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 ... 26 ... 63 64 Next >>
ReneeMona
Diglot
Senior Member
Netherlands
Joined 5146 days ago

864 posts - 1274 votes 
Speaks: Dutch*, EnglishC2
Studies: French

 
 Message 201 of 509
26 December 2010 at 2:09pm | IP Logged 
tommus wrote:

"Terwijl je lessen in LingQ studeert, zoek en sla je nieuwe woorden en uitdrukkingen op."


I've been looking around on onzetaal.nl to see if I could find a concrete rule that proves this sentence is wrong but I can't find anything so I'm going to go with my first instinct and say there is nothing wrong with this sentence.

But before I explain why I think this sentence is correct, I should probably mention that I see little reason to get hung up about these things in the first place. Whether this sentence is correct or not, it is something people say and write and neither we nor onzetaal.nl are going to stop that so we might as well resign ourselves to it.

But back to the grammatical nitpicking:

Quote:
for a contraction it is necessary for the parts of the sentence to have the same function and the same meaning


I assume that by “the parts of the sentence” you mean the part that is being contracted and that in the case of our sentence, this part is the adverb “op”.

I agree that the placement of “op” in this sentence creates ambiguity. (However, I wonder how you could possibly phrase the sentence in a way that solves the ambiguity but doesn't become abnormally long or unnatural.) It’s pretty clear that at the very least it belongs to the verb “opslaan” because without it the word “sla” would make little sense in this sentence. So the question is whether it also belongs to “zoek”. I would say yes but we can’t be sure. If it doesn’t, then the sentence is perfectly correct because ambiguity alone is not good enough a reason to dismiss a sentence as incorrect. If it does belong to both “sla” and “zoek”, we have to get back to the rule quoted above.

Quote:
"Hier zet men koffie en over."


This sentence is indeed incorrect because of the rule. “Zet” belongs to both koffie (koffie zetten) and over (overzetten) which are two verbs where the zetten has different meanings and therefore they can’t be contracted. However, in the first sentence, the part of the separable verb that is being contracted is not the verb but the adverb. So the question here really is whether the “op” in “opslaan” and “opzoeken” has the same meaning. When I look up the meaning of “op” as an adverb on wiktionary, admittedly not the greatest source, it gives only one meaning.

Quote:
But the main problem might be the inversion: in an inversion one cannot just drop the subject and contract, I'd say, especially when the verb is not complete. (You might look for "'tante betje-constructie", which is a notorious case...) Even "Je zoekt en slaat de woorden op" is no good, I think, because we first want the object with the first verb...

You see ?


No, not really, I’m afraid. Are you saying the inversion in the second clause is incorrect? Or that the subject is left out? (Which it isn’t, je being the subject) I would also argue that there is no tante-Betje constructie present in the sentence at all. A tante-Betje is an incorrect use of inversion in the second of two connected main clauses. In this sentence, the word “terwijl” clearly signals a sub clause, which means it can’t possibly contain a tante-Betje.


Edited by ReneeMona on 26 December 2010 at 6:16pm

1 person has voted this message useful



stwel
Pentaglot
Newbie
Belgium
Joined 4897 days ago

12 posts - 12 votes
Speaks: Dutch*, French, English, Spanish, Catalan
Studies: Mandarin, German, Italian

 
 Message 202 of 509
26 December 2010 at 2:31pm | IP Logged 
ReneeMona wrote:

But before I explain why I think this sentence is correct, I should probably mention
that I see little reason to get hung about these things in the first place. Whether
this sentence is correct or not, it is something people say and write and neither we
nor onzetaal.nl are going to stop that so we might as well resign ourselves to it.


I totally agree with what you say here. To me the phrase in question was an acceptable
phrase. Now whether it conforms 100% to the "proper" grammar rules of the Dutch
language might be another thing, but then again, who cares?

I agree that a basic knowledge of grammar is necessary to be able to speak a language,
but the more advanced topics should probably only be studied once you reach a certain
level of fluency. In my opinion, topics like this are way too theoretical to be
bothered with, even for native speakers, except for maybe some die-hard language
purists.


Edited by stwel on 26 December 2010 at 2:44pm

1 person has voted this message useful



JanKG
Tetraglot
Senior Member
Belgium
Joined 5578 days ago

245 posts - 280 votes 
Speaks: Dutch*, English, German, French
Studies: Italian, Finnish

 
 Message 203 of 509
26 December 2010 at 3:41pm | IP Logged 
First of all: I was mistaken about the tante betje-zin, I agree. that is about a wrong inversion, but indeed, not about this kind.

Secondly: it is quite different to prove something wrong in certain cases, and I am afraid ;-) one is more lenient in these issues than the other. One will approve of certain new trends, others won't. And I tend to slow down the evolution, not just accept everything new "because it is new". But feel free.

I still think there is something 'smelly' about the sentence: I'd never use that contraction - because I don't really like it. And I thought the rule I quoted was capable of accounting for that.

But that's about it. I do admit I was too quick about the Tante-betje... I jsut think learners need some simple rules and then... some Fingerspitzengefühl...



Edited by JanKG on 26 December 2010 at 3:47pm

1 person has voted this message useful



tommus
Senior Member
CanadaRegistered users can see my Skype Name
Joined 5677 days ago

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

 
 Message 204 of 509
26 December 2010 at 4:19pm | IP Logged 
ReneeMona wrote:
But before I explain why I think this sentence is correct, I should probably mention that I see little reason to get hung about these things in the first place. Whether this sentence is correct or not, it is something people say and write and neither we nor onzetaal.nl are going to stop that so we might as well resign ourselves to it.

I agree wholeheartedly with 'little reason to get hung up about' this issue because it is the way it is. And I agree with stwel that there are a lot more important things to worry about while studying a second language. However, indirectly, these kinds of issues are useful far beyond their obscure-grammar face value. Curiosity about a second language is one of the things that keeps a learner coming back. When I, for the first time, encounter two Dutch verbs with only one 'op', that is curious and interesting.

Just as intriguing is the fact that three native-Dutch, non-native-English speakers can address such a convoluted topic so well in flawless English. I will never understand how you can learn to write English so well. It makes me worry that my English is in danger of not keeping up the same standard.

1 person has voted this message useful



ReneeMona
Diglot
Senior Member
Netherlands
Joined 5146 days ago

864 posts - 1274 votes 
Speaks: Dutch*, EnglishC2
Studies: French

 
 Message 205 of 509
26 December 2010 at 6:23pm | IP Logged 
ReneeMona wrote:
I see little reason to get hung about these things


I seem to have forgotten a key word in this sentence. So much for my flawless English. ;-)

JanKG wrote:
One will approve of certain new trends, others won't. And I tend to slow down the evolution, not just accept everything new "because it is new". But feel free.


I certainly didn't mean to suggest that I approve of all changes in a language or accept things because they are new. On the contrary, I’m usually quite a snobbish purist myself but I do try to base my snobbery on actual rules and not sentiment. So I don’t see any reason to consider things wrong when I can’t find a rule that says it is.

tommus wrote:
Curiosity about a second language is one of the things that keeps a learner coming back.


Very true! I think everyone here appreciates your interest, tommus, as well as the chance it gives us to be grammar-Nazis.


Edited by ReneeMona on 26 December 2010 at 6:52pm

1 person has voted this message useful



tommus
Senior Member
CanadaRegistered users can see my Skype Name
Joined 5677 days ago

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

 
 Message 206 of 509
26 December 2010 at 7:16pm | IP Logged 
ReneeMona wrote:
ReneeMona wrote:
I see little reason to get hung about these things


I seem to have forgotten a key word in this sentence. So much for my flawless English. ;-)

I missed that completely! Good example of the 'Paris in the spring' effect. I'm sure it was a typo and had nothing to do with your English. I see no reason for you to get hung or strung about these things up!

Paris in the spring

1 person has voted this message useful



Raye
Diglot
Newbie
United States
Joined 4965 days ago

37 posts - 51 votes 
Speaks: English*, Spanish
Studies: DutchB1

 
 Message 207 of 509
26 December 2010 at 11:57pm | IP Logged 
I’m having trouble finding longer journalism pieces to read in Dutch. I actually don’t even know what they’re called in English – news features? I’m thinking of longer, in-depth reporting or essays on culture and politics, like you might find featured in the New York Review of Books, The New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, etc.   If anyone can point me toward a source for this kind of writing in Dutch, I’d appreciate it.
1 person has voted this message useful



JanKG
Tetraglot
Senior Member
Belgium
Joined 5578 days ago

245 posts - 280 votes 
Speaks: Dutch*, English, German, French
Studies: Italian, Finnish

 
 Message 208 of 509
27 December 2010 at 3:13am | IP Logged 
Well, there are some interesting newspapers at least
- NRC, Volkskrant, Trouw, etc. in the Netherlands
- De Standaard, De Morgen, Knack, etc. in Belgium
There should be more though...

The only problem might be that you need to pay if you want to read their texts. Yet, if you just google using fairly complex terms, you will probably end up finding some good ones. But maybe you ought to suggest a topic that you want to read about, and we can give more hints.

Edited by JanKG on 27 December 2010 at 3:14am



1 person has voted this message useful



This discussion contains 509 messages over 64 pages: << Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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 8.0156 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.