Talk:Dutch grammar

I don't think it's necessary to mention abbreviations (is this the right term?) like 't, z'n, d'r in an outline of the Dutch grammar. In written Dutch they aren't used a lot. I think the way it's done now could confuse people. It's probably better to mention them seperately. Guaka 18:46, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Gender

This article is not clear on how the 3 genders work in Dutch. Many non-Dutch speakers believe Dutch has only two genders like Danish and Swedish, especially since Dutch-teaching textbooks and dictionaries only ever seem to go as far as "de nouns" and "het nouns". We could use some example sentences showing how the correct pronoun for "it" must be used depending on the gender of the object being referred to.

The pronoun section also seems to throw everything in together making it hard to get a feel of the gender and case distinctins. — Hippietrail 01:21, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

there also seem to be some factual errors in here. referring especially to the distinction between second person singular pronoun and plural. somebody needs to clean this up a bit.

I just cleaned up the mistake regarding the 2nd person pronoun. I think a couple of things still need to be improved on. A section relating to adjectives and how they are inflected with -e seems important, 'pronouns' shouldn't be a sub-section of nouns, but rather a sub-section of its own, with separate entries on personal, demonstrative, interrogative pronouns, etc.

As for gender: I don't think a section on the difference between masculine and feminine genders should be given that much importance, because in practice Dutch has become a two-gender language: a phrase like "de zon en zijn stralen" is AFAIK considered correct by the ANS e.a. Most speakers in the Netherlands are completely unaware of the distinction between masculine and feminine nouns. Joost 00:26, 24 Jan 2005 (CET)

True; but over a third of the population is living in dialect area's where the dialects still have three genders - whether the speakers are aware of this is irrelevant.

I think the sentence "de zon en zijn stralen", is perceived as correct in the Netherlands, but it is considered very strange in Belgium, Belgians would certainly say "de zon en haar stralen", because of the fact that in Belgian dialects the indefinite article for masculine nouns is not een, but ene, for feminine and neutre nouns it remains een. Because 'ene zon' sounds very weird, the gender are more important in Belgium

MWAK--84.27.81.59 09:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Compared to other grammar articles on Wikipedia, I think this one is a bit "dumbed down" in the way it ommits the distinction between maculine and feminine genders. Or should there be a separate article for Dutch nouns or Dutch genders or Advanced Dutch grammar?

Sandertje just added a lot of detail about gender. Although (s)he is technically right, in practice the distinction between masculine and feminine gender are almost extinct in the Netherlands (still somewhat used in Belgium). The amount of space now devoted to it is out of proportion with the importance of it. I would propose to shorten it by just explaining the facts of usage, but leaving out all the long lists of categories.−Woodstone 23:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add that altough it might be difficult for people from the netherlands to make a distinction between masculine and feminine in some words they do know the difference really well in others. for example if one says de moeder en haar kinderen no-one would suggest de moeder en zijn kinderen. Of course it is obvious that moeder is a feminine word but for many dutch speakers as I know words like zon and regering are the same. To me it seems important to make clear in this article that Dutch has a difference between masculine and femine words albeit do don't feel it in all of them.

Expression "aan het ..."

Something else I've just learned about Dutch which is interesting but not covered here is the use of "aan het" in particular verb constructions. I would like to know more about it please. — Hippietrail 01:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only example of aan het I can think of is zonnebaden aan het strand (sunbathing on the beach). I think the meaning of aan het is best described as at the location, folowed by the actual location. I'm no expert though, just a random Dutch person. So I'm afraid I can't help you with any questions regarding when you can use it, because I do it intuitively - DodgeK

No, what Hippietrail meant, I suspect, is the construction Ik ben aan het zonnebaden: I am sunbathing. It could be considered the, slightly informal, Dutch equivalent of a continuous tense. Sixtus 20:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm Belgian, and I speak Dutch: the construction with 'aan het' is like the continuous tense, you can use it in the present, past, future, perfect, subjunctive,conditional,...

e.g. ik ben aan het vissen = I am fishing

ik was aan het vissen = I was fishing

ik zou aan het vissen zijn = I would be fishing

ik zal aan het vissen geweest zijn = I shall have been fishing

...

To clarify things: Dutch used to have the 'onvoltooid deelwoord' for this sentences:

ik ben vissende

ik was vissende

ik zal vissende zijn

This constructions however appear old-fashioned to the modern reader of Dutch and are also in written language mostly replaced by 'aan het'-constructions. Would it still be worth telling something about this tense in this article, or maybe in a separate one? Thijs! 22:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you give us a source for that. I dont think it is true

merijn

weak verbs showing irregularity?

A number of weak verbs such as denken show the irregularity associated with Rückumlaut: see the article on umlaut:

• denken, ik dachte (to think)

Last time I checked, the past tense of denken was ik dacht, which is simply a strong verb. I don't quite get the sentence above it either, maybe my knowledge of my own language is limited, but I think it can be completely removed. - DodgeK

No, this sentence is correct. Weak is not the same as regular - see the article on weak (grammatical term). denken forms its past tense by adding a dental (-t), therefore it is weak. See the article Germanic weak verb. Strong verbs show the vowel change associated with ablaut, but the vowel change in denken is umlaut, which is quite a different thing.--Doric Loon 05:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Sterke (strong) verbs change there vowels wenn there written in past tense zwakke(weak) verbs don't. And past tensen of denken (to think) is dacht, not dachte. 82.74.142.27 19:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Command

• In a command, the verb comes first, followed by 'we' if taking to a group with the speaker included, followed by the modifiers and the rest of the sentence.

I don't understand what is meant by this rule. Who does? Sixtus 20:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

"talking" instead of "taking maybe?" Freako 13:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Probably, but even so it remains gibberish to me. I can't think of a single Dutch sentence satisfying this description. I'll remove it until someone who actually understands this rewrites it for the rest of the world (or the tiny part of it interested in Dutch commands). AvB ÷ talk 19:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It does occur, but always with the verb 'laten' (laten we gaan = let's go, etc.). Not strictly a 'command', though. 157.193.51.71 13:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

T-rules

I found an orphaned article about a small part of Dutch grammar: T-rules, however I don't see a way how a link to te "T-rules" article might be established in the "Dutch grammar" article. Freako 13:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Imho, we shouldn't bother. The article T-rules, completely unknown to native speakers (unlike e.g. the 't Kofschip rule), is an example of trying to explain as incomprehensible as possible, how to conjugate a Dutch verb. The rules are, in fact, quite simple:

1. make sure you know the conjugation of the 6 irregular/modal verbs by heart;
2. conjugation of present tense of regular verbs: (1 sg) stem, (2 sg) stem+t, (3 sg) stem+t, (1 pl) infinitive, (2 pl) infinitive, (3 pl) infinitive...
3. ...except if the stem already ends on t, then don't double the t...
4. ...or if the verb follows 'jij/je', then don't add a t...
5. treat 'u' as 3 sg or 2 pl.

That's it. The article discusses semi-regular verbs like gaan and houden, which is not helpful, and gij/ge, which is typical of Flemish only and not used anymore in The Netherlands. I wouldn't object to deletion. A better article on conjugation of Dutch verbs would be welcome, of course. Sixtus 20:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree that the article T-rules is an unnecessarily complex explanation. And wrong as well. It says -d is dropped if -t is. This may be so for a few verbs like houden, that have a tendency to weeken into houen, but is certainly wrong for a verb like bidden. No way can you say ^*bi jij wel eens. That d is never dropped. However the fourth rule above is not stated right: you probably mean:

4 ...or if 'jij/je' follows the verb, then don't add a t...

−Woodstone 21:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, my mistake. Sixtus 18:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course 'je' has to be the subject of the verb for the above to apply. Note: "Dit artikel biedt je veel informatie." Since 'je' is not the subject, the verb takes the form stem+t. Often overlooked by many native speakers.84.193.82.3 01:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1) Why are the explanations of the Dutch article oversimplified?

2) The article T-rules is not wrong:

a)if one drops the -en in houden, you get houd-, the d is preceeded by a (o)u, so you get: ik hou, hou jij

b)if one drops the -en in bidden, you get bidd-, the d is preceeded by a d, so you get: ik bidt, bid jij

At any rate, we don't need both T-rules and 't kofschip! I prefer the latter as a title. If the T-rules has useful discrete info, merge it into the 't kofschip and then delete T-rules. --Doric Loon 14:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The article talks about the "radical" (Dutch stam). For bidden (pray) that would be bid, not ^*bidd. Anyway, to make sure we agree the rule fails, look at the example luiden (ring), radical luid, but still luid jij de klok? (do you ring the bell?) with "d" maintained. Even the example in the rule is doubtful, because houd jij is also correct, albeit less colloquial. −Woodstone 16:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Correct, the formal form is not 'hou jij', but 'houd jij' (and 'ik houd' as well); 'hou jij' is used in informal writing / colloquial speech. Not incorrect, but not instructive either. Sixtus 18:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the T-rules add useful info, but they are different form the 't kofschip, the T-rules deal with the second person form of verbs in all moods, voices,tenses and numbers, while 't kofschip deals with the active past simple, but for all persons. Maybe we could link them. Furthermore, the rules expressed by Sixtus are not correct, they only handle about the active simple present and the active perfect, only in the indicative mood and only for the pronouns jij (je) and u. So they are not 'completely' correct.

My "rules" (I don't suggest we use them instead, they were just meant for this discussion) are not complete (I did mention the first and third persons, however, and the conjugation of the regular imperfect tense is even simpler), but I think Wikipedia would benefit from a correct and less complicated article than T-rules. Anyhow, the subjunctive is hardly ever used in Dutch, by the way, not even in cooking recipes anymore (men neme een ei...). I think a "complete" article on Dutch verb conjugation should distinguish between the 8 tenses of Dutch: all combinations of simple/perfect (voltooid/onvoltooid), past/present and future/non-future, which includes the conditional; the subjunctive could be treated as a special, archaid tense. Maybe translating nl:Nederlandse grammatica is a good start? Sixtus 18:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Articles and cases

Why have the explanations of the Dutch article been oversimplified?

• http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genitief
• http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datief
• http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusatief

--> http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbuiging_van_het_lidwoord

Dutch nouns marked for definiteness?

The article stated that Dutch nouns are marked for definiteness. As far as I understand 'marking' and 'definiteness', that's not correct, so I removed it. The placing of the comment did make me suspect that it was meant in the context of Flemish Dutch. If this was the case, could someone please elaborate? Junes 21:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Gender of nouns

User:Sandertje expanded the section about the gender of nouns with more information about genders. When I reverted this, he answered "The grammer provided is correct. It doesn't matter what most of the Dutch know about Dutch grammer, if so the page would be rather empty." Yes, it doesn't matter what they know, but it does matter what they use. A grammar is a description of a language, after all.

The difference between masculine and feminine nouns, if there were any in Dutch, would only be visible in the usage of the personal pronoun "he" (hij) or "she" (zij) for the word. In fact, the Dutch don't use these pronouns as it is in the article now. The situation in Belgium may be different, though. Ucucha (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I've now made a "compromise" version. I think the old version of the introduction of the paragraph was better (so I retained it), but I added Sandertje's scheme for noun gender. Ucucha (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

This version simply isn't correct. originally there were 'there are' 3 genders.Just because the masc. and fem. use the same article in the nominative doesn't mean we lost it.That's rediculous.

So i'm sorry to say but your compromise will just not do. This about accurate and factual information on Dutch grammer. I mean what's next? Claiming that Dutch lost the dative, accustive and genitive ?

Sandertje (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Um... yes, Dutch actually lost all those things, except for pronouns and archaic expressions. Or does "de aanbieding des supermarkts" sound natural to you? Dative, accusative and genitive are not morphologically marked in Dutch. Or did you mean it with regards to syntax, rather than case?

As for gender, I think it would be fair to say that in spoken Dutch, there is no distinction between masculine/feminine, while formal writing still requires some attention to this distinction (hij/zij, wier/wiens), although very little. This situation may be different in Flanders, though, as noted.

Of course, we all learn in school that Dutch has three genders, and this is certainly still true in writing. However, a basic premise in linguistics is that one should describe language in descriptic, rather than prescriptic terms. And it's simply irrational to describe spoken Dutch as having three gender when two can't be distinguished from each other in grammatical function. Junes 11:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

@Sandertje: Dutch has almost lost these cases. At least in spoken language, there is no difference between dative and accusative, while the datcusative and the genitive are only marked in some pronouns. I'm sorry, your last edit is partly ridiculous. The section is about nouns, not only about their gender. In fact, your version states that Dutch has only two genders ("As a result of evolution masculine, feminine nouns merged into one common gender."), while the old version ("For all practical purposes, at least in the Netherlands, the masculine and feminine gender have merged into one common gender.") is more subtle. Furthermore, your version does not explain the difference between the Netherlands and Flanders, which exists. Ucucha (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Um ... no not quite.The genitive still exists: De supermarks aanbiedingen. The accustive and dative still exist in hen and hun, and then there's the sytaxs: Onderwerp/Lijdendvoorwerp/Meewerkendvoorwerp and the preposition 'van'. I'm suprised how you can say >>in spoken Dutch, there is no distinction between masculine/feminine<< simple proof of the fact that we do is 'teef vs reu'. Of 'dief' vs 'dievegge'.

But this is not the point.Point is that dutch has 3 genders not 2.

>> In fact, your version states that Dutch has only two genders ("As a result of evolution masculine, feminine nouns merged into one common gender."), while the old version ("For all practical purposes, at least in the Netherlands, the masculine and feminine gender have merged into one common gender.")<<

No my version doesn't say that.Common = gemeenschappelijk. in the form of 'de'. The old versions claimes that dutch merged the 2 for practical purposes which isn't true. - taalontwikkeling -.

Sandertje 13.17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

That is a difference in form, not in morphology. Of course, we have "man" en "vrouw". But we use (in almost all cases) the same pronouns for them.

When they merged, they have become one gender, not?

"all" has to be "almost all", I think, but I can't see any more flaws in the old version.

I'm not sure if "de supermarkts aanbiedingen" is really a genitive. Furthermore, I said that there was no difference between dative and accusative in spoken language. I think there are very few people who really say "hun" in the dative and "hen" in the accusative. It's only a rule invented by 16th-century schoolmasters, after all. Ucucha (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The article should state that Dutch still has 3 genders, although in practice, many inhabitants of large parts of The Netherlands do not distinguish anymore between many M and F words, but that's something different. Some words are still considered M or F; not only words like 'boer' or 'secretaresse', but also words ending on -ing (always F) or on -aard (always M) and many more. Look up 'vereniging' or 'beiaard' in the Groene Boekje or Van Dale. It is still wrong to say "de vereniging - zijn leden" or "de beiaard - haar geluid". (That's descriptive, not purely prescriptive: the editors of the Groene Boekje and the dictionaries have already removed the gender for many other de-words because there, the difference is not "experienced" anymore. But that does not mean that the genders have ceased to exist alltogether!) Different example: every lawyer knows that 'raad' is M and that 'rechtbank' is F. And in Belgium and some parts of The Netherlands, most people still distinguish between M and F for practically all de-words (and use the article "een" (F) or "(e)ne" (M) depending on the gender).
Useful links (ANS): [1] and [2]. Sixtus 14:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, it's 'der supermarkt aanbiedingen', not 'des supermarkts aanbiedingen' ;-) Sixtus 14:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, well that more or less proves my point, doesn't it? Junes 14:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

>>

When they merged, they have become one gender, not?

"all" has to be "almost all", I think, but I can't see any more flaws in the old version.

I'm not sure if "de supermarkts aanbiedingen" is really a genitive. Furthermore, I said that there was no difference between dative and accusative in spoken language. I think there are very few people who really say "hun" in the dative and "hen" in the accusative. It's only a rule invented by 16th-century schoolmasters, after all. Ucucha (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)<<

How hard is it to understand that Dutch has 3 genders? there are many people who use hen and hun correctly and it's wasn't invented in the 16th century.

Sandertje 14.17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Very hard if I don't have a good reason to understand that. Ucucha (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it was the 17th century. By P.C. Hooft, if I'm not mistaken.
As noted, we should not confuse biological sex with grammatical gender. English can also use 'he' and 'she' to refer to male and female things, but that does not mean that English has grammatical gender. In the literature standard Dutch is assumed to have two genders. See for instance Booij, The Morphology of Dutch' Google book search, p.36, "Dutch nouns belong to one of two gender classes, common gender or neuter gender".
I think the compromise that Sixtus suggests is fine, but I would include that in "Northern" standard Dutch the difference really is only one of writing and formal spoken Dutch, and then only minimally ("De vereniging en zijn leden" does not sound ungrammatical to me in colloquial Dutch, although I wouldn't use it in writing). Junes 14:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, do we really need this huge list of words that fall in the feminine or masculine category, if they're only very minimally distinguished? I mean, it seems a bit overemphasized when compared to the rest of the article... Junes 14:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Oh please stop the P.C hooft and schoolmaster crap (excuse me) cases as such are not invented by people.they developed themselves.

A few remarks

1] There is such thing as ' "Northern" standard Dutch ' there is only one standard form used in both Flanders and the Netherlands.

2]"De vereniging en zijn leden" doesn't sound right to me (Unless I knew it would be a mens only club or something like that)

3] 'Things' in English can never be 'he' or 'she' except when regarding an animals. Calling a schip 'her' or 'she' in English is common but grammatically incorect.

Sandertje 14.55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

1. There are numbers of differences. Students live in a "kot" in Flanders and "op kamers" in the Netherlands. There are also some grammatical differences. It's naive to deny that.
2. That example indeed doesn't sound correct, but there are examples which are less clear.
3. What are you referring to?

In reaction to [3]: what are these errors? I think the original text (note that I didn't write it) was good. Your version (masculine and feminine merged into one gender, but there are still three genders) actually contradicts itself. If they merge, there is only one left. Ucucha (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

The distinction between 'hen' and 'hun' coming from grammarians is not 'crap'. See for instance this link or the [Dutch Wikipedia]. "Hen" en "hun" existed, but it were 17th century grammarians that wanted to model Dutch onto Latin who invented these things. The same happened with English, hence the prescriptivist "do not end sentences with a proposition" or "do not split infinitives".
Anyhow, I'm getting a bit exasperated with this discussion. You've been quite condescending in some of your remarks, without supplying any evidence outside of your personal opinion. I think the last version by Thijs! was perfectly fine and a lot better than the garbled, unstructured thing that we have now (with nonsensical wikilinks, such as to "Evolution"). Junes 15:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

• • Talk pages really need a better structure **

1 Ucucha,

-I'll answer in '#' to make it easier to read:

1] Kot vs kamers. This is called regional variation.Studing in Antwerp I know that a lot of Flemish persons say kamers as wel. (just like Dutch tent to say 'wasbak' more often than 'wastafel')

2] Such as. (and thanks for agreeing that means a lot to me  ;-) -no sarcasm intended-)

3] I was referring to a line written by Junes.

2 Junes,

I really don't want to sound condescending or insulting for that manner, I guess I'm just irritated and astonished of the fact that 'my logic' which for is pretty easy to understand needs so much fuss  :-) Please remember that I never mean to be arrogant/insulting or anything i that reaction.

• As with many aspects of Dutch grammer in the 17th century grammer was often based on the hollandic or brabantian dialects.

• This discussion is quite tireing for me as wel.I do not think the version by that 'thijs!'was 'fine' especially the part on northern and southern dutch is just plain wrong.

Sandertje (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

1. Yes, regional variation, the same regional variation that causes the fact that genders are more prominent in Flanders than in the Netherlands (though the political border may not be the grammatical border).
2. "asteroïde". According to your scheme, asteroïde is female, but "de asteroïde en zijn maan" sounds natural to me.

Ucucha (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

That sentence is impossible, an astroid can't have a moon (in it's orbit). But I'll give you a sentence: De astroïde heeft een baan die haar elke 3 jaar langs de aarde stuurt.

Sandertje (talk) 16.41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Compromise version

Okay, no offense taken. Now, let's see if we can find some middle ground. I like the original text better, because it was much more concise and was stylistically better. Here it is:

In Dutch there originally were three genders, masculine, feminine and neuter. Masculine and feminine nouns are often also called de-words, and neuter nouns are often called het-words, as a result of the definite article these nouns are accompanied with. For all practical purposes, at least in the Netherlands, the masculine and feminine gender have merged into one common gender. Few native speakers in the Netherlands are aware which nouns are masculine and which are feminine, and even in the newer editions of the Van Dale dictionary a large number of nouns are only classified as a de-word, without any statement whether the noun is masculine or feminine. In Belgium, however, awareness of the distinction between feminine and masculine nouns is much stronger, and still plays a (slight) grammatical role.

I don't see much wrong with this. It says that there were originally three genders (true), and that for all practical purposes, two of those have merged into one common gender. We could make it "most". We could add the exceptions. We might exclude the dictionary statement, which I personally find hard to believe and is not very relevant anyway. We might also remove the "(slight)" at the end. Then we'd get something like this:

In Dutch there originally were three genders, masculine, feminine and neuter. Masculine and feminine nouns are often also called de-words, and neuter nouns are often called het-words, as a result of the definite article these nouns are accompanied with. For most practical purposes, at least in the Netherlands, the masculine and feminine gender have merged into one common gender (except in some formal registers, particularly in writing). Few native speakers in the Netherlands are aware which nouns are masculine and which are feminine. In Belgium, however, awareness of the distinction between feminine and masculine nouns is much stronger, and still plays a grammatical role.

Now, is that acceptable? If not, what is wrong with it specifically? Also, how useful is the long list of masculine and feminine nouns to potential readers of this article? Junes 16:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I fully support. Ucucha (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Hmm, I have 2 big problems with that version:

1] "Originally" will just not do because Dutch 'still' has 3 genders.

2] The difference between 'belgian' and 'dutch dutch' . There is not difference , grammatically, between Dutch in the Netherlands and in Flanders.Therefore 'the different grammatical role' isn't correct.

But I'm glad we've started 'working ' instead of arguing.

Sandertje 16:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

@2: Yes, there is. An example I know is the "doordringbaarheid van de werkwoordelijke eindgroep". For example, in the Netherlands you can only say "Ik zeg dat hij nooit kan werken", while in Belgium "Ik zeg dat hij kan nooit werken" is also possible (I'm not sure if this example is really correct, but the difference certainly exists; I've also seen it in Dutch written by Belgians). See nl:Woordgeslacht. Ucucha (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Hmm... well, the problem is that it usually functions as having only 2 genders, and only in some very restricted contexts functions as having 3 genders. If you want to know, most scientific literature describes Dutch as having or at least converging towards two genders. See [4] ] for instance, or my earlier link. How about "Dutch is sometimes described as having three genders, masculine, feminine and neuter." Junes 16:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
2. This is simply not correct. There are a few grammatical differences between Belgian Standard Dutch and Dutch Standard Dutch. One of them is precisely the issue at hand. I quote from Talk:Dutch language:

Hello. I'm from Flanders and the three gender system is far from dead here, I don't agree with the statement that it is "rapidly dissappearing" at all. The difference between masculine and femine words is pretty appararent as (in the spoken language only) they have different articles: masculine words use "de(n)" and "ne(n)" (e.g. den aap, ne stoel), whereas feminine words use "de" and "een" (e.g. een kast, een deur). Another example is that possessive pronouns inflect. For example, we would say "The regering komt terug op haar beslissing", because both "regering" and "beslissing" are feminine, on the other hand, it is "Zet de tafel maar op hare kop", because "tafel" is feminine, but "kop" is masculine and therefore you should use hare and not haar. Or "De stoel zijne poot is afgebroken", because both "stoel" and "poot" are masculine you should use zijne and not zijn. We've never been thought rules about which word has which gender, because it is used consistently. I don't know why they teach that words with a physical nature are supposed to be masculine, but in Flanders we say "De deur, ze klemt". (For the record: take any Dutch dictionary and it will say that "deur" is ... feminine! So technically, it is a 100% correct!).

Junes 16:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Another authorative source on Dutch grammar, the Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst, says this about Dutch gender [5]: "Ten aanzien van de-woorden die geen personen of dieren aanduiden geldt het volgende. In de gesproken taal worden deze woorden in het noorden vrij algemeen als mannelijk behandeld; in de geschreven taal worden in het noorden een aantal, met name formeel gekenmerkte, substantieven ook wel als vrouwelijk behandeld. (...) Overigens lijkt het zuidelijke driegenerasysteem te evolueren in de richting van het noordelijke tweegenerasysteem." (emphasis mine). Junes 17:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

>>>>> Yes, there is. An example I know is the "doordringbaarheid van de werkwoordelijke eindgroep". For example, in the Netherlands you can only say "Ik zeg dat hij nooit kan werken", while in Belgium "Ik zeg dat hij kan nooit werken" is also possible (I'm not sure if this example is really correct, but the difference certainly exists; I've also seen it in Dutch written by Belgians). See nl:Woordgeslacht. Ucucha (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)<<<<<

No there isn't I use both sentences. DUTCH in the Netherlands is the same as in FLANDERS. There is no difference. Why would we have de taalunie which makes the spelling for Dutch when we have 2 versions?

Sandertje 17:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the confirmation. As the second sentence is grammatically impossible for me (I'm Dutch), this clearly indicates that this is a grammatical difference. Ucucha (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

No confirmation whatsoever. I'm Dutch too you see. Sandertje 21:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

The person in the post you provided uses dialect and forms of Dutch that most people here consider archaisms. BUT The spelling and grammer is the same. If he or she would enter a text in both common practised spelling here and there she would get the same mark because the spelling is both accepted Dutch.

Sandertje 17:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not just that person or that specific dialect. This phenomenon is widespread throughout Flanders. The grammar is not the same. The articles are different for masculine and feminine (unlike in Dutch Dutch) and the possesive pronoun ("haar" vs. "hare") is different. Those are grammatical differences (one has agreement for M/F, the other doesn't).
The Taalunie tries to maintain a standard form of written Dutch used for official purposes, which is a noble goal in itself. But it's not our purpose here. We must try to describe Dutch without any preconception of what is right or wrong. That doesn't mean we need to include every dialectal oddity, but when something is widespread throughout Flanders, it needs to be mentioned. But I'm sorry, I really don't have more time to discuss this. I'll leave a note on Sixtus' user page, to see if he has an idea how to proceed, since he made quite some sensible comments earlier. Junes 17:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I study Germanic language for ****'s sake :-) I know what I'm talking about. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE! SPELLING IS THE SAME AND IN SOME CASES OPTIONAL. I mean please people!

Sandertje 18:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are able to convince us, that's perfect. Otherwise you use an ad authoritatem argument. Ucucha (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I don't have to convince anyone.I provide facts.The problem here are people that refuse to 'obey' Dutch grammar. And why? Because 'it doesn't sound wrong' ?

Sandertje 18:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Firstly, the discussion about gender is not about spelling, so let's not get into that. Secondly, the major reference books (ANS, Van Dale, Groene Boekje) agree upon the fact that Dutch still has three genders. BUT: nowadays, many de-words (which term sounds a bit childish to me) are not considered exclusively M or F by many native speakers, especially by native speakers from "the North". One can refer to these words by using either 'hij' or 'zij'; that's both "right", because these words are considered both M and F! Words that do not fall into this category, are still denoted m. or v. in the dictionaries and Groene Boekje. I'd suggest something like this:

In Dutch there are three genders: masculine, feminine and neuter. Masculine and feminine nouns are often also called de-words, and neuter nouns are often called het-words, as a result of the definite article with which these nouns are accompanied. Few native speakers in the Netherlands are aware which nouns are masculine and which are feminine, though, and many words are considered both masculine and feminine. In Belgium, however, awareness of the distinction between feminine and masculine nouns is much stronger, and still plays a grammatical role in the Dutch spoken in Flanders and the Flemish dialects.

Sixtus 20:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

=Final offers=

This message by Sixtus get's us somewhere:

>>>In Dutch there are three genders: masculine, feminine and neuter. Masculine and feminine nouns are often also called de-words, and neuter nouns are often called het-words, as a result of the definite article with which these nouns are accompanied. Few native speakers in the Netherlands are aware which nouns are masculine and which are feminine, though, and many words are considered both masculine and feminine. In Belgium, however, awareness of the distinction between feminine and masculine nouns is much stronger, and still plays a grammatical role in the Dutch spoken in Flanders and the Flemish dialects. <<<<

If this would be changed to the text below you'd make me very VERY happy:

In Dutch there are three genders: masculine, feminine and neuter. Masculine and feminine nouns are sometimes called de-words, and neuter nouns are sometimes called het-words, as a result of the definite article with which these nouns are accompanied. The number of native speakers in the Netherlands who are aware which nouns are masculine and which are feminine is smaller than in Flanders, and a large number of words are considered both masculine and feminine. In Belgium, the awareness of the distinction between feminine and masculine nouns is stronger, and plays a larger grammatical role in the Dutch spoken in Flanders than the Dutch spoken in the Netherlands.

Sandertje 20:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that's better than my suggestion. Sixtus 20:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

That last change makes the paragraph rather redundant. Perhaps better would be:

In Dutch there are three genders: masculine, feminine and neuter. Sometimes masculine and feminine nouns are collectively called de-words, whereas neuter nouns are called het-words, in accordance with the definite article used with them. Most native speakers in the Netherlands do not differentiate pronouns referring to masculine or feminine de-words. In Belgium, the awareness of the distinction between feminine and masculine nouns is stronger, and plays a larger grammatical role in the Dutch spoken in Flanders.

−82.171.189.187 21:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I just fell in the middle of this discussion, so I missed the prologue. May I nevertheless propose:

In Dutch there are three genders: masculine, feminine and neuter. Sometimes masculine and feminine nouns are collectively called de-words, whereas neuter nouns are called het-words, in accordance with the definite article used with them. Most native speakers in the Netherlands do not differentiate pronouns referring to masculine or feminine de-words. In Belgium, the awareness of the distinction between feminine and masculine nouns is stronger, and plays a larger grammatical role in the spoken language, than it does in the Netherlands. The written language however, is identical in both countries.

This proposal uses some more words to clarify things, but why wouldn't we do that? Thijs! 21:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I doubt if written language is equal in the two dialects on this topic. We may want to avoid this part by the variant:

In Dutch there are three genders: masculine, feminine and neuter. Sometimes masculine and feminine nouns are collectively called de-words, whereas neuter nouns are called het-words, in accordance with the definite article used with them. In spoken language, most native speakers in the Netherlands do not differentiate pronouns referring to masculine or feminine de-words. In Belgium, the awareness of the distinction between feminine and masculine nouns is stronger, and plays a larger grammatical role.

−Woodstone 22:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I really don't mean to sound arrogant but I believe that compared to the versions I've seen up to now.My version is the 'best'.

Sandertje 22:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think your phrasing is quite redundant? It says twice that gender is more important in Flanders than in the Netherlands. And it does not indicate how the actual distinction between m/v genders shows. −Woodstone 23:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Woodstone, are you native speaker? If no, some explanation: in written language in Algemeen Nederlands, the official standard language of Belgium, Suriname and the Netherlands, the difference between feminine and masculine shows only in personal pronouns. It is the equivalent to he/she, him/her and his/her. In dutch hij/zij, hem/haar, zijn/haar. In spoken language the Flamish use either 'nen' and 'den' or 'een' and 'de'. I cannot think of any example where the written language in the Netherlands and Flanders differ, and invite our Flamish friends to come up with one, because this would also contradict the official Taalunie-spelling. The differentiation in verb-order is indeed valid, although both are considered correct it might look somewhat strange on the other side of the border. Thijs! 23:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You can't be serious. In written Dutch in the Netherlands it is quite common to use "hij" to refer to feminin nouns. E.g. "de vereniging viert zijn jubileum". −Woodstone 13:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, terribly common. But not correct. Apparently you're native speaker, I didn't know that, excuse me for playing primary education teacher and maybe annoying you by that. If we write that it is correct to write 'zijn' instead of 'haar' in your example, we can as well write that it is correct to write 'hun zijn' in some regions in the Netherlands. Let's stick to the official spelling.

I just thought about another place we see the difference, ie in wier/wiens. And another idea: we can make a list with detoriations of our language, with these examples, as well as hun/hen (for which the rule is completely artificial) and some others. Thijs! 15:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

>>>>in written language in Algemeen Nederlands, the official standard language of Belgium, Suriname and the Netherlands, the difference between feminine and masculine shows only in personal pronouns.<<<<

---

Sorry but how can you say this? "de vereniging viert haar jubileum" proves the opposite. Besides that is 'Flemmish' when you mean "Vlamingen".

I've adapted the article:

In Dutch there are three genders: masculine, feminine and neuter. Masculine and feminine nouns are sometimes called de-words, and neuter nouns are sometimes called het-words, as a result of the definite article with which these nouns are accompanied. The number of native speakers in the Netherlands who are aware which nouns are masculine and which are feminine is smaller than in Flanders, and a large number of words are considered both masculine and feminine. nevertheless, the distinction between feminine and masculine nouns is made but plays a slightly larger grammatical role in the Dutch spoken in Flanders than the Dutch spoken in the Netherlands. Sandertje 15:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Rules about gender

May I also propose to move the two screens full of text about rules for determination of the gender of nouns to a page Gender in Dutch grammar, so we can keep this article more comprehensive? Thijs! 21:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I support the move, because as it is now this aspect takes too much space relative to its importance.−Woodstone 22:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, yes.But let's agree on the text on the main grammer page first :-) Sandertje 22:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved the list of rules together with the introductionary text to Gender in Dutch grammar. Please note that I copied the introductionary text as well, so if we agree here on a different text, we have to keep in mind to change it in the other article as well. Thijs! 17:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

SOV

How come Dutch is claimed to be SVO? Last time I checked most theories explain things with SOV underlying.

Because it is. In a statement, you would use SVO, eg:

Ik eet vlees. (I eat meat.)

Wij maken een foto. (We are taking a picture.)

In questions you would VSO, but I cannot think of any example of SOV. Thijs! 12:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me help you,

Ik las gisteren dit boek. I read yesterday this book

Sandertje 15:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think i'm missing something, in you example ik = subject, las = verb, dit boek = object, gisteren = temporal adjunct. So first the Subject, then the Verb, then the Object (SVO), or is there something i don't understand? Thijs! 17:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The general situation is as follows, but Dutch is somewhat flexible and deviations exist.

Main phrases have SVO (as shown above):

• Hij (S) eet (V) vlees (O). (He eats meat)

Questions have VSO:

• Eet (V) hij (S) vlees (O)? (does he eat meat?)

Dependent phrases have SOV:

• Ik zie dat hij (S) vlees (O) eet (V). (I see that he eats meat)

−Woodstone 21:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Dutch is in my opinion best described as a SOV language that has also V2 properties. All verbs follow the object with the exception of the inflected verb in a main clause. The inflected verb of a main clause is in the second position in normal sentences (V2) and in the first position in yes/no questions. Then there is a final rule that says that subordinate clauses tend to be at the end of a sentence. All the examples above can be discribed this way. So in the example above "hij (S) eet (V) vlees (O)" (he eats meat)the word order appears as SVO because 1) it is a main clause 2) it starts with the subject 3) it is not a question and 4) it has only one verb. If a sentence doesnt fulfil these 4 conditions, it wont have SVO word order (unless the object is a suburbinate clause but lets not complicate this complicated matter too much). I dont know how to put this in easy-to-grasp way but this is how Dutch word order works.

Exactly, that's what I meant. To say that Dutch is SVO and V2 is somewhat strange imho. V2 is what explains why Dutch main clauses are SVO when the underlying structure is actually SOV. So it's either "Dutch is SVO" or it's "Dutch is SOV with V2", and I definitely prefer the latter.[sephia karta]

The above is a very obscure reasoning. A sizable majority of Dutch sentences (that have an object) would be SVO. Questions and dependent clauses are much rarer than main clauses. −Woodstone 19:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Another reason that Dutch is basically SOV is de position of the infinitive:

"Ik kan een hond kopen "

"I can a dog to buy"

S V O V

And:

"Een hond kan ik kopen "

"A dog can I to buy"

O V S V

It seems that Dutch is basically SOV, but the inflected verb goes to the second position (V2). Another part of the sentence can also be placed before the inflected verb. Ucucha (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If the verbal clause consists of several parts (heb … gedaan, zal … doen, zal … gedaan hebben), they are usually split. The part agreeing in person and number with the subject stays right after it, the remainder is placed at the end of the sentence. So the main structure is still SVO(V). It is rather a distortion to describe this as S(V)OV. Stating that Dutch is SOV (where V=3) with V2 is a contradiction in terms anyway. −Woodstone 21:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

One source seems to indicate that linguists have reached a consensus that Dutch is best characterized as an SOV language. From [6]: Onderzoek gedurende de afgelopen decennia heeft ertoe geleid dat men tegenwoordig algemeen een onderliggende SOV volgorde aanneemt voor het Nederlands (...). De SVO, VSO en OVS volgordes die op het nivo van PF verschijnen worden verklaard door aan te nemen dat de basis SOV volgorde gewijzigd wordt door verplaatsing van elementen. --> "Over the last few decades, research has led to the general assumption that Dutch has an underlying SOV order (...). The SVO, VSO and OVS orders occurring at the PF (Phonetic form) level are explained by assuming that the basic SOV order is modified by the moving of elements."

Another source [7] views Dutch as SVO in main clauses and SOV in subordinate clauses, which implies that it is also a V2 language. This rings true to me as a native speaker of the language.

As to V2: this is, indeed, one of the rules of the Dutch language. However, V2 applies to the finite verb in a main clause. A language can easily be "SOV with V2" or "V2 with SOV characteristics in subordinate clauses" (see V2 word order). AvB ÷ talk 22:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

One more source, this time an oldie, in English: Dutch as an SOV language. From the introduction: "In Dutch and German, the position of the (finite) verb in main clauses differs from that in subordinate clauses. The unmarked order of the former is Subject Verb Object (SVO), while the latter exhibit an SOV pattern. Therefore, which order is basic is a fundamental problem in Dutch and German grammar. In this paper, I want to show that the underlying order of Dutch is SOV and that the SVO pattern of main clauses is the result of a last cyclical rule of Verb Placement."

I've updated the article to reflect these viewpoints. AvB ÷ talk 09:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The above is very strange theory where the exception is declared the rule, with an additional rule to shuffle it back to normal in most cases. This must be regarded as a typical case where some experts excel at making their theories so involved and distant from practice, that the speakers do not recognise themselves anymore. I will try tro find some more sources. −Woodstone 19:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The simplest (and therefore probably best) hypothesis is that Dutch is basically SOV, but that the inflected verb is moved to the V2 position in main sentences. This explains why infinitives are at the end of the sentence, as are particles like "mee" in "Ik neem een pen mee" (I take a pen with me). The difference with a SVO language like English or French can be seen in examples like:

E: I can buy a dog
   (S V   V   O)
F: Je peux acheter un chien
   (S V    V       O)
D: Ik kan een hond kopen
   (S V   O        V)

and

E: I look up a word
  (S V    "V" O)
D: Ik zoek een woord op
   (S V    O         "V")

(the particles up and op can be considered part of the verb; I'm sorry I don't know any examples from French)

The simplest explanation is obviously underlying SOV with inflected verb moved to V2. Ucucha (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

An even simpler explanation is SVO with the second (not agreeing) part of the verb delayed till the end. −Woodstone 20:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Woodstone, can you provide reputable sources that support this point of view? (Probably superfluously, opinions from editors are original research and irrelevant.) As you may have seen, when I tried to verify "Dutch is an SVO language" I couldn't; instead I found the experts apparently agreeing on a counter-intuitive SOV therory. AvB ÷ talk 09:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

PS please disregard - I see you're already looking for sources. AvB ÷ talk 10:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Woodstone: nope. For SVO, you need a main rule (Dutch is SVO) with three exceptions:

1. Particles and infinitives are delayed till the end of the sentence.
2. In subordinate clauses, word order is SOV.
3. If another part of the sentence is placed at the beginning of the sentence, word order becomes VSO (or even OVS).

SOV has only one:

1. In main sentences, the inflected verb is placed at the second position in the sentence.

The 3rd exception to SOV may not be that good, since OVS might need another exception to underlying SOV, but in any case there's one more exception in SVO. Ucucha (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

After some checking I agree that most linguists accept the theory of underlying SOV for Dutch. However there are some much referenced publications, notably by Jan-Wouter Zwart (1997), stating that ultimately the structure is SVO. So a note indicating dissent is warranted. −Woodstone 20:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Zwart's "Dutch as an SVO language" was based on work by Kayne who argued that ALL languages are SVO [8]. Zwart repeatedly called his view a hypothesis, stating things like "if I am right..." while referring to Koster's SOV as the consensus view. Unlike Zwart's other work, I would not call this paper "much referenced." AvB ÷ talk 03:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue is as follows. Even Zwart would agree that Dutch is observationally OV plus V2 in main clauses. So a VO order in main clauses is derived from an underlying OV order as seen in embedded clauses. This is all in line with what Uchacha says. Zwart argues, however, that this OV order in embedded clauses is in turn derived from an underlying VO order. So you start from a VO order, then you move O across the verb and you get the embedded order. From this, a main clause order is derived by a V2 rule. So Woodstone would be wrong to use Zwart´s work as evidence for his reasoning. I believe that what wikipedia should state is not only the standard view but the standard view from an observational point of view. In this light, Zwart would perfectly agree with the entry as it stands. The idea that OV is derived from an underlying VO order is a theoretical debate and it would be nonsensical to report on this in a wikipedia entry. __Binner66

Neuter het/zijn/er

Thanks for the explanation, Woodstone. However, in this construction "er" is a form of "hier/daar/waar" (cf. German darauf/drauf). "Er" does not replace a noun. Or am I missing something? Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 20:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hij zit op de stoel => Hij zit erop

Clearly here er replaces de stoel. This is very generic usage with almost all prepositions.

−Woodstone 20:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are wrong. Just checked and confirmed [9] [10] [11]. FWIW, even if this applied, it would equally apply to the masculine and feminine examples. AvB ÷ talk 20:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is caused by Dutch courses that state categorically "erop" = "on it", "waarmee" = "with it", etc. This is, however, just a way to teach the use of this construct to native speakers of English. Example: Ik zag een paard waar een jongen op zat. Het paard trok een kar met een man erop. Er zat ook een aapje op. If "er" or "er-" would be a neuter-only pronoun, the monkey would be sitting on the horse (the only neuter noun). However, both horse and cart are a possibility. AvB ÷ talk 21:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed "er" once again. AvB ÷ talk 09:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

So it is a pronoun for all genders. I will let this one go if you promise to include a section describing the use of er as a reference to a preceding (or implied) word (noun). I do not care if you call it a pronoun. −Woodstone 19:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The article treated "er" as a pronoun, an error corrected by my sourced edit. I also provided a reductio ad absurdum example illustrating that it would be all genders if it were a pronoun. Obviously, "I will let this one go" does not fly at all. Here are two real conditions (WP policy, not mine): "Er" can only be put back in if: (1) one or more reputable, scholarly sources are provided that do consider "er" a pronoun WP:NOR, WP:CITE (2) if such sources exist, the lack of consensus amongst experts is reflected in the Wikipedia text - we can't state something as a fact when even experts can't agree on it WP:NPOV.AvB ÷ talk 09:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I found a very authoritative reference "Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst" that designates er/hier/daar/waar as pronominal adverbs (voornaamwoordelijke bijwoorden). I will try to formulate a brief section explaining them. −Woodstone 20:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No no, er/hier/daar/waar etc. are adverbs, erop/hierdoor etc. are pronominal adverbs - but that's probably what you mean - anyhow, the Taalunie website seems a good source to me. Sixtus 23:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

ANS is THE authoritative source, together with the "van Dale groot woordenboek van de Nederlandse taal" sitting on the bookshelf right in front of me. Both consider er/etc. adverbs in this context, not pronouns, let alone object personal pronouns. This fully emulates the intuition of native speakers. The point explained by my sources is that you can't say "sit on it" in Dutch though you can certainly say "sit on him." "Erop" doesn't even come close morphologically. "Er" NEVER replaces a noun in a sentence. You can't say "zit op er". That is not valid Dutch. The point you are trying to make is worse than asserting that in English the "where" in "whereon you sit" is an object personal pronoun. I hate to say this but the "er" I removed was 100% nonsense and until I removed it, Wikipedia was the only Internet resource using it that way. Can you spell Original Research? I will defer to experts but I predict you won't be finding any, let alone a consensus, saying "er" is a pronoun, let alone an object personal pronoun as in the part I corrected. AvB ÷ talk 02:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course you can say sit on it in Dutch, it is zit er-op; er replaces the noun referred to, only the word order is reversed. Note however that following ANS I do not intend to include that er is a pronoun anymore, just that it is a "pronominal adverb". −Woodstone 10:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course you can't. Native speakers of Dutch do not intuit "er" as an object. The English object personal pronoun "it" does not translate into the Dutch adverb "er". But that is, of course, just my opinion as an editor. Regardless of what every native speaker knows intuitively, and what is taught in every grammar textbook in the Netherlands, I had to prove what I said as per WP:NOR. So I did. You then provided one reputable source (ANS) that confirmed my sources. I added another reputable source ("de dikke van Dale") once again confirming what I stated. Now you state you are going to include an error in Wikipedia ("er" is not a pronominal adverb; "erop" is - formed from the adverb "er" and the (adverbial form of) the preposition "op"). I am getting weary of this protracted discussion on something fairly simple. We do not have to re-enact a battle fought a long time ago by experts long before Wikipedia came into existence.

I assume you now agree that "er" in "er op/erop" is an adverb, not a pronoun. However, please do not try to change the dispute. All the above was argued in defense of the removal of the word "er" from several articles. You are now acting as if the word "pronoun" was removed. The issue we are discussing is whether or not the word "er" should be included. So far you have failed to bring forward reputable sources giving an example like "hij/zijn/hem - zij/haar/haar - het/zijn/er". The discussion and sources above explain why that is. The word "er" does not belong in this example. Please not put it back in again and discuss other changes to this section on the talk page first. AvB ÷ talk 13:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agreed above that er is not considered a pronoun, so I will not re-insert it in that section. However, since it plays a very similar role, I will at some time insert a section "pronominal adverb" explaining the use of er, based on ANS (unless you insert such a section yourself). −Woodstone 13:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It is good to see you now agree with my original edit.

Pronominal adverb section: there is such a section already somewhere else in Wikipedia. You may want to look it up.

I need to finish a job so I'm going on another wikibreak. I hope you people will be able to work out your other disputes. It was good to see the SVO/SOV dispute turning into the right direction. AvB ÷ talk 16:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Section slightly refactored, see diff. AvB ÷ talk 16:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I've expanded the "Pronominal adverbs" section, saying that "er" can be both a (special kind of) pronoun and an adverb, depending on the context… The term "r-pronoun" is well established in the linguistic literature about Dutch prepositional structures (I only cited the most famous guy in the references). And personally I don't like the label "pronominal adverb" but it comes from traditional Dutch grammar, so what can you do? But terminology aside, this is really something interesting and unique about Dutch grammar, so I hope it doesn't just get deleted without a trace. CapnPrep 21:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Genitive in Dutch

The part about the genitive in Dutch bothers me: it states that one shouldn't use the genitive because some people make grammar mistakes? What kind of bullshit is that. I certainly think we should remove the grammar mistake from wikipedia. There still is a genitive in Dutch, although it is right that it isn't used very often. But de geschiedenis der Nederlandse film is just wrong. It is true that some people might write this, but these people also write "ik wordt" instead of "ik word", this doesn't mean that we should stop using the verb "worden"! Moreover the genitive of people's names is used very often: Jans boek (Jan's book); het boek van Jan is just incorrect. Govert Miereveld 19:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal pronouns dispute

Sourced content has been deleted twice today from the Personal and possessive pronouns section by 86.39.64.102 / 86.39.64.74, in favor of an earlier revision by 134.184.49.145 (18:47, 23 May). Please discuss here and provide appropriate sources before making the same unmotivated edits again. CapnPrep 22:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Gender again

I don't want to rekindle the gender discussion, but the following does not make sense: "This notion of commonality between masculine and feminine nouns in Dutch is supported by the fact that the gender of Dutch nouns can usually only be found by looking them up in a dictionary, although there are some rules to help determining the gender of many words." The same holds for German, in which genders are very actively distinguished. What is the sentence supposed to mean? Can it be deleted? 129.27.237.29 19:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Since noone objected, I have removed the passage 129.27.202.101 13:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Definite article

The definite articles list is not complete. It has missed out the possessive/genitive article. This is best seen in the Dutch name for the King of the Belgians, De Koning der Belgen. I don't know if all grammatical genders have a possessive article, but it certainly seems the plural does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.193.145 (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The status of the genitive in current Dutch is discussed right before the section on definite articles, with examples. The complete paradigms can be found in the article Dutch declension. CapnPrep (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Error in section Pronominal adverbs

The section has on Mon Jan 26 09:10:07 CET 2009:

Pronominal adverbs

Pronouns in Dutch work differently depending on whether or not they appear with a preposition. When they are used as the subject or object of a verb (without a preposition), they are chosen according to the grammatical gender of the noun they replace—i.e. hij/hem/'m for masculine (or common gender) nouns, zij/haar/d'r for feminine nouns, and het/'t for neuter nouns (the reduced forms are preferred when referring to inanimate objects):

* Zie je [de stoel]/[de deur]/[het broodje]? ("Do you see the chair/the door/the sandwich?") * Ik zie 'm/(d)'r/'t. (lit. "I see him/her/it.")

The error is that in standard Dutch (at least in the Netherlands) feminine nouns are only recognized as feminine nouns in the grammatical sense when they refer to real human or animal females - not something like a door. I'm a native speaker, and wouldn't know if "de deur" was masculine or feminine even if my life depended on it. Zie je de deur? Ja, ik zie 'm.

Perhaps that in the Netherlands in very formal written language (or perhaps when spoken by the Queen) one may make distinctions between grammatical masculine/feminine gender with regard to certain words - but AFAIK that's as far as it goes.

Maybe things are slightly different in Belgium, so, either the section contains an error, or should indicate that the example is for Belgium only. --Kornelis (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The question of grammatical gender in different varieties of Dutch is discussed earlier in the article, and in other articles, so it's not really necessary to bring up the issue again in this section. I changed the example to use the word tafel instead of deur. I don't know if that changes anything for you, but tafel is explicitly used as a feminine noun, and referred to as ze in the ANS §3.3.3(5). And they make it clear that this belongs to "standard Dutch" just as much as your usage. CapnPrep (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I followed your link to ANS, and learned that indeed in "the south" (Belgium presumably) this may be acceptable usage. I'm inclined to think that it still merits a note, but if I read the history correctly, the article has or is being edited to that effect already. BTW this is me getting used to the idea that Flemish is Standard Dutch :)--Kornelis (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Counting floors

I just removed this new section:

In the eyes of the Dutch a house with three floors consists of the "begane grond" (ground floor), "eerste verdieping" en "tweede verdieping". What the Americans would call a second floor is the first floor ("eerste verdieping") to the Dutch.

Is this really such a notable feature of Dutch grammar that it deserves a section on a par with "Word order" and "Verbs"? If it goes back in the article somewhere (and not, for example, in Wikibooks, or Wikitravel), it should at least be sourced. CapnPrep (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well, if the others methods of counting are mentioned in great detail, why not this one? It is allways a source of misunderstandings when Americans rent a house or room in the Netherlands. There are scientists that study the way different cultures and languages count in great detail.

It was difficult to find a source for something that obvious. Eventually I tried the google-pictures and it showed an "unfinished firsst floor"

Faithfully yours,

Robert Prummel (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Section removed again. The source you added is inadequate; it doesn't say anything about what the ground floor is called in Dutch, and it doesn't point out the differences with respect to the American numbering scheme. But the real problem is that is just not a notable aspect of Dutch grammar. At most it might deserve a footnote in the section on ordinal numbers (which does not exist yet), but even then I would be tempted to delete it. The differences in usage world-wide are discussed in the article Storey#Numbering; you could add information about Dutch there. CapnPrep (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Counting in hundreds

According to the article it is more common to express numbers up to 10000 in terms of hundreds, as opposed to a combination of thousands and hundreds. Is this actually true?

(I'm satisfied that both forms are acceptable, and that hundreds are probably more common up to 2000. I've not been able to find any evidence that hundreds are more common between 2000 and 10000, and the only citable example I've found - from A Reference Grammar of Dutch - gives 2576=tweeduizendvijfhonderdzesenzeventig. For information the limit is 2000 in British English and Afrikaans, but 10000 in American English.)

--Dr Graham D Shaw (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

now that you mention it I'm not sure, I added that section as it seemed correct at the time(and it probably still is). Although I, as a native dutch, must say that in your example I would personally use 2576=vijfentwintighonderdzesenzeventig as the other form sound cumbersome to me. The dutch wikipedia article on numbers as well as the book: "Dubbel Dutch: a practical guide for foreign students of Dutch" seems to support this being done up to 10 000. however, this might not necessarily be the case for Flemish Dutch.62.238.182.126 (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Irregular verbs

Hello. Great development of the article! I think we should add a complete list and paradigm of the irregular verbs. They're just nine: kunnen, zullen, willen, mogen (preterite-present verbs; moeten is regular); zijn, hebben; and with minor irregularities komen (vowel shortening) and houden, rijden (with hou, rij alongside houd, rijd). These are all for as much as I know. Best regards!

That's already at Dutch conjugation. CodeCat (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know that. Thanks. I didn't read anything about ik rij there, and also ik snij. Taaladvies[12] says these forms are perfectly correct. I don't know if there are more of them.

Glijden (ik glij / ik glijd) is another one: [13]. All of these are reinterpretations of the verb stem, likely because both stem forms render audibly identical verb conjugations for all other persons. There's no clear rule telling us which ones are acceptable deviations, it seems somewhat arbitrary, though most native speakers will know. Similar reinterpretations for verbs like f.e. "mijden" or "strijden" (ik *mij, ik *strij) would be considered non-standard. Similarly, for the past tense, such stem reinterpretations are always non-standard (rijden: ik *ree). Interestingly, in informal languages, they do often occur, also for the past tense, and have been occurring for the past centuries. Morgengave (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

wording of cases

"cases have largely fallen out of use", does this mean that in some dialects case is marked, or that it was used recently, and perhaps some dutch speakers recognize them? Or does it mean that dutch no longer has case, like in english?

They are no longer used in everyday speech or in writing, but they remain in some set phrases, and will generally be recognised and understood by most speakers. CodeCat (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

But they are still very much alive in personal pronouns. The genitive is still commonly used for nouns denoting living beings. −Woodstone (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The "genitive" is only really used for proper names, only rarely for normal nouns. And the suffix acts more like a clitic as in English, as it always attaches to the last word in a noun phrase. So it's hard to really call it a genitive. CodeCat (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, while surviving only in the margins of the Dutch language, the genitive case is still productive: [14]. In other words, new formations still occur; the usage is not limited to set phrases. Morgengave (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dutch grammar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050413224259/http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/kost006dutc01/kost006dutc01_001.htm to http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/kost006dutc01/kost006dutc01_001.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050317195440/http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dutch/grammatica2/index.htm to http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dutch/grammatica2/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Modal particles

I added a section on modal particles, similar to the one in German grammar, however this one links to the main page on it instead of a separate page for Dutch grammar, since all information on the dutch modal particle on the english wikipedia is on that page. I've done it this way, since I'm a bit hesitant to make a separate "Dutch modal particle" page. (because then there could be a separate page for that for 8+ languages). SteenDesAanstoots22 (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)