Appendix talk:Dutch parts of speech

"Dutch also has diminutives. Plural of diminutives always end on -en." This is not true. Dutch duminitives always end in -s, eg huisje => huisjes (small house => small houses). So I changed this. Grunnen 08:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh.. thanks. My intention was to write an "s", but apparently I didn't :-S SPQRobin 15:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Never mind, waar gehakt wordt vallen spaanders as they say in the introduction to the Dutch Wiktionary. If we were not allowed make a mistake every now and then we probably shouldn't be here. Grunnen 15:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

How is that 'r or d'r? That doesn't make sense, now when I look at it, first person plural mute form is m'n? Please explain Mallerd 09:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

No idea but it's certainly not right. But who came up with the name 'mute form' anyway? Wouldn't 'unstressed' or 'weakened' be a far better description? --CodeCat 01:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I guess Jwcf from the Dutch wiktionary came up with that. Sometimes, he's active here as well. I still haven't come up with any unstressed or weakened forms of any plurals. Have you? I always say 'onze', 'jullie' and 'hun'. Mallerd 19:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

'Hebben jullie je boeken bij je?', unstressed form of jullie is je, and the reflexive is also je. --CodeCat 23:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Helemaal te wauwie, heb je het toegevoegd? Mallerd 14:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Oh, hehe dat staat er ook al gewoon in. Ik doelde op het 'possessive' tabelletje waar dus bij wij - ons (onze) - me staat. I don't understand that. Mallerd 14:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the inflection section under 'attributive use' the table says 'masculine & feminine & plural'. I don't see the plural, though. It might be wise to note that articles are dropped with an indefinite plural form. You'd say: een grote kast - grote kasten, een groot huis - grote huizen. Unlike French and Italian for example. :) Cheers 81.68.255.36 15:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh I might have made a mistake. Yet, I don't see this note in the gender section which seems to handle a couple of plural forms. If it is' mentioned somewhere else, it kinda sucks. :) 81.68.255.36 15:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have modified the table to include the example "de grote kasten." Maybe that will help.   AugPi 15:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

You might be right though: Dutch plural nouns probably do tend to not be modified by an article. Then the question is: would a noun without an article qualify as definite or indefinite?   AugPi 15:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Indefinite. Definite is only used for demonstratives (deze, die, dit, dat), the definite article (de, het) and possessive determiners (mijn, jouw, zijn, haar, uw, ons/onze, jullie, hun). And if you're looking for an indefinite plural modifier, try 'meerdere' or 'veel'. —CodeCat 16:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

So should I add an example such as "grote huizen" to the first row, first column of the table in Appendix:Dutch parts of speech#Adjectives?   AugPi 16:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would personally suggest splitting it into two tables, one for indefinite and the other for definite. Each table then gets two rows (common and neuter) and two columns (singular and plural). This reflects the origin of the definite/indefinite distinction better, as they were two completely distinct declension paradigms, and still are in many other Germanic languages (i.e. Swedish, German and Icelandic). —CodeCat 16:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for your input! I'll have to think about it... (I can't wrap my mind around that in just a few seconds...)   AugPi 16:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think the way Dutch plural nouns work are largely similar to their English counterpart. No article when indefinite and with article when definite (most of the time). I think that's what Paul (the anon :P) was trying to say as well. The issue lies with the example table. We can either go with Codecat's suggestion or simply add plural examples in the indefinite/mas/fem/plural cell. I will see if I can find some good examples from the Dutch books I am reading at the moment (rather than relying on the Internet). Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 00:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nooo, James!! You blew my cover! Hehe, just kidding. Anyway, if you are going to change the tables to what CodeCat said, I do believe that it is not complete without some decent explanation. I only know that Swedish has something like common and neuter? If Dutch has the same "things" (what are they really called? :P), I should take more Dutch courses, because I have no idea how to recognise them. 81.68.255.36 12:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Genders (geslachten). That's what you are looking for. Genders are historically divided into m (mannelijk), v (vrouwelijk) and o (onzijdig). I will link you something later. Here is some info on def/indef articles Nederlands Lidwoorden.

Oh, common = masculine & feminine? Am I right? I thought common and neuter were something completely different in Dutch. Thanks :) 81.68.255.36 08:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, common gender is commonly used for Danish and Swedish nouns and means masculine and feminine. Danish and Swedish have only two genders, common and neuter. Dutch is fast becoming the same way. —Stephen 09:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's an understatement. People haven't reliably distinguished masculine and feminine for a few hundred years in some parts of the Netherlands. The distinction is dead as far as I'm concerned. —CodeCat 09:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Here we’re talking about adjectives, but this is translated with a noun, “love,” in English. Doesn’t this phrase more correctly mean “much beloved, well loved”? Dupes (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Dupes This is a partitive adjective, which is generally more noun-like than adjective-like. Compare English "not much good can come from this", where good is also a partitive, but without a distinctive form. —Rua (mew) 10:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply