je

[vicki]

In een Belgische text over medische procedures gaande, heb ik kunnen lezen:
"Wat leert een tweede beoordeling je?"
Mag dat alzo, met de onbenadrukte vorm "je" aan het eind van de zin?

[Joke]

In een Belgische tekst over medische procedures gaande, heb ik kunnen lezen:
"Wat leert een tweede beoordeling je?"
Mag dat alzo, met de onbenadrukte vorm "je" aan het eind van de zin?

Ja, dat mag.

[firefly315]

Hoi Vicki,

I have a really good idea why "je" was used at the end of that sentence.

Because I know the construction in French, I used French to illustrate before I talked about Dutch.

This is how it works in French:
tu = the subject pronoun (you familiar in French)
toi = the object pronoun (you familiar)

Sometimes, French speakers add "toi" to the end of questions.
C’est tu veux, toi?
Is that what you want?
Wat wilt jij, je?

So, I think that your example sentence includes “jij/gij” as a subject pronoun understood after “leert.”
“Je” seems to be the unstressed form of the object pronoun, you familiar “jou."

French must play a role in some grammatical constructions in Belgium, so the above explanation is my educated guess --- based on my being fluent in French.

Groetjes,

Cathleen

[Grytolle]

Sometimes, French speakers add "toi" to the end of questions.
C’est tu veux, toi?
Is that what you want?
Wat wilt jij, je?

I can't come up with any example right now, but "je" wouldn't be used like that. Possibly "jij" would

So, I think that your example sentence includes “jij/gij” as a subject pronoun understood after “leert.”
“Je” seems to be the unstressed form of the object pronoun, you familiar “jou."

Dutch:
Wat (Direct object) leert (Verb) een tweede beoordeling (Subject) je (Indirect object)?

English is the same, except that we have to use a does-inversion:
What (Direct object) does (Aux) a second opinion (Subject) teach (Verb) you (Indirect object)?

French must play a role in some grammatical constructions in Belgium, so the above explanation is my educated guess --- based on my being fluent in French.

It has had quite some influence in the past, some products of which still remain

[firefly315]

Sometimes, French speakers add "toi" to the end of questions.
C’est tu veux, toi?
Is that what you want?
Wat wilt jij, je?

I can't come up with any example right now, but "je" wouldn't be used like that. Possibly "jij" would

So, I think that your example sentence includes “jij/gij” as a subject pronoun understood after “leert.”
“Je” seems to be the unstressed form of the object pronoun, you familiar “jou."

Dutch:
Wat (Direct object) leert (Verb) een tweede beoordeling (Subject) je (Indirect object)?

English is the same, except that we have to use a does-inversion:
What (Direct object) does (Aux) a second opinion (Subject) teach (Verb) you (Indirect object)?

Hoi Grytolle,

Oh

However, leert may be translated into English in three ways:
I teach/learn
I do teach/learn
I am teaching/learning

A form of "do" in that sentence is not the same use of an auxilary verb as when you use one of the past perfect tenses in English. That's because those auxilary verbs are not optional. The use of do is really only used in English in questions or to give extra stress to a word (optional).

French must play a role in some grammatical constructions in Belgium, so the above explanation is my educated guess --- based on my being fluent in French.

[It has had quite some influence in the past, some products of which still remain

[/quote]
That's why I posted the above explanation, which you posted within your response to me.

Also, I thought that "you understood" had been used with leert, and the comma before "je" had been omitted. That makes it look as if it will work

Groetjes,

Cathleen

[Grytolle]

However, leert may be translated into English in three ways:
I teach/learn
I do teach/learn
I am teaching/learning

Well Dutch has different verb patterns for 'teach' and 'learn':

to learn sth from sth/sb = iets leren van iem/uit iets
to teach sb sth = iemand iets leren

... it has always been a mystery to me why Dutch speakers have troubles with keeping them apart in English

A form of "do" in that sentence is not the same as when you use one of the past perfect tenses in English because those auxilary verbs are not optional. The use of do is really only used in English in questions or to give extra stress to a word.

And this was a question...

That's why I posted the above explanation, which you posted within your response to me.

Well, using a stressed pronoun at the end of a sentence is not more typical of French than of Germanic languages as far as I know, so eventhough it's true that French has had a certain influence on Flemish, I wouldn't say this is such a case

[firefly315]

However, leert may be translated into English in three ways:
I teach/learn
I do teach/learn
I am teaching/learning

Well Dutch has different verb patterns for 'teach' and 'learn':

to learn sth from sth/sb = iets leren van iem/uit iets
to teach sb sth = iemand iets leren

Hoi Grytolle,

Dat klopt.

That's why I posted the above explanation, which you posted within your response to me.

Well, using a stressed pronoun at the end of a sentence is not more typical of French than of Germanic languages as far as I know, so eventhough it's true that French has had a certain influence on Flemish, I wouldn't say this is such a case[/quote]
C’est tu veux, toi?
Wat wilt jij, je?
I forgot to include the "extra" you, but I guess that I should have translated the above into English as:
Is that what you want, you?
Then, it would be a direct translation of the Dutch and French versions of that sentence.
We would never translate it as "Is that what you want, you?
That's the only reason why I thought that the original sentence in question, which used "je" at the end was using the unstressed form of "jou."

Ik wilde helpen omdat ik op het forum hou van helpen.

Groetjes,

Cathleen

[vicki]

Dank u allen.
Mij lijkt die zinsvorm onharmonisch.
"Wat leert je (jou) een tweede beoordeling?"
ofwel
"Wat leert een tweede beoordeling jou?"
zou het moeten zijn volgens mij.
De betekenis van de zin is immers: wat kun je leren (te weten komen) van/bij een tweede beoordeling? Van wat voor informatie word je erbij voorzien?
Uw verwijzingen naar andere talen doen er helemaal niet toe.

[Grytolle]

Dank u allen.
Mij lijkt die zinsvorm onharmonisch.
"Wat leert je (jou) een tweede beoordeling?"
ofwel
"Wat leert een tweede beoordeling jou?"
zou het moeten zijn volgens mij.
De betekenis van de zin is immers: wat kun je leren (te weten komen) van/bij een tweede beoordeling? Van wat voor informatie word je erbij voorzien?
Uw verwijzingen naar andere talen doen er helemaal niet toe.

Uw nergens op gebaseerde beoordeling van de variant met "je" op het eind doet er helemaal niet toe.

[vicki]

Uw nergens op gebaseerde beoordeling van de variant met "je" op het eind doet er helemaal niet toe.

Et tu, Brute, contra me?

[Grytolle]

Sorry voor mijn vorige post, ik neem aan dat je het niet zo onbeleefd bedoelde

Als je het omdraait heb je misschien wel een punt:

"Wat leert jou een tweede beoordeling" lijkt mij raar

[vicki]

[quote="Grytolle"]Sorry voor mijn vorige post, ik neem aan dat je het niet zo onbeleefd bedoelde


Natuurlijk dat ik het niet onbeleefd bedoeld heb. De post van firefly echter en de eropvolgende, weken zoveel van mijn kwestie af, dat ze
i.d.d. niets ter zake te doen hebbend te noemen konden zijn.

[firefly315]

De post van firefly echter en de eropvolgende, weken zoveel van mijn kwestie af, dat ze
i.d.d. niets ter zake te doen hebbend te noemen konden zijn.

Hoi Vicki,

Ik wilde te helpen, maar, dus, een andere keer.

Groetjes,

Cathleen

[vicki]

Cathleen, ik stel uw houding waarachtig op prijs!
...ofschoon u het kunt hebben horen zeggen, dat ook de weg naar de hel met goede voornemens geplaveid is...
Kusjes.

[firefly315]

Hoi Vicki,

Dat is goed om te horen . Bedankt voor je berichtje .

Groetjes,

Cathleen