# Mijn broertje wenste koning te zullen worden.



## Tazzler

Hi,

I'm confused about what purpose _zullen_ serves in the title sentence. Why is it there? 

Thank you.


----------



## BrunoR

To indicate that what he wants is in the future. It means 'my brother wished to become a king [one day]'. If there had stood *mijn broertje wenste koning te worden* it would have meant he wanted it immediately.  But yes, it may be confusing, even for the native people, we would say *mijn broertje wenste dat hij koning zou worden*.


----------



## Baunilha

I would never ever say 'wenste koning te zullen worden'. The combination of 'wensen' and 'x te zullen worden' (as D.O.) is quite odd, perhaps incorrect. Could you tell me where you've found the sentence?


----------



## Joannes

I agree. *Zullen* is weird in this sentence. The idea of being king in the future needn't be expressed by *zullen*, it's in *worden* as well..


----------



## Grytolle

Hij wou dat 'm koning werd. <3


----------



## BrunoR

Grytolle said:


> hij wou dat 'm koning werd <3


That's totally incorrect Grytolle, although I know it's a dialect! You're using an indirect object instead of a subject!


----------



## Grytolle

No, I'm using a sub-standard clitic synonyme of "hij", much like "ie" but less accepted


----------



## Baunilha

Grytolle said:


> No, I'm using a sub-standard clitic synonyme of "hij", much like "ie" but less accepted



check mate. 

But either way, I wouldn't recommend "Hij wou dat 'm..." in a text - although it should be possible to write it down in a letter to a member of the family.


----------



## Grytolle

Me neither  Using it on a forum with vreemden (thank god people know Dutch, because my English is going downhill ) is pushing it a bit already


----------



## BrunoR

Are you sure it's correct Grytolle? Let's ask Frank, because I don't see it as correct Dutch.


----------



## Grytolle

BrunoR said:


> Are you sure it's correct Grytolle? Let's ask Frank, because I don't see it as correct Dutch.


It's not correct written language, and you could drive your teacher mad with it at school.


----------



## BrunoR

Grytolle said:


> It's not correct written language, and you could drive your teacher mad with it at school


That's what I thought.


----------



## Frank06

*Hi,*



Grytolle said:


> Hij wou dat 'm koning werd. <3





BrunoR said:


> Are you sure it's correct Grytolle? Let's ask Frank, because I don't see it as correct Dutch.


*I want to make clear that I am not the "language supervisor" here .

On the other hand, this forum primarily deals with Standard Dutch. Discussions about other variants of Dutch are more than welcome, writing in those variants without indicating in one or another way that it's not Standard Dutch is not welcome.

Groetjes,

Frank
Moderator DF*


----------



## Forero

I think since _worden_ can mean "grow", "be", or "become", it might sometimes need the _sullen_ to disambiguate "become" from the other possibilities.  However, I think it's clear enough in this sentence without the _sullen_.  In fact, if we mean "want to become", we usually say "want to be", because it's shorter.


----------



## Lopes

Forero said:


> I think since _worden_ can mean "grow", "be", or "become",



_Worden_ means a lot of things, but I don't think 'grow' is one of them.. 



Forero said:


> it might sometimes need the _sullen
> _


It is _zullen_



Forero said:


> In fact, if we mean "want to become", we usually say "want to be", because it's shorter.




Who is we?


----------



## BrunoR

Forero said:


> I think since _worden_ can mean "grow", "be", or "become", it might sometimes need the _zullen_ to disambiguate "become" from the other possibilities.  However, I think it's clear enough in this sentence without the _zullen_.  In fact, if we mean "want to become", we usually say "want to be", because it's shorter.


_Worden_ can mean "grow"? Could you give an example please?


----------



## Lopes

Bedankt voor het herhalen van mijn post, BrunoR


----------



## Forero

Lopes said:


> _Worden_ means a lot of things, but I don't think 'grow' is one of them..
> 
> It is _zullen_
> 
> Who is we?


"Grow" as in "Now the young prince and princess will grow old together", almost the same as "become", but focusing a little more on the process.

Sorry about my spelling. My fingers confused Dutch _zullen_ with German _sollen_, which is similar in forms and usage.

I meant to say "In English, we", we English speakers. I was thinking that if _zullen worden_ is sometimes better at expressing "become" as opposed to "be", it may still not be needed in the sample sentence because there is very little difference in that context between "be" and "become".

Does that make sense?


----------



## BrunoR

Lopes said:


> Bedankt voor het herhalen van mijn post, BrunoR


Ik herhaal je niet... ik had het gewoon al geplaatst (je post stond er nog niet toen ik begon te typen), en als ik op die vervloekte deleteknop gedrukt zou hebben, dan kreeg je zo'n lelijk kadertje met een achterlijke motivatie te zien.


----------



## Tazzler

BrunoR said:


> To indicate that what he wants is in the future. It means 'my brother wished to become a king [one day]'. If there had stood *mijn broertje wenste koning te worden* it would have meant he wanted it immediately. But yes, it may be confusing, even for the native people, we would say *mijn broertje wenste dat hij koning zou worden*.


 
But isn't the action in the past?

I'm still confused.


----------



## BrunoR

The action of wishing is in the past, yes, but what he whishes is in the future for him that moment.


----------



## Joannes

Tazzler said:


> But isn't the action in the past?
> 
> I'm still confused.


Not necessarily: it can be a modal past.

For example you could say *ik wou dat ik bij jou was* 'I wish I _were_ with you' and mean _now_! In this example Dutch has two modal pasts (expressing wish/volition and irrealis), English has only one, the latter.


----------



## BrunoR

Joannes said:


> Not necessarily: it can be a modal past.
> 
> For example you could say *ik wou dat ik bij jou was* 'I wish I _were_ with you' and mean _now_! In this example Dutch has two modal pasts (expressing wish/volition and irrealis), English has only one, the latter.


But then we need a context to know whether it's regular past or modal past...


----------



## _Elanor_

Joannes said:


> I agree. *Zullen* is weird in this sentence. The idea of being king in the future needn't be expressed by *zullen*, it's in *worden* as well..


 
I don't agree. You often find these kind of sentences in books, it's correct Dutch. Maybe you wouldn't use it too often when speaking,  but it's absolutely correct.


----------



## George French

_Elanor_ said:


> I don't agree. You often find these kind of sentences in books, it's correct Dutch. Maybe you wouldn't use it too often when speaking, but it's absolutely correct.


 
If I remember correctly that's the construction a _buitenlander_ was  taught!  Google gives many a hit, one leads to

GF..


----------



## Joannes

BrunoR said:


> But then we need a context to know whether it's regular past or modal past...


We do. 



_Elanor_ said:


> I don't agree. You often find these kind of sentences in books, it's correct Dutch. Maybe you wouldn't use it too often when speaking, but it's absolutely correct.


For me this sentence really doesn't work, and I'm sure it has to do with the different tenses. Other given suggestions (*mijn broertje wenste koning te worden*, *mijn broertje wenste dat hij koning zou worden*,_(Brabantic tussentaal: )_ *hij wou dat 'm koning werd*) all work, they stick to past tense..


----------



## _Elanor_

Joannes said:


> We do.
> 
> 
> For me this sentence really doesn't work, and I'm sure it has to do with the different tenses. Other given suggestions (*mijn broertje wenste koning te worden*, *mijn broertje wenste dat hij koning zou worden*,_(Brabantic tussentaal: )_ *hij wou dat 'm koning werd*) all work, they stick to past tense..


 
I'm really sure the above sentence is correct. Maybe the problem is the difference between Dutch and Vlaams? By the way, don't you do the same when you say "zou worden", it's the same kind of combination as zullen worden. 

The more you think about it, the more difficult it gets. However, for me, the sentence is correct.


----------



## Joannes

_Elanor_ said:


> By the way, don't you do the same when you say "zou worden", it's the same kind of combination as zullen worden.


Yeah, true, but I would say that would be far more common. You may be right about the grammaticality, but in practice it still sounds odd to me..

(And my argument about the tenses didn't really hold good, please ignore. It has been a tiring day for me. )

So anyway, let's conclude that the sentence _is_ correct, but that there are more common ways of expressing the same thing. Agreed?


----------



## _Elanor_

Joannes said:


> Yeah, true, but I would say that would be far more common. You may be right about the grammaticality, but in practice it still sounds odd to me..
> 
> (And my argument about the tenses didn't really hold good, please ignore. It has been a tiring day for me. )
> 
> So anyway, let's conclude that the sentence _is_ correct, but that there are more common ways of expressing the same thing. Agreed?


 
Agreed! I wouldn't use it when speaking either.


----------



## BrunoR

I just think it's rather uncommon than incorrect.


----------



## Tazzler

So, we can think of the _zou worden _in _Hij wenste dat hij koning zou zorden _as becoming _te zullen worden _in _Hij wenste koning te zullen worden_, correct?


----------



## FlorisEnsink

It's interesting to see how the rules of Dutch are being established here by consencus, but now I do feel like intervening. The phrase: *"Mijn broertje wenste koning te zullen worden." *is not correct. 

Translated to English, the phrase says: "My brother wished to will become king."

In the construction "Ik zou willen" (use of the verb zullen), a desire is being expressed. 
In the construction "mijn broertje wenste" this desire is being expressed again, making the addition 'zullen' redundant. 
The verb 'zullen' here than gets the function of a 'future tense'. But as such it also doesn't hold stand, because the future is already indicated with the verb 'worden'. A phrase such as:"Mijn broertje wenste koning te zullen zijn" or is what you'd end up with if you insist in using the verb 'zullen'. (He wished to will be)

In that case however the verb 'zullen', implying a certainty, conflicts with the expression of a desire. Rephrasing will than leave you with something like: "Mijn broertje was ervan overtuigd koning te zullen worden." which has got nothing to do with the original phrase anymore. 

Another possibility is: "Mijn broertje wenste koning te gaan worden.". It's getting a bit complicated now but 'gaan worden' roughly means that somewhere in the future a process is going to happen. For example "Mijn broertje wenste heel oud / heel sterk te gaan worden", It cannot be used for a change that happens overnight, such as becomming king. 

Conclusion:
The only phrase that seems usable in this situation is:
*Mijn broertje wenste koning te worden.*


----------



## HKK

FlorisEnsink said:


> In the construction "Ik zou willen" (use of the verb zullen), a desire is being expressed.
> In the construction "mijn broertje wenste" this desire is being expressed again, making the addition 'zullen' redundant.



I agree with you that the construction is wrong or at least seriously flawed. But I don't understand your point in the above quote. In the construction "Ik zou willen", a desire is indeed expressed _by the word willen, _which does not appear in the actual sentence we're talking about!

"Zullen" is just an auxiliary verb to construct a future meaning. However, the future meaning is conveyed perfectly well in this sentence without an auxiliary verb. So "zullen" is not redundant for the expression of the "my brother's" desire but for the expression of future.


----------



## moldo

Hi all,

Let's build the sentence strcture from scratch:

Hij wordt koning (present) 
Hij zal koning worden (future)  
Hij wenst koning te worden (present-present)
Hij wenst koning te zullen worden (present-future)
Hij wenste koning te worden (past - present)
Hij wenste koning te zullen worden (past - future)

In my opinion all correct.

Regards, moldo


----------



## FlorisEnsink

Nee

Hij wenst koning te worden: present - future
past - present: Hij wenst koning te zijn.
Hij wenst koning te zullen worden: present - future - future, here it goes wrong.

Zullen is besides not just future, it means that he will be ..., no room for doubt (or wishes).


----------



## BrunoR

FlorisEnsink said:


> Nee
> 
> Hij wenst koning te worden: present - future
> past - present: Hij wenst koning te zijn.
> Hij wenst koning te zullen worden: present - future - future, here it goes wrong.
> 
> Zullen is besides not just future, it means that he will be ..., no room for doubt (or wishes).


_Hij wenst_e. Right, now you'll ask me, what did he wish? _Hij wenste koning te zullen worden. Te_ was 'summoned' by _wensen_. So we have left: _koning zullen worden_. Transform that and you get _hij zal koning worden_. Both are correct, so I assume the whole sentence is correct? If you disagree, just tell us.


----------



## Lopes

FlorisEnsink said:


> past - present: Hij wenst koning te zijn.


 Why past? 



FlorisEnsink said:


> Zullen is besides not just future, it means that he will be ..., no room for doubt (or wishes).



I don't really agree here, can't you wish to be for example crown-prince (kroonprins.. hoe is dat in het Engels?  ), because you want to become king?


----------



## Joannes

Hier se, de Lopes, lang geleden. 


Lopes said:


> crown-prince (kroonprins.. hoe is dat in het Engels?  )


*heir* (m/v) werkt het best, denk ik


----------



## Forero

"Crown prince" (2 worden) is correct.


----------



## moldo

FlorisEnsink said:


> Nee
> 
> Hij wenst koning te worden: present - future
> past - present: Hij wenst koning te zijn.
> Hij wenst koning te zullen worden: present - future - future, here it goes wrong.
> 
> Zullen is besides not just future, it means that he will be ..., no room for doubt (or wishes).


 
Well, I still would say

Hij wenst koning te worden: present - present.

Because: Hij wordt koning, means he becomes king *now*.

So in my opinion the sentence, which we are debating, is correct. 

Regards, moldo


----------



## Forero

Here is how I (a _buitenlander_) imagine things might be:

_Hij wenste koning te zijn._ = _Hij wenste __dat hij koning was. _= "He wished he was king."
_
Hij wenste koning te worden._ = _Hij wenste_ _dat hij koning zou zijn._ = "He wished to be king."

_Hij wenste koning te zullen worden._ = _Hij wenste_ _dat hij koning zou worden._ = "He wished to become king." (I would write this English version but I would probably simplify it to "He wished to be king.", when speaking.)

Does this make any sense?


----------



## Bog Svarog

Forero said:


> _
> Hij wenste koning te worden._ = "He wished to be king."
> 
> _Hij wenste koning te zullen worden._ = _Hij wenste_ _dat hij koning zou worden._ = "He wished to become king." (I would write this English version but I would probably simplify it to "He wished to be king.", when speaking.)
> 
> Does this make any sense?


No. 



> _Hij wenste koning te worden._


He wished to become king.



> _Hij wenste koning te zullen worden_


He wished to become king.

With regard to the meaning, I will rally behind one of the guys that posted earlier.
Koning te worden implies a speedier happening of the becoming of king.
Koning te zullen worden implies that him becoming king might be further away in time.
And I will disagree strongly with Floris, about it not being possible.
Ik wens.
Ik zal worden.
Ik wens dat ik zal worden.
Ik wens dat ik koning zal worden.
Verleden tijd: Ik wensde dat ik koning zal worden (past - future)
Hij wensde dat hij koning zal worden.
Hij wensde te zullen worden.
Hij wensde Koning te zullen worden.

To me, it's 100% correct Dutch.


----------



## Frank06

Bog Svarog said:


> Verleden tijd: Ik wensde dat ik koning zal worden (past - future)
> Hij wensde dat hij koning zal worden.
> Hij wensde te zullen worden.
> Hij wensde Koning te zullen worden.
> 
> To me, it's 100% correct Dutch.


My apologies for the pedantic comment, which was probably triggered by the phrase "100% correct Dutch":
It's: Ik/Hij wen*st*e, not wen*sd*e.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------

