Register  Login  Active Topics  Maps  

FAQ-NL: Dutch

 Language Learning Forum : Specific Languages Post Reply
509 messages over 64 pages: << Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 8 ... 63 64 Next >>
koffiegast
Diglot
Newbie
Netherlands
Joined 5458 days ago

29 posts - 33 votes
Speaks: Dutch*, English
Studies: Japanese

 
 Message 57 of 509
21 December 2009 at 11:53pm | IP Logged 
Sellars wrote:
koffiegast wrote:
I don't think that I've ever heard of a connector n.


What I tried to explain was what is called assimilation in phonology. In assimilation the preceding phoneme(s) can adopt features from the following phoneme, in this case the tongue in the front of the mouth, ready to pronounce the "d". Try saying "n" and "d" following eachother a few ties to get the feel of it.

I understand assimilation, but I really don't hear any n or whatsoever in such constructions, it even seems illogical. Maybe it has to do with my dialect, pretty much any e at the end becomes /ə/ (schwa), when saying de man, my tongue doesn't even come close to the alveolar ridge (for the n) -> [də mɑn].

koffiegast wrote:

I'm from around Amsterdam (but don't have an Amsterdam accent that replaces z with sj sounds for example)


What you describe is called devoicing. It is common in the western-Dutch dialects. It happens to all voiced fricatives (z -> s, v -> f)


While it may be the case that it involves devoicing it also becomes palatalized? z -> sj that is?
1 person has voted this message useful



tommus
Senior Member
CanadaRegistered users can see my Skype Name
Joined 5864 days ago

979 posts - 1688 votes 
Speaks: English*
Studies: Dutch, French, Esperanto, German, Spanish

 
 Message 58 of 509
25 December 2009 at 5:55pm | IP Logged 
FAQ-NL: Word order?

One of the challenges for me in Dutch is word order of verbs. I suspect it is also a challenge for other language learners. I know that I need to spend more time studying the grammar associated with word order. I'm working on that. But I have a specific example here about a sentence I just read in the news. The issue is the location of the word "trong>gevallen". Below is an edited version of that sentence:

Original:
"De mensen zijn dinsdag tijdens zijn vacantie trong>gevallen op het plein in de stad door toedoen van een jongen uit het dorpje".

Is this also correct?
"De mensen zijn dinsdag op het plein in de stad tijdens zijn vacantie trong>gevallen door toedoen van een jongen uit het dorpje".

I assume this is not correct because "door toedoen van een jongen uit het dorpje" is a separate clause. Is this version definitely wrong?
"De mensen zijn dinsdag op het plein in de stad tijdens zijn vacantie door toedoen van een jongen uit het dorpje trong>gevallen".

1 person has voted this message useful



koffiegast
Diglot
Newbie
Netherlands
Joined 5458 days ago

29 posts - 33 votes
Speaks: Dutch*, English
Studies: Japanese

 
 Message 59 of 509
25 December 2009 at 6:09pm | IP Logged 
What is the context? I don't really understand the sentence this way. "Zijn vacantie", who's ? Because zijn can't refer to 'de mensen'.

But,
I think all three sentences are fine. You could say it is a separate clause, but even then it comes down to the same point: 'Because of what did the people fell down' -> Door wat zijn de mensen gevallen?, the answer is obviously: 'door toedoen van een jongen uit het dorpje'. "Op het plein in de stad tijdens zijn vacantie" refers to the location and the time.

Check out:
http://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=WordOrder.00
Only in some sentences you have to put the verb at the end (like the example on the page I just linked)

The third (with gevallen at the end) is OK, but I doubt any person will say such a long sentence with the verb as last. Original and the 'also correct' seem more natural.
1 person has voted this message useful



tommus
Senior Member
CanadaRegistered users can see my Skype Name
Joined 5864 days ago

979 posts - 1688 votes 
Speaks: English*
Studies: Dutch, French, Esperanto, German, Spanish

 
 Message 60 of 509
25 December 2009 at 6:21pm | IP Logged 
koffiegast wrote:
What is the context? I don't really understand the sentence this way. "Zijn vacantie", who's ? Because zijn can't refer to 'de mensen'.

OK. That is an editing error when I changed the original a bit. 'zijn' should be 'hun'.

Thanks for the comments and the link. I'll work some more on grammar and word order. I appreciate the comments.

1 person has voted this message useful



tommus
Senior Member
CanadaRegistered users can see my Skype Name
Joined 5864 days ago

979 posts - 1688 votes 
Speaks: English*
Studies: Dutch, French, Esperanto, German, Spanish

 
 Message 61 of 509
29 December 2009 at 4:58pm | IP Logged 
FAQ-NL: Difference between 'ongeluk' and 'ongeval'?

Both seem to be used in news reports about various kinds of accidents. I haven't been able to determine if one word is generally used for some kinds of accidents and the other for different kinds of accidents. I think 'ongeluk' is more common for car accidents and maybe 'ongeval' is more used for personal accidents. Unfortunately, the words will be used quite a bit to report the results of the 'jaarwisseling' and the 'vuurwerken' that more resembles WW III than New Years Eve celebrations.
1 person has voted this message useful





Fasulye
Heptaglot
Winner TAC 2012
Moderator
Germany
fasulyespolyglotblog
Joined 5845 days ago

5460 posts - 6006 votes 
1 sounds
Speaks: German*, DutchC1, EnglishB2, French, Italian, Spanish, Esperanto
Studies: Latin, Danish, Norwegian, Turkish
Personal Language Map

 
 Message 62 of 509
29 December 2009 at 8:19pm | IP Logged 
tommus wrote:
FAQ-NL: Difference between 'ongeluk' and 'ongeval'?


To answer your vocabulary question I will quote my "Van Dale Handwoordenboek Nederlands":

1. het ongeluk =
- ongunstige omstandigheden (unfavourable circumstances)
- ongunstige toestand (unfavourable situation)
- ongunstig geval (unfavourable fact)
- (accident)

2. het ongeval =
- ongeluk in the meaning of (accident)

My Dutch-English dictionary "Ster Woordenboek" says:

1. ongeluk =
- misfortune or accident

2. ongeval =
- only accident

CONCLUSION: So "ongeluk" has a broader meaning than "ongeval".

Fasulye



Edited by Fasulye on 29 December 2009 at 8:35pm

1 person has voted this message useful



staf250
Pentaglot
Senior Member
Belgium
emmerick.be
Joined 5695 days ago

352 posts - 414 votes 
Speaks: French, Dutch*, Italian, English, German
Studies: Arabic (Written)

 
 Message 63 of 509
29 December 2009 at 8:27pm | IP Logged 
I looked up Wikipedia, although I'm dutch-speaking. It seems, and so I think it's the inverse of what you write:
"ongeval" is more for accidents. The word "ongeluk" has a broader meaning. Every "ongeval" of course is an
"ongeluk", i.e. bad luck. But an "ongeluk" is not always an "ongeval".
1 person has voted this message useful



koffiegast
Diglot
Newbie
Netherlands
Joined 5458 days ago

29 posts - 33 votes
Speaks: Dutch*, English
Studies: Japanese

 
 Message 64 of 509
03 January 2010 at 4:16pm | IP Logged 
Good question, I would say you can use them interchangeably.


1 person has voted this message useful



This discussion contains 509 messages over 64 pages: << Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 79 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64  Next >>


Post ReplyPost New Topic Printable version Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page was generated in 0.4688 seconds.


DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved
No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization.