Talk:Dutch conjugation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[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. --LambiamTalk 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. --Eivindt@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. --LambiamTalk 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? --Eivindt@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. ---LambiamTalk 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)

Yes... But this article is such a jungle that I don't even know where to start cutting. Things like "jij zal/zult gemoogd/gemogen/gemocht hebben/zal/zul jij gemoogd/gemogen/gemocht hebben" are hardly instructive to the general reader. And I have never heard anyone use "zal gerust hebben!" as an imperative. That really sounds ridiculous. As far as I know, "zullen" (shall) doesn't have an imperative form. Iblardi 17:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


I agree, all the imperative forms except the O.T.T. should be deleted. They are never used and most probably were never used. A imperative is in its nature something that has not happened yet, so a future form is unnecessary and a form referring to the past without meaning.

I don't think so, in Dutch one can easily say: "Had geholpen, dan was het nu al af!" (If you had helped, it would have been finished by now), instead of the classical "Als ge geholpen hadt, dan zou het nu al af zijn" of het archaïsche/regionale "Haddet gij geholpen, dan ware het nu al af"

Zelfs op de site van de Taalunie staat er een imperatief V.T.T.: http://woordenlijst.org/leidraad/11/7/

I see. I would call that one subjunctive rather than imperative mood, expressing a wish not an order. Anyway, the forms I cited above are really outlandish. Any mother telling her kid "Zal je kamer opruimen!" will be met with utter confusion. Iblardi 08:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

At the taalunie they call it an imperative, furthermore there is no subjunctive sjwa. There's a big difference between subjunctive "ik hadde" and imperative "had!" which does not have a subject nor a sjwa.

The subject is optional. In Dutch one can say both "Had maar geholpen!" and "Had jij maar geholpen", schwa or no. Regardless, presenting unsuspecting non-Dutch speakers with the kind of outrageous constructions as cited above ("Shall clean up your room!") is extremely unhelpful. I would like to see where you get all this wisdom from. Iblardi 05:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, you are perfectly right. Indeed both the ANS(http://oase.uci.ru.nl/~ans/) and the Taalunie recognize the plusquamperfectum(V.T.T.) imperative. However I would like to point that it is the only one in addition to the "normal" imperative form, so I still think the others should be deleted. I even would suggest we only include those forms of the verb which are in the ANS or a publication with equal authority and only in the persons mentioned therein, e.g. a imperative of the third person does not exist, I think. And would it not be nice to have some information on the usage of the plqpf imperative, along the lines of the ANS remark that "had gespeeld" means "je had moeten spelen"?

Hmm, it looks like I have two reputable sources against me. Can't be right then.
I agree with the above user in that mainstream sources should be followed, both for the terminology and, more globally, for the examples given. Iblardi 07:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
According to the ANS only the verbs hebben and zijn have a plusquamperfect imperative.

[edit] Indicative O.V.Tk.T. and V.V.Tk.T. tenses (Verleden Toekomende Tijd)

I will add the O.V.Tk.T. and V.V.Tk.T. tenses to the indicative, even though it has the same form as the O.T.T. of the Conditional. Both Taalboek Nederlands (p.153–154) and the (E-)ANS (2.4.8.9–2.4.8.10) mention it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adhemar (talk • contribs) 00:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Not Vlaams.

Just to make clear: this page is about Dutch conjugation, not Belgian/Vlaams conjugation, right?

Just an example of words that are not part of the Dutch language: spelet, speeldet, zoudet, hebbe, hebbet, hadde, haddet, zulle, zullet, zoude, zoudet. Nobody teaches or is taught or uses these forms in The Netherlands. The section was once cleaned up but now it is back to its former state of being filled with mistakes.


I took the example of words not part of my mother language from this section (table 'Aanvoegende Wijs') :

Weak verbs with an O.V.T. (simple past) on -de and a past participle on -d: type spelen (to play)

Aanvoegende wijs

O.T.T. spele spele spele/spelet3 spele spelen

O.V.T. speelde speelde speelde/speeldet3 speelde speelden

O.Tk.T. zulle spelen zulle spelen zulle/zullet3 spelen zulle spelen zullen spelen

O.V.Tk.T.3 zoude spelen zoude spelen zoude/zoudet3 spelen zoude spelen zouden spelen

V.T.T. hebbe gespeeld hebbe gespeeld hebbe/hebbet3 gespeeld hebbe gespeeld hebben gespeeld

V.V.T. hadde gespeeld hadde gespeeld hadde/haddet3 gespeeld hadde gespeeld hadden gespeeld

V.Tk.T. zulle gespeeld hebben zulle gespeeld hebben zulle/zullet3 gespeeld hebben zulle gespeeld hebben zullen gespeeld hebben

V.V.Tk.T.3 zoude gespeeld hebben zoude gespeeld hebben zoude/zoudet3 gespeeld hebben zoude gespeeld hebben zouden gespeeld hebben —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.211.186.147 (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)