# of er aan komt / eraan komt / er aankomt (word order)



## Dalieux

Je moet uitkijken of de vijand er *aan* komt.
Je moet uitkijken of de vijand *eraan* komt.
Je moet uitkijken of de vijand er *aankomt.*


----------



## Peterdg

Ik ben niet zeker, maar dit is zoals ik het zie:

Ik denk dat zin 2 de juiste is: "Je moet uitkijken of de vijand *eraan* komt".

Zin 3 zou ook kunnen, maar het betekent dan volgens mij iets anders: hier zou "aankomen" betekenen "betasten".


----------



## Dalieux

What a surprising meaning... betasten as in "groping" someone?

Anyway, the intended meaning should be "approaching". I've seen the first option (er aan komt) in a sprookje book, but I couldn't be sure whether it was correct or it was a typo.

My rationale was: if it's part of the verb aankomen (which I usually interpret as "arrive"), then it should be connected to the verb in the end. However, if it's just a construction with the verb komen + the preposition aan, then it should be connected to the er. So maybe my book is indeed... wrong? 

Unless there's a way to use er + a preposition without these two being necessarily connected. Do you recall if such a thing is possible at all?


----------



## Red Arrow

Nergens aankomen! = Don't touch my stuff!
You can touch a person but also their physical belongings.

I agree with Peterdg. 2 and 3 are correct, but have different meanings.


----------



## Peterdg

Dalieux said:


> betasten as in "groping" someone?


Perhaps "aanraken" would have been a better synonym.


----------



## ThomasK

Dalieux said:


> Je moet uitkijken of de vijand er *aan* komt.
> Je moet uitkijken of de vijand *eraan* komt.
> Je moet uitkijken of de vijand er *aankomt.*


 This is a tricky one. It does not look like a variant of "Hij komt aan" but as an idiomatic expression meaning "He is coming"' and consisting of two parts (_eraan _+ _komen_).   I happened to find an excellent explanation by means of some parallel structures here, such as "eraan moeten geloven", "eraan gaan", etc. Have a look!


----------



## Dalieux

ThomasK said:


> This is a tricky one. It does not look like a variant of "Hij komt aan" but as an idiomatic expression meaning "He is coming"' and consisting of two parts (_eraan _+ _komen_).   I happened to find an excellent explanation by means of some parallel structures here, such as "eraan moeten geloven", "eraan gaan", etc. Have a look!



This is a very thorough and clear explanation, thanks a lot! 

BUT

I still wonder if my book is grammatically wrong because the way they use "er aan komt" does not fit the criteria described in the link for writing them separately. Or does it? take a look (yes, it's from the steadfast tin soldier)


----------



## ThomasK

It is wrong, simply. 

But this is one of the more difficult aspects of spelling. As in: "Het hangt er vanaf" as is sometime written because we have a preposition written as "vanaf", but here it should be: "Het hangt ervan af" [It -pends it-from de-]... "Af" is a particle, depending on "hangen".


----------



## Dalieux

I see it!

I assume mixing up particles and prepositions in general must be a common spelling mistake even for natives.


----------



## ThomasK

It is. Whenever two different spellings exist, mistakes are made, and of course, even more so when a/the rule does not seem too clear...


----------



## Red Arrow

I might be wrong, but I think you usually write "er" and the next preposition together as one word. The verb aankomen (touching) is more of an exception, I think?


----------



## Dalieux

Red Arrow said:


> The verb aankomen (touching) is more of an exception, I think?



Isn't it the case for any scheidbaar werkwoord?


----------



## ThomasK

"Aankomen" is not an exception, it is a separable verb: the "aan" is, as far as I know, considered to be a particle ("non-verbal rest" with us)... 

Not impossible though that the preposition developed ('grammaticalised) into  a separate word category after fusion with the verb...


----------



## Red Arrow

You guys seem to be right. Does this mean sentence 2 is an exception? "Aankomen" (to arrive) is also a separable verb. Or is there some second rule?


----------



## Dalieux

According to the link ThomasK shared, 3 is the general rule, 2 is an exception with a special meaning and 1 (the version actually printed on the book) is in reality ungrammatical. So 2 and 3 could be right.

However, in 3 you guys seem to be getting a stronger idea of "touching" rather than of "arriving" with _aankomen_, which begs the question: I see you guys are all from Belgium and this is a book from the Netherlands, so maybe the sense of "touching" could be more of a flemish thing? Any thoughts?


----------



## ThomasK

Well, as for 2: I do *not *dare to consider that use of "aankomen" *lexically correct;* I think  this touching is indeed rather Flemish. 

But it is not an exception! If "[aan]*komen* (.../*aan*)" is acceptable,  "eraan komen"'is perfect according to the rule applicable to  V + fixed preposition.  
More examples: 
      - ik zit op een stoel >>> ik zit erop
      - ik werk aan een computer >>> ik werk eraan
      - ik speel met een bal >>> ik speel ermee
In the above cases the noun in the  prepositional object is replaced by  a pronoun, and then you always get verb + _er_PREP (_= lit. there/it_-on/to,),. 

But that is another rule/ logic than the one referred to in my link in message #6. 

#1 is simply wrong and #3 might be acceptable in the meaning of "arriving there", but I would have expectd "daar" rather.


----------



## ThomasK

Dalieux said:


> According to the link ThomasK shared, 3 is the general rule, 2 is an exception with a special meaning and 1 (the version actually printed on the book) is in reality ungrammatical. So 2 and 3 could be right.


 I beg to disagree. #3 can only be justified if referring to "arriving at a place (there)". It is the normal form if 'aankomen" is a separable verb meaning arriving. 
#2 can be justified in two ways: _eraan_ as an idiomatic part added to more verbs or _eraan _als a prep. object added to a verbing meaning touching. 
#1 is wrong. I think you can never keep the final three words separate. I believe.


----------



## Peterdg

ThomasK said:


> I think this touching is indeed rather Flemish.


Van dale mentions for "aankomen": *8* _aanraken, betasten _without any label referring to Belgian Dutch.


----------



## matakoweg

Aankomen in the meaning aanraken is normal in Netherlands Dutch.


----------



## ThomasK

Please forgive me for my suspicion!


----------



## Gerrit k. Raak

Red Arrow said:


> Nergens aankomen! = Don't touch my stuff!
> You can touch a person but also their physical belongings.
> 
> I agree with Peterdg. 2 and 3 are correct, but have different meanings.


Nergens aankomen! =Don't touch anything 
Nergens is used as a reference to anything in this case. While it's also used as nowhere in different situations. And aankomen =to touch


----------

