Hadden Moeten - PP vs. infinitive

[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
Dutchlearner101
Nieuwkomer
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 2:26 pm
Country of residence: Netherlands
Mother tongue: Spanish
Second language: English (United States)
Gender: Male

Hadden Moeten - PP vs. infinitive

Post by Dutchlearner101 » Tue Dec 29, 2015 2:37 pm

Hi,

I am just learning Dutch from a few months ago. I wanted to know for the "should have" = "hadden moeten" if the main verb of the sentence is in past participle or infinitive form and most importantly to understand why.

The example below was given in one of the sections of the website (http://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=Verbs.Re24):
Ik had dat niet moeten zeggen = I should not have said that

However, I do not get why it is not "Ik had dat niet moeten gezegd"

If it changes to conditional perfect, then it does change to PP right?
Ik zou dat niet hebben gezegd?

Does the rule of infinitive for the main verb only applies to the "Hadden moeten".

Thanks in advance.

Dolo
Superlid
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:47 pm
Country of residence: Poland
Mother tongue: Polish
Second language: English
Third language: Dutch
Gender: Male

Re: Hadden Moeten - PP vs. infinitive

Post by Dolo » Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:29 pm

When there is more than verb at the end of the sentence, then both verbs are in the infinitive.

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: Hadden Moeten - PP vs. infinitive

Post by ngonyama » Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:01 pm

It is not

Ik moet dit gezegd

but

ik moet dit zeggen

In the perfect it is the verb moeten that should become the pp

Ik had dit gemoeten

But if there is another verb, this does not happen (as Dolo said)

ik had dit zeggen gemoeten --> Ik had dit moeten zeggen

Dutchlearner101
Nieuwkomer
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 2:26 pm
Country of residence: Netherlands
Mother tongue: Spanish
Second language: English (United States)
Gender: Male

Re: Hadden Moeten - PP vs. infinitive

Post by Dutchlearner101 » Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:48 pm

Great. Thanks both Dolo and ngonyama for your time.

Some quick additional comments:
I was not questioning the "moeten" or "gemoeten" in the sample sentence, but the "gezegd" / "zeggen". I understand moeten is auxiliary and it should not be gemoeten.

For Dolo, the future perfect is an example where there is more than one verb at the end and one of them is PP no?
Ik zal (auxiliary of hebben) hebben (auxiliary of werken) gewerkt = Ik zal hebben gewerkt

For this case, there is more than one auxiliary verb and one of them is PP. A new question would be: does this only happen with zijn/hebben or are there any other cases where this might also be the case?

Dolo
Superlid
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:47 pm
Country of residence: Poland
Mother tongue: Polish
Second language: English
Third language: Dutch
Gender: Male

Re: Hadden Moeten - PP vs. infinitive

Post by Dolo » Tue Dec 29, 2015 7:51 pm

I'm not entirely sure but the Future Perfect is an exception to the rule. Mostly it goes like this:

"Ik heb mijn vrienden zien lachen" not ''*Ik heb mijn vrienden gezien lachen". "Ik heb mijn vrienden gezien" is correct though, since there is no second verb accompanying the first one, so the rule applies disrespectful of the possible presence of either 'zijn' or 'hebben', you can have 'moeten', 'willen', 'gaan' etc. This phenomenon in Dutch is called "double infinitive" I believe.

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: Hadden Moeten - PP vs. infinitive

Post by ngonyama » Thu Dec 31, 2015 7:29 pm

Dutchlearner101 wrote:Great. Thanks both Dolo and ngonyama for your time.

Some quick additional comments:
I was not questioning the "moeten" or "gemoeten" in the sample sentence, but the "gezegd" / "zeggen". I understand moeten is auxiliary and it should not be gemoeten.

I was trying to explain that you were departing from the wrong assumption. In "ik had moeten werken" the only real auxiliary is "had" and it is auxiliary to the verb moeten, not to the verb werken. Actually I doubt that it is any different in Spanish. I don't speak that but let me give an example in French:

j'aurais dû travailler = ik had (ge)moeten werken

not:

j'aurais devoir travaillé = ik had moeten gewerkt

Apart from the dropping of (ge) French and Dutch do this much the same.

Is that the same as in Spanish:

el tiempo que he debido dedicar á este trabajo - de tijd die ik aan dit werk heb moeten wijden

not

...he deber dedicado ...?



For Dolo, the future perfect is an example where there is more than one verb at the end and one of them is PP no?
Ik zal (auxiliary of hebben) hebben (auxiliary of werken) gewerkt = Ik zal hebben gewerkt

For this case, there is more than one auxiliary verb and one of them is PP. A new question would be: does this only happen with zijn/hebben or are there any other cases where this might also be the case?

Both zullen and hebben are real auxiliaries, whereas moeten is a modal verb, not an auxiliary.

The future tenses are formed with with zullen+infinitive. (Not pp) The perfect tenses are formed by hebben+pp or zijn+pp.

The exceptions where the infinitive replaces the pp after "hebben" or "zijn" are basically two groups


modal+other verb
ik mag dat niet doen --perfect--> ik heb dat niet mogen doen
ik kan dat niet doen --perfect--> ik heb dat niet kunnen doen
je moet dat niet doen --perfect--> je had dat niet moeten doen
je hoefde dat niet te doen --perfect--> je had dat niet hoeven doen

or things like blijven, lijken, durven +other verb. So e.g.

Hij blijft daar werken --> perfect --> Hij is daar blijven werken
Hij durft dat niet te doen --> perfect --> Hij heeft dat niet durven doen

But there are more. Basically any time you compound two verbs, e.g. with horen, zien, doen, komen, gaan:

Ik zie hem schaatsen --perfect--> ik heb hem zien schaatsen
Ik hoorde hem zingen --perfect--> ik heb hem horen zingen
Dat deed hem schrikken --perfect--> Dat heeft hem doen schrikken
Hij komt dat halen --perfect--> Hij is dat komen halen
Hij gaat vissen --perfect--> Hij is gaan vissen.

Notice that zien, horen, doen only act as 'auxiliary' by chance here, not for reasons of grammar.

That is also true for the stative verbs staan, liggen, zitten used to express continuous tenses:

Ik sta eten klaar te maken --perfect--> Ik heb eten staan klaarmaken
Hij lag te snurken --perfect--> Hij heeft liggen snurken.
Hij zit te werken --perfect--> Hij heeft zitten werken

Sometimes these compounds can pile up in strings, although stylistically that is frowned upon like:

Ik zou moeten blijven staan wachten --perfect--> Ik zou hebben (ge)moeten blijven staan wachten.

Notice that hebben is auxiliary to moeten here, the other verbs are all infinitives to begin with.

In the passive with the auxiliary worden you do keep the pp:

Het wordt geschreven
Het moet geschreven worden
Het moet geschreven kunnen worden
Het heeft geschreven moeten kunnen worden <-- doubtful

But notice that worden is auxiliary to "schrijven" here, not to "moeten".

In the last example heeft is auxiliary to moeten, which is shown as infinitive instead of pp, because it is part of a compound. Some people might replace "heeft" by "is", though, because in such clusters even native speakers lose track of what belongs to what and the passive sense would call for 'zijn'. Again: such clusters are better avoided.

Notice also that in the perfect, the aux worden is simply replaced by zijn. You donot get two pp's in a row:

Het is geschreven geworden
Het moet geschreven geworden zijn



The only example I can think of where you actually get two pp's in a row is the (relatively recent) auxiliary "krijgen" used with a ditransitive verb, used to make the indirect object into a subject (a so called pseudo-passive construction):

Hij schonk de man een huis. --perfect--> Hij heeft de man een huis geschonken
De man kreeg van hem een huis geschonken --perfect--> De man heeft van hem een huis geschonken gekregen.

Historically, 'geschonken' is probably a pp used as adverb here

De man heeft van hem een huis gekregen. How exactly? Geschonken! (adverb!)

There are more of these adverbial constructions, often with komen and pp's starting with aan-:

Hij kwam aangelopen - He came. How? Walking!
Hij kwam aangehuppeld - He came. How? Hopping and skipping!

But don't be surprised to see

Hij kwam aanlopen
Hij kwam aanhuppelen.

Especially in the perfect:
Hij is aan komen lopen



Post Reply