Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch1
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

6.2.3.Special cases

quickinfo

This section discusses a set of special constructions with complementives: Subsection I starts with the absolute met-construction and Subsections II to IV to discuss constructions involving modal verbs, the verb komen'to come' and the verbs hebben/krijgen'to have/get', subsection V concludes with a brief discussion of a number of adjectives that can be used only as complementives.

I. The absolute met-construction
II. Modal verb + adjective
III. The verb komen'to come' + adjective
IV. The verb hebben/krijgen'to have/get' + adjective
V. Adjectives that can only be used as complementives

[+] I. The absolute met-construction

The absolute met-construction consists of the preposition met'with' followed by a noun phrase and a predicative constituent that enter into a subject-predicate relation. Often, the predicative element consists of a locative PP (cf. Section P2.5), so that it is not surprising that adjectives that express a locational meaning, such as open'open' or dicht'closed', are also quite common in this construction. One example is given in (75b).

a.	[Met	het raam	op een kier]	krijgen	we meer frisse lucht	binnen.
	with	the window	on a chink	get	we more fresh air	inside
	'With the window ajar, weʼll get more fresh air inside.'

b.	[Met	het raam	open]	krijgen	we meer frisse lucht	binnen.
	with	the window	open	get	we more fresh air	inside
	'With the window open, weʼll get more fresh air inside.'

The absolute met-construction often expresses a temporary state that is in some way connected to the proposition expressed by the main clause. The examples in (75), for example, seem to express a kind of conditional relation: if the window is ajar/open, we will get more fresh air inside. This relation with the event expressed by the main clause need not be conditional in nature: example (76) has a simultaneous reading, that is, it merely expresses that Jan had his window ajar/open while he was sleeping.

		dat	Jan [met	zijn raam	open]	sliep.
		that	Jan with	his window	open	slept

This conditional/simultaneous reading seems to correlate with a difference in word order, which is especially clear in embedded contexts. Consider the examples in (77): in (77a), the embedded clause has a conditional reading, and the met-construction precedes the clausal adverb natuurlijk'of course'; in (77b), on the other hand, the clause has a simultaneous reading, and the met-construction must follow the clausal adverb. The primed examples are unacceptable under a neutral intonation pattern; the number sign in (77a') indicates that this example is at least marginally acceptable if the met-phrase is explicitly represented as belonging to the new information of the clause, for example, as an answer to the question: Hoe krijgen we meer frisse lucht binnen?'How do we get more fresh air inside?'.

a.	dat	je	[met het raam open]	natuurlijk	meer frisse lucht	binnen	krijgt.
	that	one	with the window open	of course	more fresh air	inside	gets
	'that one gets more fresh air inside, of course, when the window is open.'

a'.

dat je natuurlijk [met het raam open] meer frisse lucht binnen krijgt.

b.	dat	Jan	natuurlijk	[met zijn raam open]	slaapt.
	that	Jan	of course	with his window open	sleeps
	'that Jan is of course sleeping while his window is open.'

b'.

dat Jan [met zijn raam open] natuurlijk slaapt.

The order restriction that is connected to these interpretation differences can be overruled by PP-over-V. The examples in (78) show that the met-PP from both (77a) and (77b) can follow the clausal adverb in main clauses if they are placed after the verbs in clause-final position.

dat je natuurlijk meer frisse lucht binnen krijgt [met het raam open].

dat Jan natuurlijk slaapt [met zijn raam open].

Topicalization of the absolute met-constructions in clause-initial position gives rise to a weird result in case of the simultaneous reading; the primed examples in (79) are only possible with a marked intonation contour with heavy stress on the PP op een kier or the AP open and a brief intonation break after the complete absolute met-construction. These examples contrast sharply with those in (75), which have a conditional reading.

a.	Jan sliep	vannacht	[met zijn raam op een kier].
	Jan slept	tonight	with his window on a chink
	'Jan was sleeping last night with his window ajar.'

a'.

[Met zijn raam op een kier] sliep Jan vannacht.

b.	Jan sliep	vannacht	[met zijn raam open].
	Jan slept	tonight	with his window open
	'Jan was sleeping last night with his window open.'

b'.

[Met zijn raam open] sliep Jan vannacht.

Given that the absolute met-construction expresses a temporary state, it is not surprising that the adjective in the absolute met-construction must be a stage-level predicate, that is, that individual-level predicates are blocked. This is illustrated in (80).

a.	[Met	Jan ziek]	krijgen	we het werk	nooit	af.
	with	Jan ill	get	we the work	never	finished
	'With Jan being ill, weʼll never finish the work.'

b.	*	[Met	Jan intelligent]	krijgen	we	het werk	snel	af.
		with	Jan intelligent	get	we	the work	quickly	finished
		'With Jan being intelligent, weʼll finish the work quickly.'

Note that the interpretative differences discussed in this subsection can be found under the same conditions with supplementives; cf. Section 6.3, sub III.

[+] II. Modal verb + adjective

Consider the examples in (81a-c), which involve modal verbs moeten'must', mogen'may', kunnen'may/can' and the negative polarity verb hoeven'need' followed by an adjective; cf. Barbiers (1995). Example (81d) shows that similar constructions can occasionally arise with a participle instead of an adjective.

a.	De fles	moet/mag/kan	leeg.
	the bottle	must/may/can	empty
	'The bottle must/may/can be emptied.'

b.	Het raam	moet/mag/kan	open.
	the window	must/may/can	open
	'The window must/may/can be opened.'

c.	Het raam	hoeft	niet	dicht.
	the window	need	not	closed
	'This window need not be closed.'

d.	Deze band	moet/kan	nog	geplakt.
	this tire	must/can	still	glued
	'This flat tire must/can still be repaired.'

The fact that the examples in (81) must be translated by means of a passive construction in English perhaps suggests that these examples involve a verbal complement to the modal verb, the verbal part of which is deleted, that is, that these examples are be derived from the passive resultative construction in (82) by deletion of the italicized part.

a.		De fles	moet/mag/kan	leeg	gemaakt	worden.
		the bottle	must/may/can	empty	made	be

b.		Het raam	moet/mag/kan	open	gemaakt	worden.
		the window	must/may/can	open	made	be

c.		Het raam	hoeft	niet	dicht	gemaakt	te worden.
		the window	need	not	closed	made	to be

d.		Deze band	moet/kan	nog	geplakt	worden.
		this tire	must/can	still	glued	be

There is reason, however, to reject this proposal. Given that passive constructions may always contain a passive door-phrase, the deletion analysis predicts that this phrase is also possible if the verbal part is not present. The examples in (83) show that this prediction is wrong.

a.		De fles	moet/mag/kan	door ons	leeg	*(gemaakt	worden).
		the bottle	must/may/can	by us	empty	made	be

b.		Het raam	moet/mag/kan	door ons	open	*(gemaakt	worden).
		the window	must/may/can	by us	open	made	be

c.		Het raam	hoeft	niet	door Peter	dicht	*(gemaakt	te worden).
		the window	need	not	by Peter	closed	made	to be

d.		Deze band	moet/kan	nog	door Peter	geplakt	*(worden).
		this tire	must/can	still	by Peter	glued	be

As in the case of the resultative construction, only stage-level adjectives can be used. If the adjective A is used, the construction expresses that the subject of the adjective is not yet A, but must/may/can attain the state of being A. For instance, the expression De fles moet/mag/kan leeg expresses that the bottle is not empty yet, but must/may/can attain the state of being empty.
In addition to the requirement of not denoting a permanent property, it has been claimed that the adjective A in the modal construction must be an absolute adjective which implies a continuous scale from “not A" to “A"; in other words, modification by an approximative or absolute modifier such as half'half', bijna'almost', helemaal'completely', etc. must be possible; cf. Sections 3.2, sub II, and III.

a.		De fles	is half/bijna/helemaal	leeg.
		the bottle	is half/almost/completely	empty

a'.		De fles	moet/mag/kan	leeg.
		the bottle	must/may/can	empty

b.		De deur	is half/bijna/helemaal	open.
		the door	is half/almost/completely	open

b'.		De deur	moet/mag/kan	open.
		the door	must/may/can	open

This restriction accounts for the fact that typical scalar adjectives like bang'afraid' or beschikbaar'available' in (84) do not occur in this construction. Observe that the primed examples in (85) become perfectly acceptable if the verbal string gemaakt worden'be made' is added; this shows again that the modal constructions are not derived from the passivized resultative construction by deletion of the non-modal verbal part of the verbal sequence. For completeness’ sake, note that (85b) is grammatical with bijna interpreted as a temporal adverb, which is, of course, irrelevant here.

a.	*	Jan is half/bijna/helemaal	bang.
		Jan is half/almost/completely	afraid

a'.		Jan moet/mag/kan	bang	*(gemaakt	worden).
		Jan must/may/can	afraid	made	be

b.	*	Het boek	is half/bijna/helemaal	beschikbaar.
		the book	is half/almost/completely	available

b'.		Het boek	moet/mag/kan	beschikbaar	*(gemaakt	worden).
		the book	must/may/can	available	made	be

Comparatives are also possible in this construction, whereas superlatives yield a degraded result. Probably, this is again related to the fact that the adjective must imply a continuous scale: the superlative does not satisfy this condition as it refers to the endpoint of the scale.

a.		Deze fles	moet/mag/kan	leger.
		this bottle	must/may/can	emptier

b.	??	Deze fles	moet/mag/kan	het leegst.
		this bottle	must/may/can	the emptiest

[+] III. The verb komen'to come' + adjective

This subsection on the komen + adjective construction relies heavily on the discussion of this construction found in Paardekooper (1986:203ff.), although it also adds a number of new observations.

[+] A. Properties of the komen + adjective construction

In the komen + adjective constructions in (87), the adjective nat'wet' is predicated of, respectively, the noun phrases jij'you' and de badkamer'the bathroom'. This construction is of a very limited type: it only occurs in interrogative clauses like (87) in which a cause is questioned and yes-no questions like (88) that contain a causative door-phrase.

a.	Hoe	kom	jij	zo nat?
	how	come	you	so wet
	'How come you are so wet?'

b.	Waardoor	komt	de badkamer	zo nat?
	by.what	comes	the bathroom	so wet
	'How come the bathroom is so wet?'

a.		Kom	jij	*(door de regen)	zo nat?
		come	you	by the rain	so wet

b.		Komt	die badkamer	*(door dat lek)	zo nat?
		comes	the bathroom	by that leak	so wet

The examples in (89) show that the komen + adjective construction is also possible in embedded interrogatives and in interrogatives with main clause order. Note that the interrogative meaning of (89b) is triggered by the adverb immers/toch; the negative element niet'not' must be present.

a.		Ik	vraag	me	af	hoe	jij	zo nat	komt.
		I	wonder	refl	prt.	how	you	so wet	comes

b.		Door zoʼn klein beetje regen	kom	je	toch/immers	niet	zo nat?
		by such.a little bit rain	come	you	prt	not	so wet

The examples in (90) show that the construction is excluded in declaratives and in interrogatives that question something other than a cause. Note, however, that for some unknown reason (90a) becomes perfectly acceptable in syntactic frame (90a').

a.	*	Jij	komt	door de regen	zo nat.
		you	come	by the rain	so wet

a'.	Ik	weet	het	al:	jij	komt	door de regen	zo nat.
	I	know	it	already	you	come	by the rain	so wet
	'I know it already: itʼs the rain that made you so wet.'

b.	*	Wie	komt	door de regen	zo nat?
		who	comes	by the rain	so wet

The examples in (91) show that the deictic element zo is normally required in such constructions. This element zo may modify the complementive adjective, but it may also modify some other element: in (92), for example, zo is used to modify an adverbial phrase.

a.		Hoe	kom	jij	*(zo)	nat?
		how	come	you	so	wet

b.		Waardoor	komt	de badkamer	*(zo)	nat?
		by.what	comes	the bathroom	so	wet

c.		Kom	jij	door de regen	*(zo)	nat?
		come	you	by the rain	so	wet

d.		Komt	die badkamer	door dat lek	*(zo)	nat?
		comes	the bathroom	by that leak	so	wet

a.	Hoe	kom	jij	zo plotseling	nat?
	how	come	you	so suddenly	wet
	'How come you are wet so suddenly?'

b.	Waardoor	komt	de badkamer	zo plotseling	nat?
	by.what	comes	the bathroom	so suddenly	wet
	'How come the bathroom is wet so suddenly?'

The examples in (91a&b) without zo can be saved, however, by adding a discourse particle such as nou, which is used to express astonishment. This is illustrated in (93); to our knowledge, examples like these have not been studied so far.

a.		Hoe	kom	jij	nou	nat?
		how	come	you	prt	wet

b.		Waardoor	komt	de badkamer	nou	nat?
		by.what	comes	the bathroom	prt	wet

[+] B. Comparison with the komen + clause construction

The fact that a cause phrase must be present suggests that the use of komen in (87) is related to its use in the examples in (94), which involve a finite clause instead of a complementive adjective. Observe that in these examples, the cause phrase is compulsory as well.

a.		Het	komt	*(door de regen)	dat	jij	zo nat	bent.
		it	comes	by the rain	that	you	so wet	are

b.		Het	komt	*(door dat lek)	dat	de badkamer	zo nat	is.
		it	comes	by that leak	that	the bathroom	so wet	is

More evidence for the claim that the two uses of komen are related is found in the fact that, in both constructions, komen can only be combined with epistemic modal verbs: deontic modals, like willen with the meaning “to want", are excluded.

a.	Hoe	kan	de badkamer/Jan	zo nat	komen?
	how	can	the bathroom/Jan	so wet	come
	'How is it possible that the bathroom/Jan is so wet?'

a'.	Hoe	kan	het	komen	dat	de badkamer/Jan	zo nat	is?
	how	can	it	come	that	the bathroom/Jan	so wet	is
	'How is it possible that the bathroom/Jan is so wet?'

b.	*	Hoe	wil	Jan zo nat	komen?
		how	wants	Jan so wet	come

b'.	*	Hoe	wil	het	komen	dat	Jan zo nat	is?
		how	wants	it	come	that	Jan so wet	is

That the two uses of komen are related is also clear from the fact that the examples in (87) and (88) are near-synonymous with those in (96) and (97). Observe that in (94) to (97), het'it' is an anticipatory pronoun introducing the embedded finite clause. This is clear from the fact that it must be dropped if the finite clause is preposed: compare (94a) to Dat jij zo nat bent, komt door de regen.

a.		Hoe	komt	het	dat	jij	zo nat	bent?
		how	comes	it	that	you	so wet	are

b.		Waardoor	komt	het	dat	de badkamer	zo nat	is?
		by.what	comes	it	that	the bathroom	so wet	is

a.		Komt	het	door de regen	dat	jij	zo nat	bent?
		comes	it	by the rain	that	you	so wet	are

b.		Komt	het	door dat lek	dat	de badkamer	zo nat	is?
		comes	it	by that leak	that	the bathroom	so wet	is

The (a)-examples in (98) show, however, that the komen + adjective and the komen + clause constructions differ in that only the latter is compatible with sentence negation. The (b)-examples show that if negation has a more limited scope, as in the case of adjectives prefixed with on-, both constructions are equally fine.

a.	*	Hoe	kom	jij	niet	zo nat	als de anderen?
		how	come	you	not	as wet	as the others

a'.	Hoe	komt	het	dat	jij	niet	zo nat	bent	als de anderen?
	how	comes	it	that	you	not	as wet	are	as the others
	'How come that you arenʼt as wet as the others.'

b.		Hoe	kom	jij	zo onbetrouwbaar?
		how	come	you	so unreliable

b'.	Hoe	komt	het	dat	jij	zo onbetrouwbaar	bent?
	how	comes	it	that	you	so unreliable	are
	'How come that youʼre so unreliable?'

Paardekooper (1986) has suggested that the examples in (87) and (88) are “derived from" the infinitival counterparts of the examples in (96) and (97) by replacing the infinitival copula te zijn'to be' by a “null sign". Although this suggestion might be on the right track, it should be noted that, contrary to what Paardekooper claims, the overt realization of te zijn does not give rise to a very felicitous result according to most speakers of Dutch.

a.		Hoe	kom	jij	zo nat	(*te zijn)?
		how	come	you	so wet	to be

b.		Waardoor	komt	de badkamer	zo nat	(*te zijn)?
		by.what	comes	the bathroom	so wet	to be

[+] C. Modification of the adjective

The modification possibilities of the adjective in the komen + adjective construction depend on what the element zo modifies. When it modifies some constituent unrelated to the adjective, as in (100), the possibilities are rather limited: (100a) shows that amplifiers like erg'very' or verschrikkelijk'terribly' and downtoners like vrij'rather' are not possible then, and (100b&c) show that comparative/superlative forms and adjectives preceded by te'too' are also excluded. Note that the clausal constructions in (101) are less deviant or even completely acceptable.

100

a.	*	Hoe	kom	jij	zo plotseling	erg/verschrikkelijk/vrij	klein?
		how	come	you	so suddenly	very/terribly/rather	small

b.	*	Hoe	kom	jij	zo plotseling	veel kleiner/het kleinst?
		how	come	you	so suddenly	much smaller/the smallest

c.	*	Hoe	kom	jij	zo plotseling	een stuk	te klein?
		how	come	you	so suddenly	a lot	too small

101

a.	??	Hoe	komt	het	dat	jij	zo plotseling	erg/verschrikkelijk/vrij	klein	bent?
		how	comes	it	that	you	so suddenly	very/terribly/rather	small	are

b.	Hoe	komt	het	dat	jij	zo plotseling	veel kleiner/het kleinst	bent?
	how	comes	it	that	you	so suddenly	much smaller/the smallest	are
	'How come you are so suddenly much smaller/the smallest?'

c.	Hoe	komt	het	dat	jij	zo plotseling	een stuk	te klein	bent?
	how	comes	it	that	you	so suddenly	a lot	too small	are
	'How come youʼre so suddenly much too small?'

If the element zo modifies the modifier of the adjective, as in (102a), amplifiers like erg'very' or verschrikkelijk'terribly' become possible in the komen + adjective construction; downtoners like vrij'rather', on the other hand, remain ungrammatical, probably because they cannot be modified by zo. Under the same condition, comparatives and adjective modified by te'too' can be used; this does not hold for superlatives, which may be due to the fact that they never combine with intensifiers. The examples in (103) show that the corresponding clausal constructions are also acceptable.

102

a.		Hoe	kom	jij	plotseling	zo erg/verschrikkelijk/*vrij	klein?
		how	come	you	suddenly	so very/terribly/rather	small

b.		Hoe	kom	jij	plotseling	zo veel	kleiner?
		how	come	you	so suddenly	so much	smaller

c.	Hoe	kom	jij	zoʼn stuk	te klein?
	how	come	you	such.a lot	too small
	'How come youʼre so much too small?'

103

a.		Hoe	komt	het	dat	jij	plotseling	zo erg/verschrikkelijk/*vrij	klein bent?
		how	comes	it	that	you	suddenly	so very/terribly/rather	small are

b.		Hoe	komt	het	dat	jij	plotseling	zo veel	kleiner	bent?
		how	comes	it	that	you	suddenly	so much	smaller	are

c.		Hoe	komt	het	dat	jij	zoʼn stuk	te klein	bent?
		how	comes	it	that	you	such.a lot	too small	are

Observe that the complex modifier zo A mogelijk'as A as possible' in (104), in which zo is used non-deictically, is excluded. Note, however, that some speakers can use komen as a copular verb. For them, example (104a) is acceptable with an inchoative meaning: “how can you become as small as possible", but this is irrelevant for our present discussion.

104

a.	#	Hoe	kom	jij	zo klein	mogelijk?
		how	come	you	as small	as.possible

b.	*	Hoe	komt	het	dat	jij	zo klein mogelijk	bent?
		how	comes	it	that	you	so small as.possible	are

[+] IV. The verb hebben/krijgen'to have/get' + adjective

Standard Dutch has two constructions with the verbs hebben/krijgen'to have/get' followed by a complementive adjective. In the first construction, exemplified in (105a), the adjective is predicated of the accusative object. In the second construction, illustrated in (105b), the adjective is neither predicated of the accusative object, which is the non-referring pronoun het'it', nor of the subject, which seems to act as a kind of experiencer. These constructions are discussed in more detail in Section 6.2.1, sub IB, on the dialectal semi-copular construction.

105

a.		Hij	heeft/krijgt	de kwast	schoon.
		he	has/gets	the brush	clean

b.		Ik	heb	het/*dat	warm.
		I	have	it/that	warm

[+] V. Adjectives that can only be used as complementives

Some adjectives can only be used in complementive position; cf. Section 5.3, sub I. We will discuss these adjectives in the following subsections.

[+] A. Adjectives that take a non-dative nominal complement

Adjectives that take a non-dative nominal complement, such as zat'weary' in (106), do not occur in attributive position; cf. Section 5.3, sub IA.

106

a.	Het meisje	is deze opera	zat.
	the girl	is this opera	weary
	'The girl is weary of this opera.'

b.	*?	het	deze opera	zatte	meisje
		the	this opera	weary	girl

[+] B. Adjectives obligatorily followed by a PP complement

Adjectives like gek'fond' must be followed by their prepositional complement; cf. the contrast between (107a) and (107a'). Such adjectives cannot occur in attributive position as a result of the Head-final Filter on attributive adjectives; cf. Section 5.3, sub IB.

107

a.		De man	is gek	op zijn vrouw.
		the man	is fond	of his wife

a'.

De man is op zijn vrouw gek.

de gekke op zijn vrouw man

b'.

de op zijn vrouw gekke man

[+] C. Fixed verb + adjective combinations

Example (108) provides some examples of adjectives that can only occur in combination with a (pseudo-)copular verb.

108

braak liggen

'to lie fallow'

gelegen komen

'to be convenient'

handgemeen worden/raken

'to come to blows'

jammer zijn

'to be a pity'

niet pluis zijn

'to be fishy'

The primed examples in (109) show that these adjectives cannot be used attributively. For completeness’ sake, the doubly-primed examples show that these examples become fully acceptable if the verb appears as an attributively used present participle.

109

a.		De akker	ligt	braak.
		the field	lies	fallow

b.		De jongens	raken	handgemeen.
		the boys	come	to.blows

a'.

de brake akker

b'.

de handgemene jongens

a''.

de braak liggende akker

b''.

de handgemeen rakende jongens

The examples in (110) also involve copular constructions, but are special in that the adjective seems to take a nominal complement.

110

het spoor bijster raken/zijn

'to lose oneʼs way'

iets gewaar worden

'to perceive something'

iets kwijt zijn/raken

'to lose something'

The fact that these adjectives can only be used predicatively may therefore follow from the general restriction discussed in Subsection A that adjectives that take a non-dative complement cannot appear in attributive position. Observe that the doubly-primed examples, which contain the present participle of the verbs in (110), are again fully acceptable.

111

a.	De man	is/raakte	het spoor	bijster.
	the man	is/got	the track	lost
	'The man lost his way.'

a'.

de het spoor bijstere man

a''.

de het spoor bijster zijnde man

b.	De jongens	werden	de kust	van verre	gewaar.
	the boys	became	the coast	from far	aware
	'The boys noticed the coast from afar.'

b'.

de de kust geware jongens

b''.

de de kust gewaar wordende jongens

c.	De jongen	is/raakte	zijn sleutels	kwijt.
	the boy	is/got	his keys	lost
	'The boy mislaid his keys.'

c'.

de zijn sleutels kwijte jongen

c''.

de zijn sleutels kwijt rakende/?zijnde jongen

For completeness’ sake, (112a) shows that the adjective kwijt can also be used without a nominal complement. In this case it cannot be used attributively either, as is shown in (112b).

112

a.		Zijn sleutels	zijn	kwijt.
		his keys	are	lost

zijn kwijte sleutels

The examples in (113) are comparable to resultative and vinden-constructions. Observe that the adjectives in (113b&d) may also occur in a copular construction; cf. (108a&d).

113

iemand iets afhandig maken

'to deprive someone of something'

iets braak leggen

'to lay fallow'

een belofte gestand doen

'to observe a promise'

jammer vinden

'to consider something a pity'

zich schrap zetten (voor)

'to brace oneself (for)'

The fact that the adjectives in these fixed combinations cannot be used attributively is demonstrated in the primed examples in (114). The grammatical constructions in the doubly-primed examples again involve an attributively used present participle.

114

a.	Jan maakte	Marie het boek	afhandig.
	Jan made	Marie the book	deprived
	'Jan deprived Marie of the book.'

b.	De jongen	zette	zich	schrap.
	the boy	put	refl	braced
	'The boy braced himself.'

a'.

het afhandige boek

b'.

de schrappe jongen

a''.

het (Marie) afhandig gemaakte boek

b''.

de zich schrap zettende jongen

[+] D. Groot van gestalte'big in stature'

Some adjectives can be modified by a van-PP containing a bare noun. There are at least two types, which are illustrated in (115). The van-PP in (115a) expresses a restriction on the adjective “big as far as the stature is concerned", and the van-PP in (115b) indicates the cause of the occurrence of the property denoted by the adjective “red caused by excitement". The primed examples show that these two constructions cannot be used attributively.

115

a.	Jan is groot	van	gestalte.
	Jan is big	in	stature
	'Jan is big in stature.'

a'.	*	een	grote	jongen	van gestalte
		a	big	boy	in stature

b.	Jan is rood	van	opwinding.
	Jan is red	of	excitement
	'Jan is red with excitement.'

b'.	*	een	rode	jongen	van opwinding
		a	red	boy	of excitement

The two constructions differ, however, in that the first indicates an individual-level property, whereas the latter denotes a stage-level property. Due to this, the latter, but not the former, can also be used as a supplementive. The two A + van + N sequences in (115) are more extensively discussed in Section 3.5, sub I.

116

a.	*	Groot van gestalte	kwam	Jan de kamer	binnen.
		big of stature	came	Jan the room	into
		'Big in stature Jan entered the room.'

b.	Rood van opwinding	kwam	Jan de kamer	binnen.
	red of excitement	came	Jan the room	into
	'Red with excitement Jan entered the room.'

[+] E. Isolated cases

There are a number of isolated cases of adjectives that can only be used in complementive position: alleen'alone', anders'different', bekaf/doodop'done in', klaar'ready', onwel'ill', and weg'away'.

117

a.		Dit boek	is anders.
		this book	is different

a'.

het anderse boek

b.		De jongen	is bekaf/doodop/onwel.
		the boy	is done.in/done.in/ill

b'.

bekaffe/doodoppe/onwelle

jongen

Finally, observe the remarkable contrast between (118a) and (118b), which only differ in that in (118b) klaar'ready' is part of the compound kant-en-klaar'instant'.

118

a.	*	de	klare	maaltijd
		the	ready	meal

b.		de	kant-en-klare	maaltijd
		the	instant	meal

References:

Barbiers, Sjef1995The syntax of interpretationThe Hague, Holland Academic GraphicsUniversity of Leiden/HILThesis
Paardekooper, P.C1986Beknopte ABN-syntaksisEindhovenP.C. Paardekooper
Paardekooper, P.C1986Beknopte ABN-syntaksisEindhovenP.C. Paardekooper

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: Absolute AdjectiveAdjectiveCopulaDeontic Modal VerbEpistemic Modal VerbFixed VerbHead-final FilterModal VerbNegative PolarityPassivePseudo-copulaStage-level AdjectiveSupplementiveTopicalizationVerbWord Order

Version: 1.0, December 2015

Version history:

version	editor(s)	date	remarks
1.0	Hans Broekhuis	December 2015

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles