verandern with aan??

[rhino514]

I came across the 2 follwoinf sentences; in the first one "verandern" does not need a postpostion, in the second , it does. Can anyone explain to me why?

"als iets in mijn leven me niet bevalt, dan verander ik het"

"ik ben voor het eerst in mijn leven zwaar ongelukkig. En ik kan er helemaal niks AAN verandern"

I´ve come across a few verbs like this where there is a direct object, yet in some cases they take a postpositon and in some they do not.

??

bedankt!

[Quetzal]

Hm. Yes, there is a difference between the direct transitive use, changing something, and the more indirect use with "aan" ("about", in this context). It might make more sense if you compare it with "ik kan er niets aan doen", which has a direct English equivalent ("can't do anything about it"). This is a similar construction with a similar meaning, only with "veranderen" instead of "doen".

In different contexts, I think "veranderen aan" is somewhat comparable to "make a change to" as opposed to "change". For instance, suppose you're asked for your feedback about a text somebody else wrote. You'd say "I'd like to make some changes to the text", rather than "I'd like to change the text". In Dutch, you could say "Ik zou er graag een paar dingen aan veranderen", where "er" refers to "the text" (de tekst).

[rhino514]

Makes perfect sense!

It´s quite tricky that some verbs in dutch take on a preposition based on a nuance. I come across these occasionally when I read dutch which I do every day. So actually both ways of saying it would be right; they would just have a slightly different emphasis. I guess I tend to forget that the author in a novel is given much creative license with the language, just like in other languages. Worse is when I look at dutch programs (especially reality programs); the diference between the spraaktaal and correct language are quite abundant.

bedankt

J

[Haagse_Meester]

the diference between the spraaktaal and correct language are quite abundant.

There is indeed! Mind you, English isn't the same throughout the world either. Being Canadian, I suppose you'd be well aware of the differences between English spoken (and written) in the UK, USA, Canada and the Southern Hemisphere. And that's not even taking in account the various forms of local dialects! Envision this: a true Yorkshire man with a born-and-bred Texan in Brisbane, AUS. They both speak English, but I very much doubt they'll be able to understand the other. Nor would any local understand either one

Anyway, language spoken on TV, especially on reality shows and the commercial channels, is usually 'street language'. "Correct" language (in quotes, because: what's correct? who determines that?) is mostly found in documentaries, the news and more "elitist" discussion programs. I'd recommend viewing films by Bert Haanstra (sadly passed away in 1997) and especially "Fanfare". Link: http://www.berthaanstra.nl/ You can order a 10 DVD-set, containing his work. No affiliation!

[rhino514]

I looked at the director´s website and it looks very interesting. Seems I will get to understand more about the Dutch as well. Don´t know which ones to start with, though, he has such a long filmography. The Human Dutch sounds quite interesting, though.


Thanks!