Talk:Dutch conjugation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The standard form of the present subjunctive of zijn is zij(n). Not weze(n).

The form weze does exist, but it is only used in Belgian Dutch.

This is what the A.N.S. (the official Dutch grammar) says: http://oase.uci.kun.nl/~ans/e-ans/02/03/06/05/body.html

The present subjunctive does have a t when the subject is gij.

But there is no schwa between the stem and the t. Except when the stem already ends in a t.

These are a few examples from the Statenbijbel:

Nu dan, Israël! hoor naar de inzettingen en naar de rechten, die ik ulieden lere te doen; opdat gij leeft, en henen inkomt, en erft het land, dat de HEERE, uwer vaderen God, u geeft. (Deut. 4:1)

U is het getoond, opdat gij wetet, dat de HEERE die God is; er is niemand meer dan Hij alleen! (Deut. 4:35)

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-05-18. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep.

[edit] Translate into English, please!

What are a "niet-finiete vormen", "infinitieven", "deelwoorden", "toekomend", "hebbende", "voltooid", "aantonende wijs", "O.T.T.", "O.Tk.T.", "V.T.T.", and "V.Tk.T."? Without that information, this is hardly useful except for Dutch-speaking linguists. --Lambiam^Talk 20:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List?

Maybe we should rename this to List of Dutch conjugations? It doesn't read like an article. --Eivind^t@c 01:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Instead, it should be made more into an article, with some mumble about Germanic patterns, explaining something about the tenses and persons/numbers in Dutch, defining the notions of "weak" and "strong" verb, and perhaps also indicating the most striking differences with adjacent languages. And more; I remember something like that there is a simple rule for when a weak verb takes -de and when -te. And jij speelt/speel je requires an explanation and is further so regular that (in my opinion) it should not be repeated in the tables but just be explained in the text with two or three examples. And so on. --Lambiam^Talk 06:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be a even better idea! Unfortunatly I don't know anything about the subject so I can't help, can you do it? --Eivind^t@c 21:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I could give it a try and perhaps be not more wrong than the average article, I wouldn't be able to cite sources. Anyway, in the meantime some of this has been realized by others, and the article grew beyond a mere list. ---Lambiam^Talk 23:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up this article.

It always surprises me why people try to make Dutch seem more complicated than it really is. People, when I see this article I see a lot of surplus information. We do not need Verkavelingsvlaams, and we do not need archaisms. Rex 15:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)