Talk:Dutch conjugation

Translate into English, please!

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

List?

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

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

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

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

Cleaning up this article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm, it looks like I have two reputable sources against me. Can't be right then.

I agree with the above user in that mainstream sources should be followed, both for the terminology and, more globally, for the examples given. Iblardi 07:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the ANS only the verbs hebben and zijn have a plusquamperfect imperative.

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

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

Not Vlaams.

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

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

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

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

Aanvoegende wijs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Passive Conjugation

Although the conjugation in this section seems to be formally correct, the word order is random and in a couple of cases even impossible to use. Although in Dutch the order of verbs at the end of a sentence is quite flexible, I cannot think of any sentence where "te zullen gestraft worden" can be used correctly. I would propose to put the perfect participate (voltooid deelwoord) at the end in all forms. Echtwelzo (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuous verbs and other things.

I believe Dutch also has a continuous like English does though it's usually formed differently. It's either zijn/wezen + onvoltooid deelwoord which I believe is the more archaic and formal version or zijn/wezen + aan het/'t + infinitief which would be the informal version. I am a native speaker of Dutch and its Brabantian dialect for your information and I use these often and hear them about as often. Of course this continuous is probably far less used in Dutch texts than if they were in English so we need some sources.

I also believe that there's a second way of creating the imperative: using moeten + infinitief. I don't know any situation where an imperative is used in any other tense than present simple. Neither do I know what it would mean.

Then I'd like to say that today durven is usually not semi-stark and "ik dierf/dorst" has become "ik durfde". I'm not certain but I've certainly never heard dierf or dorst but in sentences like "Ik heb dorst." ("I'm thirsty.") and dierf as a typo of dief but that's it.

Finally I'd like to see where exactly the zijn and wezen tables are actually defective by bolding those forms that are from the other verb.

Quintinohthree (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Badly Written, Badly Presented

It's very difficult to make any sense out of this article, unless you already know the subject matter. The/slashes/between/the/forms/make/it/difficult/to/read/for/example. Variant forms should be on separate lines.

The paradigms are not standard. They should be shown in a table two columns (singular and plural) and three rows (first, second, and third person) with first person singular in the top left corner.

ik ben -- wij zijn

jij bent -- jullie zijn

hij, zij, het is -- zij zijn

Unstressed forms don't have to clutter the paradigms. This article is about verbs, not pronouns.

The acronyms are meaningless to anyone who does not know Dutch or cannot instantly memorize them from the text. The acronyms should be made into headings that are spelled out in English. How is anyone supposed to learn the difference between VVT, VTT and VTkT in the time it takes to read the article? The Dutch names of the tenses are of secondary importance to an English-speaking reader. They don't have to be repeated over and over and over again, cluttering the article. They only need to be explained once.

The author states that the simple past future and the past future perfect don't exist in English. That much is obvious. Where is a brief explanation about what these tenses mean?

The author needs to figure out whether the intended readership consists of English-speaking people who already know Dutch and don't need the information, or English-speaking people who don't know Dutch and do need the information. If it's the latter, this article is unnecessarily perplexing and cryptic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenWC (talk • contribs) 15:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Footnotes

I'm not going to repeat what everyone here said about this article, but one thing in special seems to bother me. There's a whole load of superscript digits in the table that seem to suggest the presence of footnotes. Only these footnotes are nowhere to be found.Nychus (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Awful

This article is useless to non-Dutch speakers, or at the very least very difficult to use. It is fairly obviously a bad translation straight from the Dutch wiki, which itself appears to borrow heavily for textbook standards (complete with arcane abbreviations befitting crusty prescriptivist grammarians). This article is so awful it should probably be deleted and rewritten entirely anew. 60.242.48.18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC).

I have done this now. I think it may need some fine tuning but I hope it's better this way. The article has become quite long now, so there isn't really much room to discuss things like compound tenses. Should those be discussed on Dutch grammar instead? CodeCat (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Zou gespeeld hebben or Zou hebben gespeeld ?

It seems that modern spoken Dutch prefers the latter over the former. Which order is correct ? 161.24.19.112 (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• The word order of the first phrase is frequently used in e.g. news bulletins on Belgian TV. They are (much) less frequent on Dutch TV.Redav (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)