are these mistakes or am I failing to understand something?
You're failing to understand something, but in your defense Wiktionary really should make that clearer. For "bakken" and "bannen", the past participle takes "hebben" in the active voice, "zijn" in the passive, which is how it works for all verbs that *have* a passive in the first place.

Edit: The verbs that don't have a passive (personal or impersonal), such as "barsten" simply use "zijn" for the most part; ngonyama is right that it's very hard to think of a verb that you would always use "hebben" for. The only one I can think of right now is "hebben" itself.

radamfi
Lid
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:57 pm
Country of residence: United Kingdom
Mother tongue: English (Great Britain)
Gender: Male

Re: Zijn or hebben - strong verbs

Post by radamfi » Sun Jun 03, 2012 7:31 pm

Thanks for the quick replies.

So can I conclude that bannen and bakken are correct in the list as having no *, ! or @ but barsten should have a * as it always uses zijn in the pp?

ngonyama
Superlid
Posts: 1299
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:15 am
Country of residence: United States
Mother tongue: Dutch (Netherlands)
Second language: English
Third language: German
Fourth language: French
Fifth, sixth, seventh, ..., languages: Russisch, Xhosa

Re: Zijn or hebben - strong verbs

Post by ngonyama » Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:13 pm

Quetzal wrote: As ngonyama explains in his reply, some categories of verbs don't have passives, and as such only "hebben" is possible, or only "zijn" for the verbs that use "zijn" rather than "hebben".
Thank you for totally misquoting me, Quetzal.

Please provide an example of a verb that only takes "hebben". They are much rarer than you think! In fact none of the three examples I gave only had "hebben". All three had zijn:

Het brood IS gebakken
Er IS gegrinnikt
Het IS gebarsten.

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: Zijn or hebben - strong verbs

Post by Quetzal » Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:39 pm

ngonyama wrote:
Quetzal wrote: As ngonyama explains in his reply, some categories of verbs don't have passives, and as such only "hebben" is possible, or only "zijn" for the verbs that use "zijn" rather than "hebben".
Thank you for totally misquoting me, Quetzal.

Please provide an example of a verb that only takes "hebben". They are much rarer than you think! In fact none of the three examples I gave only had "hebben". All three had zijn:

Het brood IS gebakken
Er IS gegrinnikt
Het IS gebarsten.
That's a valid point, edited my post. The "as ngonyama explains in his reply" only referred to the first part of the sentence - that some categories of verbs don't have passives. Which you didn't really explain as such, I suppose, so perhaps I should have written "as ngonyama *should* have explained in his reply"...

radamfi
Lid
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:57 pm
Country of residence: United Kingdom
Mother tongue: English (Great Britain)
Gender: Male

Re: Zijn or hebben - strong verbs

Post by radamfi » Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:51 pm

Having browsed a number of words in the English Wiktionary, it does seem to show most weak verbs as only using hebben, suggesting as if it isn't considering the use of the passive voice.

E.g.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reizen
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/maken

I suppose that is logical as the passive always uses worden/zijn so there is no reason to mention it in the conjugation table.

Clearly it is best to just look at the Dutch Wiktionary to avoid any doubt.

ngonyama
Superlid
Posts: 1299
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:15 am
Country of residence: United States
Mother tongue: Dutch (Netherlands)
Second language: English
Third language: German
Fourth language: French
Fifth, sixth, seventh, ..., languages: Russisch, Xhosa

Re: Zijn or hebben - strong verbs

Post by ngonyama » Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:31 pm

There is a far more fundamental problem radamfi: Dutch grammarians have always lumped inergative and ergative verbs together under the (nonsensical) term "intransitive".

This does great injustice to people like you learning Dutch, because it is so misleading! After all what does the word "intransitive" mean? It refers to the fact that you are not supposed to be able to make the transition to a passive voice, right?

Consider however the inergatives: they are called "intransitive" and Quetzal will probably tell you they only take "hebben", but in reality they DO have a passive and they Do take "zijn" and "worden". Granted it isan IMPERSONAL passive, initiated with (this 'hard little word') er. Sentences like

-er werd gelachen
-er is gehuild

are very common in Dutch and will continue to baffle second language speakers as long as we don't teach them for what they really are: impersonal passives. (How do you mean intransitive??)

Unfortunately classical Dutch grammar will not teach you this because it does not fit in the "intransitive" dogma!
Consider also the ergatives: they are typically verbs that describe a process, like melting or curdling. They take only "zijn" and do not have an impersonal passives "*Er wordt gestold" is not a valid Dutch sentence. So you could say that they are "intransitive", but I might just as well say that they are already passive (deponentia) because the ice is undergoing the melting and the milk is undergoing the curdling. The term "intransitive" does not apply here.

Inergatives and ergatives are quite different in that one is an action (with a culprit) the other a process (without culprit). It is not very helpful to you not to explain that is it? It leaves to in the dark about when to use hebben and when zijn... And yes that is what classical Dutch grammar does.

A special case are the verbs of motion like komen, gaan, lopen etc.

If the motion has a direction or goal Dutch considers them a process:

*Ik BEN naar huis gelopen.

So, lopen is ergative here and takes zijn

However, if the motion is not directional the empahsis is on the action. Then the verb is inergative and takes hebben

*Ik loop altijd veel --> Ik HEB altijd veel gelopen

And sure enough in this meaning there is transitivity and an impersonal passive:

*Er word hier altijd veel gelopen

As I said above there are very few Dutch verbs that never take zijn, i.e. ones you could call "truly intransitive". An example is a verb like "aanhebben" (wearing clothes)

*hij heeft een jas aan - hij heeft een jas aangehad

In this case there is nothing with worden/zijn. The following sentences do not exist:

*De jas wordt aangehad <-- not possible
*Er is een jas aangehad <-- not possible

I doubt that you will find the above in any current Dutch grammar though. :cry:

And yes Quetzal will probably try to misquote me again rather than trying to realize that there is a real problem with the Dutch grammar he takes for granted. And no that is not polite.
Last edited by ngonyama on Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ngonyama
Superlid
Posts: 1299
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:15 am
Country of residence: United States
Mother tongue: Dutch (Netherlands)
Second language: English
Third language: German
Fourth language: French
Fifth, sixth, seventh, ..., languages: Russisch, Xhosa

Re: Zijn or hebben - strong verbs

Post by ngonyama » Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:56 pm

Quetzal wrote:
ngonyama wrote:
Quetzal wrote: As ngonyama explains in his reply, some categories of verbs don't have passives, and as such only "hebben" is possible, or only "zijn" for the verbs that use "zijn" rather than "hebben".
Thank you for totally misquoting me, Quetzal.

Please provide an example of a verb that only takes "hebben". They are much rarer than you think! In fact none of the three examples I gave only had "hebben". All three had zijn:

Het brood IS gebakken
Er IS gegrinnikt
Het IS gebarsten.
That's a valid point, edited my post. The "as ngonyama explains in his reply" only referred to the first part of the sentence - that some categories of verbs don't have passives. Which you didn't really explain as such, I suppose, so perhaps I should have written "as ngonyama *should* have explained in his reply"...
Once again you totally misquote me and you are totally wrong.

I am sure you want to force me to tell your "intransitive" nonsense, but no I do not have to conform to your nonsense.

Again show me examples of verbs that never take zijn. I have given you one example above.

radamfi
Lid
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:57 pm
Country of residence: United Kingdom
Mother tongue: English (Great Britain)
Gender: Male

Re: Zijn or hebben - strong verbs

Post by radamfi » Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:16 am

ngonyama wrote:There is a far more fundamental problem radamfi: Dutch grammarians have always lumped inergative and ergative verbs together under the (nonsensical) term "intransitive".

This does great injustice to people like you learning Dutch, because it is so misleading! After all what does the word "intransitive" mean? It refers to the fact that you are not supposed to be able to make the transition to a passive voice, right?
I notice that Bieneke doesn't use the terms 'inergative' and 'ergative' in her text. Possibly she thought it would be introducing unnecessary jargon. The author of the Dutch Wikibook does mention the word ergative, though:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Dutch/Less ... rong_verbs
The auxiliary is usually a form of hebben like it is to have in English (see below for its forms). However, unlike English there is a group of verbs (ergative verbs) that take zijn (to be) instead.

Notice that gebeuren (to happen) is one such case: It is an ergative verb. Instead of an action such verbs express either a process or a movement.
Even 'transitive' is not a well known word to most native English speakers (as far as I know). I don't remember learning about transitive and intransitive verbs at school and that knowledge certainly isn't required to learn the English language, or to pass an English examination in a British school. So I had to look up transitive in Wikipedia and it says
In syntax, a transitive verb is a verb that requires both a subject and one or more objects. The term is used to contrast intransitive verbs, which do not have objects.
So that definition does not refer to the passive voice.

As far as I understand it, therefore, the ability or otherwise of being able to make the passive voice is not relevant when it comes to knowing whether a verb can use 'hebben' or 'zijn' or both in the active voice.

ngonyama
Superlid
Posts: 1299
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:15 am
Country of residence: United States
Mother tongue: Dutch (Netherlands)
Second language: English
Third language: German
Fourth language: French
Fifth, sixth, seventh, ..., languages: Russisch, Xhosa

Re: Zijn or hebben - strong verbs

Post by ngonyama » Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:03 am

To be honest: I am the author of the wikibook.

But no I did not make this up myself. Mr van Dreumel did this in the mid 90s. See http://lands.let.kun.nl/TSpublic/dreume ... at.nl.html

radamfi
Lid
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:57 pm
Country of residence: United Kingdom
Mother tongue: English (Great Britain)
Gender: Male

Re: Zijn or hebben - strong verbs

Post by radamfi » Mon Jun 04, 2012 6:12 pm

According to

http://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/beginnen
Werkwoord

beginnen

(inergatief) ~ met: voor het eerst gaan doen

Ik wilde met het werk beginnen, maar moest eerst de juiste spullen halen.

(overgankelijk) initiëren

Dit project werd begonnen in 2007.
But this word always takes zijn. Why doesn't the Wiktionary definition say 'ergatief'?

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: Zijn or hebben - strong verbs

Post by Quetzal » Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:59 pm

ngonyama wrote:
Once again you totally misquote me and you are totally wrong.

I am sure you want to force me to tell your "intransitive" nonsense, but no I do not have to conform to your nonsense.

Again show me examples of verbs that never take zijn. I have given you one example above.
I suggest you actually go and read the edit I referred to. If you completely ignore both the edit and my saying that you have a valid point, it's no wonder that your reply is as absurd as it is.

radamfi
Lid
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:57 pm
Country of residence: United Kingdom
Mother tongue: English (Great Britain)
Gender: Male

Re: Zijn or hebben - strong verbs

Post by radamfi » Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:45 pm

Another discrepancy I have found is that the list shows the past tense of behangen to be 'behangde' whereas all dictionaries I have consulted have the past tense to be 'behing'.

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: Zijn or hebben - strong verbs

Post by Quetzal » Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:04 pm

radamfi wrote:Another discrepancy I have found is that the list shows the past tense of behangen to be 'behangde' whereas all dictionaries I have consulted have the past tense to be 'behing'.
You should not rely blindly on Wiktionary - there will be mistakes from time to time, it happens.

As you may be aware, there is a tendency in general for strong verbs to become weak over time, as fewer and fewer people "remember" that they are strong (you can't expect all native speakers to know their language 100% correctly in every regard). There are some verbs that have already come to the stage where hardly anyone conjugates them strongly anymore even though fifty years ago everybody did; others are at a stage where the strong and weak conjugation are both frequently used (e.g. "vaarde" and "voer"), probably at some point in the future the strong conjugation will lose out. My mother teaches in a high school and increasingly sees even the most basic strong verbs being conjugated weakly (not always by native speakers, admittedly). Perhaps three centuries from now there will be barely any strong verbs left, who knows?

Post Reply