simple past or past participle?

[user222]

I've noticed that in many past tense sentences, the past participle is used more often than the simple past. Is the past participle really more common?

For the sentence "I did that.", is "Ik deed dat.", more common, or is it "Ik heb dat gedaan."?

[Wim]

I've noticed that in a lot of past tense sentences, the past participle is used more often than the simple past. Is the past participle really more common?

For the sentence "I did that.", is "Ik deed dat.", more common, or is it "Ik heb dat gedaan."?

Hallo User222,

Your observation may be correct, but I suppose it's caused by the fact that we often use simple sentences as an example. It's probably a matter of difference between Dutch and English grammar. English always uses the simple past tense in a (past) sentence containing a modifier of time:

Yesterday I was in Amsterdam.

If I'd say: Yesterday I've been in Amsterdam I'd make a phrase in bad English grammar. However, this phrase would be very well possible in Dutch:

Gisteren ben ik in Amsterdam geweest [and now I'm back home].

If we talk about a thing in the past which is finished now we often use the perfect tense, like in the above example. This also explains why we'd often translate I did that by Ik heb dat gedaan.

If I'd have used the simple past tense I'd have expressed a kind of continuous aspect: Gisteren was ik in Amsterdam [and there I met a friend I had not seen for a long time, i.e.: in the period I was in Amsterdam I met this friend ... etc.].

In enumerations of events of the past we also use the simple past tense:
Hij kwam zijn kantoor in rennen, smeet zijn tas op tafel en begon te telefoneren - He came running into his office, threw his briefcase on the table and started to make telephone calls.

There is a tendency in modern Dutch to replace the perfect tense by a simple past. This may be English influence, but I don't know if this phenomenon has ever been properly investigated. However, use of the 'wrong' time, for instance on tv, often strikes me.

Groeten,
Wim

[EetSmakelijk]

I have a terrible time knowing when to use the simple and when to use the perfect. I can never get them straight! lol
I keep making mistakes with them and not understanding why it's a mistake. Oh well, I guess when I make enough mistakes I will finally understand and know which tense to use. Isn't learning fun?
Groetjes,

[Forrest]

Dear Wim,

Today I have just encountered with another method in Dutch expressing actions in Present Perfect, e.g.

Ik ben gaan zwemmen.

I was told that it is the same as " Ik heb gezwommen". Is that so?

Another question is illustrated as " Ik heb mijn buurman horen spreken". I understand what that sentence means, but just feel a bit "strange" about how "horen" is used instead of "gehoord". Anyway, can u pls generalize this a bit more for me?

Many thanks in advance

Forrest

[Wim]

Today I have just encountered with another method in Dutch expressing actions in Present Perfect, e.g.

Ik ben gaan zwemmen.

I was told that it is the same as " Ik heb gezwommen". Is that so?

Hi Forrest,

Yes, roughly both sentences mean the same thing, but they're not exactly the same. Something gaan doen means 'to move oneself to do the thing expressed by the verb.' For instance: gaan zwemmen 'to go for a swim' or gaan winkelen 'to go (fun) shopping.'

So Ik ben gaan zwemmen would mean 'I've gone for a swim' and Ik heb gezwommen would simply mean 'I have swum.'

Now your second question: Ik heb mijn buurman horen spreken 'I've heard my neighbour speak(ing)' where you'd expect gehoord instead of horen. You're right: one would expect a past participle in that place and in fact that's the way a sentence like this is understood. But a rule says that if a past participle is followed by an infinitive, it will turn into an infinitive itself. Therefore it says horen where one would expect gehoord. Actually this only happens with the verbs horen 'to hear', zien 'to see' and voelen 'to feel.'

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Wim

[user222]

If I'd have used the simple past tense I'd have expressed a kind of continuous aspect

So "ik deed dat" means something like "I was doing that"?

[Wim]

Yes, but don't ignore the 'something like' part in your question. The way I'd translate a sentence like this from English to Dutch or vice versa would be heavily influenced by the context.

In general in Dutch the expression of a contuous aspect of any action is less important than it is in English. If the continuous aspect is really important, the Dutch would use a construction like ik zat een boek the lezen, ik stond te wachten etc.

Groeten,
Wim

[username]

what is past vorm from "mag" ?
(ik bedoel netjes "zult" van "zal", "moest" van "moet")

[Joke]

what is past vorm from "mag" ?
(ik bedoel netjes "zult" van "zal", "moest" van "moet")

Mag comes from the verb 'mogen' and is conjugated as follows:

mogen - mocht - gemogen

ik/jij/hij mag - mocht - heb/hebt/heeft gemogen
wij/jullie/zij mogen - mochten - hebben gemogen

Btw, 'zult' is not the past tense of 'zal', but an alternative present tense: 'jij zult' or 'jij zal' both mean 'you will'. Past tense is 'zou'.

Groetjes Joke

[frieta]

is iemand weet wat de verschillent van imperfectum en perfectum is? als je gebruik het. Wanneer kan je het gebruiken?

Groetjes,
frieta

[Bieneke]

Hallo Frieta,

Ik wilde juist het gebruik van de perfectum en imperfectum gaan uitleggen, toen ik zag dat Wim het in dit onderwerp al heeft uitgelegd (ik had je bericht al naar dit onderwerp verplaatst). Lees zijn bericht (d.d. 26.10.2005) eens en kijk of je het begrijpt. Stel gerust nog bijkomende vragen!

[carinush]

ik heb zeker vandaag iets meer geleerd.
Thank you all for your help!
Ik ben erg dankbaar!

carina