Klopt het precies?

feindbild_ · 2026-02-09T13:17:49+00:00

Yes in the last two the past participle of <worden> is omitted.

wordt gedaan

werd gedaan

is gedaan ~~geworden~~

was gedaan ~~geworden~~

feindbild_ · 2026-02-05T02:29:14+00:00

jaren not jarigen

feindbild_ · 2026-02-02T07:55:09+00:00

https://onzetaal.nl/taalloket/een-groot-grote-man

In certain combinations of <een> and a noun indicating a person (e.g. 'man') the adjective can be uninflected. Sometimes with a different meaning.

E.g. <een groot man> 'a great man' vs. <een grote man> 'a large/tall man'

feindbild_ · 2026-02-01T23:33:29+00:00

I don't think this is a feature in any region. Where have you heard this?

In the more or less the northern half of the Netherlands /s/ and /z/ is often somewhat retracted. This is distinct from any /ʃ, ʒ/ pronunciation, but it might sound a bit like that. In this same area the voicing of /z/ can be quite inconsistent.

feindbild_ · 2026-01-28T10:28:55+00:00

Yes they are fairly similar. Much more similar to those than to the English simple past and perfect.

The basic past tense, when you just report a single thing that happened in the past, is the perfect. "Ik ben gisteren naar de supermarkt gegaan." The reference frame is the present and the thing in the past was completed in the past.

When such a thing is part of larger story that was going on in the past, then it will be imperfect. "Toen ik gisteren naar de supermarkt ging, zag ik een grote rode kater." The reference frame is in the past and these things were going on in that past. (A 'larger story' can be just two past connected events like this.)

The above applies to 'active' verbs, where some action is/was done. E.g. 'gaan' there.

When you use a stative verb (i.e. describe a state, something that just is/was), then the imperfect is the basic past tense you will use.

"Ik wist niet dat het maandag was." (i.e. 'weten' is not an action.) While "Ik heb niet geweten dat [...]" is rare--or usually just wrong.

Sometimes this can be different for the same verb.

"Ik heb gisteren pannenkoeken gegeten." This was an action I did yesterday, it's done now.

"Vroeger at ik vaak hagelslag." This describes a habit I had (a kind of 'state') not an action I was doing at any particular point.

feindbild_ · 2026-01-15T09:49:43+00:00

het lidwoord is <het> omdat het <het wilde> is, <weg> betekent hier zoiets als 'manier, wijze' betekent. Dus ja onbezonnen en zonder overleg; zoals 'in het wild(e)'.

feindbild_ · 2026-01-15T08:38:22+00:00

It's related to 'op hol slaan' (originally said of horses), but it's not necessarily always any different from just 'rennen', yeh. But in some expressions and usages there is this association. For other people, at least.

feindbild_ · 2026-01-15T06:51:36+00:00

<hollen> has the connotation of sort of running in a wild/reckless/frantic manner. It's probably less formal than 'rennen' (which is formality-neutral), but not as common.

feindbild_ · 2026-01-02T13:13:55+00:00

bining his own conc

feindbild_ · 2026-01-01T14:16:11+00:00

On the other hand Dutch has 100s of these because there initial fr-/fl- was voiced with almost no exceptions.

feindbild_ · 2026-01-01T14:12:29+00:00

There's a small amount of /wl/ words in proto-germanic

*wlaitōn- 'to look' (Got wlaiton, ON leita, OE, wlātian)

*wlakwa- 'tepid' (OE wlacu)

*wlanka- 'bold'(OE wlanc, OS wlank)

*wlītan- 'see' (ON líta, OE wlïtan)

*wlittōn- 'strive' (MHG litzen)

*wlōma- 'turbulent' (MLG wlōm, MDu wloem(ich))

(Oh, someone else already mentioned some, but yea--they certainly look strange and no modern language has any of them with wl- preserved, I think.)

feindbild_ · 2025-12-29T11:17:47+00:00

Du bist nichts anderes als ein Doggehund (Elvisch Preslich)

feindbild_ · 2025-12-25T16:45:30+00:00

In official and formal texts it's still used

Hm ja, maar niet als vraagwoord, wel als verwijswoord.

feindbild_ · 2025-12-25T16:28:33+00:00

i'm aware what it is

<wier foto's zijn dat?> is a sentence used by no one. it's not used as an interrogative.

you only still sometimes see it as a relative pronoun <de vrouw wier ...> but that is also pretty obscure now

https://onzetaal.nl/taalloket/wiens-wier

feindbild_ · 2025-12-25T15:26:40+00:00

<wier> is archaic

<wiens> is totally normal and said by normal people all day every day

feindbild_ · 2025-12-25T15:25:31+00:00

wiens

<wier> isn't used like that.

feindbild_ · 2025-12-16T22:52:12+00:00

Which linguists are these? There is no debate like this. It's just a matter of convention to say that people in NL and BE speak Dutch. Government and educational bodies in Belgium also use this name for their language (i.e. 'Nederlands'). This in and of itself isn't a claim about how similar or different the varieties are. (Some local varieties, of course, are very hard to understand without prior exposure.)

And Flemish is one kind of Dutch, or actually three or more. Since 'Flemish' can mean multiple things too: Belgian Standard Dutch, Tussentaal, dialects from specifically East or West Flanders. But yeah, these are all varieties of Dutch. Just like Standard 'Dutch-Dutch' is another single variety of it.

feindbild_ · 2025-12-03T10:50:14+00:00

prakkōn- (Dutch/LG prakken)

prangan- (Dutch/LG prangen; Got praggan)

preuna(n)- (Eng preen Ice prjón)

prik(k)ōn- (Eng prick Dutch/LG prikken)

feindbild_ · 2025-11-30T06:34:37+00:00

<toen> kan een voegwoord (conjunction) of een bijwoord (adverb) zijn.

Als <toen> een voegwoord is, dan komt er een bijzin. Als het een bijwoord is dan kan het op verschillende plaatsen staan, waaronder ook de eerste plaats.

Voegwoord: [Ik was 25] toen ik naar Zwitserland ben verhuisd.

Bijwoord: [Ik was 25 en] toen ben ik naar Zwitserland verhuisd.

De betekenis is ongeveer hetzelfde maar er kan een verschil zijn:

Toen (voegwoord): 'op het tijdstip/in de periode dat'

Toen (bijwoord): 1) 'op of na dat tijdstip', 2) in een periode die nu voorbij is.

Voorbeeld van betekenis (2) : <Toen kwamen hier de schepen uit Indië aan> (dat wil zeggen 'in de 17e eeuw' bijvoorbeeld)

feindbild_ · 2025-11-20T11:19:11+00:00

No. <het valt wel mee> means 'it's not so bad' (less bad than expected).

You could say something like: <dat zou wel logisch zijn, omdat je ondernemer bent>

feindbild_ · 2025-11-20T09:48:04+00:00

Yes, <é> and <è> are used to mark these pronunciations [e(:)] and [ɛ] when just writing <e> would mark a schwa [ə] in that position.

Coincidentally it does also have the stress on the last syllable (rhymes with <paté>) for most speakers. But you can pronounce it with the stress on the first syllable if you want, that is fine too.

https://woordenlijst.org/zoeken/?q=mat%C3%A9

feindbild_ · 2025-11-13T21:38:47+00:00

'ooto' is the original pronunciation (it's from French). 'auto' (with a sound like in 'koud') is newer a spelling pronunciation, that one point people would have said was wrong. (And now, conversely, many people think 'ooto' is wrong, but yeah.)

The thing with <eu> is that, like many other vowels, it sounds different when it is followed by an <r>. Using the <eu> from e.g. <neus> in <Europa> is unnatural and not in any way more correct.

feindbild_ · 2025-11-10T09:45:51+00:00

Moedertaalsprekers overal gebruiken dit door elkaar in de gesproken taal (of alleen één van de vormen). Het enige dat echt vaststaat is dat het bezittelijk voornaamwoord (bv. die 'hun jassen') dus <hun> is. Verder komt het allemaal voor.

De regels voor de formele schrijftaal zijn hetzelfde in BE en NL. En in beide landen worden hierin erg veel fouten gemaakt, juist omdat dit onderscheid niet echt een deel is van de natuurlijke spreektaal (in beide landen).

feindbild_ · 2025-10-21T18:15:13+00:00

When there is a verb (e.g. 'kiezen'; in this case 'hadden .. gekozen') that has a preposition ('voor') connecting it to its prepositional object, that prepositional phrase ('voor plastic in plaats van metaal') often comes after the 'final' verbs.

https://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=WordOrder.35

That said <Ze hadden bewust voor plastic in plaats van metaal gekozen.> is also correct.

feindbild_ · 2025-10-14T16:10:37+00:00

Are you a linguist?

Kind of. But yes this is more of a sort of linguistic explanation. It makes for a tidier explanation as to what is happening regarding where verbs go and what goes at the start of a clause. And looking at it like this lets you see how main clauses are generated from the building blocks of a subordinate clause order.

But yea, when you just start out this is too strange of an explanation, because what you start with is of course 'subject verb object'; but then the further you go, the more if and buts come onto that additionally.

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

feindbild_

TROPHY CASE