# je je je



## Whodunit

Is it really possible to juxtapose "je je je" grammatically correctly? That sounds quite interesting. Here's an example from here:

_Herinner *je je je* verjaardag?_

I'd translate it as follows:

Do you remember your birthday?

The first "je" could be for the subject "you", the second one for the direct object (refelxive pronoun "yourself"), and the third one for the possessive pronoun "your".

Please correct me, if I'm wrong.


----------



## elroy

Yes, that's exactly what it means.  Each of the "je"s serves a different grammatical function.

The German translation might make it clearer:

*Erinnerst du dich an deinen Geburtstag?*

Dutch simply uses "je" for everything!


----------



## ALOV

Hi, 

interesting question! grammatically it's correct but nobody ever says or writes it this way (as you can guess). It's too confusing and actually funny to say it like that!

Fortunately the rich Dutch language has plenty of alternatives : )
- for the subject there is jij or je
- for the possessive there is je or jouw

So normally we say: Herinner jij je jouw verjaardag?

greets


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Yes, that's exactly what it means. Each of the "je"s serves a different grammatical function.
> 
> The German translation might make it clearer:
> 
> *Erinnerst du dich an deinen Geburtstag?*
> 
> Dutch simply uses "je" for everything!


 
Yes, I was sure about the German version, but I didn't believe that it's so funny in Dutch. In German that would never happen (except for '... das, dass das ...'), because first "erinnern" requires "an", so it's an indirect object, and second we can never use "du" for a reflexive pronoun.

Thank you very much, Alov. I suppose the two extra "je" forms are used for special emphasis, aren't they?


----------



## elroy

ALOV said:
			
		

> [...]So normally we say: Herinner jij je jouw verjaardag?



"Jij" and "Jouw" (and "jou") are emphatic, though, right?

I would read your sentence like this: *Herinner jij je jouw verjaardag?*


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Yes, I was sure about the German version, but I didn't believe that it's so funny in English.


 
What do you mean?  What does English have to do with it?  



> In German that would never happen (except for '... das, dass das ...'), because first "erinnern" requires "an", so it's an indirect object, and second we can never use "du" for a reflexive pronoun.


 
Correct.  Except that "dich" is not an indirect object (that would be "dir"); in this case it is the object of the preposition "an."



> Thank you very much, Alov. I suppose the two extra "je" forms are used for special emphasis, aren't they?


 
That's what I think too, but wait for Alov to confirm.


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> What do you mean? What does English have to do with it?


 
I'm sorry, I wanted to write "Dutch".


----------



## ALOV

> Thank you very much, Alov. I suppose the two extra "je" forms are used for special emphasis, aren't they?



Exactly! +There is a slight intonation difference also...

Vb.  (voorbeeld) Jouw auto staat verkeerd geparkeerd, niet de mijne!
(Your car is parked wrong, not mine)


----------



## Fonεtiks

ALOV said:
			
		

> interesting question! grammatically it's correct but nobody ever says or writes it this way (as you can guess). It's too confusing and actually funny to say it like that!
> 
> Fortunately the rich Dutch language has plenty of alternatives : )
> - for the subject there is jij or je
> - for the possessive there is je or jouw
> 
> So normally we say: Herinner jij je jouw verjaardag?



Does that mean Dutch accepts je instead of the reflexive and possessive? That's awesome. Making it easier for us.


----------



## elroy

Fonεtiks said:
			
		

> Does that mean Dutch accepts je instead of the reflexive and possessive? That's awesome. Making it easier for us.


 
Yes, it does - unless you wish to place special emphasis on the pronoun.


----------



## Whodunit

Fonεtiks said:
			
		

> Does that mean Dutch accepts je instead of the reflexive and possessive? That's awesome. Making it easier for us.


 
As we already clarified, it's just used for special emphasis:

A: I bought a car yesterday.
B: Really?
A: Yeah, but when do you want to buy a new one? Yours looks so terrible.

A: Gisteren heb ik me een auto gekocht.
B: Echt?
A: Ja, maar wanneer wilt _je_ kopen een nieuwe? Die van _je_ lijkt zo ijselijk.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> As we already clarified, it's just used for special emphasis:
> 
> A: I bought a car yesterday.
> B: Really?
> A: Yeah, but when do you want to buy a new one? Yours looks so terrible.
> 
> A: Gisteren heb ik me  een auto gekocht.
> B: Echt *waar*?
> A: Ja, maar wanneer *wil*  _*jij* _een nieuwe *kopen*? Die van  _*jou* _lijkt zo ijselijk.


 
Whodunit, 

"Je" is _not _the pronoun used for emphasis!


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Whodunit,
> 
> "Je" is _not _the pronoun used for emphasis!


 
Hm ... then I obviously misinterpreted this post? 



			
				ALOV said:
			
		

> me said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you very much, Alov. I suppose the two extra "je" forms are used for special emphasis, aren't they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! +There is a slight intonation difference also...
Click to expand...


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Hm ... then I obviously misinterpreted this post?


 
The two extra "je" forms = jij and jouw (which had been mentioned)

There's also "jou."


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> The two extra "je" forms = jij and jouw (which had been mentioned)
> 
> There's also "jou."


 
But I had supposed that the two extra "je" forms are emphatic - and Alov affirmed. Did I miss something?


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> But I had supposed that the two extra "je" forms are emphatic - and Alov affirmed. Did I miss something?


 
Ich versuche mal, das Missverständnis auf Deutsch aus dem Weg zu räumen.

Du hast dich etwas undeutlich ausgedrückt.  Ich habe inzwischen vermutet, dass dein "two extra 'je' forms" auf dein ursprüngliches Beispiel, in dem drei identische "je"s stehen, bezogen sein sollte, aber Alov hat es bestimmt anders aufgefasst, und zwar er bzw. sie dachte wohl, du hast dich auf die zwei andere Formen, die er im Beitrag #4 vorgeschlagen hat, bezogen.

Wenn du dich wiederum auf seine bzw. ihre Antwort konzentrierst, siehst du, dass das Beispiel ein "jouw," und nicht etwa ein betontes "je," enthält.

Ist es jetzt klar?


----------



## ALOV

elroy said:
			
		

> Whodunit,
> 
> "Je" is _not _the pronoun used for emphasis!


 
Ich bin totally de acuerdo with the verbeteringen van elroy! 
- 'wilt jij' should be 'wil jij' : inversion always without -t (jij speelt - speel jij)
- jij in stead of je: emphasis on 'you' in last sentence

'Ijselijk' doesn't fit here: it means 'cruel' (moord is een ijselijke daad: murder is a horrible act).
In fact it's very rare (it makes me think of frozen stuff or so, ijs = ice), so I suggest: 
jouw auto ziet er verschrikkelijk/afschuwelijk/erbarmelijk uit (they all have a strong meaning) or just: jouw auto is een wrak (pronounciation: vrak)


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Ich versuche mal, das Missverständnis auf Deutsch aus dem Weg zu räumen.
> 
> Du hast dich etwas undeutlich ausgedrückt. Ich habe inzwischen vermutet, dass dein "two extra 'je' forms" auf dein ursprüngliches Beispiel, in dem drei identische "je"s stehen, bezogen sein sollte, aber Alov hat es bestimmt anders aufgefasst, und zwar er bzw. sie dachte wohl, du hast dich auf die zwei andere Formen, die er im Beitrag #4 vorgeschlagen hat, bezogen.
> 
> Wenn du dich wiederum auf seine bzw. ihre Antwort konzentrierst, siehst du, dass das Beispiel ein "jouw," und nicht etwa ein betontes "je," enthält.
> 
> Ist es jetzt klar?


 
Ich denke, ich hätte auf Englisch auch verstanden, aber das hat mir nie einer so erklärt. 



			
				ALOV said:
			
		

> Ich bin totally de acuerdo with the verbeteringen van elroy!
> - 'wilt jij' should be 'wil jij' : inversion always without -t (jij speelt - speel jij)
> - jij in stead of je: emphasis on 'you' in last sentence
> 
> 'Ijselijk' doesn't fit here: it means 'cruel' (moord is een ijselijke daad: murder is a horrible act).
> In fact it's very rare (it makes me think of frozen stuff or so, ijs = ice), so I suggest:
> jouw auto ziet er verschrikkelijk/afschuwelijk/erbarmelijk uit (they all have a strong meaning) or just: jouw auto is een wrak (pronounciation: vrak)


 
That's so similar to German:

Dein Auto sieht ja erschreckend/erschütterd/erbärmlich aus.
Dein Auto ist ein Wrack.

They all work in German, and I think they have the same meaning. I suppose you'd immediately understand German as I understand Dutch. Just writing in the particularly other language is a bit more complicated.


----------

