# ik betwijfel



## DearPrudence

Goedemiddag 

Ik probeer Dutch te leren en ik lees dome dingen  
Anway, ik heb dit gezien:
_context: I will find another gardener.
- Met zo'n salaris. _*Dat betwijfel ik.*

Ik zie dat dit de correcte vorm is maar ik begrijp niet waarom het "*betwijfel*" is en niet "*betwijfeel*".
Ik dacht dat 
vowel - consonant - vowel -> long vowel
double vowel - consonant - nothing -> to keep the long vowel
like: _proberen -> ik probeer_

So, why isn't it the same here? I must have missed something here 
Any explanations welcome (rather in English please ) 

Bedankt


----------



## CapnPrep

This is an exception to the spelling rule. When a verb ends in -_elen_, -_enen_, or -_eren_, the first "e" is actually short (very often but not always). For example: _wisselen_, _tekenen_, _schilderen_ — and _betwijfelen_. 

Unfortunately sometimes the "e" really is long: _vervelen_, _proberen_. You can't tell from the spelling, but only from the pronunciation (i.e., which syllable is stressed: _betw*ij*felen_ vs. _prob*e*ren_).


----------



## DearPrudence

Ah, OK, great, thanks!  

And none of the dictionaries I found include the pronounciation: how great!


----------



## CapnPrep

DearPrudence said:


> And none of the dictionaries I found include the pronounciation: how great!


The on-line Van Dale indicates the stressed syllable, and also gives some conjugated forms for each verb, from which you can work out the rest of the paradigm.


----------



## Frank06

Hoi,



DearPrudence said:


> "*betwijfel*" is en niet "*betwijfeel*".
> Ik dacht dat
> vowel - consonant - vowel -> long vowel
> double vowel - consonant - nothing -> to keep the long vowel
> like: _proberen -> ik probeer_
> 
> So, why isn't it the same here? I must have missed something here
> Any explanations welcome (rather in English please )


 
I'm sure you know that the problem lies in the grapheme <e>, which can represent *three* distinct sounds: ('short') ɛ, ('long') e: and ə.

The underlined vowel in _betwijf*e*l_ is a sjwa and not a short [e], while in _prob*e*ren_ the <e> is long. And no, there is no way of finding that out, though a dictionary (with accent marks) might help a bit, as CapnPrep indicated.

Let's assume you don't know the words _prob*e*ren_, _luist*e*ren_, _kind*e*ren_, _verk*e*ren_, _bek*e*ren__..._ there is no way to find out how to pronounce the <e>'s. 
Idem dito for _b*e*vel_ and _B*e*vel_, by the way.

When a letter (or combination of letters) have to do with the representation of a shwa, you have 'problems'.



DearPrudence said:


> And none of the dictionaries I found include the pronounciation: how great!


Nope, we don't do pronunciation ;-).

I can't imagine lexicographers of Van Dale making a dictionary with the accepted standard pronunciations in both the Netherlands and Flanders. Neither do I think that a dictionary with only let's say the 'Netherlandic' pronunciation would sell well in Flanders, or vice versa.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Joannes

Goeiemiddag, DP. Ik ga het toch in het Nederlands zeggen maar je zal het verstaan . Dit is een link naar een on-line uitspraakwoordenboek.

(btw, it's <domme dingen>, for the reason you explained)


----------



## DearPrudence

Thank you, Frank & Joannes 


Joannes said:


> (btw, it's <domme dingen>, for the reason you explained)


Argh, stupid me!   

And thanks for the link  I know I will never manage to pronounce one word right but, anyway, that's nice 

(& yes, I understood the Dutch part, thanks )


----------

