-d / -dt / -t

17

u/Some_Belgian_Guy Native speaker (BE) 1d ago

If you understand the simple rule it makes perfect sense. There are no exceptions to the -dt regel.

Ik smurf ==> ik word

jij smurft ==> jij wordt

hij smurft ==> hij wordt

Smurft hij? ==> wordt hij?

Smurf jij? ==> word jij?

0

u/muffinsballhair Native speaker (NL) 11h ago

It doesn't make sense because one would also expect “Jij ziett” with this rule but there it's not applied.

I mean it's there and it's fairly simple but it's also not really a logical thing.

Also, for whatever reason <d>, <g> and <b> are written at the end of words to indicate the actual morphological stem regardless of devoicing rule but <z> and <v> are not and are written as <s> and <f> to indicate devoicing. This is all fairly arbitrary of course. It should've been either “hant” or “huiz” of course.

1

u/Some_Belgian_Guy Native speaker (BE) 11h ago

Omg... are you serious?

Ik smurf ==> ik zie

jij smurft ==> jij ziet

hij smurft ==> hij ziet

Smurft hij? ==> ziet hij?

Smurf jij? ==> zie jij?

1

u/muffinsballhair Native speaker (NL) 11h ago

Oh yeah that's really weird, I don't know what I was thinking.

I was probably thinking of “schieten” as in it should be “hij schiett” with this logic or maybe of “zitten”.

-10

u/Reasonable_Sample_11 1d ago

But why do we need the -t added if there is a clear d pronounced as t anyways and the tense is clear from the article? Seems like a waste of letters..

14

u/IrrationalDesign 1d ago

We need the rule to stay consistent in order to prevent this from being true:

this weird system of exceptions over rule of thumb? Why can't we standardise writing

We have standardized writing with very few exeptions, it's just not primarily based on pronunciation.

7

u/Electronic_Cod6829 1d ago

To make the rules more clear and remove exceptions? Dutch is difficult enough as is.

7

u/CatCalledDomino Native speaker 1d ago

Current rule: If the subject is hij/zij/het, then add -t to the ik-form.

Your proposed rule: If the subject is hij/zij/het, then add -t to the ik-form, *unless* the ik-form ends in -d.

So your rule is more complicated, but at least no letters are wasted I guess.

1

u/muffinsballhair Native speaker (NL) 11h ago edited 11h ago

The current rule already has that exception when the stem ends on a <t> though. It's evidently not “Hij schiett”.

2

u/watvoornaam 1d ago

D and t don't sound the same.

1

u/feindbild_ 12h ago

They do at the end of a word.

1

u/watvoornaam 12h ago

Not really. They sound alike, but there is a noticeable difference.

1

u/feindbild_ 12h ago

No, there isn't. 'Finale verscherping' (final devoicing) is a basic rule of Dutch phonology which makes it so that words can only end in voiceless consonants, which means that:

1) words cannot end in -v and -z (in spelling or sound),

2) -b sounds like p; -d sounds like t, -g sounds like ch,

Here is a description of this in the more or less 'official' grammar of Dutch (ANS): https://e-ans.ivdnt.org/topics/pid/topic-15989590973738881

1

u/watvoornaam 12h ago

Echd wel.

2

u/muffinsballhair Native speaker (NL) 11h ago edited 11h ago

There is a minimal difference. Pretty much all research that investigates this finds this minimal difference and finds that native speakers can with significantly higher than chance accuracy perceive this difference.

https://taalportaal.org/taalportaal/topic/pid/topic-14020545834274290#930584

Final obsturent devoicing in languages is basically the poster child for incomplete neutralization. In every language that I know where they investigated this they found that the neutralization is incomplete and Dutch is no exception.

Of particular interest in these experiments is the noun “stad” because it's irregular with plural “steden”. The experiments actually find a complete neutralization of the final /d/ there which can't be found elsewhere. The theory to explain this is that because the noun is irregular and the only one of its kind with all forms that don't neutralize the /d/ shifting the vowel, the internal mental vocabulary allocates two separate entries to the noun which allowed the /stAd/ entry to actually shift to /stat/ while keeping the /ste:d/ as the basis of the plural form and forms such as “stedelijk” or “ter stede” to remain as such.

1

u/feindbild_ 11h ago edited 10h ago

The neutralization is at least to such a degree that before spelling was standardized (including the uniformity principle that prescribes 'hond' because of 'honden') people by and large preferred the spelling 'hont' over 'hond'.

Ah I see yeah,

There is some debate whether incomplete neutralization exists at all and what the implications are for phonological theory (see Kharlamov 2012 for a comprehensive overview of the studies on this subject and discussion of experimental settings; for studies on Dutch that did not find incomplete neutralization, see Jongman 1998; Baumann 1995). In general, the reported incomplete neutralization effects in Dutch are (extremely) small (e.g. a difference in vowel duration of 3.5 ms before voiceless and devoiced obstruents), varying between studies and task dependent.

But yes that some very minimal phonetics; and certainly for the sort-of regular phonological explanation, (and for learners) the rule to learn is just 'do terminal devoicing', which for all practical purposes means "<d#> is pronounced [t]."

There's also this, probably more salient, part: "Warner et al. (2004) also found a significant difference in vowel length: vowels preceding underlyingly voiced obstruents are longer than vowels preceding underlyingly voiceless obstruents." which may well be the queue people are actually perceiving rather than the consonantal difference.

1

u/feindbild_ 10h ago

Thinking about this more, I'm not sure how this interact with every configuration; like in <word> vs. <wordt>, we have the intervening <r> interacting with the vowel and then we have on the one hand 'devoiced d' and on the other hand 'devoiced d' plus 't'. (Although the -t ending is actually also a devoiced d--etymologically at least.)

Whereas in <gebeurd> vs. <gebeurt> we have the stem with (as it happens again an intervening <r>) but then: stem+d vs stem+t--as opposed to stem ending in d vs stem ending in d and then + t. I don't know if that might be different.

But yea I remember the explanation (of frequent spelling mistakes) being that when the forms of a word sound (let's say) 'the same' that only one of the spelling is really stored at the forefront covering both of these forms, e.g. <gebeurd> for both the -d and -t version; and that unless the writer somewhat actively thinks about what shape of the word to spell, the stored will be selected in either case. (leading to d/t/dt errors causing like 70% of native Dutch spelling mistakes). While say words like 'lach' and 'lag' or 'hard' and 'hart' are rarely confused, because these spellings belong to different lexical items.

1

u/feindbild_ 12h ago edited 11h ago

The actual reasoning goes like this, one of the principles of Dutch spelling is 'het principe van eenvormigheid' i.e. that the same element with the same meaning is spelled with the same consonant: so that because 'honden' is the plural, the singular is spelled 'hond' and not 'hont'.

From this follows that the word root stays the same:wij worden, ik word; and the endings also stay the same: e.g. the -t for the 3rd person singular: hij wordt.

https://www.vlaanderen.be/team-taaladvies/taaladviezen/gelijkvormigheid-taalkundige-term

There has been some research into this and this issue (different forms of the same word are spelling differently: word/wordt; gebeurt/gebeurd etc. causes more than half of all spelling mistakes for natives.)

1

u/Reasonable_Sample_11 12h ago

But if second and third get the -t I'm missing the logic where it's adding any clarity to the tense from the verb. In other words; it seems obundant.. In practice there would be zero confusion or conflict if we just dropped the -t and use single tense for second and third.

1

u/feindbild_ 11h ago edited 11h ago

Yes, that's correct. For example if the verb stem already ends in -t 'ik schiet' it's not 'hij schiett'; and this obviously doesn't cause any confusion either. (Here the previous rule is overwritten by another rule: 'a word cannot end in a double consonant').

But yea, the rules are consistent (it's all very predictable if you stop to think about it), but--while on paper they don't look particularly complicated--in practice this causes of lots of spelling mistakes. As I said, more than half of all spelling mistakes by natives are purely because of this, because usually, when you just write, you don't stop and think about it; and you just automatically select one of the two spellings associated with the same-sounding forms of the word--and often that is the wrong one.

There have been attempts to change this, especially in the 1970s, but ultimately nothing came of it.

1

u/Reasonable_Sample_11 12h ago

Fe if you'd read 'hij word al groot', there is zero confusion.

13

u/scarletcampion 1d ago

As a native English speaker, I can tell you that questioning the logic of Dutch orthography is wild.

Sometimes you just need to accept things "just because".

14

u/becausemommysaid 1d ago

For real, English has heaps more nonsense rules than Dutch.

(I am also a native English speaker before anyone comes at me lol)

3

u/DFS_0019287 1d ago

Languages should use consistent orhtography.

Sorry. Langwijes shood yooz consistent orthografi.

But yeah, Dutch spelling rules are way more consistent than English rules. Maybe part of the reason is that Dutch didn't undergo the great vowel shift the way English did, and other pronunciation changes that made formerly-sensible spellings (like "knight") nonsensical with modern pronunciation.

8

u/ValuableKooky4551 1d ago

Can you pronounce every word in "The Chaos"1 correctly? English speakers shouldn't throw stones.

2

u/scarletcampion 1d ago

That's my entire point.

3

u/ValuableKooky4551 1d ago

Completely misread you and wanted to post my favourite link, sorry :-)

I thought you were saying questioning it online was wild because of all the negative reactions from defensive Dutch people.

2

u/scarletcampion 1d ago

Ah no, my bad, I wasn't clear enough :) nice link though. I think I got everything but feoffer! English spelling makes very little sense, and I'm glad that I don't have to learn it as a second language.

1

u/lovelyrita_mm 1d ago

Haha I was watching a YouTube video explaining something and as for why, he said by way of explanation, “dat is het Nederlands.” 🤣 English is still worse so it’s ok.

5

u/mchp92 1d ago

This is really only about when to add a -t to verb stem or not. This is grammar, that is quite separate from pronunciation.

4

u/MrZwink 1d ago edited 1d ago

Its the standardisation that lead to dt.

Verbs that end in d conjugate the same way as other verbs and get an aditional t in 2nd and 3rd person forms.

Jij loopt

Jij wordt

Hij loopt

Hij wordt

3

u/Firespark7 Native speaker (NL) 1d ago

There are consistent rules

3

u/Secret_Blackberry559 1d ago

And for the past tense: Ik werk-ik werkTe - gewerkT Ik woon-ik woonDe- gewoonD

Reizen-reisDe-gereisD Leven -LeefDe -geleefD

That’s why. There is more logic than you think.

2

u/iFoegot Intermediate 1d ago edited 1d ago

I don’t know what you’re actually talking about, but the forms of perfect tense (voltooid tijd) actually follow a strict rule. Just look at the last letter of the third person plural form of the verb, before the -en, if it’s a silent consonant, then it’s t. If it’s a vocal consonant, then it’s d. For example:

Koken - kook - gekookt
Verven - verf - geverfd

-dt? I don’t know what is that.

And of course there’s a list of irregular verbs, just like in English, you gotta remember them. Like gaan - gegaan

1

u/Popular_Flamingo3148 1d ago

Why say many words when few do trick?

You are about to leave Redlib