# Unmarked vs Marked Pronouns



## bluetoonwithcarrotandnail

Is the relationship when using marked pronouns
always from an apparent opposite?

The noise was loud (unmarked)
The noise was loud (but the other wasn't - marked)

Would the relationship be the same for the following:

The noise was loud (unmarked)
The noise was loud (and so are the others - marked)

Could you use marked pronouns in the statement 'The noise was
loud (and so are the others)'

Thanks.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,



bluetoonwithcarrotandnail said:


> Is the relationship when using marked pronouns always from an apparent opposite?


 
What do you mean by 'unmarked and marked pronouns'?

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## bluetoonwithcarrotandnail

Stressed (jij) - Marked
Unstressed (je) - Unmarked

Thanks.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,



bluetoonwithcarrotandnail said:


> Stressed (jij) - Marked
> Unstressed (je) - Unmarked


Okay, thanks, but I still don't understand what you mean... In the examples you give there are no pronouns (only articles), and if we have to change the articles into personal pronouns, then we have the problem that (at least in writing) we cannot make a difference between 'marked' and 'unmarked' for the 3rd person singular masculine and neuter (in case of 'het geluid'). And in spreaking (as in writing) it only makes sense in a wider context.

It's maybe an odd question to ask in the Dutch Forum, but could you do what you ask us to do in English, please?

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## bluetoonwithcarrotandnail

It looks like I used the wrong examples and forgot the
pronoun.  Here is a better sample sentence:

Dat zeggen ze altijd (they always say that) (unstressed)

versus

Dat zeggen zij altijd (they always say that)(no one else says
that) (stressed)

My point is can you use 'zij' to stress the second sentence if
by chance it said 'They always say that' - implying that everybody
else does too.

I'm not very good with translations so I can't get it out of english.

Again, can 'zij' be used to imply that 'everybody else says that'
or does it have to mean that 'nobody else says that'

Thanks.


----------



## Sirothix

'Zij' is very similar to 'Ze'. The only difference I can think of is that 'Zij' can only be used when referring to peoples/humans. Here are a few example to make it more clear:

*Waar liggen mijn potloden? Ze liggen in jouw etui.*
*Waar liggen mijn potloden? Die liggen in jouw etui.*
*Waar liggen mijn potloden? Zij liggen in jouw etui. (Wrong, use 'Ze' or 'Die' instead, since 'potloden' (pencils) are no humans).*

However,
*Waar zijn mijn vrienden? Zij staan buiten.*
is good.


----------



## Tamar

And I thought the two were the same. So, if it isn't possible to use Zij for non-humans subjects, is it possible to use Ze for humans? Such as:

Waar zijn mijn vrienden? *Ze* staan buiten.


----------



## Joannes

bluetoonwithcarrotandnail said:


> My point is can you use 'zij' to stress the second sentence if
> by chance it said 'They always say that' - implying that everybody
> else does too.


 
No, when the 3PL personal pronoun is used in a general sense of 'people', it's hard to think of contexts in which you would use tonic *zij* instead of atonic *ze*. (I really think the opposition tonic-atonic is way better than the meaningless marked-unmarked, because marked for what?! That as a sidenote.)



Sirothix said:


> *Ze liggen in jouw etui.*


(Dit heeft niets met voornaamwoorden te maken maar ik vind dat *ze liggen in jouw etui* bijzonder vreemd klinkt. Ik zou hier absoluut *zitten* zeggen...)



Tamar said:


> And I thought the two were the same. So, if it isn't possible to use Zij for non-humans subjects, is it possible to use Ze for humans?


 
Yes, definitely. (And it isn't really true that it's _impossible_ to use *zij* with non-human reference, it's just that you would need some very specific context to do so, which makes it extremely uncommon.)


----------



## Sirothix

Joannes said:


> (And it isn't really true that it's _impossible_ to use *zij* with non-human reference


I am not 100% sure but I did some google searching just now. And I found some sites that also say that most of the times (yes, there are exceptions), when referring to non-humans you should use *Ze*, instead of *Zij*. 

See taaladvies.net.

Or search on google with keywords "zij+ze".

If there are other native Dutch people, please join our discussion to make this topic more clear, I am interested in knowing too...


----------



## bluetoonwithcarrotandnail

I think I overcomplicated the issue.  Is there an answer
to the question:

Do you use zij or ze in the sentence 'They are correct' (implying
that others are too).

Thanks.


----------



## theo1006

bluetoonwithcarrotandnail said:


> I think I overcomplicated the issue. Is there an answer
> to the question:
> 
> Do you use zij or ze in the sentence 'They are correct' (implying
> that others are too).
> 
> Thanks.


 
I would say you might use both, although in spoken language _ze_ is more common.  The implication about the other more depends on where you lay the stress.
If you say _*Zij* zijn correct,_ you imply the others are not.  And you cannot use ze, because _ze_ does not take stress.
But if you say _Zij zijn cor*rect *_you do not imply anything about the others.  In this case you might also say _Ze zijn cor*rect*_.

Regards,
Theo


----------



## bluetoonwithcarrotandnail

theo1006 said:


> If you say _*Zij* zijn correct,_ you imply the others are not
> 
> But if you say _Zij zijn cor*rect *_you do not imply anything about the others



You are using Zij/Ze for the following two purposes:
1.  To imply the others do not
2.  To imply nothing about the others

Is it possible to do the following:
3.  To imply the others are the same as you

Thanks.


----------



## Joannes

bluetoonwithcarrotandnail said:


> Is it possible to do the following:
> 3. To imply the others are the same as you


Sure, use *ook* 'also'... But just by the choice of tonic/atonic pronoun you can't point this out explicitly.

(And I really think you should ask more concrete questions, or at least explain better what you mean. Like this, it's hard helping you. I'm not even sure if I did.)


----------

