zompist bboard

I remember in a Dutch phrase-book that there were some alternatives for common verbs:

- "jij hebt" and "jij heeft"
- "U hebt" and "U heeft"
- "U is" and "U bent"

Is there any difference in meaning or connotation here?

"U is" is archaic and not in common use anymore. "Jij heeft" is incorrect, and as far as I know incorrect for any variant of Dutch. As for "u hebt"/"u heeft", I don't perceive a difference, and both members of the pair sound equally well. There has been some research on this difference, where IIRC they found out that one form was preferred by men and the other by women, and I vaguely recalled reading something that the "hebt" form is more used when you want to state solidarity with the hearer, and "heeft" when there is more distance, but this doesn't come from intuitions of speakers of Dutch, but from analysis of corpora.

I don't know anything about research into this topic, but I agree with Merijn. I would add to his comment, that "u is" sounds very very dated to me. I don't think I ever heard it in spontaneous speach. But maybe there are varieties of the language in which this construction is still in use.

Grunnen wrote:I don't know anything about research into this topic, but I agree with Merijn. I would add to his comment, that "u is" sounds very very dated to me. I don't think I ever heard it in spontaneous speach. But maybe there are varieties of the language in which this construction is still in use.

THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME.

Drydic wrote:

Grunnen wrote:I don't know anything about research into this topic, but I agree with Merijn. I would add to his comment, that "u is" sounds very very dated to me. I don't think I ever heard it in spontaneous speach. But maybe there are varieties of the language in which this construction is still in use.

THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME.

??

Drydic is alluding to biblical use of archaic constructions.

Typically, "u is" isn't even used there. However it is often used in Dutch forums, often jokingly.

Sleinad Flar wrote:Drydic is alluding to biblical use of archaic constructions.

Typically, "u is" isn't even used there. However it is often used in Dutch forums, often jokingly.

Ah like that. I don't frequent Dutch forums so I wasn't aware of that usage.

"u is" is a highly archaic form in dutch, further proving that the monks made it just to fuck with english speakers

Did that phrasebook seriously say that "jij heeft" is possible? "U is" already sounds awful to me, but having read that above (and considering "u heeft") I can accept that.

Dē Graut Bʉr wrote:Did that phrasebook seriously say that "jij heeft" is possible?

Ik herinne me niet; it was lang tijd geleden.

I have never heard of 'u is', that sounds ridiculous to me. Same goes for 'jij heeft'.

I see 'u heeft' as a more formal form of 'u hebt', though only marginally so. The problem with 'u hebt' is that it is often pronounced as the dialectal 'u heb' (t-deletion is a common thing in Dutch), which is considered informal and sloppy. If you clearly say the 't' it's okay though. Remember that 'u' is the polite 2SG pronoun, so being formal is important, otherwise you might as well just say 'je/jij'.

Orsmaal-Gussenhoven dialect phonology

I'm most curious about this bit:

— /p, t, tʲ, k, kʲ, v, z/ may be affricated to [p͡ɸ, t͡s, t͡sʲ, k͡x, k͡xʲ, b͡v, d͡z]. Peters (2010) does not specify the environment(s) in which the affrication of /v/ and /z/ takes place. In case of stops, it occurs in pre-pausal position.

Any chance there would be sound bites where I can hear those?