# dat kan er ook nog wel bij



## brilliantpink

Written by someone worried about some serious problems he is facing: "Maar ja, dat kan er ook nog wel bij..." 
I have no idea what this means - Dutch idioms are very mysterious!


----------



## ThomasK

brilliantpink said:


> Written by someone worried about some serious problems he is facing: "Maar ja, dat kan er ook nog wel bij..."
> I have no idea what this means - Dutch idioms are very mysterious!


Well, start with 'bij', which is something like 'extra' - or 'to' here as well (but it can also refer to updating). 

And then remember that we can drop verbs after certain prefixes, as in: W_e moeten weg(gaan), Het moet op(gegeten worden), ... _Here you can imagine:_ bijvoegen;_ so _bijgevoegd worden. So: dit kan er ook nog bijgevoegd worden. Or: you can add this to the rest. 

_Understand: well (ironically) I can take this as well after all that trouble.


----------



## brilliantpink

Thank you for that, ThomasK. Now that I see the whole explanation, it makes sense. But how is a non-Dutch person to know that the missing piece of the puzzle is that _bij _stands for _bijgevoegd worden_?  
So another translation might be "Well, it's just one more problem.. " [i.e. to add to the ones I already have]?


----------



## Peterdg

brilliantpink said:


> T But how is a non-Dutch person to know that the missing piece of the puzzle is that _bij _stands for _bijgevoegd worden_?


First, there is no way to know, except knowing it. It's like "phrasal verbs" in English: you just have to know what they mean.

Second: Thomas' explanation is perhaps a useful hint but in this case, "bij" is just and adverb and there is not necessarily a verb missing. By the way, "bij" is one of those Dutch words that has a zillion meanings: I just checked for fun in the van Dale dictionary: it mentions 26 different meanings for "bij".


> So another translation might be "Well, it's just one more problem.. " [i.e. to add to the ones I already have]?


Yes, but it's a little more sarcastic.


----------



## marrish

(bij)gevoegd or (bij)genomen? In my rendering in English it would mean "But, after all, one more doesn't make a difference".


----------



## Peterdg

marrish said:


> (bij)gevoegd or (bij)genomen? In my rendering in English it would mean "But, after all, one more doesn't make a difference".


Well, it's also more sarcastic than that.

In English, it would be something like: "Well, yes, why not just add it to the bunch; as if I didn't have enough of it yet!"


----------



## ThomasK

Peterdg said:


> First, there is no way to know, except knowing it. It's like "phrasal verbs" in English: you just have to know what they mean.
> 
> Second: Thomas' explanation is perhaps a useful hint but in this case, "bij" is just and adverb and there is not necessarily a verb missing. By the way, "bij" is one of those Dutch words that has a zillion meanings: I just checked for fun in the van Dale dictionary: it mentions 26 different meanings for "bij".
> Yes, but it's a little more sarcastic.


One consideration with regard to the "zillion" meanings of 'bij': I don't mind Van Dale mentioning 26 "different" meanings, but I think those are not necessary for learners to
 know. I personally prefer to reduce meanings to basic meanings (and some derived meanings), which generally helps to understand. But of course those are too general, too broad, I agree., but... they're useful. ;-)

 But you're right that the verb has not really been omitted. I have come to realize that prepositions and especially (detached/ separated) prefixes are often key aspects of the meaning of a sentence. (If one doesn't use the right prosody in a sentence containing one of those separated prefixes, it is often difficult to understand to us. ) Seen from that perspective the verb itself is often of minor importance. Compare _to enter _with _binnen-komen, binnen-lopen, in-treden, ... _The main meaning is in the _binnen/ in, _the verb hardly matters, just adds a little bit of colour. (Therefore Germanic languages are called 'satellite languages', I believe...)

Not that sure by the way that is just an adverb: the 'er' refers to 'bij', so I think it is a preposition rather.


----------



## Suehil

"That's all I need!"  would have the same level of sarcasm in English.


----------



## brilliantpink

Many thanks for all your illuminating explanations, comments and translations.


----------



## bibibiben

Peterdg said:


> Second: Thomas' explanation is perhaps a useful  hint but in this case, "bij" is just and adverb and there is not  necessarily a verb missing.



Yet the main verb is elided in the expression _dat kan er ook nog wel bij_. The elided main verb is not felt as missing as _dat kan er ook nog wel bij_ came  to be used figuratively with the main verb elided. Adding the main verb  kills the expression (although some speakers will disagree) and leaves  you with just the literal meaning:

Dat kan er ook nog wel bij:  1. (fig.) That's all I need!   2. That can be added as well.
Dat kan er ook nog wel bij komen:  1. (fig.) That's all I need!   2. That can be added as well.

Another example:

Ik kan er niet bij:  1. (fig.) It's beyond me.    2. I can't reach it.
Ik kan er niet bij komen:  1. (fig.) It's beyond me.    2. I can't reach it.

Some  more examples of auxiliary verbs used without infinitives:  http://ans.ruhosting.nl/e-ans/18/05/04/04/04/body.html (Dutch).  

A  document analyzing the tendency in modern Dutch to let auxiliaries stand  on their own:  http://www.verslagenenmededelingen.be/index.php/VM/article/view/14/16  (Dutch).


----------



## Peterdg

bibibiben said:


> Yet the main verb is elided in the expression _dat kan er ook nog wel bij_. The elided main verb is not felt as missing as _dat kan er ook nog wel bij_ came  to be used figuratively with the main verb elided. Adding the main verb  kills the expression (although some speakers will disagree) and leaves  you with just the literal meaning:


I agree that you can add a verb, but I wouldn't know why it would necessarily be so that a verb was elided. Perhaps it evolved like this etymologically but I don't feel any need to think of  or presupose an elided verb.

Van Dale gives the following example for "bij" as an adverb: "Het derde deel is er niet bij".


----------



## ThomasK

I'd agree that _daarbij/ hierbij _are adverbs, maybe _erbij, _as well, but oh, yes, maybe they view 'er' as locative (like 'daar'), but I'd analyse 'er' and 'bij' as belonging together...


----------



## bibibiben

Peterdg said:


> I agree that you can add a verb, but I wouldn't know why it would necessarily be so that a verb was elided. Perhaps it evolved like this etymologically but I don't feel any need to think of  or presupose an elided verb.
> 
> Van Dale gives the following example for "bij" as an adverb: "Het derde deel is er niet bij".



Van Dale's example is unrelated. The sentence doesn't contain an auxiliary verb. Please read the links I provided.


----------



## Peterdg

bibibiben said:


> Van Dale's example is unrelated. The sentence doesn't contain an auxiliary verb. Please read the links I provided.


I looked at them (the second one was much too long to read for the moment). From what I read, it indeed describes the diachronic evolution of the phenomenon. The only conclusion that I can draw from what I read is that in Dutch you can easily use modal verbs "kunnen", "mogen" and "moeten" as independent verbs, which apparently is not possible in English (although, think of Obama's, "yes, we can") and only possible in German to a lesser extent. So, as I said, it's possible that the omitted verb is an etymological evolution and in many cases *it is possible* to add a verb but in my opinion that does not mean to any extent that the speaker/reader thinks of an additional verb. Let's just accept that it is just a construction that is possible and common in Dutch. The fact that it is more difficult to be used in other languages is no argument at all to draw the conclusion that in Dutch there must necessarily be an elided verb.

My remark about the adverb and van Dale was intended to be a response to Thomas' remark.


----------



## bibibiben

Peterdg said:


> The only conclusion that I can draw from what I read is that in Dutch you can easily use modal verbs "kunnen", "mogen" and "moeten" as independent verbs, which apparently is not possible in English (although, think of Obama's, "yes, we can")


There are numerous ellipsis mechanisms. _Yes, we can_ is an example of VP-ellipsis. This type of ellipsis is not related to the issue at hand, re-autonomization in Dutch modal auxiliary verbs causing ellipsis of the main verb.



Peterdg said:


> The fact that it is more difficult to be used in other languages is no argument at all to draw the conclusion that in Dutch there must necessarily be an elided verb.


I don’t know who follows this line of reasoning, but it can’t be a linguist.



Peterdg said:


> So, as I said, it's possible that the omitted verb is an etymological evolution and in many cases *it is possible* to add a verb but in my opinion that does not mean to any extent that the speaker/reader thinks of an additional verb.


Exactly. The process of re-autonomization reaches in some cases a stage whereby the modal auxiliary verb, acting as a main verb, is reluctant to accept the presence of another main verb in the same clause. Examples can be found in the first link I mentioned in my previous post: http://ans.ruhosting.nl/e-ans/18/05/04/04/04/body.html.



Peterdg said:


> Let's just accept that it is just a construction that is possible and common in Dutch.


Don’t count me in. I’d rather not discourage language learners from being curious. If you want to dig deeper, just do it.


----------



## Peterdg

bibibiben said:


> I don’t know who follows this line of reasoning, but it can’t be a linguist.


 I do, and right, I'm not a linguist. I'm a mathematician.



> Don’t count me in. I’d rather not discourage language learners from being curious. If you want to dig deeper, just do it.


I totally agree. I also want to encourage anyone who wants to dig deeper but the thing is I don't agree with the theory behind it. There is no reason whatsoever to deny an independent meaning to a verb that can also be used as a modal verb. If you compare the following two sentences: "dat kan er in (erin ¿?)" and "dat past er in (erin ¿?)", there is no reason whatsoever to apply some different theory to sentence 1 or 2 just because the verb in sentence 1 can also be used as a modal verb and that modal verbs in other languages usually don't have that possibility. There is nobody in the world (at least, I hope so) that will claim that in sentence 2 a verb is elided.

I know, I'm impossible to argue with.

EDIT: Of course, the history of how it came to be like it is now, is interesting to know and can, in some cases, help to explain the thing to language learners just so they are able to make a connection to their own language structures. But, in my opinion, it is equally important to realize that, from a theoretical point of view, there is no need for this ellipsis theory other than wanting to compare it with other languages.

If I can make an analogy: if you tell a native speaker of Spanish that in Dutch the subjunctive does not exist (well, at least not to the extent as it exists in Spanish), they don't understand how a language can function without it. That doesn't mean that Dutch grammar theory should be built in terms of a language that does know the subjunctive. But that's exactly what this "ellipsis" theory does.

EDIT2: Just to set things straight: this is my personal opinion. This is not based on any linguistic theory or so; it's just the way I see things.


----------



## bibibiben

Peterdg said:


> I do, and right, I'm not a linguist. I'm a mathematician.


I don’t understand this comment. It’s obvious that the line of reasoning I quoted cannot be yours, as you reject it. But whose is it?



Peterdg said:


> [...]there is no reason whatsoever to apply some different theory to sentence 1 or 2 just because the verb in sentence 1 can also be used as a modal verb and that modal verbs in other languages usually don't have that possibility.


Do you actually know a linguistic researcher who made such a statement? More importantly, don’t you think it’s possible to detect developments in a language by diachronic study? Which is what prof. Jan Nuyts does, the one who wrote the paper I mentioned in a previous post. If you have the time, you may be interested in reading this paper written by him and Gert van Ostaeyen: http://uahost.uantwerpen.be/apil/apil109/APIL109.pdf. Title: De diachronie van kunnen.




Peterdg said:


> But, in my opinion, it is equally important to realize that, from a theoretical point of view, there is no need for this ellipsis theory other than wanting to compare it with other languages.


Doesn’t that sound like a simplistic conclusion to you? Without studying the vast literature about ellipsis mechanisms you already seem to know that “there is no need for this ellipsis theory other than wanting to compare it with other languages.” That’s stiff.


----------



## Peterdg

bibibiben said:


> I don’t understand this comment. It’s obvious that the line of reasoning I quoted cannot be yours, as you reject it. But whose is it?


Here, you lost me completely.


> Do you actually know a linguistic researcher who made such a statement?


No. Is this relevant to be able to utter my own opinion?


> More importantly, don’t you think it’s possible to detect developments in a language by diachronic study? Which is what prof. Jan Nuyts does, the one who wrote the paper I mentioned in a previous post. If you have the time, you may be interested in reading this paper written by him and Gert van Ostaeyen: http://uahost.uantwerpen.be/apil/apil109/APIL109.pdf. Title: De diachronie van kunnen.


Diachronic study is diachronic study. Is it interesting? Yes! Is it relevant to the current usage of the language or in the description of the grammar of the current use of the language? In my opinion, in this case, no.


> Doesn’t that sound like a simplistic conclusion to you? Without studying the vast literature about ellipsis mechanisms you already seem to know that “there is no need for this ellipsis theory other than wanting to compare it with other languages.” That’s stiff.


Perhaps simple, yes. But is it wrong because it is simple? In my view, when you explain the grammar of a language, you have to explain it in terms of what the language is now and not in terms of how it used to be and how it changed over time. I see the disastrous effects of doing it otherwise daily in the Spanish forums.


----------



## bibibiben

Peterdg said:


> Here, you lost me completely.


Okay, I’ll just repeat the whole thing for clarity’s sake. This is what you said:

“The fact that it is more difficult to be used in other languages is no argument at all to draw the conclusion that in Dutch there must necessarily be an elided verb.”

Question: Who would ever put this forward as an argument? It isn’t you, it isn’t me, but who is it?

This may seem a trivial detail, but it’s not, since you made it an essential element in your argumentation.



Peterdg said:


> No. Is this relevant to be able to utter my own opinion?


Don't worry, when it comes to opinions, anything goes. Whether people support the eradication of mankind, advocate the free distribution of five SUVs per household or state that cats should run this world, it's all good. If that's how you feel about it, then that's how you feel about it. When exchanging mere opinions, it’s also possible to end a conversation simply by saying that you were just giving an opinion and that you’re entitled to do so.

The thing is, we weren’t just exchanging opinions, but exchanging arguments and counterarguments in order to back up an opinion. It’s no longer “anything goes” when you’ve entered this stage. Backing your way out of a discussion by saying that it was just an opinion is no longer an option either. When I asked you if you actually know a linguistic researcher who supports this particular ellipsis phenomenon solely by relying on comparing Dutch with other languages, it’s because the argument you used is based on this assumption. Since you acknowledged that you don’t know such a person,  you’ve weakened, if not destroyed, your own argument considerably.



Peterdg said:


> Diachronic study is diachronic study. Is it interesting? Yes! Is it relevant to the current usage of the language or in the description of the grammar of the current use of the language?  In my opinion, in this case, no.


Aren’t you changing the subject now? This wasn’t my point at all. There are different ways of teaching a language, there are different ways of learning a language. I normally stay away from discussions as to which method is best and will most certainly never start one. It rarely leads anywhere. Let language learners decide for themselves what works best for them. I’m okay with any choice they make.

When I mentioned detecting developments in a language by diachronic study, it should have been clear that my aim was to point out to you that the ellipsis phenomenon at hand _can be studied intralingually_ (which is not to say that cross-lingual comparisons are flawed by definition).



Peterdg said:


> Perhaps simple, yes. But is it wrong because it is simple? In my view, when you explain the grammar of a language, you have to explain it in terms of what the language is now and not in terms of how it used to be and how it changed over time. I see the disastrous effects of doing it otherwise daily in the Spanish forums.


Let me emphasize again that I'm not interested in discussions about teaching methods. Teach a language any way you want to.  I’m fine with it.

My remark was aimed at this statement: “There is no need for this ellipsis theory other than wanting to compare it with other languages.” This conclusion may sound endearingly simple, but is not based on anything substantial.


----------



## cholandesa

my my... shall we just say: "when it rains, it pours!"


----------



## ThomasK

I think we ought to stick to the example sentence, and focus on how we can help learners to understand (and use) these 'erbij kunnen' structures. 

I think the diachronic background helps to understand, that's all. But this kind of discussions might be interesting at the EHL section: how useful is it to refer to language evolution (and etymology) when teaching a language?


----------



## eno2

If you have an unexpected child coming, in Flanders they say: "Er kan er altijd nog wel eentje BIJ"

No verb elided here I suppose.


----------



## bibibiben

eno2 said:


> If you have an unexpected child coming, in Flanders they say: "Er kan er altijd nog wel eentje BIJ"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No verb elided here I suppose.


 
The missing main verb, _komen_,  is implied.  Quote from http://www.verslagenenmededelingen.be/index.php/VM/article/view/14/16 (p.162):

“Soms is het helemaal evident dat we te maken hebben met een hulpwerkwoordelijk gebruik waarbij het hoofdwerkwoord elliptisch is weggelaten, en wel omdat dat hoofdwerkwoord expliciet genoemd is in de voorafgaande context. (2) is daar een (HnlSpr) voorbeeld van: het weggelaten hoofdwerkwoord (_in de tuin_) _werken _is twee zinnen vroeger al expliciet vermeld.8

(2) weet je waar da’k zin in heb in de tuin te werken. maar ja ’k heb geen gerief dus ’k _kan _niet

Zulke onbetwistbare gevallen vormen echter slechts een heel kleine minderheid van de categorie ‘hulp zonder hoofd’ in de tabellen.

Ook geklasseerd als ‘hulp zonder hoofd’, maar heel wat minder vanzelfsprekend, zijn gevallen waarin het hoofdwerkwoord niet genoemd is in de context, maar min of meer duidelijk geïmpliceerd is. De overgrote meerderheid van de treffers in deze categorie zijn van dit type. In (3) en (4), b.v., is het vrij duidelijk dat het hoofdwerkwoord _gaan _geïmpliceerd is ((4) gaat over een persoon die in het ziekenhuis ligt), en in (5) kan men zich (weliswaar iets meer geforceerd) een hoofdwerkwoord zoals _komen _of (passief) _gedaan worden _voorstellen – maar geen van deze werkwoorden is in de voorafgaande context genoemd. ((3) komt uit HnlSchr, (4) en (5) uit HnlSpr.)

(3) Spelers _kunnen _enkel weg als de betrokken clubs akkoord gaan over de
transfersom
(4) en dan _mag _ie misschien naar huis?
(5) er _moet _ook nog een cadeautje bij tuurlijk

Opmerkelijk is wel dat de meeste gevallen van dit type (sommige, zoals (5), nog meer dan andere, zoals (3) en (4)) veel natuurlijker klinken als dat hoofdwerkwoord in de zin achterwege blijft, en wat vreemd aandoen als het geëxpliciteerd wordt (zoals ook opgemerkt in Haeseryn _et al_., 1997, p. 1005, 1007). De meeste sprekers zullen dergelijke uitingen typisch zonder het hoofdwerkwoord gebruiken.”

Example (5), “Er moet nog een cadeautje bij”, has a similar structure as “Er kan nog een cadeautje bij”. Not specifying what is to be added, i.e. leaving out _cadeautje_, will produce “er kan er nog een bij”, which is essentially your sentence.


----------



## YellowOnline

bibibiben said:


> The missing main verb, _komen_,  is implied.  Quote from http://www.verslagenenmededelingen.be/index.php/VM/article/view/14/16 (p.162):
> 
> [...]



Om het leven van andere lezers gemakkelijker te maken: samengevat is _HnlSchr_ schrijftaal en _HnlSpr_ spreektaal (zie desgewenst bron voor de exacte betekenis).


----------



## eno2

Sorry, maar "er kan er altijd nog wel eentje bij" (=> verwelkoming, aanvaarding) heeft een andere betekenis dan "er kan er altijd nog wel eentje bij komen"(=>bijvoorbeeld per gevreesd ongelukje)


----------



## bibibiben

eno2 said:


> Sorry, maar "er kan er altijd nog wel eentje bij" (=> verwelkoming, aanvaarding) heeft een andere betekenis dan "er kan er altijd nog wel eentje bij komen"(=>bijvoorbeeld per gevreesd ongelukje)


Zowel 'er kan er altijd nog eentje bij' als 'er kan er altijd nog wel eentje bij komen' kan een dynamische modaliteit uitdrukken, waarbij het draait om mogelijkheid of potentie:

Er kan er altijd nog wel eentje bij ≈ Er mag er altijd nog wel eentje bij.
Er kan er altijd nog wel eentje bij komen ≈ Er mag er altijd nog wel eentje bij komen.

Beide varianten kunnen ook een epistemische modaliteit uitdrukken, waarbij het draait om het karakteriseren van een kans:

Er kan er altijd nog wel eentje bij ≈ Er zou er altijd nog wel eentje bij kunnen (= er is een kans dat dit lukt).
Er kan er altijd nog wel eentje bij komen ≈ Er zou er altijd nog wel eentje bij kunnen komen (= er is een kans dat dit lukt).

Neemt niet weg dat in bepaalde gevallen de variant zonder hoofdwerkwoord andere betekenissen in zich kan dragen dan de variant met hoofdwerkwoord. Zeker als het om uitdrukkingen gaat, aangezien die vaak een kant-en-klare vorm aannemen waaraan nauwelijks nog getornd mag worden. Zie ook mijn post van 6 juni, 7:05 pm  in deze draad.

Het voornaamste verschil blijft toch wel dat in dit specifieke geval de variant met hoofdwerkwoord eigenlijk  helemaal niet zo gebruikelijk is, zoals ook in het door mij aangehaalde en zeer lezenswaardige artikel van Nuyts benadrukt wordt.


----------

