# gebeld heeft / heeft gebeld



## earlymusicmaniac

I saw this sentence while reading about dutch demonstratives: Kan degene die mij midden in de nacht gebeld heeft mij voortaan overdag bellen?
which I completely understand aside from the heeft after the gebeld. Shouldn't it be "Kan degene die mij midden in de nacht heeft gebeld mij voortaan overdag bellen?"? When does the "hebben" or "zijn" go right after the present perfect?


----------



## Teachinglang

Yes, both are possible, because it's a subordinate clause with a present perfect (it would have also worked with a past perfect).
'Heeft gebeld' is a bit more common in written contexts than 'gebeld heeft'. There also used to be regional differences regarding which form was used.

There are two interesting pages on Onze Taal about this topic: 'verwend is en is verwend' and 'is gelopen en gelopen is'.

If you prefer an English explanation, just tell me


----------



## earlymusicmaniac

Haha, an English explanation please. I speak barely any Dutch haha. I apologize if I'm draining you with these requests


----------



## eno2

Heeft gebeld and  gebeld heeft sound  both alright to me.


----------



## Teachinglang

Basically, there's the possibility of reversing the auxiliary and the present/past perfect participle in subordinate clauses. So both options are possible in this sentence.
I put square brackets around the sub-clauses.

Kan degene [die mij midden in de nacht *heeft gebeld*] mij voortaan overdag bellen?
Kan degene [die mij midden in de nacht *gebeld heeft*] mij voortaan overdag bellen?

Ik hoop [dat hij het *heeft gezien*].
Ik hoop [dat hij het *gezien heeft*].

Ik hoopte [dat hij het *had gezien*].
Ik hoopte [dat hij het *gezien had*].

Hij weet niet [dat ze *is gekomen*].
Hij weet niet [dat ze *gekomen is*].

Hij wist niet [dat ze *was gekomen*].
Hij wist niet [dat ze *gekomen was*].

The first option (normal auxiliary-participle order) is more common in written texts, and used to be more common in the west of the Netherlands.


It's not possible to reverse the auxiliary and the participle in other contexts, such as in the main clause.

Hij gekomen is.
Hij is gekomen.

If anything is unclear, please ask


----------



## earlymusicmaniac

Thank you! Everything is clear, thanks for  taking your time to answer haha ^-^.


----------



## Teachinglang

Graag gedaan


----------



## eno2

Auxiliary first sounds unnatural, better use  participle + auxiliary in speech.


----------



## Teachinglang

Yes, participle + auxiliary is more common in speech generally speaking, but it also depends on the region. Participle + auxiliary is sometimes looked down upon where I live, also in speech... :/

Officially, both are possible, so use whichever you prefer


----------



## eno2

Teachinglang said:


> Yes, participle + auxiliary is more common in speech generally speaking, but it also depends on the region. Participle + auxiliary is sometimes looked down upon where I live, also in speech... :/
> 
> Officially, both are possible, so *use whichever you prefer *




Nobody uses a sentence like Hij weet niet dat ze is gekomen in that order.


----------



## Teachinglang

eno2 said:


> Nobody uses a sentence like Hij weet niet dat ze is gekomen in that order.



People use it, I use it, in fact, this word order was the standard form in the Randstad for many years, and some people still feel it's the preferred form. Let me quote from the Taalunie website I linked to above 



> *Wat is het best: 'Ik vind dat Marga verwend is' of 'Ik vind dat Marga is verwend'?*
> 
> Beide volgordes zijn mogelijk.
> 
> Als een bijzin een werkwoordelijk gezegde (persoonsvorm + voltooid deelwoord) bevat, is de volgorde helemaal vrij. De volgende zinnen zijn dus allemaal goed:
> 
> 
> Ik vraag me af of ik het licht heb uitgedaan.
> Ik vraag me af of ik het licht uitgedaan heb.
> Ze vertelde dat Jo nooit had geskied.
> Ze vertelde dat Jo nooit geskied had.
> (ik vind dat Marga is verwend / verwend is | Genootschap Onze Taal)





> *Wat is de juiste zinsvolgorde: 'De afstand die door mij gelopen is' of 'De afstand die door mij is gelopen'?*
> 
> Beide volgordes zijn juist.
> 
> De volgorde voltooid deelwoord - persoonsvorm (_gelopen is_) wordt de 'groene volgorde' genoemd. De volgorde persoonsvorm - voltooid deelwoord (_is gelopen_) heet de 'rode volgorde'. Deze kleuraanduidingen komen van een oude dialectkaart waarop de volgorde _gelopen is_ groen was ingekleurd en _is gelopen_ rood. De groene volgorde was op die kaart in het oosten van Nederland gewoner, de rode in het westen.
> 
> Het is een misverstand dat de achteraanplaatsing van het deelwoord (de rode volgorde: _is gelopen_) beter zou zijn. Beide volgordes zijn in het Nederlands van oudsher mogelijk. Wel komt de rode volgorde in geschreven tekst vaker voor dan de groene volgorde.
> 
> Ook als de bovenstaande (passieve) zin in de actieve vorm wordt gezet, zijn beide volgordes juist: 'De afstand die ik _heb gelopen_' en 'De afstand die ik _gelopen heb_.'
> 
> (werkwoordsvolgorde: de afstand die is gelopen / gelopen is | Genootschap Onze Taal)




As you can see, they even address the feeling people might have that 'is gelopen' would be better than 'gelopen is', which I also described above:



Teachinglang said:


> Participle + auxiliary is sometimes looked down upon where I live, also in speech... :/
> 
> Officially, both are possible, so use whichever you prefer


----------



## AllegroModerato

eno2 said:


> Nobody uses a sentence like Hij weet niet dat ze is gekomen in that order.



Sounds perfectly normal to me.


----------



## eno2

Teachinglang said:


> People use it, I use it, in fact, this word order was the standard form in the Randstad for many years, and some people still feel it's the preferred form. Let me quote from the Taalunie website I linked to above
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, they even address the feeling people might have that 'is gelopen' would be better than 'gelopen is', which I also described above:


Both may be "always" correct but in Belgium the "inverted use" as I like to call it,  seems  unusual. It's true that with some verbs as "gelopen" "is gelopen" is also normal but I regard them as exceptions.   I can't speak for the Dutch,  but in many decades of listening to standard Dutch in the media I rarely heard inverted use . Moot points like these would easily get solved by frequency (of use) investigation, something that is blatantly lacking across the board.


----------



## eno2

AllegroModerato said:


> Sounds perfectly normal to me.


In speach? I won't deny it's found more  in written language, that has already been said. See also  #13.


----------



## Teachinglang

eno2 said:


> something that is blatantly lacking across the board.



It's our lucky day I think, because this happens to be one of the most widely studied topics about the syntax of Dutch verbs  So there have been studies about frequency of use; there are nice overviews in this study and this one. To summarise their findings, the preference for the 'green' word order (eno2's word order, 'gegeten heeft') or the 'red' word order ('heeft gegeten') is highly complex and dependent on many factors, such as:

region (Belgians use the green word order more often (as eno2 also found), and traditionally, the green word order was more common in the east of the Netherlands, while the red word order was found in the west)
formality and medium (green is more common in speech, red more common in writing. Also, red is sometimes deemed to be more 'sophisticated' - widely used in journalism for instance)
intended meaning (there's more emphasis on the (perfect) tense in the case of the red order, while there's more emphasis on the 'state' described by the main verb in the green order)
syntactic context (which type of sub-clause, which verbs (eno2's observation about what he regards as 'exceptions' are a case in point))
rhythmic factors (what sounds nicer rhythmically in the specific sentence)
textual context (there's a tendency to stick to the same order within a text/conversation)
individual preference

Very interesting to study of course  Doesn't mean it's wrong to use the red order in speech though (say you're from my part of the Netherlands - it could be perfectly natural for you to use the red order in speech as well).


----------



## Red Arrow

eno2 said:


> Both may be "always" correct but in Belgium the "inverted use" as I like to call it,  seems  unusual. It's true that with some verbs as "gelopen" "is gelopen" is also normal but I regard them as exceptions.   I can't speak for the Dutch,  but in many decades of listening to standard Dutch in the media I rarely heard inverted use . Moot points like these would easily get solved by frequency (of use) investigation, something that is blatantly lacking across the board.


It doesn't sound odd to me, but maybe that's because I'm used to the way Northerners speak.


----------



## Peterdg

Red Arrow :D said:


> It doesn't sound odd to me


It doesn't sound odd to me either.


----------



## eno2

"Winnetou gesproken heeft"  is Indianentaaltje (faked native American slang).

Het is waarschijnlijk te wijten aan  de tijd van mijn kinderspelen dat ik een volwassen aversie aan de inversie overhield. My adult aversion of the inversion is probably due to the times of my childhood  games .


Ok this is NOT a subordinate clause.  But it's the cause of my apprehension against inversion. 

Now if there's a "conspiracy" amongst journalist, to use inversion, I regret that.


----------



## eno2

Teachinglang said:


> It's our lucky day I think, because this happens to be one of the most widely studied topics about the syntax of Dutch verbs  So there have been studies about frequency of use; there are nice overviews in this study and this one. To summarise their findings, the preference for the 'green' word order (eno2's word order, 'gegeten heeft') or the 'red' word order ('heeft gegeten') is highly complex and dependent on many factors, such as:
> 
> region (Belgians use the green word order more often (as eno2 also found), and traditionally, the green word order was more common in the east of the Netherlands, while the red word order was found in the west)
> formality and medium (green is more common in speech, red more common in writing. Also, red is sometimes deemed to be more 'sophisticated' - widely used in journalism for instance)
> intended meaning (there's more emphasis on the (perfect) tense in the case of the red order, while there's more emphasis on the 'state' described by the main verb in the green order)
> syntactic context (which type of sub-clause, which verbs (eno2's observation about what he regards as 'exceptions' are a case in point))
> rhythmic factors (what sounds nicer rhythmically in the specific sentence)
> textual context (there's a tendency to stick to the same order within a text/conversation)
> individual preference
> 
> Very interesting to study of course  Doesn't mean it's wrong to use the red order in speech though (say you're from my part of the Netherlands - it could be perfectly natural for you to use the red order in speech as well).



I'm looking at your interesting reaction  just now.
"red " and "green" are - rightly so - very neutral observational terms. The rhythmic preference is certainly important. It's a fact that I saw much "red" in poetry. But that's complicated matter...In fact, the whole study is. I'm not a linguist/philologist.

Conclusion: I'll keep using green. Without condemning red in a lot of cases.


----------

