# Dat zou ik niet doen/doen niet.



## Tazzler

Hi,

What would be the difference between the following sentences?

_Dat zou ik niet doen._
_Dat zou ik doen niet._

I would have used the first one, but I saw the second one and I'm wondering why _niet_ is placed there. 

Thank you.


----------



## HKK

The second one is ungrammatical. Could you quote some context?


----------



## Tazzler

Actually, I mixed myself I up. I saw the first one and I'm wondering why _niet_ is placed there. Unfortunately, there is no context. It was just a bare sentence taken from a dictionary.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

Hi,

I only have a fairly basic grasp of the Dutch grammar so far, so perhaps others can explain this better than me, but a basic rule is that infinite verbals are placed at the end of a sentence. "Doen" is infinitive (and thus infinite) and is therefore placed at the end (after "niet").


----------



## Fingolfin

Lemminkäinen said:


> Hi,
> 
> A basic rule is that infinite verbals are placed at the end of a sentence. "Doen" is infinitive (and thus infinite) and is therefore placed at the end (after "niet").



Yes that's true, but I'd say that the adverbial 'niet' is mostly found between the two (or more) parts of the verbal group.

e.g. 

"Ik mag dat *niet *doen."
"Ik kan *niet *komen."
"Ik zal *niet *kunnen komen."

So it kind of depends on where you have to put the adverbial, and that's something you just have to know (or feel).

So "Dat zou ik doen *niet*." is completely wrong.

Besides, this is a relative clause (beginning with 'dat'), which means that the second verb should *always *be at the end of your sentence.

I hope this was helpful


----------



## Frank06

Hi,



Fingolfin said:


> Besides, this is a relative clause (beginning with 'dat'), which means that the second verb should *always *be at the end of your sentence.


The dat-phrase in this example is _certainly not_ a relative clause... Not every _dat_ is a relative pronoun.
In this case, _dat_ is a demonstrative pronoun, which functions in the sentence as a (fronted) direct object (hence the inversion conjugated verb - subject).


> *Dat zou ik niet doen.*


If the dat-phrase would be a relative clause, it would be something like "... [relative pronoun] ik niet zou doen", both verbs would move to the back of the phrase.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Fingolfin

Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> The dat-phrase in this example is _certainly not_ a relative clause... Not every _dat_ is a relative pronoun.
> In this case, _dat_ is a demonstrative pronoun, which functions in the sentence as a (fronted) direct object (hence the inversion conjugated verb - subject).
> If the dat-phrase would be a relative clause, it would be something like "... [relative pronoun] ik niet zou doen", both verbs would move to the back of the phrase.
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank


I'm terribly sorry, you're absolutly right, my mistake.
I confused it with "...dat ik dat niet zou doen", which is a relative clause.

Excuseer


----------



## Tazzler

So, _niet_ always goes before inactive verb forms?


----------



## Joannes

Tazzler said:


> So, _niet_ always goes before inactive verb forms?


Yes, usually it goes right before them, but mind constituent negation.

eg
*Ik ga niet graag wandelen.*
*Ik heb niet veel gegeten.*


----------

