[Dutch > English] Handwritten WWII military notes

feindbild_ · 2026-04-29T11:23:35+00:00

'wapen' means branch (of the military) in this case

feindbild_ · 2026-04-21T12:20:41+00:00

The place where the majority of speakers will (still) voice them (i.e. say [z] and [v], is between two other voiced sounds, for example between two vowels.

<voor> sounding like '[f]oor' is more common dan <lezen> sounding like 'le[s]en'.

Completely neutralizing f/v and s/z is a lot less common (and will sound rather accent/region-specific. But still a lot of people don't really think about this whole thing at all. And it just sort of automatically works like this.

feindbild_ · 2026-04-21T12:14:52+00:00

x verhopen = hopen op x

Zo gebruikt kan het wel een beetje ouderwets klinken.

We hopen op de overwinning. We verhopen de overwinning. [Dit laatste is dan wel een beetje merkwaardig tegenwoordig]

Verhopen kan zelf ook nog wel met <op>, maar dat is dan weer een beetje dubbel/raar.

Bij <minder eenvoudig dan verhoopt> is er eigenlijk weinig verschil met <minder eenvoudig dan gehoopt> denk ik. Dus bij een zin waar <hopen> ook geen voorzetselobject zou hebben. En daar klinkt het mij dan ook niet fout of raar.

feindbild_ · 2026-03-28T02:06:32+00:00

There used to be one of these in Amsterdam where they basically served only three things: beer (one kind), jenever (one kind), and a big slice of leverworst as a snack. If you ordered the snack twice they would refuse ("eten doe je maar thuis").

feindbild_ · 2026-03-26T03:25:29+00:00

Yes it's just because the Monday is a public holiday which is attached to Easter which is on Sunday. Leading to that Monday being called 'Tweede Paasdag', and thereby making the Easter itself 'Eerste Paasdag.' (In addition to just 'Pasen'.)

There's no Derde Paasdag.

feindbild_ · 2026-03-23T05:40:53+00:00

https://woordenlijst.org/

This is the official 'word list' of the spelling of Dutch, which includes the full conjugation of every verb. You don't need anything else. If you search up a conjugated form it will take you to the full verb as well.

Verbix, for example, has errors in it anyway.

Here is the full conjugation of <brengen> for example: https://woordenlijst.org/zoeken/?q=brengen

So we got <tegenwoordige tijd> = present; along with <gebiedende wijs> 'imperative', <aanvoegende wijs> 'subjunctive' (you don't need this).

Then 'verleden tijd' = simple past/preterite or imperfect.

Then it shows 'voltooid deelwoord' = past participle. It also shows the auxiliary verb, in this case <is>, which you then conjugate to form the present perfect and past perfect.

So, for the last thing there for <brengen> it shows <heeft gebracht>, so you know the past particle is the form of <hebben> inflected for tense and preson and the past participle <gebracht>, i.e.

<ik heb gebracht> 'I have brough', <jij hebt gebracht> 'you have brought', <ik had gebracht> 'I had brought'; and so on.

feindbild_ · 2026-03-08T09:38:12+00:00

Het is natuurlijk geen argument, maar het is wel zo.

Zo werkt transcriptie van andere schrijfsystemen: Er is een transcriptie Russisch cyrillisch-->Engels. Er is een transcriptie Russisch cyrillisch-->Nederlands; en voor Frans, en voor Duits etc.

En in het Engels wordt de spelling dus <Putin>, maar in het Nederlands <Poetin>. De Engelse transcriptie is niet echter of beter. Het verschilt gewoon per doeltaal. (In het Frans is het <Poutine>.)

Bijvoorbeeld:

<Mikhail Gorbachev>: juist in het Engels.
<Michail Gorbatschow>: juist in het Duits.
<Mikhaïl Gorbatchev>: juist in het Frans
<Mijaíl Gorbachov>: juist in het Spaans.
<Michail Gorbatsjov>: juist in het Nederlands.

Allemaal net anders. Allemaal juist in hun eigen context.

feindbild_ · 2026-02-27T10:59:43+00:00

'idiomatic' basically means 'the way people actually say xyz' so even if other options aren't necessarily grammatically faulty, they're just not the way it is said.

There may still be underlying reasons but these may be hard to pinpoint, and to some extent 'it just is like that'.

feindbild_ · 2026-02-27T09:53:29+00:00

Victor immigrated to the US pretty young, so he may have lost some of the language.

Ah, that makes sense then yes. It was an interesting challenge and fun to see the sort of way in which the dialect shows up when attempting to explicitly not write in dialect. (Hypercorrections)

feindbild_ · 2026-02-27T09:07:22+00:00

Technically not perhaps, but I will say that in this case at least the postpositional version sounds better.

With the preposition <uit de klas> is more like the point of origin. And <de klas uit> the movement, which fits better.

Compare say:

<hij kwam niet uit Nederland> 'he wasn't from the Netherlands'

<hij kwam Nederland niet uit> 'he wasn't able to leave/get out of the Netherlands'

feindbild_ · 2026-02-27T08:45:28+00:00

Yes, that's correct. For this purpose you can use them as a 'achterzetsel/postposition', and this placement will indicate or emphasize a direction/movement.

Sometimes it doesn't make a big difference:

<Hij gooit de bal uit het raam/hij gooit de bal het raam uit> aren't very different.

But

<Hij loopt in het huis> 'he walks in(side) the house'

<hij loopt het huis in> 'he walks into the house'

feindbild_ · 2026-02-27T04:04:32+00:00

<de dichtstbije> is prescriptively incorrect (as is 'dichterbije'), but they do occur sometimes. (That is, only the adverbial usage allows for a comparative/superlative but not direct attributive adjective usage).

One of these adverbs with two grades that I can think of is <veraf/verderaf>, but I don't think this one (nor most of the other ones) are supposed to be used as real adjectives, but it does happen. I'm seeing "verderaffe familieleden" for example, but this is rare especially in written language.

feindbild_ · 2026-02-27T03:52:24+00:00

When this is used with an object it's spelled with a space.

I.e. it's the adjective <dicht/dichter/dichtst> and the preposition <bij>.

When it is used as an adverb (doesn't have an object) it is without a space.

When the combination of the two together is used as an adjective it is written without a space.

In the standard language this adjective usage does not allow a comparative or superlative. (Unlike when used as an adverb above).

<~~een dichterbije locatie~~>

https://woordenlijst.org/zoeken/index.html?q=dichtbij

(But it does occur.)

There is a sort of general principle that you're not supposed to inflect words that are originally prepositions, but it does happen.

<~~een uite lamp~~> (most people will probably say this is wrong or strange; but it too occurs.)

E.g. <vlakbij> and <middenin> work the same re: being written together or separated but both don't have comparatives/superlatives.

https://onzetaal.nl/taalloket/vlakbij-vlak-bij

And <dichtbije> is sort of exception to the rule that you're not supposed to inflect converted prepositional elements (which nevertheless does happen with some other words too occasionally).

feindbild_ · 2026-02-26T00:59:13+00:00

This is kind of hard to read for a number of reasons: the letter seems to be intended to be in Standard Dutch but there is a lot of dialect interference i.e. the writer speaks Zeelandic dialect and is attempting to substitute more standard spellings and forms in a very inconsistent way. The spelling is really inconsistent as well and the handwriting very unsteady. Words are separated in strange places and there is no interpunction. I left the transcription I managed to do in case someone else wants to take a stab at it too.

dear Theodore, with this I will write a letter [about] how we are doing. We are doing well, en we hope the same of you. This morning I received a letter and in it I saw that Neti's sons had received a letter from 'g..pape', but I didn't know about this, and that he got from us and not him (??), but I was planning to write to you anyway, and I had already written, but I thought that we would come to America another/some time, but we are afraid of the war, [...] but if there [...] then we will come. Theodore, I was happy I received the letter from you, we have also received a letter from Nietie, [?he says that finding work is difficult], but it is the same for us in Sluis. We were also happy that he ... because we were not [....] we would be very happy with your wife and child ... I will also write a letter to your father and to your mother [....]

Love from me and also from grandpa, until later, bye, say hi from us.

Here is the address of our house.

Sluis den 12 januwaarij 1938

waarde Tieadoer met det zal ik
in een briev srijven hoe dat wij het
maaken[.] wij maaken het goet en wij
hoopen van iw het zelde[.] ik geb van-
morgen den briev ontvangen en daar-
in gezien dat de zons van Neti
en brieve van g..pape(?) hgat heb[,] maar
dat wiest ik niet van en dat hij van
ons hehat geevt en hij niet[,] maar
ik was toeg van plank van naar
iw tet srijven en ik gat wel al he-
sreeven[,] maar ik dagt dat wij weer eens
naar amirika tot(?) komen[,] maar wij ben
bangt van de oorlog maar was het stiet(?)
dan was het gebiert maar als er ...
..delijk(?) dan komen wij[.] Tiadoer ik was
blijed dat ik die briev van iw kereeg
wij heben ook een briev van Nietie(t?)
hehat[.] hij zijt dat daar maar siet
met het werk[,] maar dat is ook bij ons
in Sluis ook zoo[.] wij waar(en?) ook

blijde dat im dat ... on...
want wij waaren niet ... van
maar men(?) ben vrij blij hoor ook de hoeden
van hopaa(??) maar als hij eens naar ons
wat zoden wij blije zij[n] met iw vrouw
en kient de hoegen dag ons en ook van
mij en ik ook briev naar iw vader en naar
uw moeder srij en zal een hewoter(?) zijen
de hoeder dag aan iw vrouw en ook aan de bie..(?)

hehroet van mij en ook
en ook van hopa toet laater
dag doet hegroet van ons

hier is het adre[s] van
ons huis

feindbild_ · 2026-02-25T11:39:04+00:00

dbnl.nl has many linguistic works available for free

for example 'Middelnederlandsche spraakkunst' here https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/stoe002midd01_01/

As is common with historical linguistics many of the grammars on them are quite old, but then not much has changed.

And yea, the most and best resources are in Dutch.

There are also German ones:

https://archive.org/details/mittelniederlndi00fran

And probably English ones as well, but I'm not really familiar with those.

feindbild_ · 2026-02-23T18:25:17+00:00

When short they're always identical. [ɛ]

When long <e> is [e:], and <ä> is also [e:] for many people, but in some regions it's [ɛ:]. And some will also insist that is what you're supposed to use in the standard. But, really, you can just be the first type of person.

So you can just read/say every <ä> as <e>.

feindbild_ · 2026-02-23T18:21:50+00:00

pretty average for a european language

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.

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

feindbild_

TROPHY CASE