Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Dutch questions

From:Ben Haanstra <kof@...>
Date:Saturday, July 14, 2007, 15:47
> 1) Hij onderscheidde er zich herhaaldelijk en ook later, aan de
universiteit te
> Cambridge, hebben weinigen meer eerbewijzen ontvangen dan hij.
> Question: What's happening in the second clause?
>If the meaning is akin to: "He distinguished himself there repeatedly and
later, >at the university of Cambridge, he received a few more honors.", then why not: That sounds like an almost literal translation. A better translation might be: He proofed himself frequently at the university of Cambridge. Even later on only a few people earned more honors (than he had).
>...heeft hij dan weinigen meer eerbewijzen ontvangen. or
> ...werden weinigen meer eerbewijzen ontvangen door hem. or some such?
In this clause it says specifically that 'other people received less honors than he has earned'. The sentence sounds perfectly correct and goes in harmony with the rest of the sentence (try to skip 'aan de universiteit te Cambridge' it sounds perfeclty normal). the 2 sentences you described wouldnt really fit with the former part of the sentence. (they sound somewhat incomplete and off from the actual meaning of the original sentence)
>What does "hebben" agree with? The "eerbewijzen?" Then how can they receive >rather than being received? Is "dan" "then" or "than" here, and if it *is*
"than," >then who got more honors than he? There is no antecedent, even from a >preceding sentence. I'm so confuuuused. Hebben/heeft points out that there are moments that 'he has received X' or simply that he has 'eerbewijzen' which he gained/got by 'ontvangen'. You can read it like this: Hij heeft eerbewijzen. How did he get it? by 'Ontvangen' (to receive) -> Hij heeft eerbewijzen ontvangen. I believe 'dan' translates to 'than' in this case because it is a comparison. 'Hij' is compared with 'weinigen'.
> 2) Daarna aanvaarde hij een tijdelijke aanstelling bij het „Education >Department” en in 1872... >Question: What's up with "aanvaarde?"
I believe its written aanvaardde (correct spelling), it means 'to accept/to take on', in respect to that the course/function was a request. In this sentence it simply means that he took the job (tijdelijke aanstelling bij "Education Department"
> After that he accepted a temporary position in the Education Department
and > in 1872...
> Just found the answer for myself -- never mind. No, I'll *change* the
> Could you replace "aanvaarden" with "aannemen" here? And if you could,
where > could you put the prefix?
> Can I say: > Daarna nam hij een tijdelijke aanstelling aan bij het „Education
Department" > en.....
> AND/OR > Daarna nam hij een tijdelijke aanstelling bij het „Education Department"
aan > en..... ? Aannemen could replace aanvaarden, you can see aanvaarden as the poltie version of aannemen, however there are some exceptions. Aannemen can also mean "to assume', which aanvaarden can't. Both sentences sound plausible and are being used, however there may be some extra's. It depends on the stress & focus. In 1st sentence the stress is 'assumed' to be at the "tijdelijke aanstelling" part, you can see it as if 'aan' was actually to finish off the sentence. "bij het Education Department" is then assumed to be 'extra non important information'. In 2nd sentence the focus is at the whole 'tijdelijk aanstelling bij het Education part'. Eventually depending on your tone it may sounds 'just did/normal' or that it is "THE BEST" place to work. I believe this automatically answers your question to where the prefix goes. After the noun (which has to do with the verb, 1st sentence) or the 'whole clause' (een tijdelijke aanstelling bij het "Education Department", 2nd sentence) Hopefully this helped you. (And hopefully I didn't make any mistakes :) )