Talk:Dutch grammar

There is a request, submitted by Chameleon, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.

The rationale behind the request is: "Previously requested".

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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:

make sure you know the conjugation of the 6 irregular/modal verbs by heart;
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...
...except if the stem already ends on t, then don't double the t...
...or if the verb follows 'jij/je', then don't add a t...
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Articles and cases

Why have the explanations of the Dutch article been oversimplified?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

>>

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)<<[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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.
That example indeed doesn't sound correct, but there are examples which are less clear.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

- 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)[reply]

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).

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

>>>>> 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)<<<<<[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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]