Section 6.1 has shown that the prototypical occurrence of the complementive adjective is in the copular construction, exemplified in (13). All examples in (13) express that the set referred to by de jongens is a subset of the set denoted by the adjective, albeit that the actual choice of the copula may add certain meaning aspects: the copula zijn is neutral and expresses a purely predicative “N is A" relation; the copula worden'to become' adds an inchoative aspect; the copula blijven'to remain', on the other hand, indicates that some state remains the same; the copula lijken'to seem' indicates that the assertion is based on the subjective perception of the speaker.

Unlike the complementive constructions discussed in Section 6.2.1, sub II/III, the copular construction can be used with all types of set-denoting adjectives; see Section 1.3.2.2 for examples.

The eastern varieties of Dutch have an alternative way of conveying the assertions expressed by the Standard Dutch regular copular constructions in (13). Some typical examples of this semi-copular construction, which is often referred to as the band-lek construction, are given in (14); cf. Van Bree (1981) and Cornips (1994).

Semi-copular constructions in (14) differ from regular copular constructions, however, in that they typically express a possessive relationship between the nominative argument Jan/hij and the logical subject of the adjective; translated into Standard Dutch, the examples in (14) would yield the sentences in (15).

      Although the semi-copular construction in (14) is unacceptable in Standard Dutch, there are two acceptable constructions that resemble it. First, consider the examples in (16), which may be rejected by some speakers of Standard Dutch in this form, but which become fully acceptable if the clauses are extended with certain adverbs; see the examples in (18) below.

The dialectal and Standard Dutch constructions in (14) and (16) differ in at least the following two respects; cf. Broekhuis & Cornips (1994). First, in contrast to what is the case in (14), the examples in (16) do not express a possessive relation. This can be made clear by adding a possessive pronoun to the subject of the adjective: example (17) shows that this leads to an unacceptable result with the dialect construction in (14a), but to a fully acceptable result with the Standard Dutch construction in (16a). Note that example (17a) is acceptable in Standard Dutch with a similar meaning as (17b).

Second, the Standard Dutch examples in (16) imply that the subject of the clause can affect the state that the object is in, which is clear from the fact that adverbial phrases like nog niet'not yet' or eindelijk'finally' can be added to these examples, as in (18). These adverbial phrases express that the subject of the clause is actively involved in the process of cleaning the brush or closing the window: Jan is in the process of cleaning the brush or opening the window and has not yet/finally succeeded in obtaining the desired result.

This involvement is also clear from the fact that the verb hebben can be replaced by the verb krijgen'to get', or houden'to keep', as in (19). In such cases, it is possible to use the subject-oriented adverbial phrase met moeite'with difficulty', which underlines the fact that Jan is involved in the process of cleaning the brush or opening the window by expressing that Jan has some difficulty in obtaining the desired result. The use of krijgen and houden is not possible in the dialect constructions in (14) without a shift of meaning in the direction of the Standard Dutch construction: for example, Jan kreeg zijn band niet lek can only be interpreted in such a way that Jan is deliberately puncturing his tire.

      A second Standard Dutch construction that also involves hebben + adjective is given in (20a). Given that het cannot be replaced by the demonstrative pronoun dat'that', we have to conclude that this construction involves the non-referring element het that we also find in constructions such as (20b) and which is discussed more extensively in Section 6.6.

The verb hebben in (20a) can be replaced by krijgen'to get', as is shown in (21a), but the fact that the adverbial PP met moeite'with difficulty' cannot be added suggests that the subject of the clause is not a controller, but acts as a kind of experiencer. If we use the verb houden, as in (21b), the translation with to keep is no longer appropriate; instead, the proper translation requires the copular verb to remain. This suggests again that the subject functions as an experiencer in this construction.

      In examples such as (22), it does seem possible to add the adverbial PP met moeite and to use the verb houden with the meaning to keep. This is only apparent, however, as example (22a) turns out to be ambiguous: on one reading, the pronoun het is a non-referring expression, just as in (20); on the second reading it is a deictic pronoun that refers to some entity in the domain of discourse (e.g., het gerecht'the dish'), as is clear from the fact that het can be replaced by the demonstrative dat'that'. The examples in (22b&c) are only licensed on the second reading, which actually involves the same construction type as in (16).

For completeness’ sake, note that the pronoun het in example (22b) can also be interpreted as an anticipatory pronoun introducing a(n implicit) locational phrase: Ik krijg het met moeite warm (in de kamer)'I can hardly heat the room'; see Section 6.6, sub III, for a discussion of this construction.
      The meanings of (20a) and (22a) are very close to the meaning of the copular construction Ik ben benauwd/warm'I am short of breath/warm'. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to conclude that the adjective is predicated of the subject ikin (20a) and (22a), since a paraphrase by means of a copular construction is often excluded with structurally similar examples. This is illustrated in (23); the examples in (23a) express a totally different meaning than the examples in (23b). The English paraphrases attempt to express this difference.