# ook al



## ThomasK

Is there anyone why the (_ook) al_ subclause 'behaves' in such a strange, 'dissident' way, compared to the 'normal' subclauses in Dutch ? _[I hope this is the right place to ask the question]_

I mean: 

- xxx inversion [_Correction! Thanks, Joannes! See his illustrations below_] after _ook al_, not subject and postposition of the verb, whereas 'semantically speaking' it is a true subclause, I think

- NO inversion in the main clause when the subclause is at the front of the sentence [_do you call that 'focalisation ?]_ (or only if one adds _toch_, but then it is the _toch_ that entails the inversion)

Thanks !


----------



## Joannes

There _is_ inversion in the *(ook) al* clause, just no SOV word order:
*Ook al lijkt het onwaarschijnlijk, het is toch gebeurd.*
**Ook al het onwaarschijnlijk lijkt, is het toch gebeurd. *
*Hoewel het onwaarschijnlijk lijkt, is het toch gebeurd. *

You're right that semantically *(ook) al* is a conjunction here, whereas syntactically it behaves like an adverb.


----------



## ThomasK

Good Lord, I had written it like that but then changed it because I thought I had written a mistake. I have corrected it again in my first e-mail, but referring to yours. Thanks !

I would not have considered 'al' an adverb, but indeed that could explain the inversion. But how does it 'move' from an adverb to a conjunction? 

I also wonder : why is the 'ook' facultative? And: how could the 'al' come to refer to a contrast ? Or does it have another meaning than 'already'?


----------



## Joannes

I have no idea and I cannot look it up for the moment. But I can give you some ideas:

I think the *ook* is the same reinforcing *ook* you find in the kind of concessive clauses with *of* or a question word:
*of je ook roept en tiert, hij wordt maar niet wakker*
*hoe hard je ook schreeuwt, hij is niet wakker te krijgen*

It's probably the same *ook* in *wat dan ook* 'whatever', *hoe dan ook* 'anyhow, anyway'. You can see in the English translations that it has an irrealis touch to it.

How exactly an adverb grammaticalises into a conjunction depends, but it's certainly a common source for conjunctions.

As for the *al* part that does seem to come up quite often in clauses with concessive meanings (note the possibility of *alhoewel*); perhaps we should look for a connection to English *although*? Just speculating there.


----------



## ThomasK

Yes, yes, indeed, what you say about ook rings very true ! ;-)

_Al- :_ two interesting considerations, indeed. I checked for the meaning of al- in English, and etymonline.org refers to emphasis only. I started wondering: could the subclause have started with a kind of question? Then there is no inversion in the answer either - and in that way the semantically empty words (intensifiers ?) _ook_ and _al_ would, turn out to be less central than we thought they were: 

_Ben ik ziek? Het maakt niets uit !_ 

I wonder...


----------



## Grytolle

Joannes said:


> perhaps we should look for a connection to English *although*? Just speculating there.


al- in although makes me think of Dutch "spam als", as in "Al op een boerderij"

_albeit_ ((al) zij het), however, is definitely related


----------



## ThomasK

You do mean 'spam', do you? Semantically empty stuff? 

I checked the meaning of 'al-' and found out  it was only emphatic, though.


----------



## Grytolle

ThomasK said:


> You do mean 'spam', do you? Semantically empty stuff?


Yes, never saw any term so I invented one of my own :-D



ThomasK said:


> I checked the meaning of 'al-' and found out  it was only emphatic, though.


Well, in some cases the emphatic part has been lost ("al + present participle" often sounds better in Dutch than just "present participle"). Anyway, perhaps "ook" was added because "al" was losing its meaning (along with the loss of present conjunctive forms, which might have increased the felt need to add it)?


----------



## ThomasK

Aha, yes, not improbable in my view ! But then: how about my hypothesis that the basis was a (kind of) direct question?


----------



## Grytolle

I haven't quite understood your hypothesis, I'm afraid. Doesn't sound entirely unplausible though, especially considering how German uses "if": auch habe ich/auch wenn ich...habe (not sure if they have any cognate of "al" in use for this).


----------



## ThomasK

My suggestion was that the whole story might have started with

_Ben ik ziek? Het maakt niets uit !_ 

"Auch wenn" is a good addition, but "auch habe ich" is not a conditional to me. The "ook" reminded me of "Hoe ik ook werkte, ik ...", but strangely enough there is no inversion in the main clause and a typical SOV order in the subclause. For a second I also thought of the "al" in "al of niet"... 

The "ook" seems more important. 

Irrelevant probably, I do not know of a concessive conjunction in my dialect, only a contrastive adverb ('pertang', the French 'pourtant').


----------



## Grytolle

Ik dacht dat de dialecten ook "ook al" hadden en dat pertang gebruikt werd zoals "echter".


----------



## ThomasK

Not in mine, you know. And indeed, "pertang" is an adverb, I did not mean to suggest it was a conjunction!


----------



## Grytolle

ThomasK said:


> Not in mine, you know. And indeed, "pertang" is an adverb, I did not mean to suggest it was a conjunction!


What I meant was that "ook al ben ik" is something very different from "ik ben echter" (and thus from "Ik ben pertang(s)...")


----------



## ThomasK

I agree, but they express the same idea of an opposition, don't they ?


----------



## Grytolle

hmm, in my head they are very different things, but I have no arguments to back it up


----------



## Lopes

ThomasK, mag ik vragen welk prachtig dialect jij spreekt dat je een woord als _pertang_ gebruikt? Dat wil ik ook


----------



## ThomasK

Tja, het tussen-Schelde-en-Leie-Vlaams, met trekken uit Oost- en West-Vlaams, en natuurlijk met Franse invloed, zelfs tot in courante (zins-)adverbia. 

As for the difference between _ook al_/ _hoewel_ and _echter_: I think they're different ways of expressing some opposition, or contrast. 

Can't we have a German or Englishman telling us about the _al_- or the _auch_ ?


----------



## jacquesvd

Lopes said:


> ThomasK, mag ik vragen welk prachtig dialect jij spreekt dat je een woord als _pertang_ gebruikt? Dat wil ik ook


 
Het komt voor in het Antwerpse dialect en is een verbastering van het Franse 'pourtant'. Ik weet niet in welke andere dialecten het ook nog voorkomt. Ik hoor het echter steeds minder, net zoals andere Franse woorden zoals "tournevis" voor schroevendraaier.


----------



## Joannes

_Pertank, pertank - per tank reden ze in de oorlog._
Aldus de bomma van een vriend van mij die blijkbaar liever had dat hij *nochtans* zei. 

Over het ontstaan van concessief *al* heb ik gevonden in het WNT:


> _Al_ houdt hier het midden tusschen de eigenlijke beteekenis van _geheel_, _alles_, en de afgeleide van _reeds_ (zie bij 6). Vergelijkt men b.v. eene uitdrukking als: *bij al zijne slimheid heeft hij hier toch dom gehandeld* en fr. _tout rusé qu'il est_ met *zoo hij al slim is*, dan blijkt het, dat _al_ hier eigenlijk zegt: _dit geheel_, of _dit alles toegegeven_.


 
Er zijn hier beperkingen op citaten dus ik ga het daarbij houden maar zeker de moeite om het lemma eens te bekijken: bijwoord *al* (dat is III), betekenis numero 11.
http://gtb.inl.nl/


----------

