# zag je / heb je gezien



## bendyorke

Hello!

I recently decided to learn dutch, and have been chugging my way through online resources.  One thing I found interesting was the inversion of the subject and verb - if it's in the beginning of a sentence, it indicates a question, otherwise it is indicative of nothing.  For example:

Ga je vantaag naar de dierentuin?
_Are you going to the zoo today?_
Vantaag ga je naar de dierentuin.
_You are going to the zoo today.
_
This much I understand, but I was talking with a dutch person about it, and the subject of past tense came up.  Given the two sentences:

Heb je alle dieren in de dierentuin gezien?
Zag je alle dieren in de dierentuin?
_Did you see all the animals in the zoo?
_
He said that, while both are technically correct, one would not normally use the simple past (the latter) in a question.  Is this typical in Dutch?  Is it always strange to use the simple past in a question?  Or is there perhaps a grammatical 'rule' related to this that I can not find?  Or perhaps it's just a regional thing and I should not worry about it 

If anyone has any light to shed on this, I'm very intrigued (and a bit confused!)


----------



## Peterdg

Hello, and welcome to the forums.

This is a very difficult question and it is even more difficult to give an answer.

First of all, just so that we understand each other: I'm using the following terminology: _Ik zag_ = imperfect; _ik heb gezien_ = perfect

Second: do not compare the usage f both tenses between  English and Dutch. 

Third: there is nothing that says that you cannot use the imperfect in questions. However, it depends on the circumstances.

The ANS (Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst) says that, at the moment, it is not possible to give an exact and precise usage guide for the perfect and the imperfect because the difference is sometimes very subtle and all uses are not acceptable by all speakers (meaning it is not clear to them either).

Anyway, it's complex, way too complex to be able to handle it here. But, what concerns your example of the zoo, the more common option would indeeed be the perfect.


----------



## vanves

If I can react on this accoring to my intuition, I would explain it as follows (nonwithstanding the observations from Peterdg above).

(1) Heb je alle dieren in de dierentuin gezien?
(2) Zag je alle dieren in de dierentuin?

For me, sentence (1) is there to ask for a kind of resume of the zoo trip; the trip is over now, and someone asks what you have seen in the zoo. On the contrary, (2) is not adequate for that purpose, and I would not know any context where I would use that sentence.

However, it is very well possible to say

(3) Zag je die dieren?
(4) Zag je die aap daar?
et cetera

but then it is rather an inquiry about the moment itself. It is used to verify if the other person has seen (saw?) that particular animal. Maybe it is used then as an introduction to a possible further exhange of information about that animal: _Zag je die aap? - Ja! - Hij was lief, hè? - Nou, ik weet het niet... (Did you see that monkey? - Yeah, I did. - He was cute, wasn't he? - Well, I don't know...)
_
On the other hand, now that I am typing all this, I realise that there are also other cases that can be mentioned. For example:

(5) Ben je gisteren ook op het feest van Henk geweest? (Were you also at Henk's party yesterday?)
(6) Was je gisteren ook op het feest van Henk? (idem)

It seems to me that sentence (5) is there to check a fact (Were you there, yes or no?), whereas (6) could be asked in order to start an exchange of information about the party. So, the person asking question (6) was probably there himself/herself, and wants to check of his/her interlocutor was there also - but then with the aim to discuss how the party was. So there it is much more than just fact checking.

This is an interesting question indeed, and I don't know if my answer is complete - but this is what I would suggest (at least here in Holland - it may very well be different in Belgium!).


----------



## bendyorke

@Peterdg - I would never try to compare the two to English!   I understand that the line might be quite fuzzy between the two, but it's quite a surprise that the ANS is so vague as well! haha

@vanves - That is very helpful!  I'm sure I'll grasp more as I learn Dutch but that at least makes some sense for now so I can put my mind at ease.  Thanks!


----------



## MScaf

I am afraid that the two things, zag je / heb je gezien are not exactly distinguishing between perfect and imperfect like in romance languages. "Zag" is allso used for remote past, as in past that has no connnection to present
"De trein vertrok om 11 uur" is correct and normal dutch, but is a concluded action.


----------



## luitzen

Heb je alle dieren in de dierentuin gezien?
This is an inquiry about your trip. Even if you answer yes, it doesn't mean you saw every single animal, just that you liked your trip and you're happy with how many animals you saw. You might also answer that you did not have enough time to see them all or that you skipped some.

Zag je alle dieren in de dierentuin?
Especially with extra stress on álle, this would indicate some shock that you saw every single animal in de zoo (maybe, somehow, even at the same time).


----------



## bibibiben

bendyorke said:


> Heb je alle dieren in de dierentuin gezien?
> Zag je alle dieren in de dierentuin?
> _Did you see all the animals in the zoo?
> _
> He said that, while both are technically correct, one would not normally use the simple past (the latter) in a question.



Your friend is right. Both tenses can be used, but context will determine which one will sound more natural. Without any back-story or further context the _perfectum_ or _vtt_ (≈ present perfect) will sound the most natural:

A: Ik ben naar de dierentuin gegaan.
B: Heb je daar alle dieren gezien?

B's question is focused on the end result. What did A gain from this visit that B thinks matters (to B and/or A) in the here and now? When you're simply collecting information, this is a neutral approach.

Using the _imperfectum_ or _ovt_ (≈ simple past/preterit) can make sense as well, but we need more context to figure out why it's being used:

A: Ik ben naar de dierentuin gegaan.
B: Zag je daar alle dieren?

B's question is now aimed to bringing A back in the past and relive it. This is not something the average questioner would normally do. What reason could B have to do so? Well, maybe B wanted A to check (by making A relive the past) whether A did see all the animals, because this was A's intention. Or because B had heard that some parts of the zoo were temporarily inaccessible. Or because whatever other reason.

As a rule of thumb:
_Imperfectum_ or _ovt_ (≈ simple past/preterit): the past is still being lived in.
_Perfectum_ or _vtt_ (≈ present perfect): the past is looked back upon.

In her thesis, Christa Bouwmans neatly summarized it as follows: the _imperfectum _elicits the question _*what (happened) next*_?, while the _perfectum_ elicits the question *what (does it mean to us) now*?


A rather interesting analysis of the Dutch tenses (in English) can be found here:
https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/2395/302_019.pdf?sequence=1


----------



## matakoweg

Het verschil tussen OVT en VTT is inderdaad moeilijk goed onder woorden te brengen.
zo hoorde ik laatst iemand zeggen:

(1) Om vier uur regende het al. [de regen was pas voor vijf uur voorspeld]

gebruik van de VTT klinkt hier enigszins vreemd:

(2) Om vier uur heeft het al geregend.

Bovendien betekent zin 2 dat het om vier uur niet meer regende, maar alleen daarvoor.

Hoe moeten we dit nu zien in het 'the past is still being lived in' or 'the past is looked back upon'?


----------



## bibibiben

matakoweg said:


> (2) gebruik van de VTT klinkt hier enigszins vreemd:
> Om vier uur heeft het al geregend.



Gebruik van het perfectum klinkt inderdaad vreemd, omdat je in deze zin het plusquamperfectum of vvt zou verwachten:

 Om vier uur had het al geregend.

Wie in een zin een dergelijk precies tijdstip vermeldt, doet kennelijk zijn uiting op een later tijdstip (zelfs al is dat maar een minuut later). Ook voor het plusquamperfectum geldt: je kijkt op een voltooid/afgerond verleden (hier: het einde van de regenbui) terug. Echter, niet zoals het perfectum vanuit het heden, maar vanuit een punt in het verleden, hoe recent ook.




matakoweg said:


> (1) Om vier uur regende het al.



Dit is een gevalletje 'the past is still being lived in'. Wie dit zegt, zit dus ook nog midden in de regen (tenzij uit navolgende uitingen alsnog blijkt dat het regenen ergens na vieren gestopt is, uiteraard).


----------

