• Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show full table of contents
6.3.2. Unclear cases
quickinfo

Haeseryn et al. (1997:956) list a number of constructions of the form V + te-infinitive, in which V potentially functions as a non-main verb. Some typical examples are given in (166); the verbs that potentially function as non-main verbs are given in square brackets.

Example 166
a. De voorstelling is de hele week te zien.
zijn
  the performance  is the whole week  to see
  'The performance can be seen all week.'
b. Ik vind haar gedrag te prijzen.
vinden
  consider  her behavior  to praise
  'I consider her behavior commendable.'
c. De kat heeft/krijgt te weinig te eten.
hebben/ krijgen
  the cat has/gets  too little to eat
  'The cat has/gets too little to eat.'
d. Ze geven die kat te veel te eten.
geven
  they  give  that cat  too much  to eat
  'Theyʼre giving that cat too much to eat.'
e. Zij komt het geheim toch te weten.
komen
  she  comes  the secret  yet  to know
  'Sheʼll get to know the secret anyway.'

Haeseryn et al. (1997:957) analyze the finite verbs in (166) as non-main verbs but also leave open for at least some of these cases that the te-infinitives may be non-verbal in nature. We would like to go one step further and argue for all te-infinitives in (166) that they are not verbal in nature and that the finite verbs should consequently all be analyzed as main verbs. In order to be able to establish this, we will begin in Subsection I with a discussion of the behavior of the verb hangen'to hang', which most grammars include in the set of semi-aspectual verbs despite the fact that it exhibits deviant behavior in many (but not all) cases; see the discussion in Haeseryn et al. (1997:974), from which we also took the crucial examples. We will argue that te-infinitives in constructions that exhibit this deviant behavior should be analyzed as non-verbal. After having established this, we will show in Subsections II to IV that all te-infinitives in (166) are non-verbal in nature.

readmore
[+]  I.  Hangen'to hang' + te-infinitive

The verb hangen is listed in most grammars as a semi-aspectual non-main verb, on a par with zitten'to sit', liggen'to lie', staan'to stand' and lopen'to walk', despite the fact that it exhibits a number of distinctive features that call into question whether it can really be mechanically analyzed as a semi-aspectual verb when it combines with a te-infinitive. We will argue that although hangen can be analyzed as a semi-aspectual verb in a restricted set of cases, it normally functions as a main verb when followed by a te-infinitive. Our investigation will lead to the conclusion that the same in fact holds for zitten'to sit', liggen'to lie', etc.
      Section 6.3.1, sub I, illustrated by means of example (167a) that semi-aspectual verbs are often interchangeable. This does not hold for hangen, as will be clear from the fact that example (167b) sounds extremely weird and cannot be found on the internet either. The reason for the unacceptability of this example is that it seems very hard to suppress the lexical meaning of main verb hangen.

Example 167
a. Jan ligt/zit/staat/loopt te lezen.
  Jan lies/sits/stands/walk  to read
  'Jan is reading.'
b. ?? Jan hangt te lezen.
  Jan  hangs  to read

Generally speaking, constructions with hangen + te-infinitive are rarer than with the other verbs mentioned above. A typical example in which this combination can be used is given in (168a), but this example differs in various respects from run-of-the-mill semi-aspectual constructions. For example, it can be observed that it does not exhibit the infinitivus-pro-participio (IPP) effect; the most natural way of forming the perfect-tense counterpart is as in (168b). This does not mean that the perfect-tense construction in (168c) with IPP-effect is impossible, but a Google search (7/14/2012) on the strings [ te drogen heeft gehangen] and [ heeft hangen te drogen] has shown that the latter is much less common than the former; the results of our search are given in square brackets.

Example 168
a. De was hangt buiten te drogen.
  the laundry  hangs  outside  to dry
  'The laundry is hanging outside to dry.'
b. De was heeft buiten te drogen gehangen.
67
  the laundry  has  outside  to dry  hung
  'The laundry has hung outside to dry.'
c. De was heeft buiten hangen te drogen.
3
  the laundry  has  outside  hang  to dry
  'The laundry has hung outside to dry.'

The main issue for our present purposes is that example (168b) shows that we should at least allow an analysis in which the verb hangen does not function as a semi-aspectual verb. The fact that hangen surfaces as a past participle strongly suggests that the te-infinitive in (168b) is not verbal, as the IPP-effect is normally obligatory in verbal complexes of the type Auxperfect-V(non-)main-(te) Vinf. An independent reason for rejecting a verbal analysis of the te-infinitive is that it seems quite a robust generalization that main verbs in the form of te-infinitives always appear last in the clause-final verb cluster; the fact that the te-infinitive precedes the past participle in (168b) thus strongly militates against a verbal analysis. That hangen can be used as a main verb in (168a) is also supported by the fact illustrated in (169) that it exhibits the causative alternation discussed in Section 3.2.3, just like the unequivocal main verb hangen in the pair De jas hangt in de kast'The coat hangs in the closet' and Jan hangt de jas in de kast'Jan is hanging the coat in the closet'. Such alternations would be entirely unexpected for non-main verbs by definition since they do not take arguments.

Example 169
a. De was hangt buiten te drogen.
  the laundry  hangs  outside  to dry
  'The laundry is hanging outside to dry.'
b. Jan hangt de was buiten te drogen.
  Jan hangs  the laundry  outside  to dry
  'Jan is hanging the laundry outside to dry.'

      It is nevertheless important to decide whether or not hangen can be also be used as a semi-aspectual verb in (168a), that is, whether (168c) is part of Dutch core grammar or a case of hypercorrection. The former cannot be excluded: example (170b) does exhibit an obligatory IPP-effect in the perfect tense and should therefore be seen as a semi-aspectual construction; cf. Haeseryn et al. (1997:974).

Example 170
a. De appels hangen aan de boom te rotten.
  the apples hang  on the tree  to rot
  'The apples are rotting on the tree.'
b. De appels hebben aan de boom hangen te rotten.
  the apples  have  on the tree  hang  to rot
c. *? De appels hebben aan de boom te rotten gehangen.
  the apples  have  on the tree  to rot  hung

This strongly suggests that example (168a) is ambiguous between the non-main and main verb reading of hangen and that the ambiguity can be resolved by means of perfect tense. If true, we predict the following: in perfect-tense constructions such as (168b) without the IPP-effect, the verb hangen is a main verb and causativization is therefore predicted to be possible; in constructions such as (168c) with the IPP-effect, the verb hangen is a non-main verb and causativization is predicted to be excluded. The examples in (171) show that these predictions are indeed correct.

Example 171
a. Jan heeft de was buiten te drogen gehangen.
  Jan has  the laundry  outside  to dry  hung
  'Jan has hung the laundry outside to dry.'
b. * Jan heeft de was buiten hangen te drogen.
  Jan has  the laundry  outside  hang  to dry

      The discussion so far has shown that constructions with hangen + te-infinitive may exhibit a number of properties that are unexpected if hangen categorically functioned as a semi-aspectual verb: (i) the lexical meaning of the main verb hangen is difficult to suppress, (ii) often the IPP-effect does not occur, (iii) the te-infinitive may precede the verbs in the clause-final verb cluster, and (iv) constructions with hangen may undergo causativization. These properties strongly suggest that hangen can be used as a main verb when followed by a te-infinitive. Note, however, that this does not imply that hangen is never used as a semi-aspectual verb since we have seen that the construction in (170) is a likely candidate for such an analysis.
      The fact that hangen can be a main verb when accompanied by a non-verbal te-infinitive leads one to expect that the main verb zitten'to sit', liggen'to lie', staan and lopen'to walk' may sometimes also be combined with a non-verbal te-infinitive. Fortunately, we now have three tests that can used to distinguish the main verbs from the semi-aspectual ones: (i) the occurrence of the IPP-effect, (ii) the placement of the te-infinitive, and (iii) causativization. We illustrate this by means of the examples in (172) and (173). The examples in (172) show that with a typical activity verb like lezen'to read' we find all the properties attributed to the semi-aspectual constructions; IPP is obligatory, the te-infinitive must follow the verb liggen'to lie', and causativization is impossible. Note in passing that the verb leggen'to put' in (172d) is the causative counterpart of liggen'to lie'.

Example 172
a. De kinderen liggen in bed te lezen.
  the children  lie  in bed  to read
  'The children are reading in bed.'
b. De kinderen hebben in bed liggen (te) lezen.
IPP
  the children  have  in bed  lie   to  read
  'The children have been reading in bed.'
c. * De kinderen hebben in bed te lezen gelegen.
No IPP
  the children  have  in bed  to read  lain
d. * Marie heeft de kinderen in bed te lezen gelegd.
causativization
  Marie has  the children in bed  to read  put

The examples in (173), on the other hand, seem to be ambiguous, as is clear from the optionality of the IPP-effect; the numbers in square brackets following the perfect-tense examples in (173b&c) refer to results of a Google search (7/14/2012) on the strings [ heeft/hebben liggen te drogen] and [ te drogen heeft/hebben gelegen]. As expected, (173b&c) also show that the placement of the te-infinitive depends on the occurrence of IPP; in the construction with IPP, the te-infinitive is verbal and must therefore follow liggen, whereas in the construction without IPP, the te-infinitive is non-verbal and must therefore precede liggen. Finally, the acceptability of the causative construction in (173d) unequivocally shows that liggen need not be interpreted as a semi-aspectual non-main verb in (173a) but can also be construed as a main verb.

Example 173
a. De tomaten liggen in de schuur te drogen.
  the tomatoes  lie in  the shed  to dry
  'The tomatoes are drying in the shed/lie in the shed to dry.'
b. De tomaten hebben in de schuur liggen te drogen.
IPP/40
  the tomatoes  have   in the shed  lie  to dry
  'The tomatoes have been drying in the shed.'
c. De tomaten hebben in de schuur te drogen gelegen.
no IPP/10
  the tomatoes  have   in the shed  to dry  lain
  'The tomatoes have lain in the shed to dry.'
d. Jan heeft de tomaten in de schuur te drogen gelegd.
causativization
  Jan has  the tomatoes  in the shed  to dry  put
  'Jan has put the tomatoes in the shed to dry.'

A similar conclusion can be drawn on the basis of the behavior of particle verbs such as wegrotten'to rot': if the te-infinitive is verbal, the particle and the verbal part are separated by the infinitival marker te, but this is not the case if the te-infinitive is non-verbal. The acceptability contrast between (174b&c) indicates that te-infinitives in IPP-constructions and te-infinitives in constructions without IPP have a different categorial status.

Example 174
a. De tomaten liggen in de schuur weg te rotten.
  the tomatoes  lie in  the shed  away  to rot
  'The tomatoes are rotting away in the shed.'
b. De tomaten hebben in de schuur liggen weg te rotten.
IPP
  the tomatoes  have   in the shed  lie  away  to rot
  'The tomatoes have been rotting away in the shed.'
c. * De tomaten hebben in de schuur weg te rotten gelegen.
no IPP
  the tomatoes  have   in the shed  away  to rot  lain

      This subsection has shown that verbs like zitten'to sit', liggen'to lie', staan'to stand' and hangen'to hang' should not be mechanically analyzed as semi-aspectual verbs in combination with a te-infinitive given that they are potentially ambiguous between a main and a semi-aspectual, non-main verb reading. The two readings can be distinguished by considering whether the corresponding perfect-tense constructions exhibit the IPP-effect, the placement of the te-infinitive with respect to the clause-final verbs and the possibility of causativization.

Example 175
The use of zitten, liggen , staan and hangen in V + te-infinitive constructions
  main verb non-main verb
IPP +
Order w.r.t. (other)
clause-final verbs
non-verbal te-infinitive
precedes the clause-final verbs
verbal te-infinitive follows
the clause-final verbs
causativization +

If the analysis in this subsection is on the right track, we should conclude that the te-infinitive is non-verbal in nature if verbs such as zitten are used as main verbs, and are thus not part of the verbal complex. This raises the question as to what the function of the te-infinitive is when it is combined with a main verb. A plausible analysis seems to be that it functions as a complementive, as the examples in (176) show that it must be immediately left-adjacent to the clause-final verb cluster, a hallmark of such phrases; see Section 2.2.

Example 176
a. De tomaten hebben in de schuur te drogen gelegen.
  the tomatoes  have   in the shed  to dry  lain
  'The tomatoes have been lying in the shed to dry.'
b. * De tomaten hebben te drogen in de schuur gelegen.
  the tomatoes  have   to dry  in the shed  lain

Although causativization is restricted to a small groups of unaccusative verbs, we can certainly use the pattern in the first two rows of Table (175) as a diagnostic in order to establish the (non-)verbal status of te-infinitives more generally: this leads to the generalizations in (177), which the following subsections will apply to the constructions in (166).

Example 177
a. Verbal te-infinitives trigger the IPP-effect and follow the (other) verbs in clause-final position;
b. Non-verbal te-infinitives are incompatible with the IPP-effect and precede the verbs in clause-final position.
[+]  II.  Zijn/Vinden/achten + te-infinitive

This subsection discusses whether the verbs zijn'to be' and vinden/achten'to consider' function as non-main verbs in the primeless examples in (178), as suggested by Haeseryn et al. (1997:956). This suggestion is in fact slightly surprising in view of the fact that Haeseryn et al. (1997:1037) also note that these cases are very similar to the complementive constructions in the primed examples. Note in passing that the difference between vinden and achten is a matter of register: the latter is mainly used in more formal contexts.

Example 178
a. De komeet is de hele week te zien.
  the comet  is the whole week  to see
  'The comet can be seen all week.'
a'. De komeet is de hele week zichtbaar.
  the comet  is the whole week  visible
  'The comet is visible all week.'
b. Ik vind/acht haar gedrag te prijzen.
  consider  her behavior  to praise
  'I consider her behavior commendable.'
b'. Ik vind/acht haar gedrag prijzenswaardig.
  consider  her behavior  commendable
  'I consider her behavior commendable.'

If we assume that the te-infinitives are like the adjectives in that they also function as complementives, we will immediately account for the following two facts illustrated in (179): there is no IPP-effect in the corresponding perfect-tense constructions, and the te-infinitives must precede the verbs zijn and vinden when they are in clause-final position; cf. (177). Note in passing that wezen in (179a) is the form of zijn that normally occurs in IPP-contexts, as is clear from the fact that Jan is wezen vissen'Jan has been fishing' functions as the perfect-tense counterpart of Jan is vissen'Jan is fishing'; see Section 6.4.2 for discussion.

Example 179
a. De komeet is de hele week te zien geweest/*wezen.
  the comet  is the whole week  to see  been/be
  'The comet could be seen all week.'
a'. De komeet is de hele week <te zien> geweest <*te zien>.
b. Ik heb haar gedrag altijd te prijzen gevonden/vinden.
  have   her behavior  always  to praise  considered/consider
  'Iʼve always considered her behavior commendable.'
b'. Ik heb haar gedrag altijd <te prijzen> gevonden <*te prijzen>.

We will adopt this complementive analysis here, especially since analyzing the verbs zijn and vinden in (179) as non-main verbs undermines the otherwise robust generalization that verbal te-infinitives always appear last in the clause-final verb cluster. A more detailed discussion of the primeless examples in (178) is given in Section A9 on modal infinitives.

[+]  III.  Hebben/krijgen/geven + te-infinitive

This subsection discusses whether the verbs geven'to give', hebben'to have' and krijgen'to get' function as non-main verbs in the examples in (180), as suggested by Haeseryn et al. (1997:956).

Example 180
a. Ze geven de kat erg veel te eten.
geven
  they  give  the cat  very much  to eat
  'They give the cat a lot to eat.'
b. De kat heeft/krijgt erg veel te eten.
hebben/ krijgen
  the cat has/gets  very much  to eat
  'The cat has/gets a lot to eat.'

The fact that the verbs in (180) express the same meaning as the unequivocal main verbs in (181) strongly suggest that the verbs geven, hebben and krijgen also function as main verbs in the former examples.

Example 181
a. Ze geven de kat erg veel voer.
  they  give  the cat  very much food
  'They give the cat a lot of food.'
b. De kat heeft/krijgt erg veel voer.
  the cat has/gets  very much food
  'The cat has/gets a lot of food.'

Again Haeseryn et al. (1997:1030-1/44) suggest the same thing by saying that the te-infinitives may function as postnominal modifiers, that is, in (180) te eten can be seen as a kind of reduced relative clause of the nominal expression erg veel. That such an analysis may indeed be tenable is clear from the fact that it is possible to place the combination of the noun phrase and the te-infinitive in clause-initial position, as is shown by the primeless examples in (182). A potential problem, however, is that it is also possible to strand the te-infinitive, as in the primed examples; normally, this is not possible with postnominal modifiers.

Example 182
a. Erg veel te eten geven ze de kat niet.
  very much to eat  give  they  the cat  not
a'. Erg veel geven ze de kat niet te eten.
b. Erg veel te eten heeft/krijgt de kat niet.
  very much to eat  has/gets  the cat  not
b'. Erg veel heeft/krijgt de kat niet te eten.

Another virtue of the suggested analysis is that it immediately accounts for the fact illustrated in (183) that the construction does not exhibit the IPP-effect and that the te-infinitive may precede the verbs in clause-final position; cf. (177).

Example 183
a. Ze hebben de kat erg veel te eten gegeven/*geven.
  they  have  the cat  very much  to eat  given/give
  'Theyʼve given the cat a lot to eat.'
a'. Ze hebben de kat erg veel <te eten> gegeven <*te eten>.
b. De kat heeft erg veel te eten gehad/*hebben.
  the cat has  very much  to eat had/have
  'The cat has had a lot to eat.'
b'. De kat heeft erg veel <te eten> gehad <*te eten>.
c. De kat heeft erg veel te eten gekregen/*krijgen.
  the cat has  very much  to eat got/get
  'The cat has been given a lot to eat.'
c'. De kat heeft erg veel <te eten> gekregen <*te eten>.

We will therefore adopt this analysis here, especially since analyzing the verbs geven, hebben and krijgen as non-main verbs would again undermine the otherwise robust generalization that te-infinitives with the function of main verb always appear last in the clause-final verb cluster.
      Besides the constructions discussed above, Haeseryn et al. (1997:1029) distinguish a second type of hebben/krijgen + te-infinitive construction with a deontic modal meaning. The examples in (184) show that in such cases the te-infinitive often seems acceptable both in front of and after the finite verb in clause-final position. The numbers between brackets provide the results of a Google search (7/15/2012) on the strings [ te doen heeft wat], [ heeft te doen wat], [ tegenslagen te verwerken had] and [ tegenslagen had te verwerken], and show that the te-infinitives preferably precede hebben in clause-final position but that the alternative order is still reasonably common.

Example 184
a. dat Jan maar <te doen> heeft <te doen> wat ik zeg.
27/8
  that  Jan prt    to do  has  what  I say
  'that Jan only needs to do as I say.'
b. dat ze veel tegenslagen <te verwerken> had/kreeg <te verwerken>.
61/7
  that  she  many setbacks    to process had/got
  'that she had to cope with many setbacks.'

It is not so clear what examples of the type in (184) tell us; they are after all somewhat idiomatic and seem to belong to the formal register. This holds especially for example (184a): (185a) shows that this example cannot occur in the perfect tense, as a result of which we cannot test whether it exhibits the IPP-effect. The (b)-examples in (185) show that example (184b) does have a perfect-tense counterpart; the facts that the IPP-effect does not occur and that the te-infinitive must precede the past participle gehad strongly suggest that the te-infinitive is non-verbal in nature. This means that the order had te verwerken in (184b) may be a case of hypercorrection, a common feature of constituents looking like verbal elements (here: te verwerken); see Haeseryn et al. (1997:111).

Example 185
a. * Hij heeft maar <te doen> hebben/gehad <te doen> wat ik zeg.
  he  has  prt   to do have/had  what  I say
b. Ze heeft veel tegenslagen <te verwerken> gehad/gekregen <*te verwerken>.
  she has many setbacks    to process had/gotten
b'. * Ze heeft veel tegenslagen <te verwerken> hebben/krijgen <te verwerken>.
  she has many setbacks    to process had/get

Because of the problems discussed above we will put the examples in (184) aside together with many other more or lesss fixed expressions with hebben/krijgen mentioned in Haeseryn et al. (1997:1029ff.). The fact that these expressions normally allow, prefer or even require the te-infinitive to be to the left of the clause-final verbs strongly suggests that the te-infinitives involved are non-verbal in nature; the less frequent cases in which these non-verbal te-infinitives follow the clause-final verbs should again be seen as hypercorrection or imperfect learning of the more formal register.

[+]  IV.  Komen + te-infinitive

This subsection concludes with a discussion of examples such as (186a). The (b)-examples show the by now familiar properties of constructions with a non-verbal te-infinitive: there is no IPP-effect and the te-infinitive precedes the verbs in clause-final position.

Example 186
a. Jan komt dat niet te weten.
  Jan comes  that  not  to know
  'Jan wonʼt find that out.'
b. Jan is dat niet <te weten> gekomen <*te weten>.
  Jan is  that  not    to know  comepart
  'Jan hasnʼt found that out.'
b'. * Jan is dat niet <te weten> komen <te weten>.
  Jan is that  not    to know  comeinf

The examples in (187) constitute a potential problem for the claim that komen does not function as a non-main verb when combined with a te-infinitive because they exhibit all the hallmarks of constructions with a verbal te-infinitive: they may exhibit the IPP-effect and when they do the te-infinitive must follow the verbs in clause-final position. According to Haeseryn et al. (1997:983) the form in (187b') is the more common one, which was confirmed by a Google search on the strings [ duur te staan gekomen] and [ duur komen te staan]. We should, however, put this example aside since it is clearly idiomatic in nature: the meaning is non-compositional and paradigmatically restricted, as is clear from the fact that neither duur nor staan can be replaced by some other form.

Example 187
a. Dat komt Peter duur te staan.
  that comes  Peter expensive  to stand
  'That will cost Peter dearly.'
b. Dat is Peter duur <te staan> gekomen <*te staan>.
138
  that  is Peter expensive    to stand  comepart
  'That has cost Peter dearly.'
b'. Dat is Peter duur <*te staan> komen <te staan>.
429.000
  that  is Peter expensive    to stand  comeinf
  'That has cost Peter dearly.'

Other cases mentioned by Haeseryn et al. (1997) in which the te-infinitive exhibits verbal behavior are given in (188), but since these examples have an idiomatic flavor we will ignore them as well. Note, however, that if one were to argue that such constructions are productively formed and thus part of Dutch core grammar, we would have to modify our earlier claim in such a way that besides the semi-aspectual verbs discussed in 6.3.1, the semi-aspectual non-main verb komen is also able to select a te-infinitive. This would not affect our more significant claim that te-infinitives are non-verbal in constructions that do not exhibit the IPP-effect or allow the te-infinitive to precede the verbs in clause-final position.

Example 188
a. dat zij snel daarna is komen te overlijden.
  that  she  soon  after.that  is come  to die
  'that she died soon after that.'
b. dat hij lelijk is komen te vallen.
  that  he  nastily  is come  to fall
  'that he had a nasty fall.'
c. dat dat nare jochie naast me kwam te zitten.
  that  that nasty boy  next.to me  came  to sit
  'that that nasty boy was placed next to me.'

For completeness' sake, note further that (188c) does not have a past perfect counterpart with te: *dat het nare joch naast me is komen te zitten—the perfect-tense construction without te is acceptable but has a different (more agentive) interpretation than the simple past form: dat het nare joch naast me is komen zitten'that the nasty boy took a seat next to me'.

References:
  • Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
  • Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
  • Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
  • Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
  • Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
  • Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
  • Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
  • Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
  • Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
  • Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
  • Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
  • Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
  • Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
Suggestions for further reading ▼
phonology
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show more ▼
morphology
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show more ▼
syntax
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show more ▼
cite
print
This topic is the result of an automatic conversion from Word and may therefore contain errors.
A free Open Access publication of the corresponding volumes of the Syntax of Dutch is available at OAPEN.org.