Two of the trickiest things to learn (and to teach) in either German and Dutch is
- the verb second rule in main clauses
(basically: S-V-O or x-V-S-O)
- word order in the subordinate clause
(basically: conjunction-S-O-V—basically, because when talking about PrepP’s and finite non-finite forms of the verb, it gets a complete mess)
e.g.
Ik ga naar school.
Morgen ga ik naar school.
Ik zeg dat ik naar school ga.
I’m wondering how these problems are solved by German/Dutch teachers/students. I already looked up a few German handbooks, but because my native tongue is
Dutch, the rules are (obviously) crystal clear to me .
I hope there are some German/Dutch SL teachers/students in this group who can give me tips and hints, or who can share their experiences.
Schau mal, meine Muttersprache hat keine Verbindung mit jener Art Nebensatzbildung… ob du das fragst…
Doch es tut mir Leid; aber ich weiß nicht, wie man es tut: man lernt die Regeln und man verwendet sie einfach. Geht es bei allen Sprachen nicht so?? Deine Erklärung war auch glasklar
Ich gehe zur Schule.
Morgen gehe ich zur Schule.
Ich sage, dass ich zur Schule gehe.
Man muss einfach genau aufklären, wie die Ergänzungen in den Satzbau kommen. Zuerst nur bei Hauptsätzen und dann sollte man die Sonderheiten der Nebensätze vorstellen, was auch bloß eine geringe Änderung bedeutet.
Wenigstens wurde es mir so unterrichtet und ich meine, es wirkte!
Wel, ik heb ooit mensen Nederlands geleerd en ik sluit mij aan bij Verwonderde Spanjaard. Voor wie wat van grammatica afweet, zijn de regels zoals jij ze verwoordde, eigenlijk vrij eenvoudig.
Voor diegenen die niet zo onderlegd zijn in grammaticale structuren, komt het in de eerste plaats aan op oefening, denk ik. Zinnetjes omzetten van directe naar indirecte rede en omgekeerd blijkt bijvoorbeeld vaak een nuttige oefening te zijn.
De problemen beginnen meestal pas bij de scheidbare en onscheidbare werkwoorden en bij de volgorde binnen werkwoordclusters ("...dat ik hem zou hebben gezien" en dergelijke), maar dat laatste is ook bij veel inboorlingen al redelijk problematisch.
<<<Doch es tut mir Leid; aber ich weiß nicht, wie man es tut: man lernt die Regeln und man verwendet sie einfach.<<<
‘Einfach’, yeah, right.
[Sorry, i had 9 hours of listening to oral exams yesterday, and i’m still not recovered from it. ]
<<<Geht es bei allen Sprachen nicht so?? Deine Erklärung war auch glasklar Tongue<<<
<<< Voor diegenen die niet zo onderlegd zijn in grammaticale structuren, komt het in de eerste plaats aan op oefening, denk ik. <<<
You’re right, for people who do have a grasp of grammar, it doesn’t pose too much problems: or they get it right, or they are immediately aware of their mistake.
The problem—and i didn’t mention that in my previous mail—is the fact that hardly any of my students know a thing about grammatical terminology, not even what their own language is concerned. They are _normal_ people you know, not language freaks, geeks or nerds, i mean language enthusiasts .
For them, and imho for quite a lot of people learning a SL/FL, conveying meaning is more important than getting it grammatically correct.
I also noticed in my Chinese course that (Flemish) students started to get confused when the teacher used terms as "adjectief/bijvoeglijk naamwoord" and "bijwoord".
<<<Man muss einfach genau aufklären, wie die Ergänzungen in den Satzbau kommen. Zuerst nur bei Hauptsätzen und dann sollte man die Sonderheiten der Nebensätze vorstellen, was auch bloß eine geringe Änderung bedeutet.<<<
Four years i’m teaching Dutch now, and in the second level i spend _5 whole bloody months_ to explain two main things: the imperfect and the subordinate subclause, only using ‘stock phrases’ as "ik vind dat", "ik denk dat", "omdat" (reason), "hij/zij zegt dat’, all followed by a sentence in the _present_ tense.
As long as we’re doing the exercises, things go excellent: drills, flashcards, ‘funny’ things as guessing each others’ age (Ik denk dat zij 28 jaar is. (= 10 jaar ouder is dan ik nu ga zeggen). If i ask two seconds later how old she said she really is, then the answer is ‘Zij zegt dat zij is 38 jaar’.
<<< De problemen beginnen meestal pas bij de scheidbare en onscheidbare werkwoorden <<<
My god!!! Don’t mention the S-word!!!
<<<en bij de volgorde binnen werkwoordclusters ("...dat ik hem zou hebben gezien" en dergelijke), maar dat laatste is ook bij veel inboorlingen al redelijk problematisch.<<<
This is not too big a problem in the higher levels, because in that kind of clusters, the word order is rather free, and several alternatives can be considered to be correct:
- dat ik hem zou hebben gezien
- dat ik hem zou gezien hebben
- dat ik hem gezien zou hebben
though for the sake of simplicity, i urge them to use the first possibility.
Personally, I wouldn’t consider "dat ik hem zou gezien hebben" correct. The others are correct, though the first possibility is maybe a fraction more formal.
It’s true that most people haven’t got a clue about grammatical structures. If they don’t have the time or the inclination to learn about them, I don’t see many alternatives to exercises (a lot of them).
<<< Personally, I wouldn’t consider "dat ik hem zou gezien hebben" correct. The others are correct, though the first possibility is maybe a fraction more formal. <<<
Dat verbaast me een beetje.
There are stylistic differences, i agree, but imho ""dat ik hem zou gezien hebben" is fully correct (also according to the ANS: http://oase.uci.kun.nl/~ans/).
zou gezien hebben is typically Flemish. It’s very much spoken language only, and I wouldn’t use it in a language exam, because it would probably cost me a point.
The ANS says this about it:
Tussenplaatsing van het deelwoord komt in Nederland weinig voor. In België is tussenplaatsing (...) in de praktijk juist de gebruikelijkste volgorde, al wordt voor de standaardtaal vaak de voorkeur gegeven aan een andere volgorde.
gezien zou hebben is the normal Dutch (Netherlands) way of saying it and by all means ok, as far as I’m concerned.
zou hebben gezien sounds like written language to me. I don’t know anyone (Flemish or Dutch) who would actually say it that way.
Well, frank, it’s true I put it too simple. I don’t know the kind of students you have to face; but, I presume all sorts of them… The thing is that, if they really stuck with grammar, they won’t get it right anyway… So, as you yourself say, you’d better be content with their saying: Sie sagt, dass sie ist 38 Jahre alt, as long as it’s understandable.
You know, I have never learned a single word of Dutch… XD I can decipher most things with the help of German, sometimes English and the international terms here and there… But, truly, Spiff’s post left me really a WonderingSpaniard or better : Verwonderde Spanjaard, as he himself has rendered it. :D it looks funny!
However, I guess I could improve my understanding skills if I knew the pronunciation rules. Hitherto I’ve only been told that "ij" is pronounce /ai/ and barely anything else…
Could you lend me a hand there?
Ah, and are Flemish and Dutch actually different??
Groetjes!
VS.
PD: ouch!, i’ve just found out that I wrote Grüßen[/B] in my last post… Scheiße…
<<<zou gezien hebben is typically Flemish. It’s very much spoken language only, and I wouldn’t use it in a language exam, because it would probably cost me a point.<<<
"Typically Flemish" is more than okay for me, after all, i speak Flemish Dutch and i live in Antwerp. I don’t no see a reason to start changing my lingo because somebody in Amsterdam say things in a different way . But if it would cost me a point in a language exam, then my language teacher would have a terrible hard time defending him/herself.
<<<The ANS says this about it:
Tussenplaatsing van het deelwoord komt in Nederland weinig voor. In België is tussenplaatsing (...) in de praktijk juist de gebruikelijkste volgorde, al wordt voor de standaardtaal vaak de voorkeur gegeven aan een andere volgorde.<<<
<<<gezien zou hebben is the normal Dutch (Netherlands) way of saying it and by all means ok, as far as I’m concerned.<<<
Yes, i agree with you. I have my personal favorites too, and i think i’d more often say "gezien zou hebben" than anything else. But anything goes for me, i mean the three possibilities are all okay.
But i was thinking about a class situation. In class i teach them:
In short: subordinate
- finite verb + infinite verb
- (modal) aux + infinite verb (infinitive/participle)
I know that this is limited, but i’m sure it’s not incorrect AND it’s structured.
- ... dat ik naar school moet gaan.
- ... dat ik naar school ben gegaan.
hence:
- ... dat ik naar school zou moeten gaan.
- ... dat ik hem zou hebben gezien.
If i start with things as:
- ... dat ik naar school ben gegaan.
- ... dat ik naar school gegaan ben.
then the result is:
- ... dat ik naar school gaan moet.
- ... dat ik naar school gaan zou.
You can imagine yourself what would happen when a third verb pops us in a classroom where 2/3 hardly realises what a conjugated verb is…
Spiff, i agree with you on most parts, but i think we’re talking a bit about two different things here: Dutch as it is spoken/written by natives and Dutch for not-so-high skilled people. In four years, i met a limited amount of people who grasped the rules _and_ apllied them without a problem, most of them or Germans, or multilinguals who have an idea about grammar.
I have the impression that students who begin to learn Dutch need fixed rules and fixed word orders more than the variety that does exist indeed in Dutch, especially when speaking.
It reminds me of my Chinese course in one or another way. We learned:
Subject + zai (place) + verb
while my Chinese, erm, sort of private conversation teacher told me that Subject + verb + zai (place) can also be used (i’ll spare you the details).
My question about this in class again and the explanation that followed, messed up things for quite a few students. In short: too much variety at too early a stage…
Groetjes, en bedankt voor de opmerkingen!!!!!!!!!!!
Ik ben blij dat ik zulke dingen niet zal uitleggen.
Ik ben blij dat ik zulke dingen niet uit zal leggen.
Ik ben blij dat ik zulke dingen niet uitleggen zal.
Ik hoop dat ik geen fout in het Nederlands heb gemaakt.
Ik hoop dat ik geen fout in het Nederlands gemaakt heb.
Ik hoop dat ik geen fout heb gemaakt in het Nederlands.
Ik hoop dat ik geen fout gemaakt heb in het Nederlands.
Zien jullie? Het Nederlands is zo vrij dat ik me niet voor kan stellen (kan voorstellen/voorstellen kan) hoe leerligen zo vaak fouten maken.
I propose a visual model od a German subordinate clause.
____________________________________________
Man muss einfach genau aufklären, wie die Ergänzungen in den Satzbau kommen—>
Man muss einfach genau erklären, wie [I]
_____________________________________________
This subordinate clause is an expanded modifier for ‘aufklären’ like ‘genau’. The word order compresses the expanded modifier with a vice [ ], where [ is the left gripping jaw and the subject; ] is the right gripping jaw and the predicate; I - the rest of parts (passive ones) of the subordinate clause. The compressing effect may be explained by the fact that it’s easy to find:
- the subject after a conjuction;
- the predicate before a comma or a full stop.
However, I guess I could improve my understanding skills if I knew the pronunciation rules. Hitherto I’ve only been told that "ij" is pronounce /ai/ and barely anything else…
Could you lend me a hand there?
Ah, and are Flemish and Dutch actually different??
<<<However, I guess I could improve my understanding skills if I knew the pronunciation rules. Hitherto I’ve only been told that "ij" is pronounce /ai/ and barely anything else…<<<
In IPA, it would be an epsilon followed by a small I, the closest i can get in describing ‘ij’ (and ‘ei’) is the French è in mère followed by a soft glide to i.
<<<Could you lend me a hand there?<<<
http://homepage.mac.com/schuffelen/dupron.html
(Dutch from The Netherlands) has a lot of sound files, and it starts with a lovely and charming drawing from an old ABC book!! Yeah!
<<<Ah, and are Flemish and Dutch actually different??<<<
NoYes…
Let’s agree that in this context Flemish and Dutch mean the standard variety /-ies [plural?] spoken in Flanders and The Netherlands.
As for the written formal language, theoretically, there are hardly any differences, apart maybe from a few verbal constructions (as pointed out by Spiff in an earlier mail). The spelling is (should be) the same, it’s regulated by a the Dutch-Flemish Taalunie.
Needless to say there are lexical differences.
As for the spoken formal language, the same goes: there is theory and practice. But nevrtheless, the most striking difference here is the pronunciation (and prosody!). A book as "Uitspraak Nederlands" can claim indeed that it can be used in both Holland and Flanders, but the actual result among the students will be quite different, but mutually intelligeable. E.g. news correspondents or SD/AN speaking interviewees (does this word exist?) never are subtitled or paraphrased, neither on tv nor on radio.
Frank
PS
No time right now to start about non-standard Dutch, almost standard, substandard, etc. as actually spoken in the streets, i have to leave a few hours
1 Ik ben blij dat ik zulke dingen niet zal uitleggen.
2 Ik ben blij dat ik zulke dingen niet uit zal leggen.
3 Ik ben blij dat ik zulke dingen niet uitleggen zal.
I’m quite liberal what concerns…..... aaaaaaaaaaagh, skip the word liberal…
Anyway, sentence 3 i would regard as very very weird. As far as i’m concerned, it’s only used in very formal, slightly out of date Dutch, in older poetry or in song texts (for the rhyme).
Normally, the modal aux is put before the non-finites.
2 sure is possible, but also a bit weird, if separation can be avoided, then most people avoid it.
<<<Zien jullie? Het Nederlands is zo vrij dat ik me niet voor kan stellen (kan voorstellen/voorstellen kan) hoe leerligen zo vaak fouten maken. Grin<<< ... if only…
.
]