Some questions concerning verbs

[Feanor]

1. The past tense of zitten is zat. But why the plural of the past is zaten and not zatten? Zat has a short a, in order to make it stay long it should be zatten, shouldn't be? Or is it just an exception?

2. What is the plural of zijn in the imperative form?
Wees jij
Wees jullie OR Wezen jullie? (In grammar book there's "Karin and Peter, wees om zes uur thuis"
Weest u

3. What's the difference "Haal me het boek" and "Breng me het boek" or are these verbs interchangable in some situations?
Also, both pakken and nemen mean "take". So "Pak een pen" and "Neem een pen" are equal?
A situation at a table. A friend asks to pass him salt. "Geef me zout gelieve". Giving it him I answer "Pak alsjeblieft" or "Neem alsjeblieft". Or is it incorrect?

4. What does phrase "koop jij van te voren" means? I guess it means "buy in advance" But there's no such construction in my dictionary. Strictly speaking there's no translation for voren at all, only examples in context.

5. Have the following sentences the same meaning?
"Ga mee"
"Ga je mee"
"Ga je met mee"
meaning "go along with me" if not, what's the difference?

[Quetzal]

Hm. Some good questions, there.

1. I wouldn't say it's an exception, as the other strong verbs that have an A in the past tense are the same way (kwam - kwamen, bad - baden, at - aten, brak - braken, etc.). If you meant, are all the strong verbs with an A in the past tense an exception, then yes, I suppose you could say so. It's odd, because strong verbs with an O or an E in the past tense aren't that way... not sure what the reason is.

2. "Wezen", strictly speaking, but the plural imperative is rarely used in general. Usually you'll just hear a singular imperative. And for that particular verb, I think it's safe to say it's hardly ever used at all.

3. "Pakken" and "nemen" are indeed more or less synonyms, although I'd say "pakken" is more spoken language, so in writing I'd always opt for "nemen" (also, "pakken" is only used in the literal meaning of the word, whereas "nemen" covers a wide range of more figurative meanings as well). Neither really applies to the situation you describe, though ("Geef me het zout, alsjeblieft", by the way, not "gelieve"). You'd just say "Alsjeblieft", without any verb.
As for "halen" en "brengen", those are different alright.

For "halen", the verb expresses an idea of going to a different place in order to pick something or someone up, and then returning the object or the person to where you started from.
Whereas with "brengen", the focus is merely on bringing an object or person to a person or a place, often an object or person you already have with you. I'd say "brengen" is pretty much an exact translation of "to bring", while "halen" corresponds largely to "to go get" though it's dangerous to make statements like that.

So for your example with the book, if I already had the book, or it was close to me, you'd use "brengen". If I didn't have it and had to go get it somewhere, you usually would use "halen". Though "haal me het boek" is rather unusual, you'd usually say something like "haal het boek voor me", or just "haal het boek".

4. "Van te voren" does indeed mean "in advance". I just looked it up here though, and it seems the correct spelling is "tevoren" in a single word (perhaps that does appear in your dictionary?).

5. If you want to express "go along with me", i.e. a command, then "ga mee" is what you'd say. "Ga je mee" and "ga je met me mee" are both questions/suggestions, so much softer in tone. The difference between those latter two is that you put more emphasis on the "with me" aspect if you use the latter. (Of course, using that additional emphasis in the command is also possible, if unusual: "ga met me mee").

I'd be inclined to say, though, that much like "come along with me" sounds more natural to me in English, we'd be inclined to say "kom mee" / "kom je mee" / "kom je met me mee", so maybe you should substitute "kom" voor "ga" in all of the above. Of course, if you're asking or telling someone to go along with someone else, "gaan" is preferable.

[Grytolle]

the imperative:

if you use the imperative without an explicit subject, it's the same in plural and singular:
wees gerust!
(archaïc) weest gerust!

if you express the subject you will see a difference ("just you wait!")
wees jij maar gerust!
wezen jullie maar gerust!

In such situations you never use "je", but always "jij"

[Feanor]

1. I wouldn't say it's an exception, as the other strong verbs that have an A in the past tense are the same way (kwam - kwamen, bad - baden, at - aten, brak - braken, etc.). If you meant, are all the strong verbs with an A in the past tense an exception, then yes, I suppose you could say so. It's odd, because strong verbs with an O or an E in the past tense aren't that way... not sure what the reason is.

2. "Wezen", strictly speaking, but the plural imperative is rarely used in general. Usually you'll just hear a singular imperative. And for that particular verb, I think it's safe to say it's hardly ever used at all.

3. "Pakken" and "nemen" are indeed more or less synonyms, although I'd say "pakken" is more spoken language, so in writing I'd always opt for "nemen" (also, "pakken" is only used in the literal meaning of the word, whereas "nemen" covers a wide range of more figurative meanings as well). Neither really applies to the situation you describe, though ("Geef me het zout, alsjeblieft", by the way, not "gelieve"). You'd just say "Alsjeblieft", without any verb.
As for "halen" en "brengen", those are different alright.

For "halen", the verb expresses an idea of going to a different place in order to pick something or someone up, and then returning the object or the person to where you started from.
Whereas with "brengen", the focus is merely on bringing an object or person to a person or a place, often an object or person you already have with you. I'd say "brengen" is pretty much an exact translation of "to bring", while "halen" corresponds largely to "to go get" though it's dangerous to make statements like that.

So for your example with the book, if I already had the book, or it was close to me, you'd use "brengen". If I didn't have it and had to go get it somewhere, you usually would use "halen". Though "haal me het boek" is rather unusual, you'd usually say something like "haal het boek voor me", or just "haal het boek".

4. "Van te voren" does indeed mean "in advance". I just looked it up here though, and it seems the correct spelling is "tevoren" in a single word (perhaps that does appear in your dictionary?).

5. If you want to express "go along with me", i.e. a command, then "ga mee" is what you'd say. "Ga je mee" and "ga je met me mee" are both questions/suggestions, so much softer in tone. The difference between those latter two is that you put more emphasis on the "with me" aspect if you use the latter. (Of course, using that additional emphasis in the command is also possible, if unusual: "ga met me mee").

I'd be inclined to say, though, that much like "come along with me" sounds more natural to me in English, we'd be inclined to say "kom mee" / "kom je mee" / "kom je met me mee", so maybe you should substitute "kom" voor "ga" in all of the above. Of course, if you're asking or telling someone to go along with someone else, "gaan" is preferable.

1. Ok, so it's just a further irregularity of strong verbs with "a" in the stem.
2. Hmm, that doesn't accord with Grytolle's last post. He says "wezen jullie maar gerust!" Who is right?
3. So in occasional situation, it's ok to say "Pak een pen"
4. Understood. It's a misprint in my grammar book(
5. So, when speaking about coming with me, one could use both gaan and komen, i.e. Come with me = Ga je mee = Kom je mee?

In such situations you never use "je", but always "jij"

In which situations exactly? With verb zijn? Wees jij but Ga je?

[Grytolle]

In such situations you never use "je", but always "jij"

In which situations exactly? With verb zijn? Wees jij but Ga je?

When you express the subject in an imperative... Wees jij blabla! vs. Ben je/jij blabla?

Lastly there's some quasi-imperative where you just use the infinitive: rustig zijn! (perhaps "rustig wezen!" is possible too, dunno)


oh, and the old plural imperative was "weest"

[Quetzal]

2. Hmm, that doesn't accord with Grytolle's last post. He says "wezen jullie maar gerust!" Who is right?

It does accord. Like I said, technically the correct form is "wezen", so what Grytolle said is right. It's just that that "wezen jullie..." construction is virtually never used. With some other verbs, it's more frequent (e.g. "Gaan jullie..."), but even there, we'll mostly use the singular imperative even when talking to multiple people.