# Negation / Hij speelt het niet goed/goed niet.



## Tazzler

Hallo,

Where should I place niet? Could we put it after _goed_?

Dank jullie wel.


----------



## Joannes

This is constituent negation, the *niet* should go before the negated part, so *hij speelt het niet goed*.

Other examples:
*Niet ik maar Charel was naar de bijeenkomst gegaan.*
*Niet lang daarna is Charel nog een oude vriendin tegen het lijf gelopen.*
*Ik heb er niet veel op te zeggen.*

The only exception I can think of now is with demonstratives. I would normally say *nee, die niet* rather than *nee, niet die* though I think they are both correct.


----------



## Tazzler

Is it safe to say that _niet_ goes before adverbs? I don't understand what constituent negation is.

What is the difference between these?:

_Ik weet het niet._
_Ik week niet het._

Does the second one mean you know something also, but not whatever _het_ is.


----------



## FlorisEnsink

"Ik weet niet het" is not correct.


----------



## Joannes

Tazzler said:


> Is it safe to say that _niet_ goes before adverbs?


No.


Tazzler said:


> I don't understand what constituent negation is.


It means partial negation. Constituent negation has a different scope: not the entire sentence is negated, just one part of it.



Tazzler said:


> What is the difference between these?:
> _Ik weet het niet._
> _Ik week niet het._
> Does the second one mean you know something also, but not whatever _het_ is.


No, sorry, the second one is simply ungrammatical. The matter is different for pronouns. But let's take this example:
*Hij heeft niet tot vier uur gewerkt.* (he probably did work, just not until four)
*Hij heeft tot vier uur niet gewerkt.* (he's been doing something else)

Check this out on the place of negation in the sentence. (It's in Dutch, but you'll know where to find us. )


----------



## Tazzler

Well, since you offered, I don't suppose you could translate the main points of the page? 

I'm still confused about when to negate a specific component  or the whole sentence.


----------



## BrunoR

Tazzler said:


> Well, since you offered, I don't suppose you could translate the main points of the page?
> 
> I'm still confused about when to negate a specific component  or the whole sentence.


It's based on your context. Take Joannes examples:

*Hij heeft niet tot vier uur gewerkt.* = He has not worked until 4 o'clock (but he has worked [until 3 o'clock]).
*Hij heeft tot vier uur niet gewerkt.* = He has not worked until 4 o'clock (, he's been [playing football] instead).


----------



## Tazzler

Why can't _goed_ be used in the same way?


----------



## BrunoR

Well, it can, but not in this context.

eg.:
Hij komt niet mooi gekleed. (He comes badly dressed.)
      Hij komt mooi niet gekleed. (He comes undressed.) [mooi can't really be translated]

I know it are dumb examples, but I can't really think of something better at the moment.


----------



## parap

Tazzler said:


> Why can't _goed_ be used in the same way?



At first glance, I would say it's because "niet" negates the adjective "goed"  and the only way to do this in Dutch is to place "niet" before the adjective.

Hij is niet knap.
Hij kan niet goed zwemmen.
Hij doet zijn werk niet slecht.
Hij doet het niet goed.

In all of these cases "niet" negates the adjectives that go after it. Compare with English:

He is not interesting. vs. He is interesting not.


----------



## Tazzler

BrunoR said:


> Well, it can, but not in this context.


 
What are some examples in which it can used before _niet_?

I'm sorry to be a bother, but Dutch negation is making my head spin.


----------



## BrunoR

Tazzler said:


> What are some examples in which it can used before _niet_?
> 
> I'm sorry to be a bother, but Dutch negation is making my head spin.


I wrote the examples in the same post.  But I'll give a better example now I've had time to think.
*
Hij kan niet mooi tekenen.  *: He can't draw butifully.
*Hij kan mooi niet afluisteren.* : He can't eavesdrop. (and the mooi means the person who speaks is happy about it)


----------



## Joannes

Tazzler said:


> Well, since you offered, I don't suppose you could translate the main points of the page?


The middle part of the sentence is the part between the two 'poles' of a Dutch sentence: in non-subordinated sentences, the first pole is the finite verb, the second pole consists of the remaining verb forms (if any). In subordinated sentences the first pole is the conjunction, the second pole consists of all of the verb forms.
*Ik werk hier.* _(no second pole)_
*Ik heb hier gewerkt.*
*(Hij zegt) dat hij hier gewerkt heeft.*


Awel, when *niet* negates the entire sentence, it is placed as far as possible at the back of the middle part of sentence. However, it goes before elements that are 'inherently bound' to the lexical verb. (examples 4-6).

Sentences with undefinite constituents like *iemand*, *iets*, *ergens* are negated with *niemand*, *niets*, *nergens*. And have you read about *geen*? That's too hard too explain but it corresponds to English *no* (in the sense of 'none', not as an answer particle).

Indirect objects with preposition usually go after niet: contrast *we hebben het pakje niet aan Jan gegeven* with *we hebben Jan het pakje niet gegeven*.

*Niet* usually goes before prepositional objects (some verbs are combined with a fixed preposition introducing a thing or a person, an argument in the linguistic sense of the word.

When *niet* negates only part of the sentence, it is placed right before that constituent.

That's what it says, well the important part. But I think you should try to learn to differentiate between sentential and constituent negation. I don't know how this is usually taught to non-natives.. Frank?


----------



## Tazzler

Thank you so much. I do understand _geen_. Grammar teminology is a bit hard to understand, isn't it? I'll just come back here whenever I need help.


----------

