# Grammatica - inversie



## lacrie

Hello all, 


Not a long time ago I decided to resume studying Dutch and therefore took back my old dusty lessons from my attic. 
So here I am reading some grammatica related to inversion and it says: 

"There si an inversion when the sentence do not start with the subject => vb.* Daar hij ziek was*     kon hij niet kom 

 However, _there is no inversion when the sentence begins with a subordinate clause introduced with AL / HETZIJ or a conditional clause without preposition"

_OK I know that thi is not going to be a fun request but could some of you be so kind as to give me a few simple examples?
I have : *Komt hij vandaag niet, *hij komt morgen (if he doesn't come today, he'll come tomorrow) but need some more .... 

DANK U WELL.


----------



## Chimel

Al heeft hij zijn best gedaan, hij heeft toch verloren.
Of een religieuse versie:
Al heeft Hij ons verlaten, Hij laat ons nooit alleen. 

Met "hetzij" zie ik niet meteen wat hier bedoeld wordt. Laten we wachten op de reactie van een Nederlandstalige...

NB: Daar je toch Nederlands wil leren, antwoord ik ook in het Nederlands, bij wijze van oefening.  Hopelijk is dit OK voor jou. Maar wat je daar vraagt is al een moeilijk en zéér specifiek grammaticapunt, voor gevorderden, zou ik zeggen. Ben je zeker dat je eerst de basisregels goed beheerst (omdat je in het Engels schrijft, alsof je het Nederlands nog niet helemaal machtig bent)? Hopelijk neem je het mij niet kwalijk, ik zeg dit in jouw eigen belang.


----------



## HKK

Chimel is right... This is advanced grammar. The important thing here is not the exceptions, because AL/HETZIJ and the conditional without preposition are hardly ever used in practice. The thing to pick up here is the inversion rule itself, which is used_ all the time _and is a tough point for learners. Many times I have heard native French speakers speak nearly flawless Dutch except for the inverted word order. It makes the difference between very good use of Dutch and really mastering the language. I have to say I get the impression that your textbook is 50 years old. For example, the preposition "daar" as in "because" is very old-fashioned, just like the exceptions you mentioned. Let me give you some examples of the inversion rule with more contemporary words:

Waar [woon je]? Tu habites où?
Omdat hij [ziek was] [kon hij] niet kom*en*. Vu qu'il était malade, il n'a pas pu venir. (Notice also the difference in verb tenses, but that's another point!)
Ze gaf toe dat ze [verdwaald waren]. Elle a avoué qu'ils s'étaient perdus.
Dat [begrijp ik] niet. Cela je ne comprends pas.

I cannot recommend you another textbook because I have no knowledge of what is available. I cannot give you any clear-cut rules on inversion either, because it is one of those things that just come intuitively to a native speaker. In any case, good luck and be sure to come back if you have more questions.


----------



## Chimel

HKK said:


> I have to say I get the impression that your textbook is 50 years old. For example, the preposition "daar" as in "because" is very old-fashioned


Really? I must say I use "daar" (which is not a preposition, I think) quite often in this meaning - see my last message, for instance - and I think I read and hear it quite regularly, being used by Dutch-speaking people too. Are you sure this is "very old-fashioned"?


----------



## lacrie

Indeed Chimel, I probably need to focus more on basic rules that I still do not master but I just do not know where to start really … I recently bought ‘le néerlandais pour les nuls’ and thought it would be a good idea to go through the book and simultaneously revised my old lessons from secondary school… I’d better find myself a good teacher too  

@ HKK  

Thanks for your examples. I was taught that particular grammar point back in 1997-1998 and it could be that at the time my teacher mentioned that it was some sort of old-fashioned speech. I just do not remember. 

Anyway thank you both for your help and insight!


----------



## matakoweg

Chimel said:


> Really? I must say I use "daar" (which is not a preposition, I think) quite often in this meaning - see my last message, for instance - and I think I read and hear it quite regularly, being used by Dutch-speaking people too. Are you sure this is "very old-fashioned"?



In spoken Dutch I hear, the conjunction 'daar' is not used, it is really very old-fashioned, it is replaced by 'omdat'
the conjunction 'al' with concessive force is quite normal and there is no inversion in the clause following:

Al zeur je nog zo lang, je krijgt niet meer zakgeld.


----------



## Peterdg

matakoweg said:


> In spoken Dutch I hear, the conjunction 'daar' is not used, it is really very old-fashioned, it is replaced by 'omdat'
> ...there is no inversion in the clause following:
> 
> Al zeur je nog zo lang, je krijgt niet meer zakgeld.


Is "zeur je" geen inversie?


----------

