ANTWERP PAPERS IN LINGUISTICS
113
The diachrony of Dutch mogen
Pieter Byloo and Jan Nuyts
Center for Grammar, Cognition and Typology University of Antwerp
2011
ISSN 0776-3859
© Copyright 2011 – Pieter Byloo and Jan Nuyts
No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microprint, or any other means, without written permission from the author.
Uit deze uitgave mag niets worden gereproduceerd d.m.v. boekdruk, foto-offset, microfilm, of welk ander medium dan ook zonder schriftelijke toestemming van de auteur.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by an IAP VI project on ‘Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification’ (IAP P6/44, Department for Science Policy, Belgian Federal Government), and by an FWO-Flanders project on ‘The diachrony of Dutch modal expressions’ (G.0443.07). Thanks are due to Liesbeth Bex and Ewa Fiuk for their help in the semantic and grammatical analyses of the of the data for mogen used in this study.
Table of contents
0 Introduction ...... 7
1 Preliminaries ...... 9
1.0 Introduction ...... 9
1.1 Grammaticalization ...... 9
1.2 (Inter)subjectification ...... 11
1.3 The definition of the semantic categories ...... 13
2 Methodology ...... 25
2.0 Introduction ...... 25
2.1 Corpus design ...... 25
2.2 Analytical categories ...... 31
2.3 Statistical methods ...... 37
3 Results and discussion ...... 39
3.0 Introduction ...... 39
3.1 Morphological en morphosyntactic changes ...... 39 3.1.1 Changes in the word form and the flectional categories ...... 39 3.1.2 Changes in the morphosyntactic status ...... 42 3.1.3 Conclusions with respect to the morphological and morphosyntactic changes ...... 45
3.2 Semantic and semantic-syntactic developments ...... 46 3.2.1 The general meaning development (question 1) ...... 46 3.2.2 The role of the subject/first argument in the meaning development (questions 3/4) ...... 62 3.2.2.1 The frequency of mogen in passive clauses ...... 62 3.2.2.2 The subject in active clauses ...... 64 3.2.2.2.1 Person and number ...... 64 3.2.2.2.2 Animacy ...... 67 3.2.2.2.3 Semantic function ...... 70 3.2.2.3 The subject and first argument in passive clauses ...... 73 3.2.2.3.1 Person and number of the passive subject ...... 73 3.2.2.3.2 Animacy of the passive subject ...... 76 3.2.2.3.3 Semantic function of the passive subject and first argument ...... 76 3.2.3 The role of the type of state of affairs (question 5) ...... 78 3.2.4 The role of the clause type (question 6) ...... 80 3.2.4.1 Main clause or subordinate clause ...... 80 3.2.4.2 Mood of the main clause ...... 81 3.2.5 The role of negation (question 7) ...... 83 3.2.6 Tense and time reference (question 8) ...... 85 3.2.6.1 The tense of mogen ...... 85 3.2.6.2 The presence of a perfective auxiliary ...... 89 3.2.6.3 The presence of a future auxiliary ...... 90 3.2.6.4 Time reference of the state of affairs ...... 91 3.2.7 Conclusions with respect to the semantic and semantic-syntactic developments ...... 93
4 Conclusion ...... 95
References ...... 97
Appendix ...... 101
0 Introduction
This monograph presents an empirical, corpus-based, analysis of the diachronic evolution of the Dutch modal auxiliary mogen ‘may’. It is actually one part of an elaborate investigation into the diachronic evolution – with major focus on the semantic developments – in a representative part of the system of modal expressions in Dutch, covering the full range of major expressive devices in that language, i.e. not only auxiliaries, but also adverbs, adjectives, and full verbs. The aim of this wider project is, on one hand, to reflect on current thinking about the processes of grammaticalization (Hopper and Traugott 2003) and, especially, (inter)subjectification (Traugott and Dasher 2002), this time not from the perspective of a single form (as is usually the case in the literature) but from the perspective of a full semantic system in a language. On the other hand, the goal is to see what new light insights into the diachronic relations between the different modal (and other) meanings can throw on the analysis of the semantics of modality (cf. Nuyts 2005, 2006). Since these theoretical aims mainly depend on the analysis of the full range of modal forms, however, the present study will predominantly focus on the presentation of the empirical facts regarding the development of mogen, and only to a lesser extent on the theoretical implications. An earlier study which is part of the same wider project is the diachronic analysis of the auxiliary kunnen ‘can’, initially reported in Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts (2004), and in a revised and adapted form in Nuyts (2007). For the sake of comparability, the presentation of the data and the analyses in the present study follows roughly the same pattern as in Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts (2004).1 Chapter 1 presents some crucial definitions and surveys the relevant literature. Chapter 2 explains the methodology. Chapter 3 then offers a detailed analysis and discussion of the data. Chapter 4, finally, draws some conclusions.
1 All individual forms involved in the wider project are of course investigated in a fully parallel fashion, using the same corpus outline and analytical categories, in order to ascertain mutual comparability. The presentation of kunnen in Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts (2004) and Nuyts (2007) did not include the facts for Old Dutch and for spoken Present Day Dutch yet, although the latter are part of the basic outline of the investigation of the different modal forms (see section 2.1 below), and will be included in our present analysis of mogen. (In the mean time these missing stages have been analyzed for kunnen as well and will be reported on another occasion.)
1 Preliminaries
1.0 Introduction
In this chapter, we will first address briefly (our concept of) two notions that will be central in our analysis of the diachronic development of mogen ‘may’, viz., grammaticalization, as a process of structural change (section 1.1.), and (inter)subjectification, as a process of semantic change (section 1.2). Then we will define the various meanings and uses that will figure in our analysis of mogen (section 1.3). Finally, we will offer a short review of what is known about the diachronic development of the Dutch modals, and of mogen in particular (section 1.4).
1.1 Grammaticalization
The modal auxiliaries play a central role in the international literature on grammaticalization. Grammaticalization is traditionally defined as the process that involves “an increase in the range of a morpheme advancing from a lexical to a grammatical or from a less grammatical to a more grammatical status” (Kurylowicz 1965: 52).2 In other words, the process involves a gradual development along the cline in (1):
(1) (cluster of) independent lexical element(s) > semi-autonomous grammatical marker (‘function word’) > fully bound inflectional morpheme > Ø
Modal auxiliaries – and auxiliaries in general – may be regarded as an intermediate stage in this process (see e.g. Heine 1993), as they have evolved from lexical verbs to grammatical function words, but still have to (or rather can)3 travel down the rest of the grammaticalization pathway (before disappearing completely from the language). Obviously, there is variation in the degree of development according to this scale, between individual (modal) auxiliaries in one language (see e.g. Bolinger 1980 on differences in this respect between individual English auxiliaries), and between sets of (modal) auxiliaries in different languages (for example, the English modals have clearly gone futher in their development than the Dutch or German ones; see e.g. Goossens 1983; Heine 1993). Grammaticalization in a broad sense consists of different (related) subprocesses: semantic, morphosyntactic and phonological developments take place at the same time. In the present study, we will use the term grammaticalization in a narrow way, however, to
2 See Campbell and Janda (2000) or Hopper and Traugott (2003) for a historical overview of the use of the term ‘grammaticalization’. 3 Further development is never a necessity: as stated by Hopper and Traugott (2003: 109), “continued grammaticalization is not inevitable, but may be suspended indefinitely at any point.” refer to structural, phonological and morphosyntactic, developments only.4 It concerns, for example, the development of a main verb to an auxiliary and the corresponding changes in the complement structure. In this context, Heine (1993) uses the term ‘decategorialization’, i.e. the gradual loss of morphosyntactic properties characteristic of full verbs, which 5 ultimately – beyond the auxiliary stage – leads to clitization. It is important to keep in mind that grammaticalization is a gradual and continuous process (whence the differences mentioned earlier with respect to degree of grammaticalization between individual auxiliaries within a single language and between sets of auxiliaries in different languages). Moreover, various stages in the grammaticalization process may co-occur. For example, auxiliaries such as zijn ‘be’, hebben ‘have’ or willen ‘want’ still have their original main verbal counterpart in Present Day Dutch – and (at least in some verbs) in concrete instances it is not always easy to distinguish between the auxiliary and the main verbal use (cf. section 3.1.2 on mogen). Grammaticalization can thus be seen as a continuum – the ‘grammaticalization chain’ (Heine 1993) or ‘cline’ (Hopper and Traugott 2003) – on which (the various uses of) individual auxiliaries can be situated, and which has both diachronic and synchronic relevance. From a diachronic point of view, the scale shows the development from older forms to newer forms of a specific auxiliary. And from a synchronic point of view, the scale shows how co-existing alternative uses of one form relate to each other (cf. Hopper’s 1991: 20 ‘principle of divergence’), and scales for different expressions show the differences between those expressions in terms of their degree of grammaticalization. There is one element in grammaticalization that is (or at least was, in the early days of grammaticalization research) often considered absolute, viz. its direction: the process is (or was) then assumed to unidirectionally go from less grammatical to more grammatical, not the other way round (cf. Heine et al. 1991; Hopper and Traugott 2003; Bybee et al. 1994; Traugott 2003). In other words, according to this view, there can be no ‘degrammaticalization’. However, it is questionable that this point of view can be maintained (and today few authors will maintain it) in such radical terms: it is no doubt the dominant trend, but there are quite a few diachronic processes that are difficult to reconcile with a radical take on this (for examples, see e.g. van der Auwera and Plungian 1998; Nuyts 2001a: 268, in press a, b; Norde 2009). The present case of mogen also raises some difficulties (cf. section 3.1).6
4 The semantic development will be referred to by means of the term (inter)subjectification (cf. section 1.2 below). 5 This morphosyntactic process is accompanied by phonetic or phonological ‘erosion’: the form undergoes gradual reduction (and eventually disappears completely). An example is English going to, which is often reduced to gonna in its inchoative or future reading, but not in its original locative use. 6 E.g., also Heine (2003) and Traugott (2006) leave the door open for counterexamples.
10 1.2 (Inter)subjectification
The semantic developments associated with grammaticalization in a broad sense have received quite some attention in recent years, e.g. in the work of Traugott and colleagues (see e.g. Traugott 1989, 2005; Traugott and Dasher 2002). In general terms, there seems to be a tendency towards gradual ‘subjectification’ of meanings: forms generally develop from meanings that belong to the description of the ‘objective world’ towards meanings that belong to the ‘inner world’ of the speaker, i.e. his/her personal evaluations or attitudes. The notion of subjectification as used by Traugott and others is, however, vulnerable to the criticism that it is vague and multi-interpretable. On what basis can meanings be considered more or less subjective than others, beyond mere (disputable) intuition? Nuyts (2001a, 2007, in press a, b, c) offers an attempt to make the notion more operational and ‘objectively’ testable by reinterpreting it in terms of the semantic scope of the meanings involved. The crucial notion for this is the hierarchy of qualificational (or tense-aspect-modality) categories which has been proposed in a number of different versions in the functionalist literature. The version of the hierarchy offered in Nuyts (2001a, 2007, in press a, b, c) and used in the present study is rendered in (2) (see section 1.3 below for definitions of the categories that are relevant for Dutch mogen).7
(2) > evidentiality > epistemic modality > deontic modality/boulomaic modality > time > quantitative (frequency) aspect/dynamic modality > phasal aspect > state of affairs
This hierarchy is meant to account for the (empirically observable) relative extension of semantic scope of the categories involved: higher in the hierarchy means wider scope. In other words: categories do have semantic scope over those below them, but not over those above them in the hierarchy. To give just one brief illustration of what this involves, consider the relation between epistemic modality and time. Let’s (for the sake of simplicity) focus on the adverbs in John will probably come home tomorrow. Epistemic probably does affect temporal tomorrow: the probability judgment concerns ‘John’s coming home tomorrow’. But the opposite does not apply: the epistemic assessment is not situated tomorrow, it applies at speech time. And so it is probably the case that John will come home tomorrow is fine, but *it is tomorrow the case that John will probably come home is nonsense. Hence epistemic modality is higher in the hierarchy than time.
7 The boulomaic category (cf. section 1.3 below) is not mentioned in Nuyts (2001a, 2007, in press a, b, c), but it no doubt belongs just above or below deontic modality (cf. also Nuyts 2005: 24).
11 The hierarchy in (2) is meant as a hypothesis about the conceptual status of these categories, however, and there are factors which complicate the picture at the linguistic surface. A for this paper important one is the dimension of performativity vs. descriptivity, which applies to the categories above time. Thus, in (2), evidentiality is above time – but surely, in, e.g., yesterday it still seemed we could reach the top, but ultimately we haven’t, evidential seem is in the scope of temporal yesterday, and not vice versa. The point is that the evidential form here is not performative, i.e. it does not render the speaker’s own position at the moment of speech (as was the case with probably in the above example). It is used descriptively, i.e. without involving speaker commitment – it only reports on a former qualification by the speaker which is no longer applicable at speech time. Other types of descriptive uses of qualificational forms involve the reporting on another speaker’s qualification of a state of affairs, or the mentioning of a hypothetical qualification, e.g. in a question, or a conditional clause. The ‘conceptual’ status of performative and descriptive qualifications is quite different, though: the hierarchy in (2) only captures the performative versions of the qualifications above time, the descriptive ones are actually (to strongly simplify the situation) part of the state of affairs at the bottom of the hierarchy (see Nuyts 2001a: 39ff, 2009a for further explanation). But how is the hierarchy in (2) relevant for defining subjectivity and subjectification, then? As argued in Nuyts (2009a), the hierarchy not only reflects semantic scope, but is also correlated with degrees of speaker involvement: categories higher in the hierarchy imply more speaker involvement, in the sense that they imply more conceptual activity and interpretation on behalf of the speaker, than categories lower in the hierarchy. It is in this sense that this scope hierarchy also constitutes a cline of increasing subjectivity. And as such, the notion of subjectification in language change can be translated in terms of the scheme in (2) as a process by which the meaning of a linguistic element climbs up in this hierarchy. In other words, forms start out at the bottom of the hierarchy and gradually take up meanings higher in the hierarchy. A further notion introduced by Traugott and colleagues is that of intersubjectification. This refers to the subsequent development of subjective meanings (i.e. the speaker’s subjective attitude toward a state of affairs, cf. above) into meanings that are ‘interpersonal’ and relate to the ‘regulation’ of the interaction of the speaker with the addressee (cf. Traugott and Dasher 2002). In terms of the reinterpretation proposed in Nuyts (2007, in press a, b, c), intersubjectification means that the linguistic element ‘semantically leaves’ the qualificational hierarchy in (2), to assume a function in the realm of interaction management, e.g. as an illocutionary marker, as a politeness marker, as a clause connector or clause type marker, etc. (cf. Nuyts 2008 for the theoretical status of the qualificational notions in the hierarchy versus illocutionary dimensions).8
8 In this study we will, thus, be using the notions of subjectivity and intersubjectivity according to the definitions just given. It is important to stress, though, that this use of these terms should not be confused with the use of the notion of (inter)subjectivity in other work by the present authors (cf.
12 (Inter)subjectification is also generally taken to be unidirectional, and unlike in grammaticalization, there are no clear examples yet of forms making the opposite movement (i.e. of de(inter)subjectification). There is some discussion in the literature about the nature of the mechanisms involved in the processes of subjectification and intersubjectifcation. Some authors, e.g. Traugott (1989, 2006), state that the developments are due to the conventionalization of ‘conversational implicatures’, which boils down to an analysis in terms of metonymic processes. But others, e.g. Sweetser (1990), believe that the diachronic meaning shifts take place by means of a process of metaphorization. And yet others, e.g. Bybee et al. (1994), assume that in some cases the former process occurs, whereas in other cases it is the latter process. But as argued by Heine et al. (1991) and Heine (1993), the analysis in terms of metapharization may be accurate at a macro-level (i.e. as a hindsight at source meaning and target meaning), but the processes of language change that actually take place can only be explained in terms of metonymic shifts (see Nuyts 2001a: 182–183 for discussion, and compare Goossens 1999 for evidence). These metonymic processes are probably facilitated by contextual factors such as the nature of the first argument participant in the clause, the nature of the state of affairs (‘aktionsart’), the temporal situation, etc. (cf. Traugott 2006).9 It is, by the way, unclear to what extent semantic (inter)subjectification processes correlate with structural grammaticalization processes (see e.g. Traugott and Dasher 2002, Traugott 2010 for discussion). As far as the modal auxiliaries are concerned, though, it is usually taken for granted, that there is a connection: the epistemic use of the forms seems to be more grammaticalized than the deontic use, which in turn is more grammaticalized than the dynamic use (cf. also section 1.4 below).
1.3 The definition of the semantic categories
We will of course need a frame of reference for our analysis of the (diachronic development in the) meanings of mogen. Our background will be the analysis of the field of modal (and related) meanings as outlined in Nuyts (2005, 2008) and Nuyts, Byloo and Diepeveen (2007, 2010).10 Here is a brief definition of the various modal and other categories that will figure in our analyses in this study (see the references above for a more
Nuyts 2001a: 33ff, 2001b, in press c) – this involves two completely different issues. The use of the same terms for both is unfortunate, but inevitable given their degree of ‘establishment’. 9 These factors are most likely identical to the ones that, synchronically, facilitate certain meanings in case of ambiguity in the use of modal auxiliaries. See e.g. Nuyts (2001a: 193ff) for discussion of a number of these factors with respect to the dynamic vs. epistemic reading of the modal auxiliaries. 10 See Nuyts (2006, in print d) for surveys of the most important alternative views of modality in the current literature.
13 elaborate account). For all categories, the illustrations are drawn from our corpus of instances of mogen as outlined in section 2.1 below.11 Essentially, we can distinguish between a series of ‘qualificational’ meanings (the type of meaning categories included in the qualificational hierarchy in (2) above), and a series of ‘non-qualificational’ meanings and uses (not featured in the hierarchy in (2)). Among the for our analysis of mogen relevant qualificational meaning categories are the following (traditionally called) modal ones:
Dynamic modality
Dynamic modality concerns abilities/potentials or needs/necessities in the state of affairs. There are three subtypes.
(i) Participant-inherent dynamic modality (abbreviated as ‘dyn-inh’), marking the inherent ability or need of the agent participant to realize the state of affairs, as in John can swim or I must go to the toilet. There are no dyn-inh uses among our Present Day Dutch instances of mogen, but in the earlier stages of Dutch, they are quite frequent, and indicate an ability, as in (3).
(3) Doe ghinc hi uan [hen] also uerre alse men enen steen werpen mochte ende leide sine knin ter erden ende uil op sijn anschin ende bat (EMD052) ‘Then he withdrew from them about a stone’s throw [lit. as far as one could throw a stone] and kneeled down, fell on his face and prayed.’
(ii) Participant-imposed dynamic modality (‘dyn-imp’), marking a possibility or necessity for the agent participant ‘imposed’ or conditioned by the circumstances, as in John can enter, the door is unlocked or You must pass through the kitchen to get into the garden. Even though this use does occur among the present-day instances of mogen, it is much more frequent in the earlier stages, e.g. (4).
11 All through this study, corpus examples will be identified by a label between brackets after the Dutch text, which codes the language stage (OD, END, EMD, PDD), and for Present Day Dutch also whether it is from the spoken (PDDS) or the written (PDDW) data set (see section 2.1 for detailed information), as well as the number of the instance in our data set for that stage (cf. the overview of all our instances in the appendix at the end of this monograph). Corpus examples, most notably the spoken ones, are sometimes simplified (without this being marked in the example), e.g., by omitting irrelevant false starts, pause fillers, hearer interruptions, etc. Otherwise, the spoken examples maintain the transcription conventions of the corpus from which they have been drawn, viz. the Corpus Gesproken Nederlands (see 2.1): e.g., no capitals, no interpunction (a question mark indicates rising intonation; a ‘.’ marks the ‘artificial’ border between transcription units). In all examples the relevant modal form appears in boldface.
14 (4) Wy vergaderen ons daer wy best moeghen, na dattet te passe coemt, ende ick gedencke wel geweest te hebben in seer arme huyskens, die bet ghelijckenisse hadden van een stal, dan van een huys. (END160) ‘We assemble wherever we best can, as opportunity offers itself, and I remember to have been in very poor little houses, that resembled a stable more than a house.’
(iii) Situational dynamic modality (‘dyn-sit’), marking a potential or inevitability inherent in the state of affairs as a whole, rather than in any participant in it, as in In an earthquake even this construction material can get damaged or The driver was so drunk that this car accident had to happen. Again, this use is more typical for mogen in older stages of Dutch. (5) is an example.
(5) Jnde dar+vmbe̊ si wi sculdig meër te sorgene inde veruert te wesene dan vmb̊ iënege sake dië vns̊ gesciën mag. (EMD121) ‘And that is why we should be more worried and afraid than about anything that may happen to us.’
The qualificational hierarchy in (2) in section 1.2 does not differentiate between the three subtypes of dynamic modality – but we will assume that they do show a hierarchy, with dyn-inh having the narrowest and dyn-sit the widest scope, correlated with the decreasing role of a specific participant in the state of affairs.
Deontic modality
Deontic modality (‘deo’) is defined here (in deviation from tradition – see Nuyts, Byloo and Diepeveen 2007, 2010) as indicating the degree of moral acceptability of the state of affairs, as in We cannot fire him just like that, he’s been our best employee for years – meaning ‘it would be immoral to do so’. The traditional ‘deontic’ notions of permission and obligation are called ‘directive’ here – see below. A present-day example of deontic mogen is given in (6).
(6) ik sta daar eigenlijk elk jaar weer versteld van want ik vind ik mag ze dat niet opleggen omdat niet iedereen het talent heeft vind ik om daar acteur te gaan zijn of scenario te schrijven decor te gaan uitwerken. (PDDS193) ‘It actually amazes me each year again, because I think I shouldn’t impose that on them because not everybody has the talent, I think, to become an actor or to write a scenario, design a set.’
15 Boulomaic modality
A category closely related to deontic modality. It indicates the degree to which the assessor likes or dislikes the state of affairs, as in I love it that we’ll be in Paris all together. In our data, boulomaic mogen comes in two ‘grammatical versions’, or ‘formats’.12 In the first one (‘boul1’), illustrated in (7) and (8), the first argument participant is responsible for the boulomaic evaluation.
(7) ik mag erg graag aan sport doen (PDDS013) ‘I very much like to do sports.’
(8) terwijl als ze in 't echt doodgaat ik ga janken op de begrafenis puur omdat andere mensen janken maar zelf hoef ik voor haar geen traan te laten want ik mag 'r niet eens (PDDS027) ‘Whereas, if she really dies, I’ll cry at the funeral, just because other people cry, but, as for myself, I need not shed any tears over her, for I don’t even like her.’
The other version (‘boul2’) is structurally more like deontic mogen in the sense that the assessor (in the default case the speaker him/herself) is usually left implicit and the first argument participant has no role in the boulomaic assessment.13 (9) is an example.
(9) ook M’penza meest doelgericht van allemaal en Wilmots ja dat had een beetje mogen meezitten die doelpoging (PDDS152) ‘M’penza also the most goal-oriented of them all and Wilmots, yes, that should have turned out a little better, that goal attempt.
In terms of their basic semantics, however, we do not see any real difference between boul1 and boul2 (i.e., this distinction does not appear comparable to that between the different subtypes of dynamic modality).
Epistemic modality
Epistemic modality (‘epi’) indicates the degree of likelihood of the state of affairs, as in John might be home. Mogen only marginally features an epistemic use (as our analyses will show): the relevant instances are systematically ambiguous with a dynamic reading; moreover, this meaning only occurs in older stages of Dutch. (10) is an example.
12 This distinction had remained unnoticed in our earlier discussions of the modal meanings (see references above). 13 The assessor can be made explicit by means of an adverbial phrase such as wat mij/hem betreft ‘as far as I am/he is concerned’.
16 (10) eist dat vele ghiere te+ware / danne vlieghen haren+ende+tare / so maghet wel over+waer bedieden / dat van paerden ende van lieden / ene grote menichte vpt velt / metten suaerde wort ghevelt (EMD167) ‘If there are many vultures flying around all over the place, it might very well mean that a multitude of horses and men on the field are being killed by the sword.’
One non-modal qualificational meaning found in mogen is:
Future
Mogen is marginally used as a time marker, indicating future time (‘fut’). Such instances, e.g. (11), only occur in Early Middle Dutch and are systematically ambiguous with a dynamic reading (compare e.g. the instance in (5) above).
(11) die gheloue ic voer mi, ende uoer mine nacomelinghe ghemeene. minen lieuen here den voerseiden Janne Graue van hollant ende alle sinen nacomelinghen ghetrouwelike te houdene up al mijn ghoet dat ic hebbe jof dat ic hiernamals hebben mach, […] (EMD084) ‘I promise on behalf of myself and of all my descendents, to my good lord, the aforementioned John, count of Holland, and all his descendants, to faithfully comply on all the properties I own or hereafter will/may own, […].’
Mogen also features a series of non-qualificational meanings, which in our analysis may all be considered to be intersubjective in nature (see section 1.2). They are:
Directive
Directive (‘dir’) covers a use which in the traditional modality literature is entirely included in the category of deontic modality, but which in our analysis (see Nuyts, Byloo and Diepeveen 2007, 2010) is not modal, or not even qualificational, but belongs in the range of illocutionary or speech act categories. It concerns the use of the modals to express a permission, obligation, interdiction, advice, etc., as in you must go now. We consider this to be exactly the same category as that involved in (the prototypical use of) the imperative mood. (12) is an example with mogen.
(12) op de huwelijksdag twee februari tweeduizend twee mag worden gedemonstreerd maar wel binnen wettelijke normen schrijft Kok (PDDS061) ‘On the wedding day, February 2, 2002, demonstrations are allowed, though within the limits of law, Kok writes.’
17 Volition
As argued in Nuyts, Diepeveen and Byloo (2007) and Nuyts (2008), volition is not a modal or even a qualificational category either, but marks a cognitive stage in between the levels of the conceptual qualification of a state of affairs (as rendered by the hierarchy in (2)) and the coding of linguistic action as involved in illocutionary categories (such as the directive). In particular, it involves the expression of a wish or desire, i.e. the cognitive stage of having decided or concluded on the basis of the conceptual analysis of the relevant state of affairs (including its modal qualifications), that something should (be) change(d) in the world. An example is I want to go home. Volitional mogen comes in two different ‘grammatical’ versions, and the difference is identical to that in boulomaic modality. In the first version (‘vol1’), which only occurs in the earlier language stages, the first argument participant is responsible for the wish. In this sense, it is comparable to the verb willen (as well as its English cognate want). (13) is an example.14
(13) Sanwort is gut deme di clenen worme an den buke wasset. puluer unde itít so+wo du mag. (EMD068) ‘Sandwort is good for those who have little worms growing in their stomach. Pulverize it and eat it as you like/can.’
In the second version (‘vol2’), the entity responsible for the wish is left implicit (in the default case, it is the speaker him/herself) and the first argument participant has no role in it. In (14), e.g. the speaker wishes that no misunderstandings will arise.
(14) maar dat mag natuurlijk niet tot het misverstand leiden dat ik die ontwikkelingen niet belangrijk vind (PDDS046) ‘But that should of course not give rise to the misunderstanding that I do not consider those developments important.’
Optative
Another use of mogen, which is actually very similar to the second version of volitional mogen (vol2), will be labeled ‘optative’ (‘opt’). An example is the use of may in May you live long. A major difference with vol2 is that the optative use is strongly idiomaticized. Symptomatic in this regards is the fact that in Present Day Dutch all our corpus instances of opt occur with an evidential predicate such as duidelijk zijn ‘be clear’, as in (15), or vanzelf spreken ‘go without saying’, as in (16). Also note the use of the (in current Dutch otherwise obsolete, hence also highly idiomatic) subjunctive in mogen in (16).
14 This particular instance is actually ambiguous between a volitional reading and a participant- imposed dynamic modal one.
18 (15) het mag dus nu al duidelijk zijn een neen morgen komt formeel gezien neer op een status-quo (PDDS157) ‘So it may be clear by now: a ‘no’ tomorrow formally boils down to a status-quo.’
(16) Het moge vanzelf spreken dat daarbij de ook voor ons land geldende internationale verplichtingen onverkort in acht zullen worden genomen. (PDDW002) ‘It may go without saying that the international liabilities that also apply to our country will be fully met.’
Optative instances of mogen in actual practice even seem to function as a pragmatic weakening device (i.e. as a hedging device) rather than a volitional expression, since the actual ‘semantic core’ in instances such as (15) and (16) is rather the evidential expression (duidelijk zijn ‘be obvious’, vanzelf spreken ‘be self-evident’): it is the latter which constitutes the actual evaluation expressed by the speaker (i.e., the evidential evaluation is performative – see section 1.2), rather than it being a descriptive evaluation in the scope of (i.e. subject to) the optative ‘evaluation’.15
Concessive
Sometimes mogen is used as a device that signals a concessive clause (‘conc’). In this use it seems to serve exclusively as a signaler of the role/status of a clause in the discourse, and it can hardly be considered to still express one of the modal or other meanings characterized above. (17) is an example.
(17) Ramakers mag dan het nodige commentaar hebben op het centrumplan, hij ziet toch ook de voordelen ervan in. (PDDW045) ‘Ramakers may have the usual comments on the center plan, he nevertheless also recognizes its advantages.’
Conditional
And mogen also features (nearly always in the preterit form) as a marker of a conditional clause (‘cond’), and here again it seems purely a marker of the textual function of a clause. (18) is an example.
15 Another interesting observation, which we cannot explore further in the present context, is that there appears to be a complementarity between opt and vol2 in terms of their behavior with respect to negation: optative instances systematically occur in affirmative contexts and convey a positive wish, whereas vol2 instances usually occur in negative contexts and convey a negative wish.
19 (18) Zeker daarom was het beter geweest mocht eerst de eenmaking wat verder gegaan zijn, zodat deze landen ook wisten waar naartoe gegaan. (PDDW188) ‘Especially because of that, it would have been better had the unification gone a bit further, so that these countries also had known where to go.’
Other
Some instances of mogen involve completely ‘frozen’ uses as part of an idiomatic expression, in which the actual meaning or function of the modal is, at least synchronically, not really discoverable anymore. We cover these under the label ‘other’. One of the ‘other’ uses is is the fixed expression Joost mag het weten ‘heaven only knows’ in (19).
(19) Joost mag het weten wat met je wekker gebeurd is (PDDS019) ‘Heaven only knows what happened to your alarm clock.’
Another one is the expression mogen hebben ‘can have’, as in (20). This use is probably derived from the directive use, but it cannot be equated with it, as its meaning is no longer compositional: (20) does not mean ‘I was allowed to have this in my position’.
(20) ja vond ‘k gelijk geweldig. ‘k zeg ach mag ik die? en die mocht ik hebben (PDDS099) ‘Yes, I immediately loved it [a piece of cloth]. I said: oh, can I have that one? And I could have it.’
Finally, our category ‘other’ also covers one END instance – rendered in (21) – of what appears to be a lexical, main verbal use of mogen.
(21) ghij en weet niet dan prosperiteit gheluckighen voertghanck in desen daghen Gheen vianden en moghen teghens dese machtighe stede van ierusalem. (END126) ‘You know nothing but prosperity and fortunate progress these days. No enemies are equal to this mighty city of Jerusalem.’
Unlike all other instances labeled ‘other’, this is not a ‘frozen’ form. But since it is a complete ‘isolate’ in our data it is very difficult for us to assess its status. Is it a relic of the original main verbal use (see section 1.4)? Or is it a writer’s error (in which case the instance might have been meant to express a type of dynamic modality)?
The semantic/functional categories defined above may all appear clearly different from each other, but in practice it is not always easy to drawn the line between (at least some of)
20 them, both at the level of the semantic categories per se, and at the level of individual usages of the modal. If one looks at actual data (as we have done in our corpus), instances involving ambiguity between readings, in which it is impossible to decide which meaning the speaker actually had in mind, are abounding. For the actual addressee, this ambiguity in most cases probably does not cause real problems: for example, it really does not matter/make much of a difference to the reader of (13) above whether mogen should be interpreted dynamically or volitionally. But it does pose a serious challenge for the linguist trying to determine as accurately as possible the meaning of such instances (see Nuyts 2001a: 179ff for a discussion of this problem and its implications). On the other hand, such ambiguous cases are also potentially an important ‘tool’ for the linguist: in many cases they signal the existence of ‘conversational implicatures’ between different meanings, which may actually be responsible for changes between these meanings – or in other words, such ambiguous cases may be important signals for ongoing processes of diachronic meaning evolution. Hence it is important to carefully register ambiguity in the analysis of data, and use the information it offers in their interpretation (see section 2.2).
1.4 The diachrony of the Dutch modal auxiliaries
The literature on the diachronic development of modal auxiliaries (see e.g. Goossens 1982, 1999; Traugott 1989; Bybee et al. 1994; Nuyts 2001a) shows that they generally evolve according to the logic of the system in (2), across typologically very different languages. They quite systematically originate from full lexical verbs, then usually first develop a dynamic modal meaning, and then further evolve – possibly by means of metonymic processes influenced by contextual factors – towards a deontic meaning, and subsequently towards an epistemic meaning (perhaps not in a linear way, though, as there is evidence that the development of an epistemic meaning in at least some cases directly arises from the dynamic meaning, not from the deontic one – see e.g. Goossens 1999, Nuyts 2007). For Dutch, this pattern has been confirmed for the modal auxiliary kunnen ‘can’ (see Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts 2004; Nuyts 2007). For the other Dutch modals, however, very little research has been undertaken so far. Duinhoven (1997: 383ff) and Nuyts (2001a: 228ff) do provide descriptions of the diachronic evolution of the modal auxiliaries in Dutch, but they are not based on extensive and systematic corpus research. On the basis of the information found in the dictionaries of Verwijs and Verdam (1885−1929) and De Vries and Te Winkel (1864−1998), Nuyts (2001a) sketches the following development, which is largely in accordance with the general assumptions in the grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification literature: all modal auxiliaries originate from full-fledged predicates
21 Table 1.1 Meaning development of the Dutch modal auxiliaries
Meaning of indep. verb Meaning development of modal kunnen ‘to have a mental capacity, know’ > dyn > deo + epi mogen ‘to be strong’ > dyn > deo [>+ epi] moeten (?) ‘measure, determine limits’ > dyn > deo >+ evi zullen ‘to owe something’ > deo >/+ fut >+ epi
(cf. also De Vries 1971 and Van Wijck 1971) and seem to follow the pathway described above, as can be seen in the table 1.1 (adopted, modified, from Nuyts 2001a: 232).16 As mentioned already in section 1.3 above (and see section 3.2.1 below), the epistemic meaning of mogen has disappeared in Present Day Dutch, whence the brackets. This does not go against the subjectification hypothesis, though: it does not involve the development of a meaning lower in the hierarchy in (2) out of a meaning higher in it, it only involves the ‘regression’ of a meaning that came into being earlier according to the logic of the system. Duinhoven (1997: 383ff) offers a ‘conceptual’ analysis of the diachronic development of the Dutch modals, including mogen. He assumes that mogen initially referred to physical capacities of living beings (i.e. dyn-inh in our terminology, cf. section 1.3 above) – the difference with connen (the Middle Dutch precedessor of kunnen ‘can’) is that the latter referred to mental capacities. In Middle Dutch, mogen still regularly occurs as an independent verb with precisely this ‘physical capacities’ reading, as in (22).
(22) God, diet al mach ende can (Duinhoven 1997: 410) ‘God, who can do all things’
Duinhoven argues that connen has then replaced mogen for the expression of both mental and physical ‘ability’ (cf. Present Day Dutch), as a result of meaning developments in the latter modal. Mogen started to get used for the expression of possibilities due to external factors, i.e. dyn-imp (or dyn-sit) in our analysis. These external factors can be contextually implied, as in (23), or explicitly mentioned, as in (24).
(23) Nu moochdi sien, of Reinaert heeft enige magen (Duinhoven 1997: 411) ‘Now, you’ll be able to see whether Reinaert has got any relatives.’
16 See Nuyts (2001a) for illustrations and further discussion. The evolution of zullen is uncertain. Bybee and Pagliuca (1987) and Bybee et al. (1991) argue that the future meaning of the English ‘counterpart’ (as the default future ‘modal’) will develops from the deontic meaning, which would go against the logic of the system in (2) above. For Dutch, this can be confirmed nor denied, since both meanings already occur in the oldest consulted sources. For all forms except kunnen (cf. Nuyts 2007) it is uncertain whether the epistemic meaning arose from the deontic meaning or directly from the dynamic one. We will come back to this with respect to mogen in section 3.2.1.
22 (24) Die bi maten leven can, hi mach sijn een gesont man (ibid.) ‘The one who knows to live with moderation can be a healthy man.’
In some cases, mogen expresses necessities rather than possibilities, as in (25) and (26). Again, these necessities are caused by the circumstances.
(25) Ic ben in vresen, al sic te rechte wel mach wesen (ibid.) ‘I’m afraid, as rightly I should be.’
(26) Deen van hen tween maget wel becopen (ibid.) ‘One of them will have to bear the consequences.’
The permission reading (i.e. what we call the directive use) of mogen is still rare in Middle Dutch, according to Duinhoven (1997: 412). He gives a few instances which, in his view, are ambiguous between (in our terms) a dyn-imp reading and a reading in which the speaker grants permission – they are rendered in (27) –(29). In terms of our own semantic concepts (cf. section 1.3), however, some of these instances are deontic rather than directive: (28) and (29) in particular have nothing to do with permission (or interdiction), but involve the expression of moral (in)acceptability of the state of affairs.
(27) Here Cantecleer, nu moogdi wel vorwaertmeer van mi sonder hoede leven (ibid.) ‘Lord Cantecleer, from now on I allow you live without fear.’
(28) Heer, gi moget ons node verjagen (ibid.) ‘Lord, you can hardly chase us away.’
(29) Maer dat gi een moorder sijt, gine moget ontseggen camp no strijt (ibid.) ‘But since you are a murderer, you cannot refuse combat or battle.’
Duinhoven argues that such instances illustrate that giving permission can be conceptualized as the speaker giving the subject the possiblity to do something. The permission element arises from the fact that the subject can only do the action described in the state of affairs if a third person agrees. According to Duinhoven, in Present Day Dutch the permission reading of mogen has become much more important than the possibility readings, but this happened only after Middle Dutch. Duinhoven (1997: 413–414) also mentions two discursive uses of mogen: the conditional and the concessive ones. In his view, the dyn-imp use of mogen, i.e. the use which refers to the dependence on circumstances, makes it an ideal auxiliary to be used in conditionals, as in the following instances.
23 (30) Magic leven, het sal hem rouwen (Duinhoven 1997: 413) ‘If I (am able to) survive, he will feel sorrow for it.’
(31) Nemmermeer voort an en werdic rover noch scaecman, mach ic hier mijn lijf behouden (ibid.) ‘Never again will I be a robber or cheater, if I (am able to) survive this.’
(32) Hi peinsde, mocht hi keren, hi soude hem goets so vele geven (ibid.) ‘He thought, if he could go back, he would give him so many goods.’
In such instances, dyn-imp mogen reinforces the conditional meaning, which is already being expressed by the word order. This leads to a reanalysis of mogen as a conditional marker. A similar reasoning can be applied to the use of dyn-imp mogen in concessives. Finally, Duinhoven (1997: 414) states that the optative use of mogen is rare in Middle Dutch. He claims that this use has emerged only after mogen developed the directive use in Early New Dutch. It will be clear that the development as described by Duinhoven is fully in line with the (inter)subjectification hypothesis mentioned in section 1.2 above: the evolution in the qualificational meanings expressed by mogen involves climbing up in the hierarchy in (2) above (cf. section 1.2), and interactive or discursive meanings or uses are a later development. The participant-inherent dynamic use is the oldest (qualificational) meaning. This then develops into the participant-imposed and situational dynamic uses, which in turn constitute the basis for the directive use, as well as the conditional and concessive uses. Finally, the optative use arises from the directive use. In chapter 3 we will see whether this analysis is supported by our corpus data.
24 2 Methodology
2.0 Introduction
In this methodological chapter we first present our corpus and how it has been compiled (section 2.1). Then we define a range of grammatical and semantic features of the modal and the clause in which it appears which have been analyzed systematically in all our corpus instances (section 2.2). Finally, we briefly present the statistical tools we have used in support of our quantitative analyses (section 2.3).
2.1 Corpus design
The auxiliary mogen has been investigated through a comparison of its properties in four different and maximally divergent stages in the language’s history: Old Dutch (OD, before 1200), Early Middle Dutch (EMD, 1250–1300), Early New Dutch (END, 1550–1650), and Present Day Dutch (PDD, after 1950). In principle we analyze 200 instances for each period. For OD, however, we simply use all instances we could find in the remaining materials, i.e. 57. And for PDD we use two sets of 200 instances: one written (PDDW), comparable to the earlier periods, and one spoken (PDDS). The total number of instances analyzed for this study may seem small, but it strikes a balance between, on one hand, what is practically manageable given time restrictions, the wide range of forms considered in the global project (of which the present study is only one part, cf. section 0. above), and the large number of factors analyzed (see below), and, on the other hand, what is needed in view of the project’s goal to get a first global overview of the meaning evolutions in the different forms considered (in the present study: mogen), and in the modal system as a whole.17 The selection, both of texts and of instances, is based on a (balanced) concern for representativity and optimal spreading for each period, both geographically and in terms of text styles and authors, and for optimal comparability between the periods – but this goal is inevitably hampered by the practical availability and accessibility of materials and is thus subject to (sometimes heavy) compromises. For example, the documents remaining from the oldest language stages (OD and EMD) are typically rhymed texts and administrative texts, which means they are probably not very representative for the actual language in those times (cf. e.g. the very formulaic nature of most of the administrative documents). For reasons of efficiency, we have limited ourselves to electronically accessible texts, since this permits automatic queries. Since in the older language stages the spelling of mogen was not fixed, though, queries for those periods had to consider all possible spelling
17 A disadvantage of analyzing sets of comparable size per period is that we will not be able to assess the relative frequency of this modal in the various stages of Dutch. But see Byloo and Nuyts (in prep a). variants – we have thereby used all variants mentioned in Verwijs and Verdam (1885– 1929), Pijnenburg et al. (2001) and Van Helten (1887) (for EMD and END), and in De Vries and Te Winkel (1864–1998) (for END). Here is an overview of the texts (or ready-made corpora) we have used for each period.
Old Dutch
There is very little material left from the oldest stages of Dutch, and only part of it is useful for our investigation (we cannot use glosses, e.g., we can only use full texts of sufficient size so as to have enough context for the interpretation of instances of the modal). In practice, we have been able to use only two texts, viz. the Wachtendonckse Psalmen, an interlinear translation of an Old High German translation of a Latin original (dated app. 950 or briefly before), and the Leidse Willeram, a translation of the Old High German commentary on a Latin version of the Song of Songs (dated app. 1100).18 As indicated, since there are less than 200 occurrences of mogen (mugan, in those days) in these texts, we have simply included all instances (i.e., 57) in our sample.
Early Middle Dutch
For EMD, we have benefited from the Corpus Gysseling (CG), digitally available on the CD-ROM Middelnederlands (1998) of the Institute of Dutch Lexicology. The CG consists of a diplomatic edition of nearly all known texts written before 1301. ‘CG1’ contains administrative texts (charters, inventories, deeds, etc.), whereas ‘CG2’ contains literary texts, in a wide sense, i.e. including essayistic or ‘popular-scientific’ works. Most texts in CG2 are rhymed. For the selection of our 200 instances sample, we have used texts from the full range of genres available, and to the extent possible we have limited the amount of administrative as well as rhymed materials: the latter text types, although massively present in the materials (which makes it impossible to exclude them alltogether, although that would be the ideal situation), are often highly formulaic (administrative texts) or forced due to ‘rhyme and rhythm pressure’ (rhymed texts), hence potentially unnatural and not very representative for the default language use in EMD. Since EMD was not standardized at all and rather consisted of a series of often fairly different (groups of) dialects (Flemish, Brabantic, Hollandic etc.), we have moreover aimed for a maximal distribution of our materials over the different regions. Finally, we have tried to distribute instances in our sample over as many different ‘hands’ as possible. An ideal, ‘mathematically’ equal distribution of our sample (i.e. a fixed number of tokens per region and per genre, and with a fixed maximum of instances per hand) was not
18 The Rhinelandic Rhyming Bible, another substantial text, has not been included, because of its hybrid language containing Low German, Old Dutch and High German elements (Wells 2004).
26 Table 2.1 EMD sources
name type of text genre region CG1: ambtelijke bescheiden administrative texts prose various regions Luikse Diatessaron description of the life of Christ prose Brabant (West) Nederbergse Geneeskundige Recepten medicinal recipes prose Brabant (West) Noordlimburgse gezondheidsregels prescriptions concerning health prose Brabant (West) Nederrijns Moraalboek moral prescriptions prose Lower Rhine Enaamse Codex religious prescriptions rhymed East-Flanders Alexiuslegende hagiography rhymed South west Der Naturen Bloeme semi-scientific/didactic treatise rhymed West-Flanders Rijmbijbel biblical translation rhymed West-Flanders Sinte Lutgart, Handschrift A hagiography rhymed Brabant (East) Lutgard K hagiography rhymed Brabant (West) Sinte Kerstine hagiography rhymed Brabant (East)
feasible, however, as there are great differences in the availability of texts (by different hands, and from the different text genres) from the different regions: some regional varieties of EMD are extremely overrepresented in the materials available (in part due to the fact that in certain regions – e.g. economic or cultural centers – there was much more text production than in others). So our ultimate sample constitutes a compromise between our different criteria and the practical availability of data. Table 2.1 offers an overview of the texts from which our EMD sample has been drawn. As indicated, they are all part of the Corpus Gysseling (see CD-ROM Middelnederlands 1998 for details).
Early New Dutch
For END, the selection of text materials was more difficult, since there is no ready-made representative corpus available. We have compiled our own text corpus making use of the on-line library ‘Digitale Bibliotheek voor de Nederlandse Letteren’ (www.dbnl.org),19 as well as a few specialized websites providing historical texts on specific topics (recipes, herbals, history). In this period there already was a clear tendency towards ‘super-regional’ language use as an effect of beginning standardization, so there was no strong reason for a maximal distribution of our data across all dialect groups (or regiolects) anymore – which in practice would have been very difficult to achieve anyway, given the text materials available. However, we do distinguish between North and South, since the division of the
19 For the present study on mogen, more texts are included than for the study on kunnen (Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts 2004), since the dbnl.org website has been expanded considerably since. This study is based on the texts that were available in the DBNL in 2007.
27 Table 2.2 END sources name type of text source South: non-fictional prose Jan de Pottre Diary dbnl Ambrosius Zeebout Travel story dbnl Marnix van St-Aldegonde Satire dbnl Justus Lipsius Treatise dbnl Marcus van Vaernewyck Chronicle/Diary dbnl Jan van den Warck Letters dbnl Karel van Mander Reference book/Biography dbnl Thomas vander Noot (publisher) Recipes kookhistorie.com Peter Heyns Treatise dbnl Rembert Dodoens Herbal leesmaar.nl/cruijdeboeck/ South: Plays Joan de Grieck, Farce dbnl Robert Lawet Morality play dbnl Theodoor Rodenburg, Aurelia Tragedy dbnl Jeronimus van der Voort Tragedy dbnl Jacob van Zevecote Comedy dbnl North: non-fictional prose Het Offer des Heren Letters (religious) dbnl Jan Jansz. Orlers Historical account dbnl Het Dobbel Cabinet Confession of faith dbnl P.C. Hooft Chronicle dbnl Dien langen Duyvel van Nieukoop Pamphlet dbnl N. Stellingwerff and S. Schot Minutes of the States-General inghist.nl Hugo de Groot Treatise dbnl Carolus Battus (publisher) Recipes kookhistorie.com Adriaan Valerius Treatise dbnl Desiderius Erasmus Satire dbnl D.V. Coornhert Treatise dbnl Philips Angel Treatise dbnl H.L. Spiegel Treatise/Poetics dbnl Jan van Hout Speech dbnl Dirck Pietersz. Pers Reference book dbnl Arent Willemsz. Travel story dbnl North: plays P.C. Hooft Tragedy dbnl J. Noozeman Farce dbnl W.D. Hooft Farce dbnl Joost van den Vondel Tragedy dbnl G.A. Bredero Farce dbnl Lauris Jansz. Farce dbnl Gijsbrecht van Hogendorp Tragedy dbnl Samuel Coster Farce dbnl Jan Vos Tragedy dbnl Constantijn Huygens Farce dbnl
28 Netherlands into an independent part (North) and a Spanish part (South) obstructed language uniformization across those borders, and (increasingly) triggered more differences between these areas than within them. Hence 100 tokens in our sample are taken from northern and from southern texts each. Within each subsection, then, 20 tokens were taken from plays (which are rhymed) and 80 from expository texts (which are prose). Ideally, administrative texts should have been included as well, but that was not possible for practical reasons (none available electronically). Table 2.2 lists the texts used as a source for the END sample.
Present Day Dutch
For PDD we have used two separate samples of 200 instances, one involving exclusively written materials (as for the older language stages), and one involving exclusively spoken materials. For both we have again maintained an equal distribution of tokens between North (100) and South (100) (on the same grounds as for END). The written component (PDDW) consists of an equal share (50% each, for both North and South) of instances from journalistic prose drawn from newspapers as brought together in the ConDiv-corpus (Grondelaers et al. 2000), and from contemplative and/or essayistic texts on a wide range of subjects which were taken from carefully selected websites. Table 2.3 offers an overview of the websites used.
29 Table 2.3 Sources for the PDDW essayistic texts
North
30 Table 2.4 CGN components
a. Spontaneous conversations (‘face-to-face’) b. Interviews with teachers of Dutch c. Spontaneous telephone dialogues (recorded via a switchboard) d. Spontaneous telephone dialogues (recorded on MD via a local interface) e. Simulated business negotiations f. Interviews/discussions/debates (broadcast) g. (political) Discussions/debates/meetings (non-broadcast) h. Lessons recorded in the classroom i. Live (e.g. sports) commentaries (broadcast) j. Newsreports/reportages (broadcast) k. News (broadcast) l. Commentaries/columns/reviews (broadcast) m. Ceremonious speeches/sermons n. Lectures/seminars o. Read speech
For the spoken section (PDDS) we have used the Corpus Gesproken Nederlands (‘Spoken Dutch Corpus’, Nederlandse Taalunie 2004), a representative 9 million word collection of naturally occurring speech, which consists of the 15 components listed in table 2.4, ranging from very informal to very formal. We have not used component ‘o’ (read speech), as it contains read-aloud extracts from novels, i.e. written language that was not even intended to be read aloud. Also component ‘e’ (simulated business negotiations) was excluded since it only contains Northern Dutch materials.
For all corpora from all periods, our samples were based on a random selection of instances, within the confines of the selection criteria stipulated above. A complete overview of the selected instances is given in the appendix to this study.
2.2 Analytical categories
All the instances of mogen in our samples have been analyzed in terms of their precise meaning(s) and in terms of a set of factors potentially relevant for understanding the why and how of its diachronic development. These factors are identical to the ones selected for the study of kunnen mentioned in the introduction (Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts 2004, Nuyts 2007). Many of them are inspired by factors raised in the literature as (potentially) relevant (cf. section 1.2), such as the nature of the subject or first argument, the type of state of affairs, and the temporal situation of the state of affairs. But they also cover additional features such as the voice, the presence of negation or the mood.
31 The analytical categories can be arranged around eight questions:20
1. Which meaning category does mogen express? 2. What is the main verb of the clause? 3. What is the voice? 4. What are the linguistic properties of the subject and/or first argument? 5. Which type of state of affairs is expressed in the clause? 6. Does the instance occur in a main clause or a subordinate clause, and what is the mood of the main clause? 7. Is there negation in the clause? 8. What is the tense form of mogen? Is there a perfective or future auxiliary in the clause? What is the time reference of the state of affairs?
The analysis of the different instances of mogen in terms of these questions can be found in the appendix. We will now discuss these questions one by one.
1. Which meaning category does mogen express?
The answer to this question is one of the meaning categories mentioned and defined in section 1.3 above. In determining the meaning of instances we have always taken into consideration their wider context. To assure inter-rater reliability, all instances in our samples have been analyzed in terms of this dimension by at least two and up to four independent assessors familiar with the semantic categories.21 Cases of disagreement have always been resolved through discussion until consensus was reached. For the reasons discussed at the end of section 1.3, instances that are ambiguous between two or more meanings – which are very numerous, cf. section 3.2.1 – are labeled for all the alternative interpretation possibilities. Classification of an instance as ambiguous was actually never due to irresolvable disagreement among the analysts: it always means the analysts were unanimous regarding the presence of ambiguity, and regarding the possible alternative readings.
2. What is the main verb of the clause?
The answer to this question consists of the lemma of the main verb of the clause. This information primarily concerns the status of mogen as an auxiliary verb (with a verbal complement) or as a main verb (with a nomimal, prepositional or adverbial complement, or
20 There are no questions with respect to purely morphological properties of the modal auxiliaries, as these can be deduced from the word form of the instance combined with the information about person and number of the subject and the tense of the modal. 21 We thank Liesbeth Bex and Ewa Fiuk for their help with this.
32 no complement at all).22 In some cases, the actual main verb is not expressed because it is mentioned in the context (or contextually implied). In (33), for example, the verb wegblijven ‘to stay out’ is left out, and in (34), the verb gaan ‘go’ is contextually implied.
(33) van ons ma mocht ik nu tot twee uur wegblijven stom hè. hé maar moogt de gij tot twee uur altijd? (PDDS121) ‘My mum allowed me to stay out till two o’clock. Silly, huh. Hey, but are you allowed [to stay out] till two o’clock, always?’
(34) Officieel staat nog altijd niet vast wie naar het wereldkampioenschap mag. (PDDW120) ‘Officially, it is still undecided who may [go] to the world championship.’
In such cases, we mention the implicit main verb, while indicating that it concerns an elliptical case. In cases in which it is unclear whether there is an elliptical main verb or no verbal complement at all, both options are indicated.
3. What is the voice?
Voice is a means to ‘perspectivize’ the state of affairs (cf. Dik 1997: 247). The clause in which the qualified state of affairs appears has either active voice, as in (35), or passive voice, as in (36).
(35) je mag een papiertje gebruiken om even hè (PDDS048) ‘You may use a little paper to just … you know.’
(36) nee dit mag niet voor commerciële doeleinden gebruikt worden (PDDS190) ‘No, this may not be used for commercial ends.’
In the first case, the ‘vantage point’, formally reflected as the grammatical subject, is assigned to the first argument participant in the clause, whereas in the second case, it is assigned to another participant. In case of a passive clause, the auxiliary that is used (usually worden, as in (36) above, or zijn) is mentioned.
4. What are the linguistic properties of the subject and/or first argument?
If the clause is an active one (see question 3), the properties of the grammatical subject (which is also the first argument of the verb) are considered. In case of a passive clause,
22 But it is also relevant for determining the answer to questions 4 and 5 (cf. below).
33 the properties of both the subject and the first argument (either implicit or explicit) are analyzed. For subjects the following properties are taken into consideration:
− Person and number. − Position of the referent on the animacy hierarchy: human, animate, inanimate, other. Plants are condidered inanimate. The label ‘other’ is used for subjects and/or first arguments that refer to a complete state of affairs rather than individual persons or objects, as in (37) or (38).
(37) Ordes van advocaten en geneesheren mogen hun opdracht van toezicht op de deontologie niet overschrijden. Zelfs het al of niet storten van lidgelden bij deze organisaties mag niet bepalen of men z'n beroep wel of niet kan uitoefenen. (PDDW171) ‘Professional associations of lawyers and medical doctors should not exceed their task to supervise the deontology. Even paying or not paying contributions to these associations should not determine whether or not one can practice his or her profession.’
(38) Als Frispop-posters ergens hangen waar het niet mag, kunnen wij dan aansprakelijk worden gesteld? (PDDW058) ‘If there are Frispop poster hanging somewhere where it is not allowed, can we be held responsible?’
In cases of metonymy in which the subject or first argument is literally inaminate but actually refers to a human ‘behind the scenes’, we assign a double label ‘inanimate/human’, as in (39).23
(39) Is een school niet verantwoordelijk voor de leerachterstand die kinderen oplopen als ze instromen, ze mag geenszins een ‘instandhouder’ zijn van leerachterstanden. (PDDW158) ‘Even though a school is not responsible for arrears in learning that children have when they take in, it certainly should not be a ‘maintainer’ of such arrears in learning.’
− The semantic function. We use the system of semantic functions proposed in Dik (1997), with a few modifications. We distinguish beween (see question 5 for the
23 It is not always easy to determine when metonymy is at stake, but we have been rather liberal in assigning this label.
34 definitions of the types of states of affairs): Agent (the entity controlling an Action), Positioner (the entity controlling a Position), Force (the non-controlling entity instigating a Process), Processed (the entity that undergoes a Process), Zero (the first argument in a State), Experiencer (a secondary semantic function that is assigned as a ‘cumulative’ label to entities experiencing sensory or mental perception),24 Goal (the entity affected or effected by the operation of some controller or Force) and Recipient (the entity into whose possession something is transferred).25
In passives we should in principle consider the same set of properties for the first argument participant. Since the latter is usually left implicit in a passive clause, however, the relevant information is very often simply not available. Therefore, in passives we only mention the semantic function of the first argument participant, which can be derived from the main verb.
5. Which type of state of affairs is expressed in the clause?
Also for the typology of states of affairs (also called Aktionsart), we use the analysis proposed in Dik (1997: 47). This typology is based on two cross-cutting oppositions, viz. dynamicity and control.26 Dynamicity has to do with the question whether or not the state of affairs (or SoA) involves any change or internal dynamism, i.e. whether or not “the entities involved are presented as being or remaining the same at all points of the time interval during which the SoA obtains.” Control refers to the power of the first argument “to determine whether or not the SoA will obtain.” The combination of these two parameters produces a division into four main types of state of affairs, as shown in table 2.5. If necessary, the label ‘experience’ will be added to the characterization of the state of affairs (i.e. as a ‘cumulative’ label) comparably to (and in the same situations as) the assignment of the label ‘Experiencer’ as a secondary semantic function (cf. question 4). Note that the semantic role of the first argument (question 4) is perfectly correlated with the type of state of affairs (which means there is some redundancy in our analyses for questions 4 and 5).
24 Contrary to Dik (1997: 119), we sometimes need this label for an Agent or a Positioner (e.g. in the case of vinden ‘find’). 25 According to Dik (1997), this function can only be assigned to a second or third argument participant, but in a few instances (e.g. in the case of krijgen ‘receive’), we have assigned it to a first argument participant as well. 26 Dik (1997) proposes a further subdivision of dynamic states of affairs in terms of ‘telicity’ – whether or not the state of affairs reaches a natural terminal point – and ‘momentaneousness’ – whether or not the state of affairs is punctual (vs. has duration) – but we will not use these in our analyses since we do not expect these distinctions to be relevant for our present concerns.
35 Table 2.5 FG typology of states of affairs
Type of state of affairs Dynamicity Control State – – Position + – Process – + Action + +
6. Does the instance occur in a main clause or a subordinate clause, and what is the mood of the main clause?
The modal either appears in a main clause or in the subordinate clause. Occurrences in a direct speech complement are treated as main clause instances. By ‘mood’ we mean the syntactic pattern types that correspond to basic speech acts. Three different answers are possible: declarative, interrogative or imperative. If the modal appears in a subordinate clause, the mood of its superordinate clause is considered.
7. Is there negation in the clause?
The clause is either affirmative (no negation present) or negative (involving negation). In some cases, the label ‘semi-neg’ is assigned: this refers to clauses that do not contain an autonomous negation particle but do have a negative constituent (e.g. nauwelijks ‘barely’, niemand ‘nobody’, niets ‘nothing’, etc.; cf. the category of ‘implicit negation’ in Haeseryn et al. 1997: 1646–1647).
8. What is the tense form of mogen? Is there a perfective, future or other auxiliary in the clause? What is the time reference of the state of affairs?
These questions cover the different aspects of the temporal situation of the clause, which is complicated by the presence of a modal auxiliary. The first part of the question is straightforward: the set of possible answers is restricted to ‘present’, ‘pretertit’, ‘subjunctive’, ‘subjunctive preterit’, ‘infinitive’ or ‘past participle’. From EMD onwards, it is often impossible to see whether we have to do with a subjunctive since it is formally indistinguishable from the preterit. We have assigned the label ‘subjunctive’ exclusively in cases in which it can be formally distinguished from the preterit. The second part of the question concerns the presence of other auxiliaries such as the perfective auxiliaries hebben and zijn or the future auxiliary zullen. The third part of the question is purely semantic, viz. concerns the question where the state of affairs is situated on the time axis. It can be answered by ‘past’, ‘present’, ‘future’, ‘future in the past’ or ‘generic’. It is often very difficult to correctly assess the time reference. In such cases, the different alternative readings are listed.
36 2.3 Statistical methods
We will use statistical tests to determine whether observed frequency distributions are due to pure chance (i.e. the ‘null hypothesis’) or not. Since we largely deal with nominal data in this study, we use a non-parametric test, viz. Fisher’s exact probability test, which calculates the ‘statistical significance’ exactly. However, if there are too many categories or if sample sizes are too large, Fisher’s exact test may become too difficult to compute. In such cases, we use the Pearson’s chi-square test of independence, which determines the significance only by approximation though. Whenever we use the chi-square test we will mention this explicitly. We will adopt the convention common in linguistic studies to assume statistical significance (i.e. to reject the null hypothesis) when the p-value is less than or equal to .05 (i.e. there is 5% chance or less that the null hypothesis holds). If p is greater than .05, the difference is considered statistically not significant, and in that case we will not mention the p-value. Sometimes, notably in section 3.2.1, where we deal with the evolution in degrees of (inter)subjectivity over time, we will calculate a correlation coefficient, which measures the degree of correspondence between two rankings, in our case the different language stages and the different meaning categories. Since we work with non-parametric data, we will use the Spearman Rank Coefficient of Correlation. This test renders a value between 1 (a perfect positive correlation) and −1 (a perfect negative correlation). If there is no correlation at all, the coefficient is close to 0. All statistical tests are performed by means of the statistical software package R, version 2.12.0 (R Development Core Team 2010 – see also www.r-project.org).
37
3 Results and discussion
3.0 Introduction
In this long chapter we present the main findings of the corpus analysis and discuss their implications for our research questions (cf. chapter 1). Section 3.1 rather briefly deals with the morphological and morphosyntactic properties of mogen. Section 3.2 then analyzes in much more detail the evolutions in the different semantic and syntactic-semantic properties (along the lines of the questions defined in section 2.2 above) of the modal.
3.1 Morphological en morphosyntactic changes
3.1.1 Changes in the word form and the flectional categories
Table 3.1 shows the various word forms of mogen, in the different flectional categories, found in our data. Their frequency is mentioned between brackets.27 The system of alternation between different vowel stems remains fairly stable throughout the periods. In all stages there is a different vowel for the singular indicative present forms, for the indicative (and, in OD, subjunctive) preterit forms and for all the other forms. Only the second person singular indicative present form complicates the picture, since it can either follow the other singular indicative present forms, or it can follow the ‘other’ forms, depending on the form of the personal pronoun.28 There has been a change in one of the vowels figuring in the alternate stems, though. In OD the vowels are spelled ,
27 For the second person Dutch shows a gradual development in its system of personal pronouns: from du for singular and gij for plural and honorific towards jij (or gij) for singular, jullie for plural and u for honorific, with an intermediary stage in which gij referred to both singular and plural. For the sake of simplicity/legibility of the table, no distinction is made between singular gij and plural gij. In the older language stages gij (or ghi) is always handled as plural, from END onwards it is always classified as singular, irrespective of the actual number of referents. 28 The du-forms (only OD and EMD) follow the ind. pres. sg. paradigm, whereas the gij-forms (which referred to 2nd person plural originally, cf. the previous note) follow the paradigm of the ‘other’ forms. However, PDD jij-forms, even though they derive from gij, do follow the ind. pres. sg. paradigm. 29 PDD /o:/ is written as
OD EMD END PDDW PDDS
(n = 57) (n = 200) (n = 200) (n = 200) (n = 200) ind. 1sg magh (3) mach (5) mach/magh (8) mag (7) mag (32) pres. 2sg magt (2) mag (1) meuch(t)/meught (6) mag (12) mag (37) mach(tu) (1) můg(e)s (2) muecht/mueght (4) moogt (10) moeg(se) (1) moecht/moeght (5) 3sg mag(h)/ ma(e)ch/ mach/magh (65) mag (80) mag (54) mach (10) mag(h) (75) 1pl mo(e)g(h)e(n) (10) mo(e)g(h)en (5) mogen (11) mogen (10) 2pl mugat (1) mo(e)g(h)(e)t (6) mogen (1) mogh(di) (1) 3pl muga(n) (18) mo(e)g(h)en (21) mog(h)en (14) mogen (36) mogen (20) mugen (1) můgen (1) meugen (1) ind. 1sg mocht(e)/ mocht(e) (3) mocht (4) mocht (4) mocht (6) pret. moghte (4) moghta (2) 2sg mochts (1) mocht (4) mocht (1) mocht (3) 3sg moghta (2) mocht(e)/ mo(e)cht(e)/ mocht (21) mocht (10) mohte (1) mogte (39) mog(h)t(e) (32) mughte (1) 1pl mochten (3) mochten (2) mochten (1) mochten (2) 2pl mochtt (1) 3pl moghtan (3) mo(i)chte(n) (12) mo(e)chten (10) mochten (9) mochten (5) mughten (1) subj. 1sg muga (2) moge (1) pres. muge (1) 2sg mugest (1) mugas (1) 3sg muga (3) mo(e)g(h)(e) (6) moge (3) moge (1) subj. 3sg mohti (1) pret. infi- mo(e)g(h)en (8) mo(o/e)g(h)en (39) mogen (15) mogen (9) nitive part. gemogen (1) gemogen (1) pret.
PDD data). (Also the spelling as
40 (notably, the preterit). In accordance with the general loss of the subjective in Dutch (which fits into its general development from a more synthetical to a more analytical language type), mogen is used less and less in the subjunctive. In OD, the subjunctive paradigm is represented by all three present singular forms and even by a preterit form.30 Together, these constitute a significant share of all occurrences in OD (16%). In EMD, however, this share has dropped to 4%, nearly all of them present third person singular forms. And from END onwards there are hardly any subjunctive forms left. The few instances in PDD (all present third person singulars) are all idiomatic uses, marking either the optative, as in (16) above, or a concessive, as in (40).31
(40) God, Allah, Boedha, Jehova of hoe het Wezen genoemd moge worden is God, Hij/Zij krijgt gewoon een andere naam maar elke godsdienst bedoelt Opperwezen. (PDDW187) ‘God, Allah, Buddha, Jehova or however the Being may be called, is God, He/She just gets another name but every religion means Supreme Being.’
Mogen is actually one of the very few verbs in PDD which can still be used in the subjunctive mood. For kunnen, for example, no subjunctive cases showed up in the PDD sample of Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts (2004), and also intuitively they are no longer used today. And even in their EMD sample, there is just one case. Ironically, the conditions in which subjunctive moge is used are precisely those in which the presence of a modal auxiliary would have been unnecessary as long as the subjunctive mood could be productively applied to any verb (i.e. in irrealis contexts such as the optative and the concessive). It seems that subjunctive moge got to be used in these contexts in order to compensate for the growing awkwardness and ultimately impossibility to mark the subjunctive on the main verb. One can, of course, also use alternative forms in these contexts, including zou (the preterit of zullen ‘shall, will’), but also the indicative form of mogen (cf., in an optative, e.g. (15) above, and in a concessive, e.g. (17) above). Another, and more remarkable, evolution concerns the frequency of the infinitive throughout time. There are no infinitives in OD; in EMD, their share is 4%; in END, this suddenly increases to 20%; and in PDD, it diminishes again to 8% in PDDW and 5% in PDDS.32 Precisely the same pattern was observed for kunnen in Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts (2004). In terms of grammaticalization theory (cf. Lehmann’s 2002 ‘paradigmatic
30 The basis for classifying this latter form as a subjunctive preterit is the flectional suffix, which as far as we know occurred exclusively in this tense/mood form in a third person – see van den Toorn et al. (1997: 55ff). 31 The successive drops in frequency of the subjunctive are statistically significant according to the Fisher exact test: p = .002 for OD > EMD and p = .015 for EMD > END. 32 The two sudden changes in frequency are statistically significant according to the Fisher exact test: p = .000 for EMD > END and p = .001 for END > PDDW.
41 variability’), one would expect a gradual loss of the infinitive, comparable to what happened in the English modals. The drop in frequency from END onwards fits into such a pattern, but not the significant increase between OD and END. Further analysis (see section 3.2.6) shows that the observed frequency pattern is due to developments in the use of mogen as infinite part of a periphrastic verbal group, particularly in combination with zou as the finite auxiliary. The frequency of such periphrastic combinations follows a very similar pattern: 0% in OD, 5% in EMD, 17% in END, 7% in PDDW and 7% in PDDS.33 The initial rise of these constructions fits into the more general evolution of Dutch, mentioned above, from a more synthetical to a more analytical language type.34 So possibly, the increasing use of periphrastic constructions has interfered with the grammaticalization path of mogen (and kunnen). The question remains, of course, why this would have been true for the evolution from EMD to END, but seems no longer valid in the change from END to PDD.
3.1.2 Changes in the morphosyntactic status
This section is a brief summary of the analysis in Nuyts (2009b, in press a, b). We refer to these publications for more detailed information and a discussion in the broader context of the two other ‘core modals’ kunnen and moeten. It is a known fact (cf. Haeseryn et al. 1997: 1004ff) that in PDD the modals can occur without a main verb in the clause and more freely so than in other, related languages: most such uses are impossible in English, and in German the possibilities are far more restricted (see Mortelmans et al. 2009). An example with mogen is (41).
(41) Dat mag niet van mama ‘Mom doesn’t allow it’ [lit. ‘That may not from mom’]
Table 3.2 presents an overview of the diachronic evolution in this kind of use in mogen. The table shows the frequency of instances (i) in which the modal is used as the main verb of the clause, (ii) in which the modal can be considered an auxiliary yet with elliptical omission of the main verb, and (iii) in which the status of the modal as (i) or (ii) is unclear (cf. also section 2.2). The frequency is given both in absolute numbers and (for the sake of comparability of OD) in terms of the share of each ‘status category’ in the total number of instances for the time slot, as indicated in the top row of the tables (all instances not
33 These frequencies of periphrastic constructions are not simply an addition of the figures in tables 3.21 (for the perfective auxiliaries) and 3.22 (for the future auxiliaries) in section 3.2.6, since there are cases (in EMD) in which both types of auxiliaries (perfective and future) co-occur. 34 Of course, most periphrastic verbal forms, like future, perfect, passive or the ‘conditional’ forms with zou, already existed in Middle Dutch. But some of these, the perfect in particular, but probably also the conditional forms, have become more and more important since then.
42 Table 3.2 Mogen as a main verb or as an auxiliary with an elided main verb
OD EMD END PDDW PDDS (n = 57) (n = 200) (n = 200) (n = 200) (n = 200) main verb 0 2 1% 1 1% 5 3% 19 10% aux + elided main 2 4% 5 3% 5 3% 5 3% 29 15% doubt 0 0 0 1 1% 1 1% total 2 4% 7 4% 6 3% 11 6% 49 25%
covered by these tables are, of course, normal auxiliary uses with the main verb present in the clause). The use of mogen as an auxiliary with an elided main verb vs. as a ‘real’ main verb is not a black-and-white issue: there is a gradual cline from one to the other category, with a huge twilight zone in between, and in this twilight zone classifying instances in one or the other category is often arbitrary or even impossible – whence the separate category of cases of ‘doubt’ between the two. Obvious cases of an auxiliary use with the main verb elided are those in which the main verb is contextually given, as in (33) above. Such cases are very rare though. The large majority of cases in the category ‘aux + elided main verb’ are somewhat less obvious: the presumed main verb is not actually mentioned in the context, but is only more or less clearly implied by it, and in most cases native speakers will actually consider it more natural to omit it than to include it (cf. also Haseryn et al. 1997: 1005, 1007). An example is (34) above, repeated here. Also note (cf. the translation) that this kind of ellipsis (unlike that in (33)) is not possible in English.
(42) Officieel staat nog altijd niet vast wie naar het wereldkampioenschap mag. (PDDW120) ‘Officially, it is still unsure who may [go] to the world championship.’
In the instances classified in the category of ‘doubt’, however, it is really hard to determine whether one can still assume an elided main verb or not, hence whether the modal is still auxiliary, or should actually be considered the main verb of the clause (the transition from the previous category to the present one is gradual). In (43), for example, one could possibly imagine a vague or general verb like gebeuren ‘happen’ (or some other verb: it is, in fact, often quite unclear which verb could be implied), but it simply sounds unnatural and very forced to actually include it. Note, again, that this kind of use of the modals is impossible in English.
(43) vindt ie dat bepaalde dingen mogen of niet mogen? (PDDS051) ‘Are certain things acceptable or not acceptable [lit. may they or may they not [happen]] to him?’
43 Finally, there are cases such as (8) above, repeated below, in which it is really impossible to (reasonably) assume an elided main verb which could be inserted, hence one cannot but consider the modal verb itself as the grammatical main verb.
(44) terwijl als ze in 't echt doodgaat ik ga janken op de begrafenis puur omdat andere mensen janken maar zelf hoef ik voor haar geen traan te laten want ik mag 'r niet eens (PDDS027) ‘Whereas, if she really dies, I’ll cry at the funeral, just because other people cry, but, as for myself, I need not shed any tears over her, for I don’t even like her.’
As argued in detail in Nuyts (in press a, b), then, the existence of the gradual cline in the degree of independence of the modal, from cases of the type in (42), via those in (43), to those in (44), strongly suggests that the auxiliary cases with a elided main verb play a crucial role in the transition between main verbal and auxiliary status of this verb (and any other auxiliary verb), in both directions. Of course, an ‘autonomization’ of an auxiliary towards a full verb would run counter to standard grammaticalization paths (cf. e.g. Hopper and Traugott 2003), yet the above observations in combination with the pattern of evolution emerging in table 3.2 strongly suggest that this is precisely what is happening in the case of mogen (and see also van der Auwera and Plungian 1998). Until END, the frequency of autonomous uses is very small. In PDD, however, there is a sudden change, at least in its spoken version (which may be considered to reflect a somewhat later stage of the language than PDDW, or at least to hint at where the language is going from PDDW onwards – see Nuyts 2009b, in press a, b for arguments): about a quarter of all instances are either main verbal uses or auxiliary uses with an elided main verb.35 Interestingly, this tendency towards grammatical reautonomization is not accompanied by a semantic correlate, i.e. de(inter)subjectification – rather on the contrary. A quite sizeable portion of the autonomous instances in PDD – including (42) and (43) above – involve a deontic or a directive use (as the only, or as one of the possible, meanings). Table 3.3 presents an overview of the share of deontic and directive instances and of instances 36 with either meaning (‘total’) in the autonomous uses of mogen (cf. table 3.2). In the older stages, the meaning profile of the autonomous uses does not differ significantly from the general meaning profile of mogen – which is not surprising given the small frequencies. But in PDD, the frequency of deontic and/or directive cases in autonomous mogen is
35 The Fisher exact test shows that the change in the totals from END to PDD (taking PDDW and PDDS together) is significant: p = .000. The difference between PDDW and PDDS is statistically significant as well: p = .000). 36 The remaining automonous instances usually have a (variant of) the dynamic modal meaning. An exception is (44) above, which expresses boulomaic modality, which is probably at the same height as deontic modality in the hierarchy in (2) (cf. sections 1.2 and 1.3 above).
44 Table 3.3 Relative frequency of deontic and directive autonomous uses
OD EMD END PDDW PDDS (n = 2) (n = 7) (n = 6) (n = 11) (n = 49) deontic 0 0% 0 0% 1 17% 1 9% 9 18% directive 0 0% 2 29% 0 0% 10 91% 40 82% total 0 0% 2 29% 1 17% 11 100% 44 90%
significantly higher than their frequency in the global PDD profile of this modal (cf. section 3.2.1 below).37 So the trend towards re-autonomization in mogen certainly does not concern a ‘revival’ of the original autonomous use of the verb (the main verbs from which mogen has evolved, meaning ‘be strong’, cf. section 1.4 above), or even of the least subjective, presumably oldest, modal meanings (i.e. the dynamic modal ones). It covers at least the full range of meanings of mogen, including or even particularly the subjectivized and intersubjectivized ones (the deontic and directive ones). In other words, there is certainly no semantic de(inter)subjectification accompanying the grammatical reautonomization.
3.1.3 Conclusions with respect to the morphological and morphosyntactic changes
In terms of their morphology, the stems of the modal mogen remain remarkably consistent throughout time. The gradual loss of the subjunctive as well as the frequency pattern observed for the infinitive fit into the general development of Dutch from a synthetic language type towards an analytical one. The observed changes in terms of the grammatical status of mogen strongly suggest a from the perspective of grammaticalization analyses quite unexpected tendency to reautonomize, hence, arguably, to degrammaticalize, at least to some extent.38 Yet, this reautonomization does not involve a tendency to de(inter)subjectivize. This is of course perfectly in line with the observation which has been made before in the literature (cf. Traugott 2010) that grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification do not necessarily coincide, hence are to some extent independent processes. Finally, it is interesting to observe that mogen is not alone in this development: kunnen and moeten are showing precisely the same tendency to re- autonomize, without de(inter)subjectification, suggesting that the process is affecting the complete system of modals in Dutch (see Nuyts 2009b, in press a, b for further discussion).
37 According to the Fisher exact test, p = .039 for PDDW and p = .042 for PDDS. The sum total for PDDS is actually lower than the addition of deontic and directive cases due to a few instances which are ambiguous between these two readings hence have only been counted once in the totals. 38 See Nuyts (in press a, b) for a discussion of the question to what extent this process fits into the notions of degrammaticalization, ‘degrammation’ (cf. Norde 2009) and ‘retraction’ (cf. Haspelmath 2004).
45 Table 3.4 Meaning categories: unambiguous instances
OD EMD END PDDW PDDS (n = 57) (n = 200) (n = 200) (n = 200) (n = 200) dyn-inh 9 16% 6 3% 8 4% 0 0 dyn-imp 27 47% 41 21% 61 31% 19 10% 23 12% dyn-sit 9 16% 47 24% 38 19% 7 4% 2 1% boul1 0 0 0 0 3 2% boul2 0 0 0 1 1% 1 1% deo 0 0 1 1% 23 12% 20 10% vol1 0 1 1% 0 0 0 vol2 0 0 0 1 1% 1 1% opt 0 0 7 4% 2 1% 1 1% dir 0 51 26% 19 10% 97 49% 113 57% conc 0 1 1% 4 2% 9 5% 1 1% cond 1 2% 1 1% 1 1% 9 5% 3 4% other 0 0 1 1% 0 4 2% total 46 81% 148 74% 140 70% 168 84% 172 86%
3.2 Semantic and semantic-syntactic developments
3.2.1 The general meaning development (question 1)
We now turn to the semantic and semantic-syntactic changes, i.e. to the evolution of the meanings expressed by mogen and its potential correlation with other semantic or semantic-syntactic dimensions of the clause in which it appears (cf. the questions presented in section 2.2). And our first question concerns the meaning evolution proper of mogen. Tables 3.4 and 3.5 present, in full detail, the frequencies in the different time periods of the various meaning categories for Dutch mogen.39 (See section 1.3 for the definitions.) Table 3.4 gives the unambiguous instances, table 3.5 the ambiguous ones. The ordering of the semantic categories in the tables corresponds to their degree of (inter)subjectification: the qualificational categories figure first, from less subjective to more subjective, according to the semantic scope hierarchy in (2) above; then follow the intersubjective categories (i.e. categories in the realm of interaction management, cf. section 1.2), in a rather arbitrary order though since it is unclear how to assess their relative degree of intersubjectivity, if such is possible at all. The tables show the absolute numbers, and the share of each category in the total number of instances per time slot (to repeat: 200 for each, except for OD, for which we have 57 instances).
39 The frequencies for spoken PDD in our present analysis differ somewhat from those reported in Nuyts, Byloo and Diepeveen (2007, 2010), due to, on the one hand, the use of a different and more elaborate data set and, on the other, the application of a slightly different categorization: in the present study, the dyn category also includes idiomaticized uses such as the ones illustrated in (46) to (50) below, which was not the case in the previous studies.
46 Table 3.5 Meaning categories: ambiguous instances
OD EMD END PDDW PDDS (n = 57) (n = 200) (n = 200) (n = 200) (n = 200) dyn-inh/dyn-imp 0 4 2% 11 6% 0 0 dyn-inh/dyn-sit 1 2% 3 2% 1 1% 0 0 dyn-inh/opt 0 1 1% 0 0 0 dyn-inh/cond 0 1 1% 0 0 0 dyn-imp/dyn-sit 2 4% 5 3% 4 2% 4 2% 0 dyn-imp/deo 0 1 1% 3 2% 1 1% 1 1% dyn-imp/epi 0 0 2 1% 0 0 dyn-imp/vol1 0 1 1% 3 2% 0 0 dyn-imp/vol2 0 0 0 0 2 1% dyn-imp/opt 1 2% 1 1% 7 4% 0 0 dyn-imp/dir 4 7% 9 5% 12 6% 7 4% 2 1% dyn-imp/conc 0 1 1% 0 0 0 dyn-imp/cond 0 4 2% 0 0 0 dyn-sit/fut 0 4 2% 0 0 0 dyn-sit/deo 0 2 1% 1 1% 1 1% 0 dyn-sit/epi 0 2 1% 2 1% 0 0 dyn-sit/opt 0 1 1% 1 1% 1 1% 1 1% dyn-sit/dir 0 1 1% 3 2% 0 0 dyn-sit/cond 0 1 1% 0 0 0 boul2/deo 0 0 0 0 1 1% boul2/dir 0 0 0 0 1 1% deo/vol1 0 0 1 1% 0 0 deo/vol2 1 2% 1 1% 0 6 3% 3 2% deo/dir 0 0 2 1% 11 6% 15 8% dyn-inh/dyn-imp/vol1 0 0 2 1% 0 0 dyn-inh/dyn-imp/opt 0 1 1% 0 0 0 dyn-inh/dyn-imp/dir 0 1 1% 0 0 0 dyn-inh/deo/dir 0 1 1% 0 0 0 dyn-imp/dyn-sit/deo 0 0 0 1 1% 0 dyn-imp/dyn-sit/epi 0 0 1 1% 0 0 dyn-imp/fut/opt 0 2 1% 0 0 0 dyn-imp/deo/vol1 0 0 1 1% 0 0 dyn-imp/deo/vol2 0 0 0 0 1 1% dyn-imp/deo/dir 0 1 1% 2 1% 0 0 dyn-imp/opt/dir 0 0 1 1% 0 0 dyn-sit/fut/epi 0 2 1% 0 0 0 dyn-sit/deo/dir 1 2% 0 0 0 0 boul2/deo/dir 0 0 0 0 1 1% dyn-imp/dyn-sit/epi/vol1 0 1 1% 0 0 0 dyn-sit/deo/vol2/dir 1 2% 0 0 0 0 total 11 19% 52 26% 60 30% 32 16% 28 14%
Table 3.5 demonstrates once again the fact already mentioned in section 1.3 that ambiguity is a pervasive phenomenon in the Dutch modal auxiliaries (see also Van
47 Ostaeyen and Nuyts 2004 on ambiguity in kunnen).40 As also mentioned in section 1.3, both the types of ambiguity (the actual meaning combinations in ambiguous instances) and their frequency may be an important instrument in assessing the meaning evolution of the modal, though. Hence, in order to have an extra instrument for interpreting the role of ambiguity in the different meanings and uses, table 3.6 gives an overview, for every historical period, of the share of ambiguous cases in the total number of instances of each meaning category. In particular, the table offers separate counts for the ambiguous instances featuring the relevant meaning category as the less (inter)subjective one, i.e., a ‘conservative’ count, vs. as the more (inter)subjective one, i.e. a ‘progressive’ count. In other words, the former, conservative count does not include the ambiguous instances that have the relevant meaning category as the most (inter)subjective one among the alternative readings, the latter, progressive count does not include the ambiguous instances that have the relevant meaning category as the least (inter)subjective one among the alternative readings. In ambiguous instances with three or four alternative readings, the meanings ‘in the middle’ have been included in both the counts of this category as the most and as the least (inter)subjective one. A dash means that the meaning in question does not occur in the period in question. Assuming the logic of the (inter)subjectification hypothesis (cf. section 1.2), then, this table can be taken to offer the following information. The relative frequency of a meaning occurring in ambiguous instances as the highest in terms of subjectivity or intersubjectivity may be taken to indicate the extent to which this meaning is a matter of drawing a conversational implicature from other meanings, notably from the alternative meaning(s) with which it occurs in the ambiguous instances (as indicated in table 3.5). And the higher this relative frequency, the more the meaning can be taken to be still ‘unstable’ as part of the meaning profile of the modal. On the other hand, the relative frequency of a meaning occurring in ambiguous instances as the lowest in terms of subjectivity or intersubjectivity may be taken to indicate the extent to which this meaning offers the basis for drawing conversational implicatures towards a higher, more subjective or intersubjective meaning, specifically the alternative meanings with which it occurs in ambiguous pairs. And the higher this frequency, the more this meaning can be taken to be involved in an ongoing process of meaning change towards the higher meaning, and, maybe, to be in decline as part of the meaning profile of the modal. Of course, since the absolute frequencies of quite a few of the individual meaning categories are rather small (cf. tables 3.4 and 3.5), we will
40 Even though the differences between the various periods in terms of the share of ambiguous instances do not seem very large, the Fisher exact test reveals a significant difference overall (p = .000). In particular, there is a significant decrease in ambiguous instances from END to PDD (Fisher exact p = .013 for END > PDDW + PDDS). This might (in part) be due to the fact that contemporary instances are usually easier to interpret for the analysts, which leaves less room for ambiguity. But it could (in part) also be a sign of increasing ‘fossilization’ and a corresponding clearer ‘profiling’ of at least some of the uses of mogen.
48 Table 3.6 Share of ambiguous cases in the total number of instances of each meaning category
OD EMD END PDDW PDDS less more less more less more less more less more
(I)S (I)S (I)S (I)S (I)S (I)S (I)S (I)S (I)S (I)S dyn-inh 10% 0% 68% 0% 64% 0% ------dyn-imp 21% 0% 40% 13% 38% 18% 41% 0% 21% 0% dyn-sit 18% 25% 23% 16% 17% 14% 30% 42% 33% 0% fut -- -- 100% 100% ------boul1 ------0% 0% boul2 ------0% 0% 75% 0% deo 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% 86% 43% 12% 50% 17% epi -- -- 100% 100% -- 100% ------vol1 -- -- 0% 67% -- 100% ------vol2 100% 100% -- 100% -- -- 0% 86% 0% 86% opt -- 100% -- 100% 13% 56% 0% 33% 0% 50% dir -- 100% 0% 20% 0% 51% 0% 16% 0% 14% conc -- -- 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% cond 0% 0% 0% 86% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% other ------0% 0% -- -- 0% 0%
obviously have to be very careful when interpreting the figures for these. Percentages covering 5 instances or less have been italicized. One of the striking features of mogen, already apparent from the overview in section 1.3, and again clearly manifest in these tables, is its large number of meaning categories: there are 15 of them in our sample. As a ‘side effect’, we then also have 40 different ‘ambiguous meaning combinations’. (Two of the meaning categories actually only occur in ambiguous instances in our sample, viz. the future and epistemic modality.) For a comparison: the analysis of kunnen in Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts (2004) and Nuyts (2007) only revealed 6 meaning categories. This observation as such is theoretically interesting (it probably says something significant about the status of mogen as compared to kunnen in the system of the modals in Dutch – see below), but it also complicates the interpretation of the data. So for the sake of the initial, global analysis, let’s first look at the simplified version of tables 3.4 and 3.5 as rendered in tables 3.7a and 3.7b, before going into the more detailed facts in tables 3.4 and 3.5. Thus, in tables 3.7a and 3.7b we have on one hand reduced the number of categories by clustering some of them together: ‘deo/boul’ clusters the two boulomaic subtypes and joins them with deontic modality (since boul and deo are more or less at the same level in the qualificational hierarchy in (2)), and ‘other intersubj’ clusters the two volitional subtypes, the optative, the concessive and the conditional. On the other hand we have integrated the unambiguous and ambiguous instances into the same table, and – in the vein of the distinction between a conservative and a progressive approach in table 3.6 – we have done so in two different ways, thus offering two alternative (simplified) perspectives on the
49 Table 3.7a Meaning categories, conservative count
OD EMD END PDDW PDDS (n = 57) (n = 200) (n = 200) (n = 200) (n = 200) dyn-inh 10 18% 19 10% 22 11% 0 0 dyn-imp 34 60% 66 33% 97 49% 32 16% 29 15% dyn-sit 11 19% 60 30% 45 23% 9 5% 3 2% deo/boul 1 2% 1 1% 3 2% 41 21% 45 23% dir 0 51 26% 19 10% 97 49% 113 57% other intersubj 1 2% 3 2% 13 7% 21 11% 6 3% other 0 0 1 1% 0 4 2%
Table 3.7b Meaning categories, progressive count
OD EMD END PDDW PDDS (n = 57) (n = 200) (n = 200) (n = 200) (n = 200) dyn-inh 9 16% 6 3% 8 4% 0 0 dyn-imp 27 47% 45 23% 72 36% 19 10% 23 12% dyn-sit 12 21% 55 28% 43 22% 11 6% 2 1% fut 0 4 2% 0 0 0 deo/boul 0 3 2% 5 3% 27 14% 26 13% epi 0 4 2% 5 3% 0 0 dir 6 11% 64 32% 39 20% 115 58% 132 64% other intersubj 3 5% 19 10% 27 14% 28 14% 13 7% other 0 0 1 1% 0 4 2%
Graph 3.1 (conservative count) Graph 3.2 (progressive count)
50 same data: table 3.7a integrates the ambiguous instances in a conservative way by classifying them according to the least (inter)subjective among their alternative meanings (i.e. the meaning category mentioned first in their label in table 3.5), and table 3.7b integrates them in a ‘progressive’ way, by classifying them according to their most (inter)subjective meaning (i.e. the meaning category mentioned last in their label in table 3.5).41 In addition to the tables, graphs 3.1 and 3.2 render the frequencies in (respectively) tables 3.7a and 3.7b in a visual way. In these, the meaning categories in the tables are rendered from the bottom to the top, and (correspondingly) from darker colored to lighter colored, according to increasing (inter)subjectivity (i.e. the exact opposite of the ordering in the tables: lower in the graph means less (inter)subjective, higher in the graph means more (inter)subjective). The figures are, at least roughly, compatible with an (inter)subjectification scenario. In OD the different types of dynamic modality – being the least subjective category, still very close to the meaning of the original full verb from which the auxiliary has evolved (cf. section 1.4) – were absolutely dominant. And over time we then observe, as the most prominent evolutions, a drastic decrease of the dynamic use (in all its variants – see below for a discussion of the evolutions in the individual dynamic categories), and correlated with this, a substantial increase of the deontic/boulomaic use (in practice mainly of the deontic one) – a strongly subjectivized use – and a very drastic increase of the directive use – the (in terms of frequency) most prominent intersubjective category. (See below for the statistics.) There is, however, at least seemingly, one dissonance in this evolution: in the transition from EMD to END there is a quite substantial rise again of the dynamic use (specifically of dyn-imp), and a drastic decrease of the directive use. Upon closer consideration, however, this quirk turns out to be an artefact of the composition of our EMD data. Contrary to the other language stages, about half of the EMD materials consists of administrative texts (inevitably so, since this constitutes a large part of the texts remaining from that period, cf. section 2.1). Since these typically involve contracts, legislation and other comparable types of ‘directive’ texts, however, they are likely to contain a disproportionately high number of directive instances as compared to ‘normal’ language use. Hence the picture for EMD in the tables and graphs above may be biased. This is in fact confirmed if we take a separate look at the meanings in the administrative vs. the other texts in EMD: as tables 3.8a and 3.8b show, directive instances indeed predominantly appear in the administrative texts, in
41 Obviously, this way of presenting the data implies that, for ambiguous cases with three or more alternative readings, the semantic category or categories that is/are in between the lowest and the highest in terms of degree of (inter)subjectivity do(es) not occur in any of the two counts. In the two cases which are ambiguous between a dynamic and two intersubjective readings (opt and dir in one, vol2 and dir in the other), we have each time (arbitrarily, since there is no inherent ‘order’ among the intersubjective categories) included the dir reading in the progressive count.
51 Table 3.8a EMD administrative vs. other texts, conservative count
EMD adm EMD rest
(n = 116) (n = 84) dyn-inh 2 2% 17 20% dyn-imp 26 22% 40 48% dyn-sit 37 32% 23 27% deo/boul 0 1 1% epi 0 0 dir 50 43% 1 1% other intersubj 1 1% 2 2%
Table 3.8b EMD administrative vs. other texts, progressive count
EMD adm EMD rest
(n = 116) (n = 84) dyn-inh 1 1% 5 6% dyn-imp 17 15% 28 33% dyn-sit 31 27% 24 29% fut 4 3% 0 deo/boul 3 3% 0 epi 0 4 5% dir 54 47% 10 12% other intersubj 6 5% 13 15%
the conservative count there are even hardly any of them in the non-administrative materials.42 If we redraw the evolution of the meanings omitting the administrative texts in EMD, then, as is done in graphs 3.3 and 3.4, the dissonance disappears: we now see an uninterrupted decrease of all the dynamic meanings and an uninterrupted increase of the directive use, also in the transition from EMD to END. And so the global meaning evolution of mogen is now fully according to a normal (inter)subjectification path. This conclusion is confimed by the Spearman correlation coefficient (cf. section 3.3).43 This is so even if we include the administrative EMD materials: for the conservative count, ρ = .466 (p = .000) and for the progressive count, ρ = .387 (p = .000) – in other words,
42 Overall, the difference between the administrative texts and the remaining ones is statically significant: Fisher exact p = .000 for both the conservative count and the progressive count. 43 For calculating the Spearman correlation coefficient, we have included the following meaning categories, in their order of (inter)subjectivity: (1) dyn-inh; (2) dyn-imp; (3) dyn-sit; (4) fut; (5) deo/boul; (6) epi; (7) intersubjective categories (i.e. vol/opt, dir, conc and cond). In other words, the directive category has been conflated with the other intersubjective categories, since, as mentioned above, it is unclear how to assess their relative degree of intersubjectivity. The ‘other’ category has been left out from the calculation. PDDW and PDDS are treated as two different, consecutive periods (cf. section 3.1.2).
52 Graph 3.3 (conservative count) Graph 3.4 (progressive count)
there is a strong positive correlation between degree of (inter)subjectivity and time. If the administrative EMD instances are excluded, the coefficient becomes even more pronounced: ρ = .592 (p = .000) for the conservative count and ρ = .467 (p = .000) for the progressive count. So mogen definitely gets more and more subjective and intersubjective over time. Let us now have a look at the evolutions in and between individual meaning categories in more detail, also drawing in tables 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 again.
The dynamic modal categories
We already mentioned that the different dynamic modal categories, which were dominant in OD, gradually become less important. Table 3.6 shows that all of them often serve as a supplier for more subjective and intersubjective meanings, most clearly from EMD onwards. But there are considerable differences in the evolution of the three subtypes. The most ‘objective’ subcategory, dyn-inh, while still fairly prominent in OD, has already become marginal in EMD and END, and has disappeared in PDD (cf. tables 3.4, 3.7a and 3.7b). Moreover, in EMD and END about two thirds of its occurrences (i.e. a much larger proportion than in OD) are ambiguous with a more subjective or an intersubjective meaning, a pattern which is in line with the ‘fading’ character of the category. By far most of the latter (relatively speaking – we are dealing with fairly small numbers) are ambiguous with dyn-imp and (to a much lesser extent) dyn-sit. This is in accordance with the development postulated by Duinhoven, i.e. a meaning extension from
53 inherent abilities to context-bound possibilities (cf. section 1.4 above). Possible bridging contexts include instances such as the following, in which it is irrelevant whether the (im)possibility is inherent to the agent participant(s) (i.e., to pure inability) or due to the circumstances hindering the agent particpants(s).
(45) want si sagen scheghen haer staen / de mase daer si nyet ouer en mochte (EMD019) ‘Because they saw her stand across the Meuse [river] which they could not cross.’
Dyn-imp still exists today, but, quite like dyn-inh, it has decreased drastically since OD (regarding the ‘bump up’ in END, or rather the artificially strong ‘dip down’ in EMD, see above), and since EMD it occurs very frequently (even if not as frequently as dyn-inh) as the least subjective meaning in ambiguous instances (though with a clear setback in spoken PDD, for which we have no explanation). In the latter, it ‘delivers’ to several other subjective and intersubjective meanings, but relatively most often to dir (see the discussion of dir below for the implications of this observation), and to a lesser extent to dyn-sit. In EMD and END it also to some extent ‘receives’ (i.e. it is the most subjective meaning in ambiguous instances), of course exclusively from the then fading dyn-inh (cf. cases of the type in (45) above). Also dyn-sit still exists today, as a remains of what used to be a much more important meaning in mogen. Its evolution is somewhat different from the two other dyn readings, though. In terms of its relative frequency it still ‘grows’ from OD to EMD (but not significantly so), and only starts to decline from EMD onwards – but this decline is then much more drastic than that of dyn-imp: from 28% or 30% in EMD to 1% or 2% in PDDS (p = .000 for both counts). In terms of its ambiguity patterns, it generally serves less than dyn-inh and dyn-imp as a ‘donor’ to more subjective or intersubjective meanings, and there is also no clear ‘target’ category in these cases (cf. table 3.5). And it also remains a fairly strong ‘receiver’ (i.e. it is fairly often the most subjective meaning in ambiguous instances) until today (the sources are the two other dyn categories, of course). (PDDS stands a bit apart, but the question is whether we can conclude anything from this given the small number of instances – cf. tables 3.7a and 3.7b.) It should also be noted, though, that, even if the number of dyn-imp and dyn-sit instances in PDD remains substantial (cf. tables 3.7a and 3.7b), more than half of them are ‘special’, and offer another indication that this meaning type is fading in PDD mogen. Considering all PDD instances with dyn-imp or dyn-sit as (one of) their meaning(s) (i.e. both unambiguous and ambiguous instances), 25 (or 34%) are idiomaticized to at least some extent, in the sense that they occur in more or less fixed, and often very formulaic, combinations with a limited set of verbs, e.g. verbs of communication such as noemen ‘call’, spreken ‘speak’ or zeggen ‘say’, verbs of expectancy such as rekenen op ‘count on’
54 or verwachten ‘expect’, or verbs of emotion such as blij wezen ‘be happy’ or fier zijn ‘be proud’.
(46) maar de historische taalkunde is minder centraal mogen we wel zeggen in de taalkunde van de laatste decennia dan de synchrone structuralistische beschrijving (PDDS166) ‘But historical linguistics is less central, we can say, in the linguistics of the last decades than synchronic structuralist description.’
(47) Wie bovendien ver heen is van de 'twee-standenkerk' (godgewijden en leken) en de instandhouding daarvan op de korrel neemt, mag tegenwind verwachten. (PDDW194) ‘Who is moreover far away from the ‘church of two classes’ (clergy and laity) and criticizes its conservation, can expect opposition.’
(48) we mogen er fier op zijn dat ie bij ons is (PDDS199) ‘We can be proud he’s with us.’
In another 14 instances (or 19%), all negative, identification of the nature of the meaning requires some extra ‘reflection’ – which suggests that it is losing its transparency. To give one prototypical example, (49) can best be paraphrased as meaning ‘it is important not to fail’.
(49) bepaald moment heb je natuurlijk een min of meer gevestigde reputatie in een school en dan weet je ik mag hier niet meer mislukken (PDDS176) ‘[At] a certain moment, you’ve got of course a more or less established reputation at a school and then you know: I shouldn’t/can’t fail here anymore.’
But in which meaning category (cf. the overview in section 1.3) does this belong? That it is dynamic (specifically, dyn-imp) only becomes obvious if one explicates the ‘forcing circumstances’, viz. ‘in order not to lose my reputation’ (the latter is implicit in (49), of course, but that is apparently not enough to make the dyn-imp nature of the modal immediately obvious). Finally, another 5 dynamic PDD cases (i.e. 7%) are of the type in (50).
(50) hij mocht de functies coach van de Belgische en Vlaamse judofederatie celhoofd bij het BOIC en olympisch trainier van zijn visitekaartje schrappen (PDDS163) ‘He could strike the functions of coach of the Belgian and Flemish judo federation, of department head at the BOIC and of Olympic trainer from his business card.’
55 One can only interpret such cases as saying, literally, that the first argument participant is ‘enabled’ to undertake the action indicated. It typically concerns an ‘unpleasant’ action, though, hence the speaker probably actually means to refer to a necessity or inevitability, rather than a possibility, and the use of mogen here triggers an ironic effect. (These cases are clearly reminiscent of the older necessity cases of mogen mentioned by Duinhoven 1997 – cf. (25) and (26) in section 1.4.) This kind of use in PDD can also be called quite idiomatic. So, all in all, what remains of the dyn reading of mogen in PDD shows a strong tendency to develop into fairly strongly fossilized, formulaic and increasingly non- transparent uses.
Future
The future meaning of mogen is marginal overall: it only occurs in EMD, and is systematically ambiguous (cf. table 3.5) with a less subjective, viz. a dynamic modal, meaning, usually dyn-sit, as in the example in (11) above. Some of these ambiguous instances also allow a more subjective – epi – or an intersubjective – opt – reading though, and in these the future reading seems to serve as a transitory meaning between the dynamic and the epistemic or optative reading. In any case, it is plausible to assume that this future meaning has started developing out of the situational dynamic meaning but has never really ‘made’ it as an independent meaning category, and has quickly disappeared again.
Boulomaic modality
Boulomaic instances are also very rare in our data. They only occur in PDD and are very infrequent even there. Boul1 is always unambiguous, so this offers no suggestions as to its origin. Boul2 occurs in ambiguous instances with the deontic and the directive meaning, but in view of the very small number of cases nothing can be learned from this.
Deontic modality
Deontic modality occurs from OD onwards, but remains a very minor category in the meaning profile of mogen until END. Correspondingly, we observe a very high ambiguity rate until END – though, somewhat surprisingly, both as a ‘receiver’ (predominantly from dyn-imp and dyn-sit) and as a ‘donor’ (to a range of meanings): one expects a ‘young’ and still unstable meaning, which the deontic one appears to be, to be predominantly a receiver. But the small number of instances again prevents us from drawing any strong conclusions from this. In PDD, however, the deontic meaning drastically increases to assume a ‘respectable’ position among the meanings of mogen – so it can now be considered a full fledged meaning of the modal. And correspondingly, the ambiguity rate drastically drops, and the meaning now predominantly serves as a ‘donor’, especially to dir, but also quite
56 often to vol2. It keeps on receiving somewhat from dyn-imp and dyn-sit, though, the meanings from which it has no doubt evolved originally.
Epistemic modality
There are only a few epistemic cases in our data, exclusively in EMD and END, and, like the instances marking future, exclusively in ambiguous instances, and as the most subjective meaning, i.e., in our interpretation, as the ‘receiver’. The donor is always dynamic modality, dyn-sit somewhat more often than dyn-imp. This is entirely in line with the findings for the origins of the epistemic meaning in kunnen (cf. Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts 2004, Nuyts 2007): here, too, it has most probably evolved out of dyn-imp and (especially) dyn-sit directly, and not out of deo, against traditional expectations in the (inter)subjectification literature (cf. section 1.4). The epistemic meaning in mogen appears to have never made it to a full fledged one, though, and (unlike in kunnen) it has completely disappeared again in PDD (not only in our data: also intuitively, mogen cannot receive an epistemic reading anymore in current Dutch). So, like in the future meaning of mogen, we have a case of regression here, i.e. of a more subjective meaning which has started to develop, but the process has been interrupted and the evolution has been undone. It is very tempting to assume that the rise of the epistemic meaning in kunnen, which started more or less simultaneously with its regression in mogen (in the transition between END and PDD; cf. Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts 2004, Nuyts 2007), has had a causal effect on this process in mogen.
Volition
Also the volitional instances are rather infrequent, even if less so than e.g. boul or epi. Vol1 only occurs in EMD and END and is nearly always (with just one exception) ambiguous, always as the ‘receiving’ category, and by far most often with dyn-imp as the donor, as in (13), repeated below.
(51) Sanwort is gut deme di clenen worme an den buke wasset. puluer unde itít so+wo du mag. (EMD068) ‘Sandwort is good for those who have little worms growing in their stomach. Pulverize it and eat it as you like/can.’
Though we have to be careful given the small number of instances, this suggests that vol1 is derived from dyn-imp, a development which would also makes sense ‘conceptually’ or ‘logically’ (i.e. in terms of possible inferential processes/conversational implicatures), as (51) illustrates. Vol1 does not occur in our PDD data anymore, but here we find most vol2 cases. Vol2 does already occur in earlier periods, though, from OD onwards, even if only sporadically,
57 and with a (most probably accidental) gap in END. It is also predominantly ambiguous, and as such always occurs as the ‘receiving’ category. Unlike vol1, its ‘donor’ is predominantly deontic modality, though (most particularly in PDD). This suggests that vol2 developed out of deo, an evolution which is again ‘conceptually’ quite plausible: from considering something desirable to wanting it is obviously a small step. This would mean, then, that the two variants of vol, in spite of the fact that they are semantically hardly distinguishable, have a different origins, and we have no sign whatsoever of a direct diachronic link between them.
Optative
The optative exists since OD, but is marginal in OD and only minimally present in EMD – in both it occurs exclusively in ambiguous instances, and exclusively as the ‘receiving’ category. In END it then grows considerably (relatively speaking), and it occurs more or less equally often in unambiguous and ambiguous instances. In the latter, it is still most often the receiver, but it also occurs as the donor. All of this suggests that opt has acquired a stable, even if modest, position as part of the functional profile of mogen in END. But in PDD it then becomes very marginal again (although most instances are unambiguous ones – but given the very small number of them one can hardly conclude anything from this). The rise of the optative use until END is likely to be correlated with the loss of the subjunctive in Dutch (optativity having been one of the meanings/contexts of use of the subjunctive, cf. section 3.1.1). But the reason for its decay in PDD (not only in its frequency, but also in its ‘qualitative’ properties – cf. section 1.3) is unclear. Interestingly, in ambiguous instances opt is by far most often receiving from dyn-imp, and to a lesser extent from dyn-sit, suggesting that it has derived from the latter meanings. An ambiguous example which illustrates how this could have happened is (52), which either expresses the wish to be able to speak (the wish then being expressed by the subjunctive, and the modal expressing ability), or the wish to speak (with the modal in the subjunctive expressing the wish).
(52) hem bid ic dat hi geweghe mijn tale. / dat ic spreken moge dies hi / gheloeft si, ende oec de maghet vri (EMD018) ‘I pray him that he guide my speech. That I may (be able to) speak. He be praised for that, as well as the holy virgin’
So our data contradict Duinhoven’s assumption (cf. section 1.4) that the optative has developed out of the directive use. But our data also do not suggest any link between opt and any of the two types of vol, in spite of the semantic connections: it may not be surprising that we have no cases of ambiguity between these, given that they more or less mean the same thing – but the developmental patterns of these meanings do not show a clear correlation either.
58 Directive
As discussed above already, the directive use of the modal gradually and drastically gains prominence from OD onwards (cf. above regarding the ‘quirk’ in the evolution, which is not actually one, in EMD). In OD dir only occurs in ambiguous instances, and exclusively as the ‘receiver’. But from EMD onwards it takes an increasingly larger share in the unambiguous instances, to become the abolutely dominant use in PDD. There is a corresponding gradual decrease in the share of ambiguous instances, which is of course also in line with the further stabilization of this use in the functional profile of mogen. Its ‘participation’ in ambiguous instances is actually always as the ‘highest’ category, it never serves as a source for, e.g., other intersubjective categories. In terms of the types of ambiguous combinations, until END dir predominantly ‘receives’ from dyn-imp – a typical example is given in (53).
(53) En wetstu nit dat ic mach uerbidden den uader dat hi mi sende meer dan tuelef legien uan inglen? (EMD051) ‘And don’t you know that I’m able/allowed to ask the Father to send me more than twelve legions of angles?’
Only in PDD ambiguity with deo becomes more important. This strongly suggests that dir has emerged out of dyn-imp, as hypothesized by Duinhoven (cf. section 1.4): it is only a small step from ‘the circumstances making something possible/permitting something’ to ‘a person or other intentional source permitting something’. This also offers a clear argument in favor of the ‘dissociation’ of directivity from deontic modality (cf. section 1.3, and see Nuyts et al. 2010).
Concessive
In our data the concessive use first occurs in EMD, and it seems to be growing until today – though, remarkably, in PDD it is only relatively frequent in the written language, not in the spoken language. Also, from the start the concessive use is fairly clearly profiled: with just one exception in EMD, all instances are unambiguous. Correspondingly, we cannot say anything definitive about the origins of this concessive use – although it would of course not be surprising if, in line with Duinhoven’s assumptions (see section 1.4), it would have derived from the dyn-imp use, the meaning with which it combines in our only ambiguous instance, rendered in (54). The logical (or conversational implicature) link between the two meanings/uses is obvious. The fact that conc already exists at a time (EMD) when only the different dynamic readings are manifestly present in mogen (and not, e.g., epi, which could have been another ‘logical’ candidate precursor) is compatible with this tentative suggestion. (Dir is also fairly manifest already in EMD, but this is logically speaking hardly a candidate as a precursor for conc.)
59 (54) ende al mochtmer+toe comen mede / so es alomme bemurt de stede (EMD165) ‘And even if one would (be able to) reach it, the town is surrounded by walls.’
Conditional
The conditional use exists from OD onwards, but is very infrequent until END. There is a small peak in EMD (with one exception all ambiguous cases), but this is entirely due to the administrative texts – and this should not come as a surprise since this kind of discourse (legal texts, e.g.) no doubt easily invites conditional statements. Like conc, however, cond becomes more frequent in PDD, at least in its written version. All instances, across the periods, are unambiguous, hence apparently clearly profiled, except in EMD, in which as mentioned most cases are ambiguous. And this ambiguity exclusively occurs with the three dynamic meanings, and predominantly with dyn-imp, as the source meaning, as e.g. in the following instance (cf. also Duinhoven’s examples in (30) to (32)).
(55) ware dat sake, / dat wii iement vinden mochten, die dese vorseide scade sculdigher ware / te gheldene, metten rechte (EMD071) ‘If it would happen that we would (be able to) find someone who is more liable to restitute the forementioned damage, according to the law, …’
This again does suggest, in line with Duinhoven’s analysis (cf. section 1.4), that also the conditional use of mogen has developed out of the dynamic (and especially the dyn-imp) use – the above considerations in this connection regarding the concessive use are also applicable here.
Other
Regarding the ‘other’ uses, finally, little can be said except that it is a very infrequent phenomenon, though slightly less so in PDDS.
The scheme in (56), then, summarizes the above observations regarding the meaning changes in mogen: it renders the most important developments between categories, as we have been able to infer them from our data.44 Boul1, boul2 and ‘other’ are not included since we have no indications as to their origins. The ordering of the categories from top to bottom in the scheme is predominantly inspired by convenience, not by temporal order of emergence. Deo, e.g. is very likely to have evolved from dyn-imp before fut and epi emerged from dyn-sit, but dyn-sit certainly emerged before deo – it is very difficult to
44 As we have observed, meanings/uses can sometimes be related to more than one ‘source meaning/use’. The scheme in (56) simplifies the situation by rendering only the most frequent or most obvious developmental tie between an older and a newer meaning.
60 render this in a scheme like this without complicating it enormously. For many categories, the precise temporal order of emergence is difficult to assess anyway (at least on the basis of our present data). Square brackets mark meanings which are extinct today.
(56) [dyn-inh] dyn-imp dyn-sit [epi] [fut] deo vol2 [vol1] opt dir conc cond
As far as the modal categories are concerned, then, the semantic evolution of mogen appears identical to that of kunnen (cf. Nuyts 2007: 138): there is a clear successive order in the development of the three dyn types, and both deo and epi have evolved in parallel from dyn, albeit from different types of them (even this is identical in mogen and kunnen). So, in table 1.1 in section 1.4, also for mogen it is the ‘+’-sign rather than the ‘>’-sign which applies between deo and epi. The only differences between both modals in the range of the modal meanings concern the ‘modalities’ of the evolution. One of them is when these meaning evolutions happened in time: much earlier in mogen than in kunnen. Thus, it is also not surprising that there is no trace left in our data, not even in OD, of the original main verb from which the modal has evolved,45 while the main verbal predecessor of kunnen was still clearly present in the older data. Likewise, dyn-inh is now extinct in mogen while it is still a very prominent meaning in kunnen. Another difference is the fact that epi has not survived in mogen, while it is ‘growing’ (even if still very limited) in kunnen. The present analysis and that of kunnen in Nuyts (2007) do suggest a different origins for the directive use, however: deo (and only secondarily dyn-imp) in kunnen but dyn-imp in mogen. However, the frequency of dir instances of kunnen was very low, hence the reliability of its analysis is not very high. Moreover, the dir cases in kunnen first showed up in PDD, but also in mogen PDD dir is more often ambiguous with deo than with dyn-imp – it is hard to tell how this reflects on the situation of dir in kunnen. Otherwise, mogen has of course developed many more meanings than kunnen, most of them very old ones existing at least since EMD (and some of them extinct by now). Also, unlike in kunnen, very many uses of PDD mogen (actually most or all of them except deo and dir) may often be called quite special in terms of their characteristics (this applies even
45 Unless the isolated END instance in (21) in section 1.3 would be a relic of the original main verb – but it would be very striking, then, that we do not have any instances of this in our OD and EMD data.
61 to the dyn categories in PDD), which suggests that, unlike kunnen, which has the profile of a ‘young and flourishing’ modal, mogen is a ‘very old and stiffened’ one. It is actually also striking that, except for vol2, which may have emerged from deo, all more strongly subjectivized or intersubjectivized meanings or uses of mogen have emerged from the dynamic meanings, and by far most of them even specifically from dyn-imp. Thus, the evolutions in mogen generally appear to be entirely according to the subjectification and intersubjectification hypotheses – but, remarkably, most of these evolutions are not the result of long chains of gradually more and more subjective and ultimately intersubjective meanings/uses. Instead, new meanings, subjective and intersubjective ones, tend to all develop out of one of the oldest, most objective modal meanings. This of course makes one wonder whether the fact that this ‘preferential source meaning’ in this modal is becoming more and more marginal – which means that its role as a supplier for new, more subjective or intersubjective meanings is gradually running dry – is also the reason that mogen starts to appear ‘old and stiffening’. Let us now turn (in the following subsections) to the various factors (introduced in section 2.2) that might have affected the semantic developments of mogen as described above.
3.2.2 The role of the subject/first argument in the meaning development (questions 3/4)
A first factor to consider is the role of the subject/first argument of the main verb in the clause: to what extent is there a correlation between the status in the clause and/or the semantic nature of this subject and/or first argument (this distinction is of course relevant only in the case of passives) and the meanings expressed by mogen in the various language periods? This concerns questions 3 and 4 as formulated in section 2.2, viz., respectively: ‘what is the voice’ (addressed in section 3.2.2.1) and ‘what are the linguistic properties of the subject and/or first argument?’ (addressed in section 3.2.2.2 for active clauses and 3.2.2.3 for passive clauses).
3.2.2.1 The frequency of mogen in passive clauses
Table 3.9 shows how often the modal in each of its meanings occurs in a passive clause. In order to keep the presentation digestible, we only provide a detailed overview per meaning category for the unambiguous instances (with the totals for these shown in the row ‘total unambiguous’). Ideally, we should also offer a detailed overview for the ambiguous instances (as has been done in the analysis of kunnen in Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts 2004) – yet, given the enormous number of ambiguous combinations in our present data (cf. table 3.5 above) this would lead to highly complex tables which are hardly interpretable anymore. Therefore, for the ambiguous instances we only offer a ‘summary’ of the
62 Table 3.9 Frequency of passive clauses
OD EMD END PDDW PDDS n % n % n % n % n % dyn-inh 9 0% 6 0% 8 0% 0 -- 0 -- dyn-imp 27 0% 41 0% 61 5% 19 11% 23 4% dyn-sit 9 0% 47 0% 38 11% 7 14% 2 0% deo/boul 0 -- 0 -- 1 0% 24 21% 25 8% dir 0 -- 51 0% 19 11% 97 14% 113 4% other intersubj. 1 0% 3 0% 12 0% 21 5% 6 0% other 0 -- 0 -- 1 0% 0 -- 4 0% total unambiguous 46 0% 148 0% 140 6% 168 14% 173 4% total ambiguous 11 0% 52 4% 60 15% 32 28% 27 15% total 57 0% 200 1% 200 9% 200 16% 200 6%
frequency of passives in the row ‘total ambiguous’. (We will do the same in all the following tables.) For each meaning category we mention the total number of instances of it in the time slot at stake (‘n’, cf. tables 3.4 and 3.5 in section 3.2.1), as well as the share of passive instances therein (‘%’). A dash means that the meaning category in question does not occur in the language period in question. The frequency of mogen in passive clauses clearly increases gradually from OD (no occurrences at all) towards (the written variant of) PDD (in PDDW 16% of the occurrences figure in a passive clause). However, the frequency of passives is remarkabely lower in the spoken variant of PDD. The difference between the various periods is statistically significant (p = .000). It is unclear, though, whether these frequency shifts are typical for mogen or simply correspond to the general development of the passive as such. The rise of the passive between the older stages of the language and its present-day version was also observed for kunnen (cf. Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts 2004: 60 and Nuyts 2007: 139). The small number of passives in PDDS might be due to a difference in register: it is often claimed that the passive voice is more common in written and in more formal language use. The figures in the table do not show any clear or outspoken relation between specific meanings and the passive. Only deo/boul shows a relatively high frequency of passives in PDDW, but this difference is not statistically significant, and even if it would have been it would be unlikely anyway that this is relevant for understanding how this meaning category in particular has evolved. (An explanation might be, e.g., that when speaking about what is morally acceptable or unacceptable, it may often be ‘touchy’ to mention the agent/controller of the state of affairs too explicitly.) The special connection between the passive and the dynamic-imposed meaning category which was observed for kunnen in Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts (2004: 61) and Nuyts (2007: 139) is entirely absent in our present data for mogen. Also, the mogen-data do not show any reluctance of the passive to occur
63 with meanings that distinctly feature a controlling first argument participant, such as the directive use. Our data do show, however, that, like in the case of kunnen, passives occur relatively more frequently in ambiguous than in unambiguous instances. The difference is statistically significant for EMD (p = .042) and END (p = .018). This does suggest that the passive voice is important for the elicitation of meaning developments – but our data offer no reasons to assume that this is more strongly the case for the evolution of any particular meaning(s), it rather appears a ‘global facilitating environment’.
3.2.2.2 The subject in active clauses
Let us now turn to the (different aspects of the) nature of the subject of the clause in active clauses with mogen. In all our instances the subject is also the first argument of the main predicate – our samples do not contain any instances of atransitive predicates (hence with a ‘dummy’ subject in the clause, as in het regent ‘it rains’).
3.2.2.2.1 Person and number
The frequency of the different person and number categories of the subject in active clauses is shown in tables 3.10a–e (one table per language stage). In each of these the ‘n’ column shows the total number of instances with the relevant meaning in the time slot at stake, and the frequency of each person/number category is then expressed in terms of its share (‘%’) in the total number mentioned in the ‘n’ column. (We will use the same format in all the following tables.) In terms of the totals for each person/number category, although there turn out to be significant fluctuations across the different stages (p = .000), one can also discern a few clear and important (and quite to be expected) constants throughout time (the situation is actually very comparable to that in kunnen – cf. Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts 2004: 62ff). Not surprisingly, in all stages, except for OD (no doubt due to the particular nature of the two specific texts making up our data for this time slot), 3sg is the predominant category – in EMD, END and PDDW, this category even stands for more than 50% of all instances. In most stages 3pl is the second most important category, in OD it is even the most important one. PDDS is the odd one out here, with 1sg and 2sg as the more prominent categories (and substantially so) – which is again no surprise given the interactive nature of most of our PDDS data. Finally, and once more not surprisingly, 2pl is very rare overall: there are even no instances at all in PDDW and PDDS. It is unlikely, then, that the (other) fluctuations in the frequencies mean much in terms of the semantic evolution of mogen. Also in terms of the specific meaning categories there are quite some differences, between the specific categories in any time slot, and sometimes even within one meaning
64 category between different time slots – but most of these, too, seem rather incidental and do not reveal any clear patterns which might be interpreted as relevant for explaining the semantic developments. For example, the 1sg and 3pl cases dominate in the dyn-inh and dyn-imp instances in OD, but not anymore in the later stages – but it is hard to see how this can be more than a whim of the OD data. And the share of 2pl among the “other
Table 3.10a Person/number of subjects in active clauses in OD
n 1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl dyn-inh 9 22% 11% 11% 0% 0% 56% dyn-imp 27 30% 4% 19% 0% 4% 44% dyn-sit 9 0% 11% 78% 0% 0% 11% deo/boul 0 dir 0 other intersubj. 1 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% other 0 total unambiguous 46 22% 7% 30% 0% 2% 39% total ambiguous 11 18% 18% 27% 0% 0% 36% total 57 21% 9% 30% 0% 2% 39%
Table 3.10b Person/number of subjects in active clauses in EMD
n 1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl dyn-inh 6 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% dyn-imp 41 5% 2% 51% 2% 7% 32% dyn-sit 47 2% 0% 83% 0% 0% 15% deo/boul 0 dir 51 0% 0% 65% 18% 2% 16% other intersubj. 3 0% 0% 67% 0% 33% 0% other 0 total unambiguous 148 2% 1% 68% 7% 3% 19% total ambiguous 50 12% 8% 46% 6% 10% 18% total 198 5% 3% 63% 7% 5% 19%
Table 3.10c Person/number of subjects in active clauses in END
n 1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl dyn-inh 8 13% 0% 63% 0% 0% 25% dyn-imp 58 7% 16% 57% 7% 2% 12% dyn-sit 34 3% 0% 79% 3% 0% 15% deo/boul 1 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% dir 17 0% 0% 59% 0% 0% 41% other intersubj. 12 0% 17% 67% 0% 8% 8% other 1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% total unambiguous 131 5% 9% 63% 4% 2% 18% total ambiguous 51 20% 12% 45% 6% 2% 16% total 182 9% 10% 58% 4% 2% 17%
65 Table 3.10d Person/number of subjects in active clauses in PDDW
n 1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl dyn-inh 0 dyn-imp 17 6% 24% 47% 12% 0% 12% dyn-sit 6 0% 17% 83% 0% 0% 0% deo/boul 19 0% 21% 47% 21% 0% 11% dir 82 9% 6% 50% 6% 0% 29% other intersubj. 20 5% 5% 75% 0% 0% 15% other 0 total unambiguous 144 6% 10% 54% 8% 0% 22% total ambiguous 23 17% 0% 52% 9% 0% 22% total 167 8% 9% 54% 8% 0% 22%
Table 3.10e Person/number of subjects in active clauses in PDDS
n 1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl dyn-inh 0 dyn-imp 22 9% 55% 9% 14% 0% 14% dyn-sit 2 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% deo/boul 23 22% 13% 48% 4% 0% 13% dir 109 26% 26% 29% 6% 0% 13% other intersubj. 6 17% 17% 50% 17% 0% 0% other 4 75% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% total unambiguous 166 23% 27% 30% 7% 0% 12% total ambiguous 23 13% 22% 48% 0% 0% 17% total 189 22% 26% 32% 6% 0% 13%
intersubjective” instances in EMD is relatively large, but this concerns just one (!) instance. One ‘presistent’ observation which no doubt is significant in terms of the meaning evolution, however, is the (relatively) very high frequency of 3rd person cases (especially singular, but also plural) in dyn-sit, across the different time slots (in EMD and END the difference in the frequency of 3rd person occurrences between the meaning categories is significant: p = .023 for EMD and p = .002 for END). This is no doubt correlated with the frequent occurrence of ‘inanimate’ or ‘other’ referents, which are necessarily 3rd person, in this meaning category – we return to this in section 3.2.2.2.2 below. Finally, also note that there is a significant difference in the frequency of the different person/number categories between ambiguous and non-ambiguous instances in EMD (p = .001) and END (p = .027). More particularly, the number of 1sg and 2sg cases turns out to be much larger among the ambiguous instances. However, it is unclear what this difference can tell us about the semantic development of mogen.
66 3.2.2.2.2 Animacy
The data concerning the animacy of the subject in active clauses are shown in tables 3.11a– e. The difference in the totals for the different animacy categories between various language stages is again statistically significant (p = .000). One notable evolution concerns
Table 3.11a Animacy of subjects in active clauses in OD
n hum anim inan other inan/hum dyn-inh 9 56% 11% 22% 0% 11% dyn-imp 27 81% 4% 4% 0% 11% dyn-sit 9 11% 11% 44% 33% 0% deo/boul 0 dir 0 other intersubj. 1 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% other 0 total unambiguous 46 61% 7% 15% 9% 9% total ambiguous 11 82% 0% 0% 18% 0% total 57 65% 5% 12% 11% 7%
Table 3.11b Animacy of subjects in active clauses in EMD
n hum anim inan other inan/hum dyn-inh 6 50% 17% 33% 0% 0% dyn-imp 41 88% 7% 0% 0% 5% dyn-sit 47 13% 2% 64% 21% 0% deo/boul 0 dir 51 94% 0% 2% 0% 4% other intersubj. 3 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% other 0 total unambiguous 148 64% 4% 22% 7% 3% total ambiguous 50 86% 0% 4% 4% 6% total 198 70% 3% 18% 6% 4%
Table 3.11c Animacy of subjects in active clauses in END
n hum anim inan other inan/hum dyn-inh 8 63% 0% 25% 0% 13% dyn-imp 58 97% 0% 0% 2% 2% dyn-sit 34 41% 0% 32% 26% 0% deo/boul 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% dir 17 76% 6% 6% 6% 6% other intersubj. 12 58% 0% 33% 8% 0% other 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% total unambiguous 131 74% 1% 14% 9% 2% total ambiguous 51 84% 2% 8% 6% 0% total 182 77% 1% 12% 8% 2%
67 Table 3.11d Animacy of subjects in active clauses in PDDW
n hum anim inan other inan/hum dyn-inh 0 dyn-imp 17 88% 0% 0% 0% 12% dyn-sit 6 33% 0% 17% 50% 0% deo/boul 19 53% 0% 37% 11% 0% dir 83 70% 0% 6% 7% 17% other intersubj. 20 30% 0% 35% 30% 5% other 0 total unambiguous 145 63% 0% 14% 12% 12% total ambiguous 23 65% 0% 17% 13% 4% total 168 63% 0% 14% 12% 11%
Table 3.11e Animacy of subjects in active clauses in PDDS
n hum anim inan other inan/hum dyn-inh 0 dyn-imp 22 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% dyn-sit 2 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% deo/boul 23 57% 0% 17% 26% 0% dir 109 83% 1% 4% 9% 3% other intersubj. 6 50% 0% 0% 50% 0% other 4 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% total unambiguous 166 81% 1% 5% 11% 2% total ambiguous 23 52% 0% 9% 30% 9% total 189 77% 1% 5% 14% 3%
the human referents: they are by far the largest category all through (like in kunnen – cf. Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts 2004: 66ff), but their share even steadily increases further from OD to PDDS (which is precisely opposite to the tendency in kunnen, in which the share of human referents gradually decreases over time), though with a clear dip down in PDDW. The continuous rise appears due to the interplay of a few factors, including, until END, the increase in the dyn-imp reading, and, from END onwards, the drastic increase in the directive use – both meanings which predominantly correlate with human subjects. But the drop in PDDW does not seem to be triggered by any specific evolution in the meanings in particular, it appears to be a cumulative – hence accidental? – effect of a series of factors. Also the number of ‘other’ referents (mainly states of affairs) steadily grows from EMD to PDD, but in OD its share was already comparable to PDD (there is a strong drop from OD to EMD), so the question is whether this means much. Animate referents (i.e. animals) are the least frequent category in all stages and are relatively most frequent in the oldest stages (OD and EMD). The latter observation is probably due to the topics that are dealt with in the texts used for the OD and EMD samples. If we look at the separate meaning categories, then, as mentioned already, dyn-imp and dir absolutely favor human referents, and so does dyn-inh, even if to a somewhat lesser
68 extent. Dyn-sit on the other hand occurs more often with inanimate or other referents, though much more outspoken so in OD and EMD than in END and PDD. For deo/boul, the picture is mixed: there are human referents in a little more than half of the occurrences. And for the ‘other intersubjective’ categories, a more detailed look at the separate categories covered by this label (not rendered in the table) shows that it depends on the exact meaning category: vol2 instances always have human referents, but the other instances do not show a specific preference. All these observations are hardly surprising. Participant-imposed dynamic modality concerns a possibility for the first argument participant to do something, hence typically implies that there is also a potential in that participant to intend/aim to do that ‘something’ – and intentions are of course prototypically associated with living beings, and especially humans. The same goes for the directive use: permissions and interdictions are typically directed at intentional beings (which appear as the first argument participant in the clause), i.e. humans. Dyn-sit and deo/boul, however, do not relate to the first argument participant in particular but concern the entire state of affairs, hence they do not impose any restrictions on the first argument participant (at least not in the same way), and a more random distribution in terms of animacy of the latter is perfectly in line with expectations.46 (In deo/boul, and specifically in ‘social ethics’ related deo, one may still expect a ‘deviance’ to some extent towards human-related matters in the state of affairs, of course, even if this need not be ‘implemented’ in the first argument participant in particular.) Of course, these observations do lend further credibility to the assumption formulated in section 3.2.1 above that the directive use originates in the participant-imposed dynamic one (they share the preference for a human first argument participant), rather than the deontic one (which does not share this preference with dir). And, particularly regarding the dynamic subcategories, our data also offer clear hints as to how the situational dynamic reading may have gradually emerged out of the participant- imposed dynamic reading. As mentioned, in dyn-sit one may expect a random distribution of types of first argument participants – yet in OD and EMD this dynamic subcategory clearly prefers inanimate and ‘other’ first arguments, and only from END onwards it shows the expected more random distribution of first arguments. (Interestingly, the situation of dyn-sit in OD and EMD mogen corresponds entirely to that of dyn-sit in PDD kunnen – see Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts 2004: 66ff). So, dyn-sit has probably emerged out of what was originally no more than a ‘metaphorical’ extension of dyn-imp to non-human (and non- animate) contexts (whereby the metaphorization as such does not involve meaning change, but only a change in usage context). It is precisely in the latter contexts (which are ‘untypical’ for dyn-imp), then, that the tie between the dynamic modal meaning and the first argument participant could be loosened, and that the dyn-sit reading could actually
46 Of course, we do not know what such a random distribution should look like in the various stages of the Dutch language. So it is impossible to determine whether the observed frequencies for dyn- sit and deo/boul actually correspond to a random distribution.
69 emerge (through metonymic change) – and in OD and EMD this process is still on its way, since the dyn-sit reading is still largely restricted to these contexts (i.e., it only gets a ‘chance’ in these contexts because they are untypical for dyn-imp – but it does not get a chance yet in the ‘human’ contexts typical of dyn-imp). From END onwards, however, the dyn-sit reading has acquired independence from the dyn-imp reading and is therefore no longer restricted in its usage contexts and can behave according to expectation. (See also Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts 2004: 70–71 for discussion, also in terms of the implications for the role of metaphor vs. metonymy in language change.) Finally, note that there is a significant change through time in the position of human referents in the ambiguous vs. unambiguous instances. The evolution in the unambiguous instances roughly conforms to that in the totals as described above (a gradual increase with a dip down in PDDW). But in the ambiguous instances we see a stable situation from OD to END, but a drastic drop in PDDW and PDDS. Thus, in EMD human referents are significantly more frequent in ambiguous than in non-ambiguous instances (p = .004), and we see the same pattern in OD and END, even if it is not statistically significant there. In PDDW, however, the share of human referents is more or less identical in the ambiguous and non-ambiguous instances, and in PDDS it is even much smaller in the ambiguous instances, in favor of the ‘other’ referents, mainly states of affairs (p = .013). This should of course be seen against the background of a drastic decrease of ambiguous cases in PDD (as compared to EMD and END) – and it probably only signals a decrease in the presence of ‘human subject friendly’ meanings, and especially of dyn-inh and dyn-imp, in the ambiguous instances (see table 3.5 in section 3.2.1).
3.2.2.2.3 Semantic function
Tables 3.12a–e show the frequencies for the different semantic functions of the subject in active clauses. For the sake of simplicitly we here disregard the label ‘experiencer’ (cf. section 2.2) – we will consider this dimension in the section on the nature of the state of affairs below (section 3.2.3). Note that the semantic function cannot be indicated if the main verb is qualificational (e.g. when mogen itself is the main verb, cf. section 3.1.2 above): in such cases, there is no explicit indication of the nature (the ‘aktionsart’) of the qualified state of affairs (since this would be rendered by the ‘real’ main verb expressing the event, which is not present) – but the semantic function of the first argument participant/subject depends on this aktionsart and can only be determined if the latter is known. The difference between the various language stages in terms of the total prevalence of the different semantic functions of the subject is statistically significant (p = .005). Given that there is a reasonably clear correlation between the animacy and the semantic function of a referent (there is an obvious link between animacy, and more specifically ‘humanness’, and dimensions such as controlability and dynamicity), however, there is not
70 much to be learned from this beyond what was already discussed in the previous section on the animacy of the subject. In all stages, ag is by far most frequent. The preference for
Table 3.12a Semantic function of subjects in active clauses with a non-qualificational main verb in OD
n ag fo proc pos zero rec dyn-inh 9 67% 22% 0% 0% 11% 0% dyn-imp 27 96% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% dyn-sit 9 0% 0% 67% 0% 33% 0% deo/boul 0 dir 0 other intersubj. 1 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% other 0 total unambiguous 46 70% 4% 17% 0% 9% 0% total ambiguous 11 45% 0% 36% 0% 18% 0% total 57 65% 4% 21% 0% 11% 0%
Table 3.12b Semantic function of subjects in active clauses with a non-qualificational main verb in EMD
n ag fo proc pos zero rec dyn-inh 6 50% 17% 17% 0% 17% 0% dyn-imp 41 83% 0% 2% 12% 0% 2% dyn-sit 47 11% 11% 55% 2% 21% 0% deo/boul 0 dir 51 90% 0% 2% 4% 0% 4% other intersubj. 3 67% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% other 0 total unambiguous 148 61% 4% 20% 5% 8% 2% total ambiguous 48 65% 4% 0% 8% 19% 4% total 196 62% 4% 15% 6% 11% 3%
Table 3.12c Semantic function of subjects in active clauses with a non-qualificational main verb in END
n ag fo proc pos zero rec dyn-inh 8 50% 0% 0% 25% 25% 0% dyn-imp 58 71% 0% 12% 12% 3% 2% dyn-sit 34 21% 15% 24% 9% 32% 0% deo/boul 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% dir 17 65% 0% 6% 24% 6% 0% other intersubj. 12 25% 0% 0% 8% 58% 8% other 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% total unambiguous 131 52% 4% 12% 13% 18% 2% total ambiguous 50 74% 2% 8% 8% 6% 2% total 181 58% 3% 11% 12% 14% 2%
71 Table 3.12d Semantic function of subjects in active clauses with a non-qualificational main verb in PDDW
n ag fo proc pos zero rec dyn-inh 0 dyn-imp 17 71% 0% 12% 12% 0% 6% dyn-sit 6 0% 50% 17% 0% 33% 0% deo/boul 18 33% 6% 28% 6% 28% 0% dir 78 76% 1% 0% 14% 6% 3% other intersubj. 19 32% 0% 32% 5% 32% 0% other 0 total unambiguous 138 60% 4% 10% 11% 13% 2% total ambiguous 22 64% 5% 9% 9% 14% 0% total 160 61% 4% 10% 11% 13% 2%
Table 3.12e Semantic function of subjects in active clauses with a non-qualificational main verb in PDDS
n ag fo proc pos zero rec dyn-inh 0 dyn-imp 22 68% 0% 5% 18% 9% 0% dyn-sit 2 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% deo/boul 17 53% 0% 12% 6% 24% 6% dir 100 89% 0% 1% 5% 3% 2% other intersubj. 6 0% 17% 17% 0% 50% 17% other 4 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 75% total unambiguous 151 75% 1% 3% 7% 10% 5% total ambiguous 18 67% 0% 11% 0% 22% 0% total 169 74% 1% 4% 6% 11% 4%
agentive first arguments is most outspoken for the dyn-imp and dir categories, for obvious reasons (cf. the previous section). Otherwise, there are hardly any remarkable observations, maybe except for the fact that the number of proc cases diminishes overtime. But this is entirely explicable in terms of a strong preference for this semantic function in the fairly frequent dyn-sit reading in EMD, and, in the following periods, a combination of, on one hand, the (expected) evolution of dyn-sit to a more random distribution of semantic functions of first arguments (see, again, the discussion in the previous section), and, on the other hand, a gradual decline in the overall frequency of this meaning category in mogen. In EMD, there is a significant difference between the ambiguous and unambiguous instances (p = .001): the former do not contain any processed cases. But in the other language stages, the differences are negligeable, and it does not seem there is much to be learned from this.
72 3.2.2.3 The subject and first argument in passive clauses
We now turn to the properties of the subject and the first argument in passive clauses. As mentioned in section 2.2, the person, number and animacy of the first argument in the passives have not been coded, since in most cases they cannot be determined with certainty (there are, in fact, only 3 instances in our data in which the first argument is explicitly mentioned in an optional prepositional phrase introduced by door ‘by’). The semantic function of the first argument can be determined, however, since it follows from the main verb. In the following subsections there is no table for OD, because there are no passives in our OD material (cf. section 3.2.2.1). Moreover, in EMD passives only occur among the ambiguous instances, hence the tables for this period are very simple. In some tables the label ‘Ø’ occurs: this refers to the absence of a subject, which one can get in passivized intransitive verbs, as in (57).
(57) Op de andere wegen is het aangewezen dat zo weinig mogelijk auto's afslaande bewegingen maken op het traject waar 90 kilometers per uur gereden mag worden. (PDDW135) ‘On the other roads it is advisable that as few cars as possible make left or right turns in the sections where one may drive at 90 kilometers per hour.’
3.2.2.3.1 Person and number of the passive subject
Tables 3.13a–d show the frequencies for person and number of the passive subject. Third person occurrences (mostly singular but also plural) are absolutely predominant (quite like in kunnen – Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts 2004: 77). But, since there is no special correlation between any of the meanings of mogen and particpants in the state of affairs other than the first argument, these data have little to say about the development of mogen.
73 Table 3.13a Person/number of subjects in passive clauses in EMD
n 1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl total unambiguous 0 total ambiguous 2 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% total 2 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%
Table 3.13b Person/number of subjects in passive clauses in END
n 1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl Ø dyn-inh 0 dyn-imp 3 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% dyn-sit 4 0% 0% 75% 0% 0% 25% 0% deo/boul 0 dir 2 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 50% 0% other intersubj. 0 total unambiguous 9 0% 0% 78% 0% 0% 22% 0% total ambiguous 9 0% 0% 67% 0% 11% 11% 11% total 18 0% 0% 72% 0% 6% 17% 6%
Table 3.13c Person/number of subjects in passive clauses in PDDW
n 1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl Ø dyn-inh 0 dyn-imp 2 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 50% 0% dyn-sit 1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% deo/boul 5 0% 0% 80% 0% 0% 20% 0% dir 14 0% 0% 64% 0% 0% 29% 7% other intersubj. 1 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% total unambiguous 23 0% 0% 65% 0% 0% 30% 4% total ambiguous 9 0% 0% 44% 0% 0% 44% 11% total 32 0% 0% 59% 0% 0% 34% 6%
Table 3.13d Person/number of subjects in passive clauses in PDDS
n 1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl Ø dyn-inh 0 dyn-imp 1 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% dyn-sit 0 deo/boul 2 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% dir 4 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% other intersubj. 0 total unambiguous 7 0% 0% 43% 0% 0% 29% 29% total ambiguous 4 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 50% 0% total 11 0% 0% 45% 0% 0% 36% 18%
74 Table 3.14a Animacy of subjects in passive clauses in EMD
n hum anim inan other inan/hum Ø total unambiguous 0 total ambiguous 2 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% total 2 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 0%
Table 3.14b Animacy of subjects in passive clauses in END
n hum anim inan other inan/hum Ø dyn-inh 0 dyn-imp 3 33% 0% 67% 0% 0% 0% dyn-sit 4 50% 0% 25% 0% 25% 0% deo/boul 0 dir 2 50% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% other intersubj. 0 total unambiguous 9 44% 0% 44% 0% 11% 0% total ambiguous 9 22% 0% 67% 0% 0% 11% total 18 33% 0% 56% 0% 6% 6%
Table 3.14c Animacy of subjects in passive clauses in PDDW
n hum anim inan other inan/hum Ø dyn-inh 0 dyn-imp 2 50% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% dyn-sit 1 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% deo/boul 5 0% 0% 60% 40% 0% 0% dir 14 7% 0% 86% 0% 0% 7% other intersubj. 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% total unambiguous 23 13% 0% 74% 9% 0% 4% total ambiguous 9 0% 0% 89% 0% 0% 11% total 32 9% 0% 78% 6% 0% 6%
Table 3.14d Animacy of subjects in passive clauses in PDDS
n hum anim inan other inan/hum Ø dyn-inh 0 dyn-imp 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% dyn-sit 0 deo/boul 2 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% dir 4 0% 25% 25% 0% 0% 50% other intersubj. 0 total unambiguous 7 14% 14% 43% 0% 0% 29% total ambiguous 4 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% total 11 9% 9% 64% 0% 0% 18%
75 3.2.2.3.2 Animacy of the passive subject
Tables 3.14a–d represent the animacy of the passive subject. The situation is completely different from that of the active subject, which was mainly human. Here, we find mostly inanimate subjects (again like in kunnen – see Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts 2004: 80ff). This is of course due to the fact that passive subjects are usually the second argument participant in the state of affairs, which has nearly always a ‘goal’ function (cf. next section), and the goal (i.e. the entity that is affected by the operation of some controller) is very often an inanimate object. Anyway, this information is of little use for understanding the semantic developments in mogen.
3.2.2.3.3 Semantic function of the passive subject and first argument
The semantic function of the passive subject is without any exception ‘goal’. (It is thus unnecessary to present this observation in tables.) This was to be expected, given the fact that the passive subject usually corresponds to the second argument of the main verb, as mentioned already in the previous section. Tables 3.15a–d give an overview of the semantic function of the first argument of the verb in passive clauses. The situation here is quite different from that of the first argument participant/subject in the active clauses: through all periods, the agent function is absolutely predominant here (this is once again comparable to the situation in kunnen, but the dominance is even stronger in mogen – see Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts 2004: 83ff). Exceptions can only be found in PDDW, where there are a few processed and positioner cases. The higher share of the agent function in the passive clauses as compared to the active ones is statistically significant for END (p = .000) and PDDW (p = .014). As also suggested in Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts (2004: 83), however, this predominance of the agent function probably has more to do with the issue of the passivizability of main predicates (which is no doubt constrained by the type of state of affairs they express) than with the semantics of the modal auxiliary.
76 Table 3.15a Semantic role of the first argument in passive clauses in EMD
n ag fo proc pos zero rec total unambiguous 0 total ambiguous 2 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% total 2 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Table 3.15b Semantic role of the first argument in passive clauses in END
n ag fo proc pos zero rec dyn-inh 0 dyn-imp 3 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% dyn-sit 4 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% deo/boul 0 dir 2 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% other intersubj. 0 total unambiguous 9 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% total ambiguous 9 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% total 18 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Table 3.15c Semantic role of the first argument in passive clauses in PDDW
n ag fo proc pos zero rec dyn-inh 0 dyn-imp 2 50% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% dyn-sit 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% deo/boul 5 80% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% dir 14 93% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% other intersubj. 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% total unambiguous 23 87% 0% 4% 9% 0% 0% total ambiguous 9 78% 0% 11% 11% 0% 0% total 32 84% 0% 6% 9% 0% 0%
Table 3.15d Semantic role of the first argument in passive clauses in PDDS
n ag fo proc pos zero rec dyn-inh 0 dyn-imp 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% dyn-sit 0 deo/boul 2 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% dir 4 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% other intersubj. 0 total unambiguous 7 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% total ambiguous 4 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% total 11 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
77 3.2.3 The role of the type of state of affairs (question 5)
Tables 3.16a–e present the information on the types of states of affairs the various uses of mogen occur with (cf. question 5 in section 2.2 above). In these tables we give the total share of each type of state of affairs in each meaning category, irrespective of whether it also carries the additional label ‘experience’. And immediately next to it we also mention separately, between brackets, the frequency of instances in which the state of affairs also involves an ‘experience’ (again in terms of the share of such cases in the total number of instances of the revelant meaning category, i.e. ‘n’). Since the type of state of affairs and the semantic role of the first argument participant in the state of affairs are intimately interrelated (cf. section 2.2), the frequencies in these tables will by and large be comparable to those presented in section 3.2.2 above dealing with the semantic roles – but unlike the latter the present tables do present an integrated picture of both the active and the passive clauses.
Table 3.16a Types of state of affairs in clauses with a non-qualificational main verb in OD
n action (exp) process (exp) position (exp) state (exp) dyn-inh 9 67% (11%) 22% (0%) 0% (0%) 11% (0%) dyn-imp 27 96% (0%) 4% (0%) 0% (0%) 0% (0%) dyn-sit 9 0% (0%) 67% (0%) 0% (0%) 33% (0%) deo/boul 0 dir 0 other intersubj. 1 0% (0%) 100% (0%) 0% (0%) 0% (0%) other 0 total unambiguous 46 70% (2%) 22% (0%) 0% (0%) 9% (0%) total ambiguous 11 45% (0%) 36% (0%) 0% (0%) 18% (0%) total 57 65% (2%) 25% (0%) 0% (0%) 11% (0%)
Table 3.16b Types of state of affairs in clauses with a non-qualificational main verb in EMD
n action (exp) process (exp) position (exp) state (exp) dyn-inh 6 50% (0%) 33% (0%) 0% (0%) 17% (0%) dyn-imp 41 83% (0%) 5% (0%) 12% (5%) 0% (0%) dyn-sit 47 11% (0%) 66% (0%) 2% (2%) 21% (0%) deo/boul 0 dir 51 90% (0%) 6% (0%) 4% (0%) 0% (0%) other intersubj. 3 67% (0%) 0% (0%) 0% (0%) 33% (0%) other 0 total unambiguous 148 61% (0%) 26% (0%) 6% (2%) 8% (0%) total ambiguous 50 66% (4%) 8% (0%) 8% (0%) 18% (0%) total 198 62% (1%) 21% (0%) 6% (2%) 11% (0%)
78 Table 3.16c Types of state of affairs in clauses with a non-qualificational main verb in END
n action (exp) process (exp) position (exp) state (exp) dyn-inh 8 50% (25%) 25% (0%) 0% (0%) 25% (25%) dyn-imp 61 72% (2%) 13% (10%) 11% (5%) 3% (2%) dyn-sit 38 29% (5%) 34% (5%) 8% (0%) 29% (0%) deo/boul 1 100% (0%) 0% (0%) 0% (0%) 0% (0%) dir 19 68% (0%) 5% (0%) 21% (0%) 5% (0%) other intersubj. 12 33% (8%) 0% (0%) 8% (0%) 58% (8%) other 1 100% (0%) 0% (0%) 0% (0%) 0% (0%) total unambiguous 140 56% (4%) 17% (6%) 11% (2%) 16% (3%) total ambiguous 59 78% (0%) 7% (2%) 10% (2%) 5% (0%) total 199 62% (3%) 14% (5%) 11% (2%) 13% (2%)
Table 3.16d Types of state of affairs in clauses with a non-qualificational main verb in PDDW
n action (exp) process (exp) position (exp) state (exp) dyn-inh 0 dyn-imp 19 68% (11%) 21% (5%) 11% (0%) 0% (0%) dyn-sit 7 14% (0%) 57% (14%) 0% (0%) 29% (0%) deo/boul 23 43% (0%) 26% (4%) 9% (9%) 22% (0%) dir 92 78% (4%) 3% (0%) 16% (0%) 2% (0%) other intersubj. 20 35% (0%) 30% (0%) 5% (5%) 30% (0%) other 0 total unambiguous 161 64% (4%) 14% (2%) 12% (2%) 9% (0%) total ambiguous 31 68% (0%) 13% (0%) 13% (0%) 6% (0%) total 192 65% (3%) 14% (2%) 13% (2%) 9% (0%)
Table 3.16e Types of state of affairs in clauses with a non-qualificational main verb in PDDS
n action (exp) process (exp) position (exp) state (exp) dyn-inh 0 dyn-imp 23 70% (0%) 4% (0%) 17% (9%) 9% (4%) dyn-sit 2 0% (0%) 0% (0%) 0% (0%) 100% (50%) deo/boul 19 63% (0%) 11% (0%) 5% (0%) 21% (0%) dir 104 89% (2%) 2% (0%) 6% (0%) 3% (0%) other intersubj. 6 17% (0%) 33% (0%) 0% (0%) 50% (0%) other 4 0% (0%) 0% (0%) 0% (0%) 100% (25%) total unambiguous 158 77% (1%) 4% (0%) 7% (1%) 11% (2%) total ambiguous 22 77% (0%) 9% (0%) 0% (0%) 14% (0%) total 180 77% (1%) 5% (0%) 7% (1%) 12% (2%)
Again, the total frequencies differ significantly from period to period (p = .000) – but it does not look like we can learn much from this with regards to the meaning evolution of mogen. Actions are predominant all through, and they are (as expected) particularly
79 dominant in dyn-imp and dir. Somewhat surprisingly, they are not so dominant in dyn-inh (as long as it exists as a meaning of mogen) – we have no explanation for this observation. Processes become less and less important overtime, mainly due to the evolutions in dyn-sit as described in section 3.2.2.2.3. And the proportion of positions increases, except in PDDS, and this appears predominantly due to the evolutions in dir in particular. There is also little to be found in the information concerning experiencer-hood. Like in kunnen (Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts 2004: 90), the share of this category is overall very small, with only a few exceptions, and there is no developmental pattern to be discerned in this. The differences between the unambiguous and the ambiguous instances do not reach statistical significance in most time periods – but they do in END (p = .012), with a much higher share of actions in the ambiguous instances. We have no explanation for this though.
3.2.4 The role of the clause type (question 6)
3.2.4.1 Main clause or subordinate clause
Table 3.17 gives the absolute and relative frequencies of instances of mogen in its different meanings appearing in a main clause in the different periods. It is striking that, whereas in PDD the majority of instances figures in a main clause, in the older language stages mogen is more frequently to be found in a subordinate clause – in EMD, even nearly two thirds of all instances figure in a subordinate clause. Overall, the difference between the various periods is statistically significant (p = .000 according to a chi-square test). (In all stages, the share of main clause instances is greater among the ambiguous than among the unambiguous instances, but this difference is never statistically significant.)
Table 3.17 Frequency of instances in main clauses
OD EMD END PDDW PDDS n % n % n % n % n % dyn-inh 9 44% 6 33% 8 25% 0 -- 0 -- dyn-imp 27 37% 41 27% 61 46% 19 84% 23 78% dyn-sit 9 44% 47 26% 38 37% 7 100% 2 100% deo/boul 0 -- 0 -- 1 0% 24 79% 25 68% dir 0 -- 51 47% 19 42% 97 62% 113 79% other intersubj. 1 0% 3 33% 12 17% 21 48% 6 50% other 0 -- 0 -- 1 100% 0 -- 4 100% total unambiguous 46 39% 148 34% 140 39% 168 67% 173 77% total ambiguous 11 73% 52 40% 60 48% 32 72% 27 81% total 57 46% 200 36% 200 42% 200 68% 200 78%
80 Precisely the same phenomenon (more subordinate clause instances in older periods, more main clause instances in PDD) was observed for the modal auxiliary kunnen (cf. Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts 2004: 91–93). However, unlike the kunnen-data, the mogen-data do not show any (significant) correlation with the meaning category involved: the more subjectivized and intersubjectivized meanings generally do not behave differently from the less (inter)subjectivized ones. We do find a significant difference between the various meaning categories in terms of their frequency in main clauses in PDDW (p = .015), but the observed pattern is certainly not in accordance with the facts for kunnen: a subjective meaning like deontic modality occurs less often in a main clause than the more objective dynamic meanings, and the share of main clause instances is even smaller among the intersubjective categories. The question why there should have been a change in the frequency in main vs. subordinate clauses between the older stages and PDD, then, has to remain unanswered. In any case, the phenomenon does not seem to have had any influence on the meaning developments we have observed for mogen.
3.2.4.2 Mood of the main clause
Tables 3.18a–e give an overview of the different types or ‘moods’ of the main clause in which mogen appears, or in which the subordinate clause in which mogen appears is embedded (we will not offer separate tables for the main vs. subordinate clauses since these do not reveal anything of interest). The difference in the total share of the alternative moods between the periods is statistically significant (p = .000), but there is no clear development to be seen from OD to PDD. The END and PDDS samples contain somewhat less declarative and somewhat more interrogative instances, but even there, the declaratives constitute the large majority of all instances (as is to be expected since this is the dominant mood type in language overall). The relatively larger number of interrogatives in END and PDDS is most likely due to the interactive nature of spoken language (PDDS) and the high proportion of plays, which contain many dialogues, in the END sample (cf. section 2.1). The data for kunnen suggested that the newer, more subjective and intersubjective meanings nearly always appear in declarative clauses, while this is less the case for the dynamic modal categories (Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts 2004: 93ff). Our present data for mogen, however, do not show any correlation between meaning category and frequency of the declarative mood. The difference between the various meaning categories is statistically significant in EMD (p = .020) – and here the single unambiguous interrogative instance is one of the three intersubjective instances in the sample, and the two ambiguous interrogatives instances also allow an intersubjective reading. But this relation between intersubjective meanings and interrogative mood is not found in the other periods.
81 All in all, then, the mood of the clause does not appear to have had much of an effect on the semantic evolution of mogen.
Table 3.18a Mood of the main clause in OD
n declarative interrogative imperative exclamative dyn-inh 9 100% 0% 0% 0% dyn-imp 27 96% 4% 0% 0% dyn-sit 9 100% 0% 0% 0% deo/boul 0 dir 0 other intersubj. 1 100% 0% 0% 0% other 0 total unambiguous 46 98% 2% 0% 0% total ambiguous 11 100% 0% 0% 0% total 57 98% 2% 0% 0%
Table 3.18b Mood of the main clause in EMD
n declarative interrogative imperative exclamative dyn-inh 6 100% 0% 0% 0% dyn-imp 41 100% 0% 0% 0% dyn-sit 47 100% 0% 0% 0% deo/boul 0 dir 51 100% 0% 0% 0% other intersubj. 3 67% 33% 0% 0% other 0 total unambiguous 148 99% 1% 0% 0% total ambiguous 52 96% 4% 0% 0% total 200 99% 2% 0% 0%
Table 3.18c Mood of the main clause in END
n declarative interrogative imperative exclamative dyn-inh 8 100% 0% 0% 0% dyn-imp 61 95% 3% 0% 2% dyn-sit 38 87% 13% 0% 0% deo/boul 1 100% 0% 0% 0% dir 19 89% 11% 0% 0% other intersubj. 12 100% 0% 0% 0% other 1 100% 0% 0% 0% total unambiguous 140 93% 6% 0% 1% total ambiguous 60 93% 7% 0% 0% total 200 93% 7% 0% 1%
82 Table 3.18d Mood of the main clause in PDDW
n declarative interrogative imperative exclamative dyn-inh 0 dyn-imp 19 89% 11% 0% 0% dyn-sit 7 100% 0% 0% 0% deo/boul 24 100% 0% 0% 0% dir 97 97% 3% 0% 0% other intersubj. 21 100% 0% 0% 0% other 0 total unambiguous 168 97% 3% 0% 0% total ambiguous 32 94% 6% 0% 0% total 200 97% 4% 0% 0%
Table 3.18e Mood of the main clause in PDDS
n declarative interrogative imperative exclamative dyn-inh 0 dyn-imp 23 100% 0% 0% 0% dyn-sit 2 100% 0% 0% 0% deo/boul 25 84% 16% 0% 0% dir 113 88% 12% 0% 0% other intersubj. 6 100% 0% 0% 0% other 4 50% 50% 0% 0% total unambiguous 173 88% 12% 0% 0% total ambiguous 27 93% 7% 0% 0% total 200 89% 11% 0% 0%
3.2.5 The role of negation (question 7)
Table 3.19 shows how often mogen occurs in combination with negation in the clause. The percentages also cover the cases of so-called ‘semi-negation’ (i.e., in which there is no separate negation particle in the clause but in which the negation is ‘contained’ in a negative constituent such as niemand ‘nobody’ or niets ‘nothing’, cf. section 2.2). We do not mention their frequency separately, though, as nothing can be learned from this information. The difference between the periods in terms of the total share of negative instances is statistically significant (p = .000), but there is no clear evolution across time: the number of negative cases seems to diminish from to OD to END, but there is an increase again in PDD. In most periods, except for EMD, there seem to be more negative cases among the ambiguous instances, but this difference is only statistically significant for PDDS (p = .011), where there are twice as many negative cases among the ambiguous instances. Overall, mogen turns out to occur much less frequently in a negative context than kunnen, for which the pre-PDD samples all contain more negative instances than affirmative ones (Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts 2004: 99). It is perhaps not a coincidence,
83 Table 3.19 Frequency of negation (incl. semi-negation)
OD EMD END PDDW PDDS n % n % n % n % n % dyn-inh 9 78% 6 33% 8 38% 0 -- 0 -- dyn-imp 27 33% 41 34% 61 11% 19 26% 23 22% dyn-sit 9 67% 47 23% 38 5% 7 86% 2 100% deo/boul 0 -- 0 -- 1 0% 24 75% 25 44% dir 0 -- 51 39% 19 53% 97 25% 113 22% other intersubj. 1 0% 3 0% 12 0% 21 14% 6 17% other 0 -- 0 -- 1 100% 0 -- 4 0% total unambiguous 46 48% 148 32% 140 16% 168 33% 173 25% total ambiguous 11 73% 52 19% 60 20% 32 41% 27 52% total 57 53% 200 29% 200 18% 200 35% 200 29%
though, that in OD – and only in that period – also mogen occurs more often in negative than in affirmative contexts: the meaning profile of OD mogen indeed resembles to a considerable extent the kunnen meaning profile (cf. Byloo and Nuyts in prep b). In fact, there is a statistically significant difference between the various meaning categories in terms of negation for all periods except for EMD (for OD p = .037; for END, PDDW and PDDS p = .000). However, unlike kunnen, mogen does not show any relation between the degree of subjectivity or intersubjectivity and the frequency of negation – in mogen there is no obvious pattern at all, the different periods behave very differently from each other. The sudden increase of negative cases in PDD is to a considerable extent due, on one hand to a quite high number of negative deo/boul cases, but on the other hand also to a remarkably large number of negative dyn-sit cases. The frequency of the latter is even significantly higher than that of the negative dyn-sit instances of kunnen of that same period (p = .033 for PDDW and p = .016 for PDDS). A closer look at the negative mogen- instances reveals that there are quite a few idiomatic expressions of which the negation constitutes a integral part: for example, half of the negative PDDW cases feature the expression niet mogen baten ‘it is no use’, as in (58).
(58) de decors zijn excentriek; het camerawerk is verzorgd, de jurkjes van Paltrow mogen er wezen, maar het mag allemaal niet baten. Great Expectations is als een stuk chocola dat te lang in de zon heeft gelegen (PDDW013) ‘The settings are excentric; the camera work is excellent, Paltrow’s dresses are not at all bad, but it was all useless. Great Expectations is like a piece of chocolate that has been lying in the sun for too long.’
So the sudden rise of negative cases in PDD is due, at least to a considerable extent, to this kind of specific expressions.
84 In sum, in spite of the significant differences between the investigated periods as well as between the various meaning categories, there are no clear relations between the presence of negation and the meaning development of mogen.
3.2.6 Tense and time reference (question 8)
In this final section, we discuss the questions with respect to the temporal dimenion, i.e. the tense of mogen, the presence of a perfective or future auxiliary and the time reference of the state of affairs.
3.2.6.1 The tense of mogen
Tables 3.20a–e give an overview of the frequencies of the different tense forms of mogen in the investigated periods. The default tense form is of course the present tense. Among the other tense markings, the preterit is the most common one. In most cases, the preterit straightforwardly situates
Table 3.20a Tense of mogen in OD
n pres pret subj inf part dyn-inh 9 67% 11% 22% 0% 0% dyn-imp 27 56% 22% 22% 0% 0% dyn-sit 9 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% deo/boul 0 dir 0 other intersubj. 1 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% other 0 total unambiguous 46 59% 22% 20% 0% 0% total ambiguous 11 82% 18% 0% 0% 0% total 57 63% 21% 16% 0% 0%
Table 3.20b Tense of mogen in EMD
n pres pret subj inf part dyn-inh 6 83% 17% 0% 0% 0% dyn-imp 41 59% 32% 5% 5% 0% dyn-sit 47 51% 47% 2% 0% 0% deo/boul 0 dir 51 80% 12% 6% 2% 0% other intersubj. 3 33% 33% 0% 33% 0% other 0 total unambiguous 148 64% 29% 4% 3% 0% total ambiguous 52 54% 35% 2% 8% 2% total 200 62% 31% 4% 4% 1%
85 Table 3.20c Tense of mogen in END
n pres pret subj inf part dyn-inh 8 63% 38% 0% 0% 0% dyn-imp 61 54% 23% 0% 23% 0% dyn-sit 38 45% 29% 0% 26% 0% deo/boul 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% dir 19 58% 26% 0% 16% 0% other intersubj. 12 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% other 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% total unambiguous 140 54% 26% 0% 19% 0% total ambiguous 60 55% 25% 0% 20% 0% total 200 55% 26% 0% 20% 0%
Table 3.20d Tense of mogen in PDDW
n pres pret subj inf part dyn-inh 0 dyn-imp 19 68% 21% 0% 11% 0% dyn-sit 7 57% 14% 0% 29% 0% deo/boul 24 79% 4% 0% 17% 0% dir 97 72% 22% 0% 6% 0% other intersubj. 21 43% 43% 14% 0% 0% other 0 total unambiguous 168 68% 21% 2% 8% 0% total ambiguous 32 97% 0% 0% 3% 0% total 200 73% 18% 2% 8% 0%
Table 3.20e Tense of mogen in PDDS
n pres pret subj inf part dyn-inh 0 dyn-imp 23 91% 4% 0% 4% 0% dyn-sit 2 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% deo/boul 25 76% 12% 0% 12% 0% dir 113 79% 16% 0% 4% 1% other intersubj. 6 33% 50% 17% 0% 0% other 4 75% 25% 0% 0% 0% total unambiguous 173 79% 15% 1% 5% 1% total ambiguous 27 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% total 200 82% 13% 1% 5% 1%
the meaning expressed by mogen in the past. For the subjective and some of the intersubjective meaning categories this usually means that the modal is used ‘descriptively’, i.e. it no longer expresses the speaker’s own viewpoint at the moment of speech (or in other words, there is no ‘speaker commitment’ anymore), as is the case in the present tense, but it expresses a viewpoint held by the speaker or by someone else
86 sometime in the past. This is illustrated in (59) – the deontic judgment expressed by mogen is not the speaker’s but someone else’s, held sometime in the past.
(59) Met veel bravoure verdedigde hij dat alle macht bij de staat moest berusten en dat niet mocht worden geduld dat een andere instantie wetten voorschreef, zelfs niet als die alleen in geweten bindend waren. (PDDW183) ‘He dashingly maintained that all power should rest with the state and that it should not be tolerated that laws be formulated by another authority, not even if they were only morally binding.’
However, in a few cases, preterit marking on mogen does not code past time reference of the qualification, but instead refers to the hypothetical or counterfactual nature of the state of affairs (including the qualification).
(60) als ik mocht beslissen zou daar veel meer tijd aan uh besteed moeten worden (PDDS113) ‘If I could decide, a lot more time should be spent on that.’
(61) Ick wensche dit van Godt/ dat ick mocht doen gevoelen. / Met welck een yver dat myn grootse ziele woet (END185) ‘I desire this from God/ that I might be able to show how zestfully my great soul is raging.’
In fact, the conditional use of mogen systematically appears in the preterit tense in PDD and is of course systematically of this kind.
(62) Mocht het functioneren van deze sectoren haperen bij de millenniumwisseling, dan zullen de betrokken ministers zonder twijfel daarop worden aangesproken door het parlement. (PDDW004) ‘If the functioning of these branches would stagnate around the millenium change, then the ministers involved will no doubt be questioned on this matter by the parliament.’
In EMD we also frequently find the preterit in this kind of use but then in the apodosis of a conditional clause. This use is no longer possible in PDD, where a construction with zou is used instead (cf. section 3.2.6.3 below).
(63) war dat sake dat helyas ende sine erfnamen den pacht nyt en betalden vp ter vorghenomder tyet, so mocht gherart puthake of sine erfnamen mit ten lande vrilecken sonder weder+secghen horen wille done, (EMD152)
87 ‘In case Helyas and his heirs do not pay the rent at the agreed upon time, then Gherart Puthake or his heirs may do as they please with the property, freely and without objection.’
The difference between the periods in terms of the total frequency distribution of the various tense forms is statistically significant according to a chi-square test (p = .000). The predominance of the present tense is most outspoken in the PDD material. Conversely, there is a decrease of the subjunctive overtime, especially between OD and EMD. As mentioned in section 3.1.1 already, this decrease is in accordance with the general loss of the subjunctive in Dutch. Between EMD and PDDS, there is a gradual decrease in the share of preterit cases. This might have to do with the broader use of the preterit for hypothetical states of affairs in the older language stages (see above). The remarkable evolution of the frequency of the infinitive has already been discussed in section 3.1.1 above and is probably influenced by the rise of zou in Dutch (cf. also section 3.2.6.3 below). The difference between the various meaning categories is statistically significant in EMD (p = .004). One of the most remarkable facts triggering this is the relatively stronger inclination (47%!) of dyn-sit mogen towards the preterit tense. Most of these preterit cases actually turn out to be ‘hypothetical’ ones (see above). The difference between the meaning categories is also statistically significant in PDDW (p = .000 according to a chi- square test). Here, a major factor is that the ‘other intersubjective’ instances show a relatively strong inclination to the preterit (43%) and subjunctive (14%) tenses (the same is actually the case in PDDS, even more strongly so – the difference between the ‘other intersubjective’ cases and the other categories is also statistically significant there: p = .006). The subjunctive instances are of course all cases of the optative use (cf. section 1.3 above).47 Finally, in PDDW there is a statistically significant difference between unambiguous and ambiguous instances (p = .003): the latter are nearly always in the present tense. The same goes for PDDS, but the difference is not statistically significant there. We have no explanation for this, though. All in all, it does not look like tense is a specially relevant factor in the semantic evolution of mogen.
47 It is actually interesting to see that the ‘other intersubjective’ instances in EMD and END do not attract the subjunctive at all, although in END several of them are optative. As if the optative use in PDD has ‘rediscovered’ the subjunctive as a way to set itself apart.
88 3.2.6.2 The presence of a perfective auxiliary
Table 3.21 shows how often mogen is combined with a perfective auxiliary (either hebben ‘have’ or zijn ‘be’, depending on the main verb) in its different meanings in the different time periods. The semantic effects of this combination are actually extremely complicated, in part due to the fact that the relative ‘position’ of the modal and of the perfective auxiliary can vary, in terms of which has syntactic/grammatical scope over the other (hence which of them appears as the finite and which as an infinite form), and in part due to the effect of the tense (present or preterit) of the finite auxiliary. We will not try to explain this in detail here (see Byloo and Nuyts subm for elaborate discussion), however, since it does not look like the matter is very relevant for our understanding of the semantic evolution of mogen. The table shows that perfective auxiliaries are rather infrequent altogether (precisely the same was found for kunnen – see Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts 2004: 105–106). In EMD, there is a signficiant difference between the ambiguous and the unambiguous instances (p = .017) – the latter actually never occur with a perfective auxiliary. Given the fact that there are no perfective auxiliary cases in OD, this might be taken to suggest that the presence of a perfective auxiliary is favored by the ‘newer’ (more subjective or intersubjective) meanings. Yet, overall, there is no correlation at all between the frequency of a perfective auxiliary and the meaning category. Only in PDDW the difference between the various meanings is statistically significant (p = .004) – but the perfective auxiliary is certainly not more frequent there in the more subjective and intersubjective meanings in particular.
Table 3.21 Frequency of perfective auxiliaries
OD EMD END PDDW PDDS n % n % n % n % n % dyn-inh 9 0% 6 0% 8 0% 0 -- 0 -- dyn-imp 27 0% 41 0% 61 2% 19 11% 23 0% dyn-sit 9 0% 47 0% 38 11% 7 29% 2 0% deo/boul 0 -- 0 -- 1 0% 24 8% 25 8% dir 0 -- 51 0% 19 0% 97 1% 113 3% other intersubj. 1 0% 3 0% 12 0% 21 10% 6 17% other 0 -- 0 -- 1 0% 0 -- 4 0% total unambiguous 46 0% 148 0% 140 4% 168 5% 173 3% total ambiguous 11 0% 52 6% 60 7% 32 0% 27 4% total 57 0% 200 2% 200 5% 200 5% 200 4%
89 3.2.6.3 The presence of a future auxiliary
Table 3.22 shows how often mogen is combined with a future auxiliary in the investigated periods. In all cases, this future auxiliary is zullen ‘shall’, except for one PDDS case, where gaan ‘go’ is used. The difference in the totals between the various periods is statistically significant (p = .000). END in particular is remarkably different from the other periods in that it contains far more instances with a future auxiliary (once again, precisely the same is true for kunnen – see Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts 2004: 106ff). A closer look at the actual cases reveals that (exactly like in kunnen) this difference is primarily due to preterit tense occurrences of the future auxiliary zullen, i.e. zou. This form almost never marks future (or future in the past), however, but rather does a number of entirely ‘non-temporal’ things, including marking conditionality, as in (64), or (closely related to the former) counterfactuality, as in (65) (which implies that journalists do try to influence opinions), or serving as a mitigator, for example of the speech act (the question) in (66).
(64) Dan zou je in geen enkel bestuur mogen gaan zitten in het dorp, dat zie ik niet zitten. (PDDW042) ‘Then you shouldn’t be in any administration at all in the village, I don’t want that.’
(65) journalisten zouden niet aan opiniëring mogen doen (PDDS140) ‘Journalists shouldn’t try to influence opinions’
(66) zou ik je nou nog een keer terug mogen bellen (PDDS016) ‘Could I call you back once more?’
Table 3.22 Frequency of future auxiliaries
OD EMD END PDDW PDDS n % n % n % n % n % dyn-inh 9 0% 6 0% 8 0% 0 -- 0 -- dyn-imp 27 0% 41 5% 61 18% 19 0% 23 4% dyn-sit 9 0% 47 0% 38 21% 7 14% 2 0% deo/boul 0 -- 0 -- 1 0% 24 8% 25 8% dir 0 -- 51 2% 19 5% 97 2% 113 3% other intersubj. 1 0% 3 33% 12 0% 21 0% 6 0% other 0 -- 0 -- 1 0% 0 -- 4 0% total unambiguous 46 0% 148 3% 140 14% 168 3% 173 3% total ambiguous 11 0% 52 4% 60 12% 32 0% 27 0% total 57 0% 200 3% 200 14% 200 3% 200 3%
90 Table 3.23 Frequency of past tense future auxiliaries
OD EMD END PDDW PDDS n % n % n % n % n % dyn-inh 9 0% 6 0% 8 0% 0 -- 0 -- dyn-imp 27 0% 41 0% 61 10% 19 0% 23 0% dyn-sit 9 0% 47 0% 38 21% 7 0% 2 0% deo/boul 0 -- 0 -- 1 0% 24 8% 25 8% dir 0 -- 51 0% 19 5% 97 0% 113 2% other intersubj. 1 0% 3 0% 12 0% 21 0% 6 0% other 0 -- 0 -- 1 0% 0 -- 4 0% total unambiguous 46 0% 148 0% 140 11% 168 1% 173 2% total ambiguous 11 0% 52 0% 60 10% 32 0% 27 0% total 57 0% 200 0% 200 10% 200 1% 200 2%
Table 3.23 shows the frequency of occurrences of zou in particular. Again, the difference between the periods is significant (p = .000) and it is clear that this is due to the special status of END in this respect. In terms of an interaction with specific meaning categories, however, we only find a significant difference in PDD (written and spoken together), where there seems to be a preference of deo for the zou-construction, as in example (65) above (p = .035). (This is unlike in kunnen, in which there were no deo combinations with zou at all.) But there are no significant differences in any of the other periods. And so it is difficult to assess to what extent the presence of a future auxiliary may have played a role in the semantic development of mogen.
3.2.6.4 Time reference of the state of affairs
Finally, there is the purely semantic factor of the temporal situation of the state of affairs. The frequencies of the different possibilities in these terms are given in tables 3.24a–e. The ‘x/gen’ column covers all cases in which there is ambiguity between a generic reading and some other reading (always present and/or future). The difference in the totals between the periods is significant according to a chi-square test (p = .000), but it is difficult to draw heavy conclusions from this because there is no clear pattern of evolution. In EMD, the difference between the various meaning categories is statistically significant according to a chi-square test (p = .000), and this seems especially due to the strong association between the directive category and future time reference. This is probably an effect of the text types in the sample for that period, however: an important part of the EMD corpus is made up of administrative texts, and these frequently contain regulations for future behavior (see also section 3.2.1 on this). There is also a significant
91 difference between the various meaning categories in END (p = .000 according to a chi- square test), but here, the preference of directive instances for future time reference is less
Table 3.24a Time reference of the state of affairs in OD
n pres past fut gen fut in pres/fut x/gen the past dyn-inh 9 11% 11% 0% 67% 0% 11% 0% dyn-imp 27 19% 11% 11% 33% 11% 0% 15% dyn-sit 9 0% 33% 11% 56% 0% 0% 0% deo/boul 0 dir 0 other intersubj. 1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% other 0 total unambig. 46 13% 15% 9% 43% 7% 2% 11% total ambiguous 11 0% 18% 9% 36% 0% 27% 9% total 57 11% 16% 9% 42% 5% 7% 11%
Table 3.24b Time reference of the state of affairs in EMD
n pres past fut gen fut in pres/fut x/gen the past dyn-inh 6 17% 0% 17% 50% 0% 0% 17% dyn-imp 41 10% 24% 29% 27% 5% 2% 2% dyn-sit 47 2% 6% 49% 28% 0% 11% 4% deo/boul 0 dir 51 2% 4% 90% 2% 2% 0% 0% other intersubj. 3 0% 0% 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% other 0 total unambig. 148 5% 10% 57% 20% 2% 4% 3% total ambiguous 52 10% 13% 37% 27% 4% 4% 6% total 200 6% 11% 52% 22% 3% 4% 4%
Table 3.24c Time reference of the state of affairs in END
n pres past fut gen fut in pres/fut x/gen the past dyn-inh 8 13% 38% 13% 38% 0% 0% 0% dyn-imp 61 18% 15% 20% 41% 7% 0% 0% dyn-sit 38 18% 26% 18% 26% 8% 3% 0% deo/boul 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% dir 19 5% 26% 37% 16% 11% 5% 0% other intersubj. 12 33% 0% 25% 25% 8% 8% 0% other 1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% total unambig. 140 18% 19% 21% 31% 7% 2% 1% total ambiguous 60 22% 17% 22% 25% 7% 8% 0% total 200 19% 19% 22% 30% 7% 4% 1%
92 Table 3.24d Time reference of the state of affairs in PDDW
n pres past fut gen fut in pres/fut x/gen the past dyn-inh 0 dyn-imp 19 21% 32% 5% 37% 0% 0% 5% dyn-sit 7 14% 43% 14% 29% 0% 0% 0% deo/boul 24 17% 13% 21% 38% 0% 8% 4% dir 97 9% 24% 20% 41% 0% 6% 0% other intersubj. 21 38% 10% 29% 24% 0% 0% 0% other 0 total unambig. 168 15% 22% 19% 38% 0% 5% 1% total ambiguous 32 22% 3% 19% 44% 0% 9% 3% total 200 17% 19% 19% 39% 0% 6% 2%
Table 3.24e Time reference of the state of affairs in PDDS
n pres past fut gen fut in pres/fut x/gen the past dyn-inh 0 dyn-imp 23 30% 4% 22% 43% 0% 0% 0% dyn-sit 2 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% deo/boul 25 16% 16% 8% 52% 0% 4% 4% dir 113 41% 18% 13% 20% 1% 1% 6% other intersubj. 6 50% 17% 17% 17% 0% 0% 0% other 4 50% 25% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% total unambig. 173 36% 16% 13% 29% 1% 1% 5% total ambiguous 27 26% 0% 15% 52% 0% 0% 7% total 200 35% 14% 14% 32% 1% 1% 5%
outspoken, and there are no remarkable observations to be made for the other meaning categories. Finally, in PDD there are significantly less ambiguous cases among the past time reference instances of mogen than among the other mogen-instances (p = .012 for PDDW and p = .029 for PDDS). It is unclear, however, what this means. In sum, our present data do not allow any clear conclusions as to the effect of the temporal situation of the state of affairs on the meaning evolution of mogen.
3.2.7 Conclusions with respect to the semantic and semantic-syntactic developments
The semantic development of mogen turns out to be compatible with current hypotheses regarding the process of (inter)subjectification. In OD the different types of dynamic modality – being the least subjective category, still very close to the meaning of the original full verb from which the auxiliary has evolved – were absolutely dominant. And over time we then observe, as the most prominent evolutions, a drastic decrease of the
93 dynamic use and, correlated with this, a substantial increase of the deontic use – a strongly subjectivized use – and a very drastic increase of the directive use – the most prominent intersubjective category. As far as the modal categories are concerned, the semantic evolution of mogen appears identical to that of kunnen (cf. Nuyts 2007: 138): there is a clear successive order in the development of the three dyn types, and both deo and epi have evolved in parallel from dyn, albeit from different types of them (the same in both modals). The only differences concern the ‘modalities’ of the evolution. One of them is when these meaning evolutions happened in time: much earlier in mogen than in kunnen. Another one is the fact that epi has not survived in mogen, while it is ‘growing’ (even if still very limited) in kunnen. As far as the intersubjective category of the directive use is concerned, however, there does seem to be a difference with kunnen: whereas directive kunnen seems to have evolved predominantly from deo (and only secondarily from dyn-imp), dyn-imp is clearly at the basis of directive mogen. In fact, all new meanings of mogen, subjective and intersubjective ones, appear to have developed in parallel (even if not simultaneously in time) out of the dynamic meaning (i.e. the oldest, most objective modal meaning), and most often out of dyn-imp. The fact that this ‘preferential source meaning’ is becoming more and more marginal in PDD means that its role as a supplier for new, more subjective or intersubjective meanings is about to run dry, and this may be the cause for the fact that mogen starts to look like an ‘old and stiffening’ modal in Dutch. Maybe except for some smaller effects of the nature of the first argument participant in the state of affairs, we did not find any clear indications that the semantic-syntactic conditions of mogen troughout time have had a substantial influence on its semantic development. (There were clearer indications to this effect in the analysis of kunnen in Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts 2004, Nuyts 2007.) Of course, this might be due to the fact that mogen has developed a wide range of different meanings and uses, far more than in the case of kunnen. As a consequence, there are inevitably less observed instances per semantic category – and this of course reduces the chances of finding significant associations between these and potentially conditioning factors. Nevertheless, our observation suggests that the semantic development of mogen is a fairly autonomous process, the driving force behind it being (inter)subjectification as such. This is not to say that the (inter)subjectification process cannot be influenced by contextual factors. As shown in Byloo and Nuyts (in prep a, b), the rate at which the process takes place differs from form to form. For mogen, in particular, the presence of another modal, kunnen, with more or less similar functions, might have sped up the (inter)subjectification process. But the direction this process takes does not seem to be influenced by contextual factors.
94 4 Conclusion
This study is a sequel to the diachronic investigation of the Dutch modal kunnen reported in Van Ostaeyen and Nuyts (2004) and Nuyts (2007), and it is meant as the second ‘step’ in the systematic analysis of the diachronic evolution of the three central modals in Dutch. The analysis of the third core modal, moeten ‘must’, has also been completed in the mean time and the report on it is to follow soon as a separate issue in this series. As an interim conclusion of this study of the core modals, then, we can observe that in terms of the process of ‘formal’ grammaticalization, mogen and kunnen are very comparable, but in terms of the process of (inter)subjectification they show some significant differences. In terms of grammaticalization both modals show only minimal signs of morphological attrition (mogen even less than kunnen), but both do show clear signs of grammatical reautonomization, at least in some of their uses (the same ones in both, actually – see also Nuyts 2009b, in press a, b). And these evolutions occur more or less simultaneously in time in both modals (maybe kunnen is a little bit ahead in terms of the reautonomization process, but not by far – in both modals it is a PDD phenomenon). In terms of (inter)subjectification, however, although the evolutions in both modals largely conform to standard assumptions (i.e. new meanings/uses are increasingly subjective or intersubjective), the timing of these evolutions is entirely different in both modals (viz. mogen is many centuries ‘ahead’ of kunnen). And mogen has also, in the course of its evolution, developed a much wider range of meanings and uses, some of them highly specific, and currently seems to be specializing more and more in just a few of these. But kunnen is so far confined to the meanings and uses which are prototypically associated with modal verbs, and still covers the full spectrum of these. All in all, at the semantic/functional level, mogen has the appearance of an ‘old’ modal which is ‘stiffening’ more and more, while kunnen appears young and flourishing. These parallels in the grammaticalization process but differences in the semantic/functional evolution clearly show, then, that grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification are really independent processes, pace what has been assumed all too often in the literature (see also Traugott 2010).
References
Auwera, J. van der and V. Plungian (1998). Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2: 79– 124.
Bolinger, D. (1980). Wanna and the gradience of auxiliaries. In: G. Brettschneider, C. Lehmann (eds.), Wege zur Universalforschung. Tübingen: Narr, 292–299.
Bybee, J. L. and W. Pagliuca (1987). The evolution of future meaning. In: A.G. Ramat, O. Carruba, G. Bernini (eds.), Papers from the 7th international conference on historical linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 109–122.
Bybee, J. L., W. Pagliuca and R. D. Perkins (1991). Back to the future. In: E. C. Traugott, B. Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 17–58.
Bybee, J., R. Perkins and W. Pagliuca (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Byloo, P. and J. Nuyts (subm). Modal auxiliaries and tense: The case of Dutch. In: K.Jaszczolt, L.de Saussure (eds.), Time: Language, Cognition, and Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Byloo, P. and J. Nuyts (in prep a). (Inter)subjectification in the diachrony of the Dutch modal auxiliaries.
Byloo, P. and J. Nuyts (in prep b). Competing modal auxiliaries in Dutch: Same (inter)subjectification path, different stage.
Campbell, L. and R. Janda (2000). Introduction: Conceptions of grammaticalization and their problems. Language Sciences 23: 93–112.
CD-ROM Middelnederlands (1998). Den Haag: SDU Uitgevers.
Dik, S. (1997). The theory of functional grammar, vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Duinhoven, A.M. (1997). Middelnederlandse syntaxis, vol. 2: De werkwoordgroep. Groningen: Nijhoff.
Goossens, L. (1982). On the development of the modals and of the epistemic function in English. In: A. Ahlqvist (ed.), Papers from the 5th international conference on historical linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 74–84.
Goossens, L. (1983). Can and kunnen: Dutch and English potential compared. In: F. Daems, L. Goossens (eds.), Een spyeghel voor G. Jo Steenbergen. Leuven: Acco, 147–158.
Goossens, L. (1999). Metonymic bridges in modal shifts. In: K.-U. Panther, G. Radden (eds.), Metonymy in language and cognition. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 193–210.
Grondelaers, S., K. Deygers, H. van Aken, V. van den Heede and D. Speelman (2000). Het ConDiv-corpus geschreven Nederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde 5: 356–363.
Haeseryn, W. et al. (1997). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. 2nd revised edition. Groningen: Nijhoff. Haspelmath, M. (2004). On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In: O. Fischer, M. Norde, H. Perridon (eds.), Up and down the cline. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 17–44.
Heine, B. (1993). Auxiliaries: cognitive forces and grammaticalization. New York: Oxford University Press.
Heine, B. (2003). Grammaticalization. In: B.D. Joseph, R.D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Malden: Blackwell, 575–601.
Heine, B., U. Claudi and F. Hünnemeyer (1991). Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Helten, W. van (1887). Middelnederlandsche Spraakkunst. Groningen: Wolters.
Hopper, P.J. (1991). On some principles of grammaticalization. In: E.C. Traugott, B. Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol.1. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 18–35.
Hopper, P. and E. Traugott (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kurylowicz, J. (1965). The evolution of grammatical categories. Esquisses Linguistiques 2: 38–54.
Lehmann, C. (2002). Thoughts on grammaticalization. Second, revised edition. Arbeitspapiere des Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt 9: 1–171.
Mortelmans, T., K. Boye, and J. van der Auwera (2009). Modals in the Germanic languages. In: B. Hansen, F. de Haan (eds.), Modals in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton, 11–69.
Nederlandse Taalunie (2004). Corpus Gesproken Nederlands, Version 2.0. Leiden: TST-Centrale INL.
Norde, M. (2009). Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nuyts, J. (2001a). Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Nuyts, J. (2001b). Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 383–400.
Nuyts, J. (2005). The modal confusion: On terminology and the concepts behind it. In: A. Klinge, H. Müller (eds.), Modality: Studies in form and function. London: Equinox, 5–38.
Nuyts, J. (2006). Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. In: W. Frawley (ed.), The expression of modality. Berlin: Mouton, 1–26.
Nuyts, J. (2007). Kunnen diachroon. Taal en Tongval 59: 118–148.
Nuyts, J. (2008). Qualificational meanings, illocutionary signals, and the cognitive planning of language use. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6: 185–207.
Nuyts, J. (2009a). The ‘one-commitment-per-clause’ principle and the cognitive status of qualificational categories. Linguistics 47: 141–171.
98 Nuyts, J. (2009b). The Dutch modals and (de)grammaticalization. In: S. Slembrouck et al. (eds.), From ‘will’ to ‘well’: Studies in linguistics offered to Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen. Gent: Academia Press, 347–355.
Nuyts, J. (in press a). De-auxiliarization without de-modalization in the Dutch core modals: A case of collective degrammaticalization? Language Sciences.
Nuyts, J. (in press b). Degrammaticalisatie in de Nederlandse modale hulpwerkwoorden. Verslagen en Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde.
Nuyts, J. (in press c). Notions of (inter)subjectivity. English Text Construction, special issue on ‘Intersubjectivity’.
Nuyts, J. (in press d). Analyses of the modal meanings. In: J. Nuyts, J. van der Auwera (eds.), The Oxford handbook of mood and modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nuyts, J., P. Byloo and J. Diepeveen (2007). Mogen en moeten en de relaties tussen deontische modaliteit en modus. Nederlandse Taalkunde 12: 153–174.
Nuyts, J., P. Byloo and J. Diepeveen (2010). On deontic modality, directivity, and mood: The case of Dutch mogen and moeten. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 16–34.
Nuyts, J., J. Diepeveen and P. Byloo (2007). Hopen is niet ‘niet vrezen’, vrezen is niet ‘niet hopen’. In: D. Sandra et al. (eds.), Tussen taal, spelling en onderwijs. Gent: Academia Press, 101–112.
Ostaeyen, G. Van and J. Nuyts (2004). De diachronie van kunnen. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 109: 1–186.
Pijnenburg, W. et al. (comps., 2001). Vroegmiddelnederlands woordenboek. Leiden: Gopher.
R Development Core Team (2010) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, URL http://www.R-project.org/.
Sweetser, Eve (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toorn, M. C. van den et al. (eds., 1997). Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taal. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Traugott, E.C. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English. Language 65: 31–55.
Traugott, E.C. (2003). Constructions in grammaticalization. In: B.D. Joseph, R.D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Malden: Blackwell, 624–647.
Traugott, E.C. (2006). Historical aspects of modality. In: W. Frawley (ed.), The expression of modality. Berlin: De Gruyter, 107–139.
Traugott, E.C. (2010). (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In: K. Davidse et al. (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter, 29–71.
Traugott, E. and R. Dasher (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
99 Verwijs, E. and J. Verdam (comps., 1885–1929). Middelnederlandsch woordenboek. Den Haag: Nijhoff.
Vries, J. De (1971). Nederlands etymologisch woordenboek. Leiden: Brill.
Vries, M. De and J. A. Te Winkel (comps., 1864–1998). Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal. Den Haag/Leiden: Nijhoff/Sijthoff.
Wells, D.A. (2004) The Central Franconian Rhyming Bible (“Mittelfränkische Reimbibel”): An Early-Twelfth-Century German Verse Homiliary, Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Wijk, N. Van (1912). Franck’s etymologisch woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal. Den Haag: Nijhoff.
100 Appendix
OD001 Sie sazton mich ze hoodere in then wingardon, minon 4. First argument: pagani noch mali christiani – 3pl – human eygenen wingardon
OD010 samo magt thu, of thu thin gethinga an mich sezzest, OD015 niet ze eynero node an then, thie thar nagh geent genesan mith then angelicis presidiis a raptu malignorum angustam uiam, que ducit ad uitam, nouen iogh an then, spirituum ande
102 3. Voice: active OD024 Ther gardo is alliz ana gefuhtet mit themo besigaladen 4. First argument: plentido dierum (…) – 3sg – inanimate – brunnen, wanda thiu corda credentium necheinen fructum agent boni operis bringan
103 6. Clause type: subordinate 1. Meanings: dyn-imp Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: uinden 7. Negation: neg 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: subj.presens 4. First argument: ir – 2pl – human – agent Time refererence SoA: generic 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: subordinate OD029 Ich fortheroda himo ana, thaz her sich mir in thirro Mood: declarative werelde erougade, sicuti est: thes 7. Negation: aff
104 alterutrum peruidere, nietemer than ther nucleus sub testa 8. Tense: presens magh apparere ((ne)mugan) Time refererence SoA: generic 1. Meanings: dyn-inh 2. Main verb: peruidere (Lat) OD043 Wollent sie erhugon proprie fragilitatis ande also ther 3. Voice: active buuch neheine ossium fortitudinem nehauet thaz sie 4. First argument: sie – 3pl – human – agent nietemer neheine uirtutem nimugan hauen nisi tantum per 5. Type of SoA: action me, so
105 4. First argument: siu – 3sg – inanimate/human – agent
106 OD057 Vuanda of fiunt flukit mi ic tholodit
107 dat wi nemmermee of die na ons sullen comen, of Time refererence SoA: generic Gerard, of die na hem sullen comen, ander mate, of ouermate, of eenech EMD014 " Di macht soen vffent hi nyet allene besouc van om+dat hijt vlesch wilt maken onrene maten, ne _MOGEN moghen doen" (moghen) maer om+dad coyme dit MOGEN mach gescien 1. Meanings: dirperf en ga voert opte ziele van dien" (mach) 2. Main verb: besoec doen 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 3. Voice: active 2. Main verb: gescien 4. First argument: wi, die na ons, Gerard, die na hem – 1pl – 3. Voice: active human – agent 4. First argument: dit – 3sg – other – processed 5. Type of SoA: action 5. Type of SoA: process 6. Clause type: subordinate 6. Clause type: subordinate Mood: declarative Mood: declarative 7. Negation: neg 7. Negation: semi 8. Tense: presens 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: future Time refererence SoA: generic
EMD010 "ende alle opcominghen ende alle gevalle die EMD015 " dat god haer geue uoer haer doet daer verscinen ofte gevallen _MOGEN moghen tote dat si uan haren bedde moest staen honderscellinghen louensche" (moghen) ende the haren conuente MOGEN mocht gaen 1. Meanings: dyn-sit doen bat uoer hare de gůede lutgart" (mocht) 2. Main verb: verscinen, gevallen 1. Meanings: dyn-imp/dyn-inh 3. Voice: active 2. Main verb: gaen 4. First argument: die – 3pl – inanimate – processed 3. Voice: active 5. Type of SoA: process 4. First argument: si – 3sg – human – agent 6. Clause type: subordinate 5. Type of SoA: action Mood: declarative 6. Clause type: subordinate 7. Negation: aff Mood: declarative 8. Tense: presens 7. Negation: aff Time refererence SoA: generic/future 8. Tense: preteritum Time refererence SoA: future in the past EMD011 "dat de here van breda ende sijn wijf wel _MOGEN mochten EMD016 " Nu MOGEN moghdi merken waer+om de doen segren van beliuen te wette in dit vorseghede gůede goet." (mochten) lutgart, so roedech was van blůede 1. Meanings: dirdes dat was daer+omme als ict versta" (mogh(di)) 2. Main verb: te wette doen 1. Meanings: dyn-imp/fut/opt 3. Voice: active 2. Main verb: merken 4. First argument: de here van breda, sijn wijf – 3pl – human 3. Voice: active – agent 4. First argument: di (lezer) – 2pl (2sg) – human – exp.agent 5. Type of SoA: action 5. Type of SoA: exp.action 6. Clause type: subordinate 6. Clause type: main Mood: declarative Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff 7. Negation: aff 8. Tense: preteritum 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: past Time refererence SoA: future
EMD012 "allen den ghenen dier+geghen spreken EMD017 " had ic enegen vrient waerlike _MOGEN moichten. zo hebbe wier+ane gheanghen onsen in ertrike ocht in hemelrike zeghel." (moichten) di uoer mi bade in MOGEN mocht nyet wale 1. Meanings: dyn-sit/cond dees swarheit gevuelen noch dees quale" (mocht) 2. Main verb: spreken 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 3. Voice: active 2. Main verb: gevuelen 4. First argument: die- – 3pl – human – agent 3. Voice: active 5. Type of SoA: action 4. First argument: in (ic en) – 1sg – human – exp.positioner 6. Clause type: subordinate 5. Type of SoA: exp.position Mood: declarative 6. Clause type: main 7. Negation: aff Mood: declarative 8. Tense: preteritum 7. Negation: neg Time refererence SoA: generic/future 8. Tense: preteritum Time refererence SoA: present EMD013 "TEnen ged[inkene] der uisionen di niet d[eren] [e]n MOGEN mach noch hon[en] EMD018 " hem bid ic dat hi geweghe mijn tale. di onverg[enkele]ke was" (mach) dat ic spreken MOGEN moge dies hi 1. Meanings: dyn-inh/dyn-sit gheloeft si, ende oec de maghet vri" (moge) 2. Main verb: deren, honen 1. Meanings: dyn-inh/opt 3. Voice: active 2. Main verb: spreken 4. First argument: di – 3sg – inanimate – force 3. Voice: active 5. Type of SoA: process 4. First argument: ic – 1sg – human – agent 6. Clause type: subordinate 5. Type of SoA: action Mood: declarative 6. Clause type: subordinate 7. Negation: neg Mood: declarative 8. Tense: presens 7. Negation: aff
108 8. Tense: subj.presens 6. Clause type: subordinate Time refererence SoA: present/future Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff EMD019 " want si sagen scheghen haer staen 8. Tense: preteritum de mase daer si nyet ouer en MOGEN mochte Time refererence SoA: past als hen sekerlike dochte so+dat sijt nyen const weder+staen" (mochte) EMD024 " dat mijn siele quite ende vri 1. Meanings: dyn-imp/dyn-inh MOGEN moegh weder+keren te haren sceppere 2. Main verb: over(gaen) (ellips) dies ic van herten seer beghere" (moegh) 3. Voice: active 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 4. First argument: si – 3sg – human – agent 2. Main verb: wederkeren 5. Type of SoA: action 3. Voice: active 6. Clause type: subordinate 4. First argument: mijn siele – 3sg – inanimate/human – Mood: declarative agent 7. Negation: neg 5. Type of SoA: action 8. Tense: preteritum 6. Clause type: subordinate Time refererence SoA: past Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff EMD020 " gegreep si enen steen vten vloere 8. Tense: subj.presens van den keldere, ende warp den moer Time refererence SoA: future met sturen geeste dat hi voer van+een, so+dat men daer+doer MOGEN mocht [gaen]" EMD025 "ende alse si in har gracht (mocht) willen vesscen dat si _MOGEN moghen gaen neuen har 1. Meanings: dyn-imp gracht op des goedshues 2. Main verb: gaen sonder weder+segghen alse te orbere van den vesscen" 3. Voice: active (moghen) 4. First argument: men – 3sg – human – agent 1. Meanings: dirdes 5. Type of SoA: action 2. Main verb: gaen 6. Clause type: subordinate 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative 4. First argument: si – 3pl – human – agent 7. Negation: aff 5. Type of SoA: action 8. Tense: preteritum 6. Clause type: subordinate Time refererence SoA: past Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff EMD021 "also vele te suarleker , al+sijt 8. Tense: presens wel weten, dat si corteren tijt Time refererence SoA: future selen mogen de gene daer quellen dan die si quellen in der hellen" (mogen) EMD026 "Vort+meer gheorlouede die selue abt willemme 1. Meanings: dyn-imp ende reineren 2. Main verb: quellen sinen sone dat si hare vor+ghenuemde gracht _MOGEN 3. Voice: active moghen veghen ende 4. First argument: si – 3pl – human – agent legghen te sabts wart dat goer vte dir gracht." (moghen) 5. Type of SoA: action 1. Meanings: dirdes 6. Clause type: subordinate 2. Main verb: veghen, goer legghen Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: aff 4. First argument: si – 3pl – human – agent 8. Tense: infinitive 5. Type of SoA: action Other aux.: zullen – presens 6. Clause type: subordinate Time refererence SoA: future Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff EMD022 " nv hoert een wonderleke dinc 8. Tense: presens gi MOGEN moeght hier alte groet wonder merken..." Time refererence SoA: future (moeght) 1. Meanings: dyn-imp/fut/opt EMD027 " Noch met beduange uan gebode 2. Main verb: merken Nu bliuet dan lutgart te gode 3. Voice: active Jn MOGEN mach hir sijn nit langer nu 4. First argument: gi (lezer) – 2pl (2sg) – human – exp.agent Den suten got beuelic v;" (mach) 5. Type of SoA: exp.action 1. Meanings: dirdes/dyn-imp 6. Clause type: main 2. Main verb: sijn Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: aff 4. First argument: jn – 1sg – human – positioner 8. Tense: presens 5. Type of SoA: position Time refererence SoA: future 6. Clause type: main Mood: declarative EMD023 " daer gaf si menech suchten ende carmen 7. Negation: neg dats elken minsche MOGEN mochte ontfarmen 8. Tense: presens ende ginc daer haren lichame ane Time refererence SoA: present ende begonsten gruwelec te slane" (mochte) 1. Meanings: dyn-sit EMD028 " So seggic v wel ouer+waer 2. Main verb: ontfarmen Dat sijs gesuelgen nit ne mochte 3. Voice: active Dat men ter vigen leggen MOGEN mochte 4. First argument: 's – 3sg – human – force Quaemt in den mont het moster+ut 5. Type of SoA: process Dos halp got uasten sire brut" (mochte)
109 1. Meanings: dyn-imp/dyn-sit Want sire+in selen MOGEN vinden 2. Main verb: leggen Op+dat si weten dat begeren" (mogen) 3. Voice: active 1. Meanings: dyn-imp/opt 4. First argument: men – 3sg – human – agent 2. Main verb: vinden 5. Type of SoA: action 3. Voice: active 6. Clause type: subordinate 4. First argument: si – 3pl – human – agent Mood: declarative 5. Type of SoA: action 7. Negation: aff 6. Clause type: main 8. Tense: preteritum Mood: declarative Time refererence SoA: past 7. Negation: aff 8. Tense: infinitive EMD029 " Die hebben die in sonden sijn Other aux.: zullen – presens Verdint iegen den vader mijn Time refererence SoA: future So MOGEN mogen si der plagen wreet Onstaen. die hen nv es gereet" (mogen) EMD034 " Also te pointe v entremes 1. Meanings: dyn-sit/opt Dat mi hir nv gegeuen es 2. Main verb: onstaen Dat ics gebruken MOGEN mochte nv 3. Voice: active Mar neenic nit. dis biddic v" (mochte) 4. First argument: si – 3pl – human – agent 1. Meanings: dirdes/dyn-imp 5. Type of SoA: action 2. Main verb: gebruken 6. Clause type: main 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative 4. First argument: ic – 1sg – human – agent 7. Negation: aff 5. Type of SoA: action 8. Tense: presens 6. Clause type: subordinate Time refererence SoA: future Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff EMD030 " Van allen dogdeliken saken 8. Tense: preteritum Dat gi wel+gerne MOGEN moget naken Time refererence SoA: present Der doet die v na dit saison Sal ewelike leuen don;" (moget) EMD035 " Dat noch mach sijn ons allen leet 1. Meanings: dyn-imp/dyn-sit/epiperf/vol1des So hadde gerne hadt MOGEN mogen sijn 2. Main verb: naken Die maget edel ende fijn 3. Voice: active Dor sinen wille hars selues leuen" (mogen) 4. First argument: gi – 2pl (2sg) – human – agent/processed 1. Meanings: dirdes/dyn-sit 5. Type of SoA: action/process 2. Main verb: zijn 6. Clause type: subordinate 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative 4. First argument: het – 3sg – other – zero 7. Negation: aff 5. Type of SoA: state 8. Tense: presens 6. Clause type: main Time refererence SoA: future Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff EMD031 " Si wilde doen al sonder mide 8. Tense: infinitive Dis mensche engeen ne mach uolplin Other aux.: hebben – preteritum Noch dis oc nit ne MOGEN mach geschin Time refererence SoA: past Wildi verstaen in welker wise?" (mach) 1. Meanings: dyn-sit EMD036 " Want daer die vrowe goet van prise 2. Main verb: geschin Jn din gepense onslapen lach 3. Voice: active Geuil dat men verttrekken MOGEN mach 4. First argument: dis – 3sg – other – processed Te wondere utermaten groet" (mach) 5. Type of SoA: process 1. Meanings: dyn-imp/dyn-sit 6. Clause type: main 2. Main verb: verttrekken Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: neg 4. First argument: men – 3sg – human – agent 8. Tense: presens 5. Type of SoA: action Time refererence SoA: generic 6. Clause type: subordinate Mood: declarative EMD032 " Ware uter herten so gedreuen 7. Negation: aff Dat si geheellic MOGEN mochte geuen 8. Tense: presens So telken warde al die gedachte Time refererence SoA: present Al waert dat sake dat men brachte" (mochte) 1. Meanings: dyn-imp EMD037 " Her ihesus. din si gerne ware 2. Main verb: geuen Geuolget hadsi dan MOGEN gemogen 3. Voice: active Mar neen si nijt. doch bleef in hoegen 4. First argument: si – 3sg – human – agent Har herte uan din uisione" (gemogen) 5. Type of SoA: action 1. Meanings: dirdes/dyn-imp/dyn-inh 6. Clause type: subordinate 2. Main verb: mogen Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: aff 4. First argument: si – 3sg – human – Ø/agent 8. Tense: preteritum 5. Type of SoA: Ø/action Time refererence SoA: past 6. Clause type: main Mood: declarative EMD033 " Dat si hen pinen wel uerstaen 7. Negation: aff Die wart die ic hen sal ontbinden 8. Tense: past.participle
110 Other aux.: hebben – preteritum 4. First argument: men – 3sg – human – agent/zero Time refererence SoA: past 5. Type of SoA: action/state 6. Clause type: subordinate EMD038 " Die gauen desen raet hen dochte Mood: declarative Dat men lutgarden leggen MOGEN mochte 7. Negation: aff Mettin ijonfrowen van daer+binnen" (mochte) 8. Tense: preteritum 1. Meanings: deodes/vol2des Time refererence SoA: generic 2. Main verb: leggen 3. Voice: active EMD043 "Ende een man en 4. First argument: men – 3sg – human – agent _MOGEN mag en+ghenen vrede breken. jeghen den 5. Type of SoA: action g[henen] [d]aer hi met eth; 6. Clause type: subordinate ende dreinct. dagheliics. nog an den seluen man. die an Mood: declarative heme vreede 7. Negation: aff tebroken heuet te dien heten stride." (mag) 8. Tense: preteritum 1. Meanings: dirperf Time refererence SoA: future in the past 2. Main verb: vrede breken 3. Voice: active EMD039 "vort so en _MOGEN mach dese vornomde jan 4. First argument: een man – 3sg – human – agent no aleit no niemene die na hem 5. Type of SoA: action mach comen ne+gheen hus no neghenen boem no 6. Clause type: main negherande dinc Mood: declarative setten op dit vornomde lant" (mach) 7. Negation: neg 1. Meanings: dirperf 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: setten Time refererence SoA: future 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: dese vornomde jan no aleit no niemand (?) EMD044 "met onser hoerheit die hem letten – 3sg – human – agent ochte scaden _MOGEN mochte ane sine molen. ende 5. Type of SoA: action ware dat sake dat iet ghebrake 6. Clause type: main onsen here onsen vader van al deser vorwaerden ende Mood: declarative van al desen 7. Negation: neg gheloue" (mochte) 8. Tense: presens 1. Meanings: dyn-sit Time refererence SoA: future 2. Main verb: letten, scaden 3. Voice: active EMD040 "dat niemen van dien dorpe, nochte van elwaer, 4. First argument: de molen – 3sg – inanimate – force daer op die 5. Type of SoA: process straten etten _MOGEN moghe, noch en mach, hen siin 6. Clause type: subordinate sonderlinghe die van den Mood: declarative dorpe diese ieghen ons vercreghen hebben," (moghe) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dirperf 8. Tense: preteritum 2. Main verb: etten Time refererence SoA: future 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: niemen (?) elwaer – 3sg – human – agent EMD045 "Ende dat die naeste 5. Type of SoA: action here, opnemen _MOGEN moghe ende behouden, al dat 6. Clause type: subordinate recht dat daer+af comen sal." (moghe) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dirperf 7. Negation: semi 2. Main verb: recht opnemen, recht behouden 8. Tense: subj.presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: future 4. First argument: die naeste here – 3sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action EMD041 "dire si souden ghebruken. ogtse jn haren lande 6. Clause type: subordinate waren Mood: declarative bleuen op+dat siit ghetonen _MOGEN moghen alse regt 7. Negation: aff wiist; met haren 8. Tense: subj.presens ghebusseme. ende met haren orinen" (moghen) Time refererence SoA: future 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 2. Main verb: ghetonen EMD046 "ende dese wech moet wesen wiit dat men 3. Voice: active _MOGEN mach varen met 4. First argument: si – 3pl – human – agent enen waghene" (mach) 5. Type of SoA: action 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 6. Clause type: subordinate 2. Main verb: varen Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: aff 4. First argument: men – 3sg – human – agent 8. Tense: presens 5. Type of SoA: action Time refererence SoA: present/future 6. Clause type: subordinate Mood: declarative EMD042 "vort+meer 7. Negation: aff om alle dinc teverclaerne daer men ane tuiuelen 8. Tense: presens _MOGEN mogte; wie dat Time refererence SoA: generic siins guets verbort; heuet hi wiif. ogte kindre." (mogte) 1. Meanings: dyn-sit EMD047 "ende alle 2. Main verb: tuiuelen die or+denancien die die van ghent ende van anderen 3. Voice: active stee op ons
111 maken ende houden dat wy _MOGEN moghen al dat 8. Tense: presens selue hem doen" (moghen) Time refererence SoA: generic 1. Meanings: dirperf 2. Main verb: doen EMD052 " Doe ghinc hi uan [hen] also uerre alse men 3. Voice: active enen steen werpen MOGEN mochte ende 4. First argument: wy – 1pl – human – agent leide sine knin ter erden ende uil op sijn anschin ende 5. Type of SoA: action bat," (mochte) 6. Clause type: subordinate 1. Meanings: dyn-inh Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: werpen 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: men – 3sg – human – agent Time refererence SoA: future 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: subordinate EMD048 "Voert; dat een weuera die werc ghenoch heft Mood: declarative ter volre weken, niet 7. Negation: aff en _MOGEN moghe comen tsonnendachs noch 8. Tense: preteritum heilech+dachs op sente rummouds Time refererence SoA: past/generic kercof te stane met den weueren die en+ghen werc en hebben te EMD053 "Ende gi moett sijn gelijc weuene;" (moghe) din lieden die beiden na haren here tote+din+male+dat 1. Meanings: dirperf hi van der brulocht 2. Main verb: comen comt, dat si hem altehant MOGEN ontpluken, alse [hi] 3. Voice: active comt ende clopt." (mogen) 4. First argument: die – 3sg – human – agent 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 5. Type of SoA: action 2. Main verb: ontpluken 6. Clause type: subordinate 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative 4. First argument: si – 3pl – human – agent 7. Negation: neg 5. Type of SoA: action 8. Tense: subj.presens 6. Clause type: subordinate Time refererence SoA: future Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff EMD049 "En 8. Tense: presens si dat hi betoene gherechte onscout dat hi niet comen Time refererence SoA: generic en _MOGEN mochte." (mochte) 1. Meanings: dyn-imp EMD054 "Dit spraken si om hem tebekorne ende omme 2. Main verb: comen oksun te uindene iegen hem dar sine af wrugen MOGEN 3. Voice: active mochten." (mochten) 4. First argument: hi – 3sg – human – agent 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 5. Type of SoA: action 2. Main verb: wrugen 6. Clause type: subordinate 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative 4. First argument: si – 3pl – human – agent 7. Negation: neg 5. Type of SoA: action 8. Tense: preteritum 6. Clause type: subordinate Time refererence SoA: past Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff EMD050 "en si dat si daer+af ghewa[r]eghe sake betonen. 8. Tense: preteritum dat si niet Time refererence SoA: future in the past comen _MOGEN mochten, ende doen si dat niet soe selen si ghilden .vj. d EMD055 "Doe antwerdde Ihesus din louensche." (mochten) tueen ghebrudren ende sprac aldus: Ghine wet wat ghi 1. Meanings: dyn-imp bidt. Seldi MOGEN 2. Main verb: comen drinken van din kelke daer ic af drinken sal?" (mogen) 3. Voice: active 1. Meanings: vol1des 4. First argument: si – 3pl – human – agent 2. Main verb: drinken 5. Type of SoA: action 3. Voice: active 6. Clause type: subordinate 4. First argument: -di – 2pl – human – agent Mood: declarative 5. Type of SoA: action 7. Negation: neg 6. Clause type: main 8. Tense: preteritum Mood: interrogative Time refererence SoA: past 7. Negation: aff 8. Tense: infinitive EMD051 "En wetstu nit Other aux.: zullen – presens dat ic MOGEN mach uerbidden den uader dat hi mi Time refererence SoA: future sende meer dan tuelef legien uan inglen?" (mach) EMD056 "Omme 1. Meanings: dirdes/dyn-imp vwe grote hartheit uan herten die ghi hebt in v, so 2. Main verb: uerbidden ghorlofde v Moyses 3. Voice: active dat ghi MOGEN mochtt laten vwe wijf; mar vormals en 4. First argument: ic – 1sg – human – agent waest also nit." (mochtt) 5. Type of SoA: action 1. Meanings: dirdes 6. Clause type: subordinate 2. Main verb: laten Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: neg 4. First argument: ghi – 2pl – human – agent
112 5. Type of SoA: action Gheest, en sal nit vergheuen werden." (mach) 6. Clause type: subordinate 1. Meanings: dyn-sit/fut/epiperf Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: vergheuen 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: passive.werden 8. Tense: preteritum 4. First argument: Ø – Ø – Ø – agent Time refererence SoA: past Passive subject: sunde ende blasphemie – 3sg – inanimate – goal EMD057 "nit te meer dan de borch volmakt [en] 5. Type of SoA: action MOGEN mach werden sonder toedaet van coste, ende nit 6. Clause type: main te meer dan de coninc Mood: declarative sijn orloge en mach toe+brengen sonder toe+doen van 7. Negation: aff helpen ende ghelijkheit 8. Tense: presens van machte" (mach) Time refererence SoA: generic 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 2. Main verb: volmakt werden EMD062 ". Gine MOGEN mogt 3. Voice: active nit Gode dienen ende der quader verwentheit." (mogt) 4. First argument: de borch – 3sg – inanimate – processed 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 5. Type of SoA: process 2. Main verb: dienen 6. Clause type: subordinate 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative 4. First argument: gi(ne) – 2pl – human – agent 7. Negation: aff 5. Type of SoA: action 8. Tense: presens 6. Clause type: main Time refererence SoA: future Mood: declarative 7. Negation: neg EMD058 "Ouer+waer seggic v: hen si dat ghi v 8. Tense: presens bekirt van vre groetheit van herten ende werdt ghelijc Time refererence SoA: generic/present desen kinde, ghine selt te hemelrike nit MOGEN comen." (mogen) EMD063 " Vns gebidet de manet nouember. dat wi uns 1. Meanings: dirperf/dirdes/dyn-imp mitten clederen bewaren. 2. Main verb: comen dat uns de vorst nene MOGEN moge scaden." (moge) 3. Voice: active 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 4. First argument: ghi – 2pl – human – agent 2. Main verb: scaden 5. Type of SoA: action 3. Voice: active 6. Clause type: main 4. First argument: de vorst – 3sg – inanimate – force Mood: declarative 5. Type of SoA: process 7. Negation: neg 6. Clause type: subordinate 8. Tense: infinitive Mood: declarative Other aux.: zullen – presens 7. Negation: neg Time refererence SoA: future 8. Tense: subj.presens Time refererence SoA: generic EMD059 "Also ghelike seggic v dat so+wie+so nin vertijt alles des dat hi heft, EMD064 "Affter sente margrieten. dagh. lates+tu die en MOGEN mach mijn blout. dat MOGEN mach d¡ sere scaden" (mach) ijongre nit sijn" (mach) 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 1. Meanings: dirperf/dyn-imp 2. Main verb: scaden 2. Main verb: sijn 3. Voice: active 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: dat – 3sg – other – force 4. First argument: sowieso nin vertijt? – 3sg – human – zero 5. Type of SoA: process 5. Type of SoA: state 6. Clause type: main 6. Clause type: main Mood: declarative Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff 7. Negation: neg 8. Tense: presens 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: generic Time refererence SoA: present/future EMD065 "ende dat EMD060 "Ende die mesdoet iegen des menschen fauer. it maket die ok de longen siec. dat MOGEN magh sone, het MOGEN mag hem vergheuen werden." (mag) di werden leit Du 1. Meanings: dyn-sit/fut/epiperf ne salt ok eten der melk niet. si ne si gesoden 2. Main verb: vergheuen gode+weit." (magh) 3. Voice: passive.werden 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 4. First argument: Ø – Ø – Ø – agent 2. Main verb: leit werden Passive subject: het – 3sg – other – goal 3. Voice: active 5. Type of SoA: action 4. First argument: dat – 3sg – inanimate – force 6. Clause type: main 5. Type of SoA: process Mood: declarative 6. Clause type: main 7. Negation: aff Mood: declarative 8. Tense: presens 7. Negation: aff Time refererence SoA: generic 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: generic EMD061 "want sunde ende blasphemie MOGEN mach vergheuen EMD066 "Sute dinc et. ende drinc suren w¡n mitten werden, mar de blasphemie die men werkt iegen den alant. so MOGEN můgestu gesunt sin. kom¡n. ende peper Heilgen saltu eten aller
113 dagelike." (můges(tu)) EMD071 "ware dat sake, 1. Meanings: dyn-imp/dyn-sit dat wii iement vinden _MOGEN mochten, die dese 2. Main verb: gesunt sijn vorseide scade sculdigher ware 3. Voice: active te gheldene, metten rechte," (mochten) 4. First argument: -tu – 2sg – human – zero 1. Meanings: dyn-imp/cond 5. Type of SoA: state 2. Main verb: vinden 6. Clause type: main 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative 4. First argument: wi – 1pl – human – agent 7. Negation: aff 5. Type of SoA: action 8. Tense: presens 6. Clause type: subordinate Time refererence SoA: generic Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff EMD067 "Solis is gut to mensliken dingen di m¡t 8. Tense: preteritum wrowen nith Time refererence SoA: future MOGEN+GEWEZEN maggewesen." (mag(gewesen)) 1. Meanings: dyn-inh/dyn-sit EMD072 "ende alden scade, ende cost, dien hem daer+of 2. Main verb: gewesen comen 3. Voice: active _MOGEN mochte in engher maniren, tote des abts 4. First argument: di – 3sg – inanimate/human – zero secghen. ende des conuents vol 5. Type of SoA: state ende al tirst hadde betaelt ende vergouden." (mochte) 6. Clause type: subordinate 1. Meanings: dyn-sit Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: comen 7. Negation: neg 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: die – 3sg – inanimate – processed Time refererence SoA: generic 5. Type of SoA: process 6. Clause type: subordinate EMD068 " Sanwort is gut deme di clenen worme an den Mood: declarative buke wasset. puluer 7. Negation: aff unde it¡t so+wo du MOGEN mag. Basilica is gut den di 8. Tense: preteritum luttel worm anedat Time refererence SoA: future lif cumet sclapende suht di worte bit watere." (mag) 1. Meanings: dyn-imp/vol1des EMD073 "Ende scepenen 2. Main verb: eten (ellips) ghewijst hebben. dat hem niet scaden _MOGEN mach te 3. Voice: active sinen rechte. met eenen 4. First argument: du – 2sg – human – zero vontnesse." (mach) 5. Type of SoA: state 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 6. Clause type: subordinate 2. Main verb: scaden Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: aff 4. First argument: 't – 3sg – other – agent 8. Tense: presens 5. Type of SoA: action Time refererence SoA: generic 6. Clause type: subordinate Mood: declarative EMD069 "Hertes+tunge is gut dere 7. Negation: neg diuuorme of di derme so we dot. dat henuet ne 8. Tense: presens MOGEN mag slapen. Drinke Time refererence SoA: present/future dit crut mit nue gesodenen b¡re." (mag) 1. Meanings: dyn-inh EMD074 ". Ende en+gheen scepen noch raetsman, van 2. Main verb: slapen onsen porten die hier+voren 3. Voice: active ghenoemt sijn en _MOGEN mach heme onsculdeghen." 4. First argument: he – 3sg – human – zero (mach) 5. Type of SoA: state 1. Meanings: dirperf 6. Clause type: subordinate 2. Main verb: onsculdeghen Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: neg 4. First argument: gheen scepen noch raetsman – 3sg – 8. Tense: presens human – agent Time refererence SoA: generic 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main EMD070 "die dese vorseide scade sculdigher ware Mood: declarative te gheldene, metten rechte, dan wii van onser stede 7. Negation: neg weghen, dat wiit an 8. Tense: presens hem verhalen _MOGEN mochten, jn orkonde desen Time refererence SoA: future brieue," (mochten) 1. Meanings: dirdes/dyn-imp EMD075 "dese voerghenoemde Tvaelf+dusent 2. Main verb: verhalen pont ende die scade die hem daer+af comen _MOGEN 3. Voice: active mochte. vol ende al ware 4. First argument: wi – 1pl – human – agent betaelt." (mochte) 5. Type of SoA: action 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 6. Clause type: subordinate 2. Main verb: comen Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: aff 4. First argument: die – 3sg – inanimate – processed 8. Tense: preteritum 5. Type of SoA: process Time refererence SoA: future 6. Clause type: subordinate Mood: declarative
114 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 8. Tense: preteritum 2. Main verb: ghelden Time refererence SoA: future 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: -t – 3sg – other – processed EMD076 "So+wie dat wille _MOGEN mach hem 5. Type of SoA: process onderwinden makelare te wesene die poerter es." (mach) 6. Clause type: subordinate 1. Meanings: dirperf Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: sich onderwinden 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: sowie dat wille – 3sg – human – agent Time refererence SoA: future 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main EMD081 "End _MOGEN mogen die Mood: declarative heymradere. end die here dient jn sinen hoefslach uallet. 7. Negation: aff dien rechter 8. Tense: presens bewisen dar dese jn dien rechte wonet also vele Time refererence SoA: future g'hhvodes [so] selt die rechter vtpanden." (mogen) EMD077 "Waer dat dese slusen ghecoert worden 1. Meanings: dyn-imp/cond si souden mi gheuen minen coer, ende si soudense, 2. Main verb: bewisen stoppen ter dorder 3. Voice: active vloet, _MOGEN mochten sise ter dorder vloet niet 4. First argument: die heymradere end die here (?) – 3pl – stoppen, sj souden daer alse human – agent langhe bliuen" (mochten) 5. Type of SoA: action 1. Meanings: dyn-imp/cond 6. Clause type: main 2. Main verb: stoppen Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: aff 4. First argument: si – 3pl – human – agent 8. Tense: presens 5. Type of SoA: action Time refererence SoA: future 6. Clause type: subordinate Mood: declarative EMD082 "Graue van heneghouwen, 7. Negation: neg alsoe dat hi _MOGEN mach ordineren na sinen wille, 8. Tense: preteritum ende taxeren, die emenden, Time refererence SoA: future ende beteringhen van diere voerseider misdaet," (mach) 1. Meanings: dirperf EMD078 "dat wi niet en wovden, dat die heren van 2. Main verb: ordineren, taxeren, pine setten scalvnen enghen 3. Voice: active kijf moichten hebben ieghens onsen lieden. ende oech 4. First argument: hi – 3sg – human – agent daer+omme dat 5. Type of SoA: action si hoer orbare te bat _MOGEN moghen doen op 6. Clause type: main/subordinate haer+zelves. vordane" (moghen) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: hoer orbare doen 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: future 4. First argument: si – 3pl – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action EMD083 "Ende daer+toe bekenne ic mi 6. Clause type: subordinate trouweloes ende eerloes ende dat men mi na dier tijd Mood: declarative nimmermeer 7. Negation: aff gheloeuen en _MOGEN mach bi gheere zekerhede die ic 8. Tense: presens doen mach." (mach) Time refererence SoA: future 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 2. Main verb: gheloeuen EMD079 "Ne wille hi dies oec niet behouden; die ghene 3. Voice: active die dat minste deel daer+ane heuet, die _MOGEN mach 4. First argument: men – 3sg – human – exp.positioner dat selue gheheleke 5. Type of SoA: exp.position behouden ende besitten, omme die selue hure dat 6. Clause type: subordinate ghelden mach." (mach) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dirperf 7. Negation: neg 2. Main verb: behouden, besitten 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: future 4. First argument: die – 3sg – human – positioner 5. Type of SoA: position EMD084 "minen lieuen here den voerseiden Janne 6. Clause type: main Graue van hollant ende alle sinen nacomelinghen Mood: declarative ghetrouwelike te 7. Negation: aff houdene up al mijn ghoet dat ic hebbe jof dat ic 8. Tense: presens hiernamals hebben Time refererence SoA: future _MOGEN mach," (mach) 1. Meanings: dyn-sit/fut EMD080 "Ende omme 2. Main verb: hebben sulke hure alst ghelden _MOGEN mach. So sal hi dat 3. Voice: active selue hebb[en] ende 4. First argument: ic – 1sg – human – positioner behouden die ghene diet meeste deel daer+in heuet est 5. Type of SoA: position dat hem voghet 6. Clause type: subordinate ende hijt behouden wille." (mach) Mood: declarative
115 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: defensie, beroep doen, doen doen 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: future 4. First argument: wi noch onse nacomelinghe – 1pl – human – agent EMD085 "ende 5. Type of SoA: action hi hem tueen ute onsen rade bi [wien] [dat] [men] allen 6. Clause type: main tuist die tuschen Mood: declarative ons tueen gheuallen _MOGEN mach vereffenen sullen 7. Negation: semi ende nederlegghen" (mach) 8. Tense: presens 1. Meanings: dyn-sit Time refererence SoA: future 2. Main verb: gheuallen 3. Voice: active EMD090 "ende die graue dat iof sine nacomelinghen di[e] 4. First argument: die – 3sg – inanimate – processed grauen 5. Type of SoA: process sijn te holland beproeuen _MOGEN mochten met goeden 6. Clause type: subordinate wittachtighen lieden Mood: declarative sonder enigherande erghelist." (mochten) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dyn-imp/cond 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: beproeuen Time refererence SoA: future 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: die graue iof sine nacomelinghen – 3pl – EMD086 "Alle dinghe die donker zijn, ende daer tuifel of human – agent comen _MOGEN mochte, alse 5. Type of SoA: action van den poenten die hier voerghescreuen zijn, houde wi 6. Clause type: subordinate toet onser Mood: declarative claringhe ende zegghen." (mochte) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 8. Tense: preteritum 2. Main verb: comen Time refererence SoA: past 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: tuifel – 3sg – inanimate – processed EMD091 "scadeloes te hovdene. van tvelfhondert [ponden] 5. Type of SoA: process [...] 6. Clause type: subordinate [d]aer sij voer ons borghen af siin ieghens Giellise Mood: declarative clawarde porte van 7. Negation: aff [brucghe] [met] [a]llen cost ende scade die hem daer+af 8. Tense: preteritum comen _MOGEN mochte" (mochte) Time refererence SoA: future 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 2. Main verb: comen EMD087 "ende sonder alrehande archlist 3. Voice: active tot sijnre maninghe jof des gheens die ons desen brief 4. First argument: die – 3sg – inanimate – processed weder _MOGEN mach 5. Type of SoA: process gheuen van sinen+thaluen met ghereeden ghelde," (mach) 6. Clause type: subordinate 1. Meanings: dyn-imp Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: gheuen 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: preteritum 4. First argument: die – 3sg – human – agent Time refererence SoA: future 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: subordinate EMD092 "sonder Mood: declarative die tolne van dordrecht. die ghevallen _MOGEN moghen 7. Negation: aff ende in+comen in 8. Tense: presens zuethollant. northollant. [k]innemarlant. vrieslant. ende in Time refererence SoA: future zelant." (moghen) 1. Meanings: dyn-sit EMD088 "ende daer+mede muchte hi doen, iof zine 2. Main verb: ghevallen nacomelinghe, 3. Voice: active haren vrijen wille ghelike zi doen _MOGEN moeghen 4. First argument: die – 3pl – inanimate – processed met haren eyghenen ghoede 5. Type of SoA: process dat zi in den handen hebben." (moeghen) 6. Clause type: subordinate 1. Meanings: dirdes/dyn-imp Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: doen 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: zi – 3pl – human – agent Time refererence SoA: future 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: subordinate EMD093 "dat siins soens monbare van alle desen dinghen Mood: declarative die hier+voren 7. Negation: aff ghesproken siin, niet wandelen sal _MOGEN moghen, 8. Tense: presens des+sgraven sone ensi Time refererence SoA: generic tventich iaer out." (moghen) 1. Meanings: dirperf EMD089 "ende hijr+tieghens, 2. Main verb: wandelen _MOGEN moeghen wi noch onse nacomelinghe, gheene 3. Voice: active defensie noch 4. First argument: siins soens monbare – 3sg – human – beroep doen, iof doen doen van onsen+thaluen," agent (moeghen) 5. Type of SoA: action 1. Meanings: dirperf/dirdes 6. Clause type: subordinate
116 Mood: declarative 6. Clause type: main 7. Negation: neg Mood: declarative 8. Tense: infinitive 7. Negation: aff Other aux.: zullen – presens 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: future Time refererence SoA: present/future
EMD094 "ende sowat he vp den bergh stight of maket EMD099 "Ten irsten hebwer des nemaghe niet afbreken nogh de brugge. ende vp den te Vuren C+ende+L bunre onder lant ende bemde, die bergh ende an _MOGEN mogen renten der bruggen +MOGEN maghe stighten ende maken te XXXII mudde roggen Trigts." (mogen) .vij. marken toe" (mag(he)) 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 1. Meanings: dirperf 2. Main verb: renten 2. Main verb: stighten, maken 3. Voice: active 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: die – 3pl – inanimate – zero/force 4. First argument: he – 3sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: state/process 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main 6. Clause type: main Mood: declarative Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff 7. Negation: aff 8. Tense: presens 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: present/future Time refererence SoA: future EMD100 "Ende want Reinere II kendere heft, EMD095 "dat wi vonden hebben dat tpanhus van die geruen sin van derre hostaet, ende ongedagt sin sunte seruaes ter weken tue bire maken _MOGEN mach ende nit ende niet meer ende volkomen en _MOGEN mogen," (mogen) ighelic bir houdende vif tinen of daer+binnen" (mach) 1. Meanings: dirdes 1. Meanings: dirdes 2. Main verb: volkomen 2. Main verb: maken 3. Voice: active 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: die (kendere) – 3pl – human – agent 4. First argument: tpanhus – 3sg – inanimate/human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: subordinate 6. Clause type: subordinate Mood: declarative Mood: declarative 7. Negation: neg 7. Negation: aff 8. Tense: presens 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: present Time refererence SoA: generic EMD101 "ende wilhe dan al dat ander dat min her. EMD096 "We hebben te dyderik. Wilre XXV bunre lants sonder der kerken lant, die benieden den bergh ge+stight gesat ende gemaket heuet _MOGEN mogen renten hebben dat sal XII mudde roggen Trigts jorgelics." (mogen) he kopen of he _MOGEN magh en gemv̊ ede mins heren. 1. Meanings: dyn-sit dyderikes." (magh) 2. Main verb: renten 1. Meanings: dirdes 3. Voice: active 2. Main verb: kopen (ellips) 4. First argument: die – 3pl – inanimate – zero/force 3. Voice: active 5. Type of SoA: state/process 4. First argument: he – 3sg – human – agent 6. Clause type: main 5. Type of SoA: action Mood: declarative 6. Clause type: subordinate 7. Negation: aff Mood: declarative 8. Tense: presens 7. Negation: aff Time refererence SoA: present/future 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: future EMD097 "Item we hebben do XL bunre ackers+lants, dat _MOGEN mach renten II mudde roggen Trigts." (mach) EMD102 "min her dyderik. sal dit gv̊ et hebben ende 1. Meanings: dyn-sit halden diese 2. Main verb: renten .x. jaer ende _MOGEN magh met diesen gv̊ de alle sine 3. Voice: active bate ende alle sinen willen 4. First argument: dat – 3sg – inanimate – zero/force doen alse mit den sinen." (magh) 5. Type of SoA: state/process 1. Meanings: dirperf 6. Clause type: main 2. Main verb: sine bate doen Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: aff 4. First argument: min her dyderik – 3sg – human – agent 8. Tense: presens 5. Type of SoA: action Time refererence SoA: present/future 6. Clause type: main Mood: declarative EMD098 "Item we hebben do I panhus, 7. Negation: aff dat _MOGEN mach dit joer renten bouen cost XX s." 8. Tense: presens (mach) Time refererence SoA: future 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 2. Main verb: renten EMD103 "ende dat he des. gv̊ des alle sinen 3. Voice: active willen doen _MOGEN magh te alsulken voerwerden als 4. First argument: dat – 3sg – inanimate – zero/force hir gescrieven staen" (magh) 5. Type of SoA: state/process 1. Meanings: dirperf
117 2. Main verb: sinen willen doen 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: future 4. First argument: he – 3sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action EMD108 ". Voort _MOGEN moge 6. Clause type: subordinate wi here uan kuyc. mit unsen knapen ende mit unsen Mood: declarative urinden wel uaren 7. Negation: aff helpen en dinen dien hertoge uan brabant die hier+uor 8. Tense: presens ge+nomet is Time refererence SoA: future anders+waer dar his te done heuet." (moge) 1. Meanings: dirperf EMD104 "also vri ende los end als 2. Main verb: helpen vnbekumbert was dat te denen gv̊ de wert niemen niet te 3. Voice: active spreken en 4. First argument: wi here uan kuyc mit knapen ende urinden hadde ende dat he des gv̊ des alle sinen willen doen – 1pl (1sg) – human – agent _MOGEN mughte alse met 5. Type of SoA: action sinen witteliken erue." (mughte) 6. Clause type: main 1. Meanings: dirdes Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: sinen willen doen 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: he – 3sg – human – agent Time refererence SoA: future 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: subordinate EMD109 "openbare ouer die mase in des greuen Lant uan Mood: declarative gelren of wi 7. Negation: aff willen ende of wi _MOGEN mogen be+haudenlike al 8. Tense: preteritum unser uorwarden." (mogen) Time refererence SoA: future in the past 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 2. Main verb: scade doen (ellips) EMD105 "want also 3. Voice: active dught hvn beiden end oigh vns dat siet wale beide 4. First argument: wi – 1pl (1sg) – human – agent lijden _MOGEN mvghten. ende 5. Type of SoA: action die .v. mark heuet min her. dyderik. minen heren." 6. Clause type: subordinate (mughten) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: lijden 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: future 4. First argument: sie – 3pl – human – processed 5. Type of SoA: process EMD110 "al+so dat wi here uan kuyc. mit unsen knapen. 6. Clause type: subordinate ende Mood: declarative mit unsen urinden. wel scade _MOGEN mogen doen dor 7. Negation: aff den Graue ende ut dien 8. Tense: preteritum Graue." (mogen) Time refererence SoA: past 1. Meanings: dirperf 2. Main verb: scade doen EMD106 "waer hese daer 3. Voice: active wørkright , ewelicke ende vmmermeer, tins+vry, 4. First argument: wi here van kuyc mit knapen ende urinden beede+vry, ende alle der – 1pl (1sg) – human – agent gůlden vrj, die ons of onsen Eruen dar+af geboren 5. Type of SoA: action _MOGEN moghte." (moghte) 6. Clause type: subordinate 1. Meanings: dyn-sit Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: geboren 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: die – 3pl – inanimate – processed Time refererence SoA: future 5. Type of SoA: process 6. Clause type: subordinate EMD111 "Want sine MOGEN+HET můgent nit al Mood: declarative heben. Jnde hadde iëlkerlik eën morseël. van der herten. 7. Negation: aff van so groten 8. Tense: preteritum důne. si soidens harde blide wesen." (můgen(t)) Time refererence SoA: future 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 2. Main verb: heben EMD107 "in dier maniren so+wan+ere die hertoge 3. Voice: active uan brabant die hir+uore ge+nomet is. deser uorwarden 4. First argument: si – 3pl – human – recipient nit Langer louen 5. Type of SoA: process en woude. so _MOGEN moge wi dese uorwarde 6. Clause type: main unt+seggen uier dage te+uoren tot Mood: declarative kessele." (moge) 7. Negation: neg 1. Meanings: dirperf 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: untseggen Time refererence SoA: generic 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: wi – 1pl (1sg) – human – agent EMD112 "Also. wel sůte geminde. is dat v. mine bede so 5. Type of SoA: action v̊ nbequamelik is. als gi seght. so MOGEN+ER-+IR 6. Clause type: main mogtir v. wel af verlediëgen. mit v̊ r Mood: declarative sůter herten tegeuene." (mogt(ir)) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dyn-imp
118 2. Main verb: sich verledigen heuet gewiëten. dan diës te gedinchene dat man weët 3. Voice: active iët is ene swar sake dat man nit en _MOGEN mag 4. First argument: -ir – 2pl – human – agent screien. inde noit en heuet 5. Type of SoA: action genen ewe." (mag) 6. Clause type: main 1. Meanings: deodes/dirdes/dyn-inh Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: screien 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: man – 3sg – human – agent Time refererence SoA: present 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: subordinate EMD113 "Jnde wettene tegens den harststen steën Mood: declarative den hi vinden _MOGEN mag. so sech ic dat dië bek 7. Negation: neg van den are betekent dië 8. Tense: presens houerde." (mag) Time refererence SoA: generic 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 2. Main verb: vinden EMD118 " Gedinghenis van v̊ ren ende. sone _MOGEN 3. Voice: active mag nit tit kůmen. den giënen dië en+geën 4. First argument: hi – 3sg – animate – exp.agent ende en maken van v̊ rre girigheit" (mag) 5. Type of SoA: action 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 6. Clause type: subordinate 2. Main verb: komen Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: aff 4. First argument: gendingenis van uren ende – 3sg – 8. Tense: presens inanimate – processed Time refererence SoA: generic 5. Type of SoA: process 6. Clause type: main EMD114 "Want als sin bek so lang gewassen is. dat hire Mood: declarative nit miëde eten 7. Negation: neg en _MOGEN mag. so brik[t] hiëne." (mag) 8. Tense: presens 1. Meanings: dyn-imp Time refererence SoA: generic 2. Main verb: eten 3. Voice: active EMD119 "Jnde pins ak dat richeit is ene sake. dië den 4. First argument: hi – 3sg – animate – agent minsche nit bliuen 5. Type of SoA: action en mag. 6. Clause type: subordinate _MOGEN Můgs du so v̊ ntiëdi van diëser werringen van Mood: declarative diëser werelt." (můgs) 7. Negation: neg 1. Meanings: dyn-imp/dyn-inh/opt 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: doen (ellips) Time refererence SoA: generic 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: du – 2sg – human – zero EMD115 ". so 5. Type of SoA: state pinst dië giëne, dat manne ligtelik verscalken _MOGEN 6. Clause type: subordinate mag. dar+v̊ mbe+dat hi nit Mood: interrogative en agt wat hi eët." (mag) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: verscalken Time refererence SoA: present 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: man(ne) – 3sg – animate – agent EMD120 " En min vrint heuet mi gebeden dat ic v̊ me 5. Type of SoA: action endeël gůder worde geue 6. Clause type: subordinate inscrigte dar hi bi leren _MOGEN mogte v̊ me seluer Mood: declarative inde ak ander lůde." (mogte) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: leren Time refererence SoA: generic 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: hi – 3sg – human – agent EMD116 "Aldus 5. Type of SoA: action wair ic gewroken te minen wille. Jnde anders en+gene 6. Clause type: subordinate wrake wild ic. Mood: declarative Nogtan soid ic v̊ ntsiin. dat ander wrake kůmen 7. Negation: aff _MOGEN mogte." (mogte) 8. Tense: preteritum 1. Meanings: dyn-sit Time refererence SoA: future in the past 2. Main verb: komen 3. Voice: active EMD121 "Jnde dar+v̊ mbe si wi sculdig 4. First argument: ander wrake – 3sg – inanimate – meër te sorgene inde veruert te wesene dan v̊ mb iënege processed sake dië v̊ ns 5. Type of SoA: process gesciën _MOGEN mag." (mag) 6. Clause type: subordinate 1. Meanings: dyn-sit Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: gesciën 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: preteritum 4. First argument: iënege sake – 3sg – inanimate – processed Time refererence SoA: future 5. Type of SoA: process 6. Clause type: subordinate EMD117 "Man heuet meërre begerte te kinnene inde te Mood: declarative wiëtene. dat man nit en 7. Negation: aff
119 8. Tense: presens 5. Type of SoA: action Time refererence SoA: generic 6. Clause type: subordinate Mood: declarative EMD122 "Want dië wise man segt. Dů sols merre 7. Negation: neg herscap heben. _MOGEN mogts 8. Tense: presens du din herte verwinnen inde setten te reden. dan of tu Time refererence SoA: past twedel van der werelt heës vnder di. inde du din herte nit bedwinchen EMD127 " [A]y hoes hic mi [beh]aghen MOGEN mac[h] en cůnstes." (mogts) [D]ar hic ne hadde rouwe no [seer] 1. Meanings: dyn-inh/cond Nvne salic v [sprek]en [nem]ber[meer]" (mach) 2. Main verb: verwinnen 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 3. Voice: active 2. Main verb: zich behaghen 4. First argument: du – 2sg – human – agent 3. Voice: active 5. Type of SoA: action 4. First argument: ic – 1sg – human – positioner 6. Clause type: subordinate 5. Type of SoA: position Mood: interrogative 6. Clause type: main 7. Negation: aff Mood: declarative 8. Tense: preteritum 7. Negation: aff Time refererence SoA: generic/future 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: past EMD123 "ende Daerto miin halue huus ende mine halue hofstede to deuentre dat eighen is ende mi ankomen EMD128 "Alsoe sullen die lieden doen _MOGEN mochten van den Alsi sullen segghen haer orisoen heren van Nienbeke na des konmendures dode minen Si sullen in ene stede vlien ome." (mochten) Dart niemen ne sal MOGEN moghen sien 1. Meanings: dyn-sit Debedinghe die si dan onsen here 2. Main verb: ankomen Segghen es hem bequamelic sere" (moghen) 3. Voice: active 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 4. First argument: miin halue huus ende mine halue hofstede 2. Main verb: sien – 3pl – inanimate – processed 3. Voice: active 5. Type of SoA: process 4. First argument: niemen – 3sg – human – positioner 6. Clause type: subordinate 5. Type of SoA: position Mood: declarative 6. Clause type: subordinate 7. Negation: aff Mood: declarative 8. Tense: preteritum 7. Negation: neg Time refererence SoA: past 8. Tense: infinitive Other aux.: zullen – presens EMD124 "Langhen tijt hadden si dese noese Time refererence SoA: future die valsce iueden entie bose Om+dat si ne MOGEN mochten betrapen niet EMD129 " Hi soudu loenen ghetrouwelike Want hi wiste al dat ghesciet" (mochten) Dar+bouen in sijn hemelrike 1. Meanings: dyn-imp Doe seide hi dit ne MOGEN mach niet wesen 2. Main verb: betrapen Segt mi wie v heeft ghenesen" (mach) 3. Voice: active 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 4. First argument: si – 3pl – human – agent 2. Main verb: wesen 5. Type of SoA: action 3. Voice: active 6. Clause type: subordinate 4. First argument: dit – 3sg – other – zero Mood: declarative 5. Type of SoA: state 7. Negation: neg 6. Clause type: main 8. Tense: preteritum Mood: declarative Time refererence SoA: past 7. Negation: neg 8. Tense: presens EMD125 " Ghi sijt onse here soete ende sochte Time refererence SoA: past Ghi MOGEN moegt doen al vwe ghedochte" (moegt) 1. Meanings: deoperf/dirdes/dyn-imp/dyn-inh EMD130 " Maer wildi mi een cleed werpen dar+neder 2. Main verb: doen Ende sien dan ouer rugghe weder 3. Voice: active Dat hic MOGEN mach halen dat cleet 4. First argument: ghi (God) – 2pl (2sg) – human – agent Dar hic mede mach ghodeweet" (mach) 5. Type of SoA: action 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 6. Clause type: main 2. Main verb: halen Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: aff 4. First argument: hic – 1sg – human – agent 8. Tense: presens 5. Type of SoA: action Time refererence SoA: generic/present 6. Clause type: subordinate Mood: declarative EMD126 " Alse pylatus horde ende sach 7. Negation: aff Dat hijs niet ontgaen ne MOGEN mach 8. Tense: presens Jhesus ne moeste sijn verdaen Time refererence SoA: present Doe leddi ihesuse buten saen" (mach) 1. Meanings: dyn-imp EMD131 " Nv laghen si bede neder ter aerden 2. Main verb: ontgaen Ende elc debenedictie gaerde 3. Voice: active So+dat men dar elniet MOGEN mochte horen 4. First argument: hij – 3sg – human – agent Dan gheft mi debenedictie voren" (mochte)
120 1. Meanings: dyn-imp EMD136 "dat die.. 2. Main verb: horen Graue, die niet comen ne ware van onsen lechame, niet 3. Voice: active hem ghehelpen 4. First argument: men – 3sg – human – exp.positioner +MOGEN nemach metter quiitsceldinghe," ((ne)mach) 5. Type of SoA: exp.position 1. Meanings: dirperf 6. Clause type: subordinate 2. Main verb: zich ghehelpen Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: neg 4. First argument: die Graue – 3sg – human – agent 8. Tense: preteritum 5. Type of SoA: action Time refererence SoA: past 6. Clause type: subordinate Mood: declarative EMD132 " Gheeft mi debenedictie om onsen here 7. Negation: neg Dies biddic v harde sere 8. Tense: presens Alsoet niet ontgaen ne MOGEN mochte Time refererence SoA: future Doe seide soe ghod diet al gewrohte" (mochte) 1. Meanings: dyn-sit EMD137 " & dit gots+hus heuets goede lettren & 2. Main verb: ontgaen +MOGEN machse wel betogen waer+soes te 3. Voice: active doene es." (mach(se)) 4. First argument: 't – 3sg – other – processed 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 5. Type of SoA: process 2. Main verb: betogen 6. Clause type: subordinate 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative 4. First argument: dit gotshus – 3sg – inanimate/human – 7. Negation: neg agent 8. Tense: preteritum 5. Type of SoA: action Time refererence SoA: future 6. Clause type: main Mood: declarative EMD133 " Hier beghint van der biechten 7. Negation: aff Hoe men den duuel MOGEN mach vervechten 8. Tense: presens Na de wort die hier+instaen Time refererence SoA: generic Die wel te biechten wille ghaen" (mach) 1. Meanings: dyn-imp EMD138 "Vp so+wien+so 2. Main verb: vervechten claghe comt uan sinen ghedelen dat hi uan sinen uader 3. Voice: active of uan sire 4. First argument: men – 3sg – human – agent moeder heuet gheweset utgheset; +MOGEN moghene sine 5. Type of SoA: action ghedele met tuen 6. Clause type: subordinate erwahteghen mannen uerwinnen" (moghen(e)) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: uerwinnen 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: generic 4. First argument: sinen ghedelen – 3pl – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action EMD134 " Hets vele beter bin huus bliuen 6. Clause type: main Met hvwen ende met wiuen Mood: declarative Dan dat+tu haer+en+taere gaes 7. Negation: aff Dar du dulleke tijn verdwaes 8. Tense: presens Dv MOGEN moegse maken blide der+mede Time refererence SoA: generic Met dattu souts verdoen in vremder stede" (moeg(se)) 1. Meanings: dyn-imp EMD139 "Ende waer dat saeke dat de vorseide personen 2. Main verb: maken blide die hem hoir segghen van mester volker masche, enech 3. Voice: active recht hadden ofte 4. First argument: dv – 2sg – human – agent hebben _MOGEN mochten, an dese vorseide 5. Type of SoA: action heeruachtechede," (mochten) 6. Clause type: main 1. Meanings: dyn-sit/fut Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: recht hebben 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: de vorseide personen – 3pl – human – Time refererence SoA: present zero 5. Type of SoA: state EMD135 " die ander onsaelghe ghodeweet 6. Clause type: subordinate Dats die vele vroescepen weet Mood: declarative Daer neghene af MOGEN mach comen 7. Negation: aff Niemen te nutscepen no te vromen" (mach) 8. Tense: preteritum 1. Meanings: dyn-sit Time refererence SoA: future 2. Main verb: te nutscepen comen 3. Voice: active EMD140 "warbi dat de vorseide cornillis hi no siin oer 4. First argument: neghene – 3sg – other – processed nenmermer weder 5. Type of SoA: process herhebben en mochte no negherehande recht ane 6. Clause type: subordinate clameren en _MOGEN mochte;" (mochte) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dirperf 7. Negation: semi 2. Main verb: recht clameren 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: generic 4. First argument: cornillis – 3sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action
121 6. Clause type: subordinate EMD145 " Dese ghecorne ghesellen si moghen elc point Mood: declarative uerbetren dar si _MOGEN moghen 7. Negation: neg elcs jars." (moghen) 8. Tense: preteritum 1. Meanings: dyn-imp/dyn-inh Time refererence SoA: future 2. Main verb: moghen 3. Voice: active EMD141 "en daeden sijs niet ne ne hilden ende mense 4. First argument: si – 3pl – human – Ø daer+of calengieren _MOGEN mochte ende het kenlic 5. Type of SoA: ware ende openbaer van den 6. Clause type: subordinate mijnsten pointe datter+in staet" (mochte) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: cond 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: calengieren 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: generic 4. First argument: men – 3sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action EMD146 "Dus _MOGEN mochte de 6. Clause type: subordinate munte der vlamscer marc wits zeluers wel copen Mood: declarative .xxxiiij. 't3s ende .vi. d." (mochte) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 8. Tense: preteritum 2. Main verb: copen Time refererence SoA: future 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: de munte der vlamscer marc wit zeluers – EMD142 "Van desen vorseiden laten ne heuet de meiere 3sg – inanimate – agent neghene maninghe 5. Type of SoA: action van scepenen; no neghen recht; no neghen weerlic 6. Clause type: main erscap, no hi _MOGEN mach Mood: declarative ebben pale+ghelt, no put+ghelt, no ghebode+ghelt;" 7. Negation: aff (mach) 8. Tense: preteritum 1. Meanings: dirperf Time refererence SoA: future 2. Main verb: ebben 3. Voice: active EMD147 "ende es deman niet tehus. ende sin wif den 4. First argument: hi – 3sg – human – recipient banlinc 5. Type of SoA: process onthalet; ende deman weder comt. met derder hant 6. Clause type: main goder liede _MOGEN mach Mood: declarative hi sueren dat hi niet newiste dat hi ontfangen was in 7. Negation: semi sin hus." (mach) 8. Tense: presens 1. Meanings: deoperf/dyn-imp Time refererence SoA: future 2. Main verb: sueren 3. Voice: active EMD143 "ende dat de meester 4. First argument: hi – 3sg – human – agent no de mesterigghe vanden vorseiden hues no niemen 5. Type of SoA: action van harent haluen, 6. Clause type: main nemmermeer der+jeghen ne _MOGEN moghen gaen bi Mood: declarative eneghen engiene;" (moghen) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: gaen Time refererence SoA: future 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: de meester no de mesterigghe – 3pl – EMD148 ", wanneer dat wijs van oer begheren, human – agent is dat wi oer goet vercopen omme noet die ons 5. Type of SoA: action ane+leghet of toe+comen 6. Clause type: subordinate _MOGEN mach dat si daer den vrien eyghendoem of Mood: declarative op+gheuen sel waer dat wijs 7. Negation: neg te doene hebben." (mach) 8. Tense: presens 1. Meanings: dyn-sit Time refererence SoA: future 2. Main verb: toecomen 3. Voice: active EMD144 "die daer+toe stede leende ende macht hadde te 4. First argument: noet – 3sg – inanimate – processed doene van sinen 5. Type of SoA: process haluen te wetten al dat hi selue hadde _MOGEN 6. Clause type: subordinate moeghen doen te dien sticken Mood: declarative of hi daer hadde ghewesen." (moeghen) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dirdes/dyn-imp 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: doen Time refererence SoA: future 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: hi – 3sg – human – agent EMD149 " dat hi ons gheloeft in goeden trouwen, dat 5. Type of SoA: action voerseyde huys weder te 6. Clause type: subordinate leueren, tyerste,+als hijs onberen _MOGEN mocht mede Mood: declarative te oerloghen.." (mocht) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 8. Tense: infinitive 2. Main verb: onberen Other aux.: hebben – preteritum 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: past 4. First argument: hij – 3sg – human – positioner 5. Type of SoA: position 6. Clause type: subordinate
122 Mood: declarative niet weder comen _MOGEN mach also langhe alse her 7. Negation: aff clais eneghen sone na sire 8. Tense: preteritum doet laet" (mach) Time refererence SoA: future 1. Meanings: dirperf 2. Main verb: comen EMD150 "ende dat wi hem daer+mede dienen zullen, 3. Voice: active ende sijn hulpere 4. First argument: dit vorghenoemde goet – 3sg – inanimate wesen, teghen alle den ghene daer hijs teghen te doen – processed krighen _MOGEN mach." (mach) 5. Type of SoA: process 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 6. Clause type: subordinate 2. Main verb: te doen krighen Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: neg 4. First argument: hij – 3sg – human – processed 8. Tense: presens 5. Type of SoA: process Time refererence SoA: future 6. Clause type: subordinate Mood: declarative EMD155 "ende al+sulke boete alse hi 7. Negation: aff vpden man bedinghen _MOGEN mach de sal de man 8. Tense: presens boeten ende gelden." (mach) Time refererence SoA: future 1. Meanings: dyn-imp/dyn-sit 2. Main verb: bedinghen EMD151 "dat wi, noch onse 3. Voice: active nacomelinghe, noch onse ambochtlide, die nu sien, of 4. First argument: hi – 3sg – human – agent hier+na, wesen 5. Type of SoA: action sellen, ane dier ouder, slusen, ne+gheenrecht hebben en. 6. Clause type: subordinate _MOGEN moghen, noch Mood: declarative en sullen," (moghen) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dirperf 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: recht hebben Time refererence SoA: future 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: wi – 1pl – human – positioner EMD156 ". ende wi gheorlouen hom 5. Type of SoA: position des dat hi alle sine boeten setten _MOGEN mach van 6. Clause type: subordinate sire heerscep also groet ende Mood: declarative also clene alse hem seluen donket goet." (mach) 7. Negation: neg 1. Meanings: dirperf 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: setten Time refererence SoA: future 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: hi – 3sg – human – agent EMD152 "war dat sake dat helyas 5. Type of SoA: action ende sine erfnamen den pacht nyt en betalden vp ter 6. Clause type: subordinate vorghenomder tyet, Mood: declarative so _MOGEN mocht gherart puthake of sine erfnamen mit 7. Negation: aff ten lande vrilecken 8. Tense: presens sonder weder+secghen horen wille done," (mocht) Time refererence SoA: future 1. Meanings: dirperf 2. Main verb: horen wille done EMD157 "ende hi des orconde hadde 3. Voice: active van tven onser manne soe _MOGEN mach dese 4. First argument: gherart puthake – 3sg – human – agent vorghenoemde her clais of sin 5. Type of SoA: action rechtre dat rechten sonder onsen baeliu ende sinen 6. Clause type: main rechtre.." (mach) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dirperf 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: rechten 8. Tense: preteritum 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: future 4. First argument: dese vorghenoemde her clais – 3sg – human – agent EMD153 "da[t] ic noch mine nacomelinghe hom dat niet 5. Type of SoA: action verbieden ne solen noch ne _MOGEN moghen mit 6. Clause type: main enigherhande sake," (moghen) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dirdes 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: verbieden 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: future 4. First argument: ic noch mine nacomelinghe – 1pl – human – agent EMD158 "Voert ware dat sake dat her clais onsen baeliu 5. Type of SoA: action Of sinen 6. Clause type: subordinate rechtre omboede ende si dar niet comen enwilden of ne Mood: declarative _MOGEN mochten ter 7. Negation: neg stede ende vp der stonde alse hi rechten soude" 8. Tense: presens (mochten) Time refererence SoA: future 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 2. Main verb: comen EMD154 "in deser 3. Voice: active vorwarden dat dit vorghenoemde goet vp ons noch vp 4. First argument: si – 3pl – human – agent onse ernamen 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: subordinate
123 Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: conc 7. Negation: neg 2. Main verb: lusten 8. Tense: preteritum 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: future 4. First argument: hem – 3sg – animate – zero 5. Type of SoA: state EMD159 "Ghegeuen 6. Clause type: subordinate hebben torechten lene dit vorghenoemde goet van Mood: declarative scoenhoue also 7. Negation: aff gehelicke alsit onse vorvaren ende wi dar hadden; ende 8. Tense: presens oc also ghehelicke Time refererence SoA: generic alsit vp ons of vp ons erfnamen comen _MOGEN mochte;" (mochte) EMD164 " dare vele sijn als wi scriuen 1. Meanings: dyn-sit MOGEN+MEN machmen der+mede vloen verdriuen 2. Main verb: comen alst cout es omtrent in junius maent" (mach(men)) 3. Voice: active 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 4. First argument: -it – 3sg – inanimate – processed 2. Main verb: verdriuen 5. Type of SoA: process 3. Voice: active 6. Clause type: subordinate 4. First argument: men – 3sg – human – agent Mood: declarative 5. Type of SoA: action 7. Negation: aff 6. Clause type: main 8. Tense: preteritum Mood: declarative Time refererence SoA: future 7. Negation: aff 8. Tense: presens EMD160 " dat si xv. jaer moghen leuen Time refererence SoA: generic bouen uele viruoeten beesten MOGEN mach die beer meest ridens ylesten EMD165 " als ons de rechte wareit seghet es dat sake dat hi es uet" (mach) es tusscen dat ende onse elende 1. Meanings: dyn-inh dat noit man sonder adaem kende 2. Main verb: ylesten (=geleesten) ende al MOGEN mochtmer+toe comen mede 3. Voice: active so es alomme bemurt de stede" (mocht(mer+toe)) 4. First argument: die beer – 3sg – animate – agent 1. Meanings: dyn-imp/conc 5. Type of SoA: action 2. Main verb: comen 6. Clause type: main 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative 4. First argument: men – 3sg – human – agent 7. Negation: aff 5. Type of SoA: action 8. Tense: presens 6. Clause type: subordinate Time refererence SoA: generic Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff EMD161 " drie par tande scarp ende grote 8. Tense: preteritum oren oghen ende anscijn Time refererence SoA: future recht oft .i. mensce MOGEN mochte sijn mar doghen sijn van donkeren doene" (mochte) EMD166 " nu suldi horen vort bedieden 1. Meanings: dyn-sit vanden ghenen dies uele lieden 2. Main verb: sijn wondert hoe mense maken MOGEN mochte 3. Voice: active ende wat wondere icker+ane besochte" (mochte) 4. First argument: -t – 3sg – animate – zero 1. Meanings: dyn-imp/dyn-inh 5. Type of SoA: state 2. Main verb: maken 6. Clause type: subordinate 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative 4. First argument: men – 3sg – human – agent 7. Negation: aff 5. Type of SoA: action 8. Tense: preteritum 6. Clause type: subordinate Time refererence SoA: generic Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff EMD162 " sone mach hem die olifant 8. Tense: preteritum niet gheweren uoer dien viant Time refererence SoA: generic gheen spiet sone MOGEN+HET maghet ueruaren vp hoghe berghen wandelet te+waren" (magh(et)) EMD167 " eist dat vele ghiere te+ware 1. Meanings: dyn-inh/dyn-sit danne vlieghen haren+ende+tare 2. Main verb: ueruaren so MOGEN+HET maghet wel over+waer bedieden 3. Voice: active dat van paerden ende van lieden 4. First argument: (gh)een spiet – 3sg – inanimate/human – ene grote menichte vpt velt force metten suaerde wort ghevelt" (magh(et)) 5. Type of SoA: process 1. Meanings: dyn-sit/epiperf 6. Clause type: main 2. Main verb: bedieden Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: neg 4. First argument: -et – 3sg – other – zero 8. Tense: presens 5. Type of SoA: state Time refererence SoA: generic 6. Clause type: main Mood: declarative EMD163 " ananghel ende nemmermere 7. Negation: aff sone laet die onde niet rusten 8. Tense: presens so hem meest slapens MOGEN mach lusten Time refererence SoA: generic so hem de vlieghe pijnliker es" (mach)
124 EMD168 " dat de ziele ware meede Mood: declarative ghemaect vander goddeliichede 7. Negation: aff ware dat waer sone MOGEN mochte dan 8. Tense: preteritum Niet ghene sonde doen de man" (mochte) Time refererence SoA: past 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 2. Main verb: sonde doen EMD173 "Gaet jeghen die buggheren die spraken 3. Voice: active valschelike in haren traken 4. First argument: de man – 3sg – human – agent dat huwelic te gherestonde 5. Type of SoA: action Ne MOGEN mach weesen sonder sonde 6. Clause type: main die daet waent hem weert suaer pardoen" (mach) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 7. Negation: neg 2. Main verb: weesen 8. Tense: preteritum 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: generic 4. First argument: huwelic – 3sg – inanimate – zero 5. Type of SoA: state EMD169 " Hecht alse die man doet ende pine 6. Clause type: subordinate ontfaet van serpents venine Mood: declarative alsoe MOGEN mach smenschen nuchterne spu 7. Negation: neg dat serpent doden segghic. v" (mach) 8. Tense: presens 1. Meanings: dyn-inh Time refererence SoA: generic 2. Main verb: doden 3. Voice: active EMD174 " Dat es ihesus ioseps sone. 4. First argument: smenschen nuchterne spu – 3sg – Van nazaret vter stede. inanimate – force Natanael andworde mede. 5. Type of SoA: process Van nazaret MOGEN mach iet goets wesen. 6. Clause type: main Ph's4ylips leddene met desen." (mach) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dyn-sit/epiperf 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: wesen 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: generic 4. First argument: iet – 3sg – inanimate – zero 5. Type of SoA: state EMD170 " Dar die stroem in kerd ende duerelt. 6. Clause type: main Ende emmermeer es onghestade. Mood: declarative Ne dade dat cruce ende gods ghenade. 7. Negation: aff Nieneme ne MOGEN mochte die werelt liden. 8. Tense: presens Dits die staf dar wi toe tiden." (mochte) Time refererence SoA: present 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 2. Main verb: liden EMD175 " DOe ons here was verresen. 3. Voice: active Als ghi MOGEN moghet hier+voren lesen. 4. First argument: niemene – 3sg – human – agent Ende te hemele gheuaren. 5. Type of SoA: action Die iueden die altoes waren." (moghet) 6. Clause type: main 1. Meanings: dyn-imp Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: lesen 7. Negation: neg 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: preteritum 4. First argument: ghi (lezer) – 2pl (2sg) – human – agent Time refererence SoA: generic 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main EMD171 " Dor ons hoghe ant hout verheuen. Mood: declarative Hies die ons MOGEN mach ghesonde gheuen. 7. Negation: aff Van des vierijns serpens venine. 8. Tense: presens Diene in dat herte sine." (mach) Time refererence SoA: present 1. Meanings: dyn-inh 2. Main verb: gheuen EMD176 " Ende god waest dier de iueden vte trac. 3. Voice: active Ende ons volc der+in stac. 4. First argument: die – 3sg – human – agent Van ingiene ende cracht van lieden. 5. Type of SoA: action Wat MOGEN+ZIJ mochtsi hier+toe ghedieden." 6. Clause type: subordinate (mocht(si)) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dyn-imp/dyn-sit 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: ghedieden 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: present 4. First argument: si (engiene ende cracht van lieden) – 3sg (3pl) – inanimate/human – agent EMD172 " Tien tiden hadde ghene stede. 5. Type of SoA: action Dans gheslachte mar si sochten. 6. Clause type: main War si hem ghenerren MOGEN mochten. Mood: declarative Si senden spieres al+te+hand. 7. Negation: aff Om te vindene eenech land." (mochten) 8. Tense: preteritum 1. Meanings: dyn-imp Time refererence SoA: past 2. Main verb: sich ghenerren 3. Voice: active EMD177 "ende leende hiere hem meer vp danne 4. First argument: si – 3pl – human – agent die .x. 't3s die weuere MOGEN+HET maghet daer+nar 5. Type of SoA: action weder losen omme die .x. 't3s so+wat 6. Clause type: subordinate sore+bouen si gheleent;" (magh(et))
125 1. Meanings: dirperf 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: losen 8. Tense: preteritum 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: future 4. First argument: die weuere – 3sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action EMD182 "] Elc leercnape moet bortucht doen sinen 6. Clause type: main mester van .i. marc sine Mood: declarative stonde te vulstane; dat die mester _MOGEN mach 7. Negation: aff achterhalen sine scade vpten 8. Tense: presens borghe;" (mach) Time refererence SoA: future 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 2. Main verb: achterhalen EMD178 "dat hare dese sticken strect ho langhe dat 3. Voice: active siet visieren sone MOGEN+ZIJ moeghense hem helpen 4. First argument: die mester – 3sg – human – agent no trucken tharen rechte 5. Type of SoA: action ende noch dat die graue ende sijn oer graue van 6. Clause type: subordinate vlaendren." (moeghen(se)) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dirperf 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: helpen no trucken 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: future 4. First argument: se – 3pl – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action EMD183 "ende ware dit laken so ghevullet dat sine 6. Clause type: main langhe Mood: declarative niet gaen ne _MOGEN mach; me saelt betoghen deken 7. Negation: neg ende vinders; ende me 8. Tense: presens moets hem orlof gheuen sine langhe te reckene Time refererence SoA: future bi+lieuerlade." (mach) 1. Meanings: dyn-inh EMD179 "Ende alst doit 2. Main verb: sine langhe gaen dat elc mensche _MOGEN mach gaen te werke die werc 3. Voice: active heuet. diere+ieghen dade 4. First argument: t – 3sg – inanimate – processed verbuerde .xx. 't3s" (mach) 5. Type of SoA: process 1. Meanings: dirperf 6. Clause type: subordinate 2. Main verb: gaen Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: neg 4. First argument: elc mensche – 3sg – human – agent 8. Tense: presens 5. Type of SoA: action Time refererence SoA: future 6. Clause type: subordinate Mood: declarative EMD184 "So+wat ambochts+manne daermen 7. Negation: aff saye vp+snijt die sal gheuen den [drapenier] .'t!. vierdinc 8. Tense: presens te wasdoeme daer+bi Time refererence SoA: future _MOGEN mach hie hebben des drapeniers eed wat hem sijn goed cost." (mach) EMD180 "was Ende scald quite tes vorseids+sere 1. Meanings: deoperf/dyn-sit pieters vos boef die bilevinghe ende die versterfnesse & 2. Main verb: hebben aldat rechte dat 3. Voice: active soe hadde jof toe+come _MOGEN mochte van deser 4. First argument: hie – 3sg – human – recipient vorseider maben als vanden 5. Type of SoA: process lande vorseid." (mochte) 6. Clause type: main 1. Meanings: dyn-sit Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: toecome 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: al dat rechte dat – 3sg – inanimate – Time refererence SoA: future processed 5. Type of SoA: process EMD185 "tlaken dat vp den varwere ghesneden ware hie 6. Clause type: subordinate soude gheuen den portre .ij. 't3s te wasdoeme; daer+bi Mood: declarative _MOGEN mochte hie hebben 7. Negation: aff sinen eed wat hem sijn goet coste." (mochte) 8. Tense: preteritum 1. Meanings: deoperf/dyn-sit Time refererence SoA: future 2. Main verb: hebben 3. Voice: active EMD181 "ende so _MOGEN mochte die abbet ihan ende 4. First argument: hie – 3sg – human – recipient sijn couuent 5. Type of SoA: process vorseit jof man van haren aluen hemlieden volghen alse 6. Clause type: main steenvluchtighe Mood: declarative lieden van minen secghene vorseit." (mochte) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dirperf 8. Tense: preteritum 2. Main verb: volghen Time refererence SoA: future 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: die abbet ihan ende sijn couuent vorseit EMD186 "ende hir+bi soe deden si. jan ende marie siin jof man.. – 3sg – human – agent wief buten alre helpe van wetten van virscaren. ende 5. Type of SoA: action priuilegen. ende van 6. Clause type: main prise van ghode die hemlede in eregher manire te stade Mood: declarative _MOGEN mochte staen." (mochte)
126 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: te stade staen 8. Tense: preteritum 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: future 4. First argument: die – 3sg – inanimate – zero 5. Type of SoA: state EMD191 "namelike dat si _MOGEN moghen in dat 6. Clause type: subordinate voerseide goet, moer Mood: declarative vte+deluen, souten ende verschen, zel sieden, huse op te 7. Negation: aff makene, lieden 8. Tense: preteritum op te wonene, te wisselne, te vercopene," (moghen) Time refererence SoA: generic 1. Meanings: dirperf 2. Main verb: moer uitdelven, souten, verschen, zel sieden EMD187 "ende van etc. allen rechte dat ickere+in hadde iof hebbe _MOGEN 3. Voice: active mochte in enigghere 4. First argument: si – 3pl – human – agent mainniere als here van leene ende soe+wat maennieren 5. Type of SoA: action dat wesen 6. Clause type: subordinate mochte." (mochte) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dyn-sit/fut 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: hebbe 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: future 4. First argument: ick – 1sg – human – positioner 5. Type of SoA: position EMD192 "of van onsen ore, soe 6. Clause type: subordinate verlien wi ende verclaersen, dat, dat voerseide goedshus Mood: declarative _MOGEN mach doen in 7. Negation: aff al dat voerseide goet al hare orbare ende nutscepe alst 8. Tense: preteritum bescreuen es Time refererence SoA: future intsegghen voerseit," (mach) 1. Meanings: dirperf EMD188 "Het ne moet gheen ambochts+man no weuere 2. Main verb: doen no vulre no varwere 3. Voice: active no scerre iemens goed laten ligghen hine verburde .x. 4. First argument: dat voerseide goedshus – 3sg – 't3s hine _MOGEN moeghe inanimate/human – agent redene thoghen war+omme." (moeghe) 5. Type of SoA: action 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 6. Clause type: subordinate 2. Main verb: thoghen Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: aff 4. First argument: hi – 3sg – human – agent 8. Tense: presens 5. Type of SoA: action Time refererence SoA: future 6. Clause type: main Mood: declarative EMD193 "Ende al d[at] [ons] [te] [hul]pen jof te staden 7. Negation: neg mochte staen. jn so+wat 8. Tense: subj.presens manieren het wesen _MOGEN mochte. Omme te Time refererence SoA: future segghene jof te doene jeghen dese lettren." (mochte) EMD189 "men sald vord oechen 1. Meanings: dyn-sit van viertien+nachten t[e] v[ie]rtien+nachten. of men ne 2. Main verb: wesen +MOGEN maechd niet 3. Voice: active bedinghe[n] [ende] [men] sal dien banling houden in 4. First argument: het – 3sg – other – zero dien ban vor den 5. Type of SoA: state here." (maech(d)) 6. Clause type: subordinate 1. Meanings: dirperf Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: bedinghen 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: preteritum 4. First argument: men – 3sg – human – agent Time refererence SoA: future 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main EMD194 "Jof noch te nemene Mood: declarative sijn. Ende al d[at] [ons] [te] [hul]pen jof te staden 7. Negation: neg _MOGEN mochte staen. jn so+wat 8. Tense: presens manieren het wesen mochte." (mochte) Time refererence SoA: future 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 2. Main verb: staen EMD190 "ende 3. Voice: active belouen hem des goets te ghewaerne gheheelleke ende 4. First argument: al dat – 3sg – inanimate/other – zero al., jeghens 5. Type of SoA: state elken man diet an+spreken _MOGEN mochte. in allen 6. Clause type: subordinate maniren jof wijt selue ver+cocht" (mochte) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: anspreken 8. Tense: preteritum 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: future 4. First argument: elken man die – 3sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action EMD195 "Wie dat ten clockeslaghe niet ne comd, 6. Clause type: subordinate hi sald betren den here .x. sol. ende der port .v. sol. Mood: declarative Negheen man ne
127 _MOGEN mach portres goed van middelburg. veruechten 5. Type of SoA: action of verboren;" (mach) 6. Clause type: main 1. Meanings: dirperf Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: veruechten of verboren 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: Negheen man – 3sg – human – agent Time refererence SoA: future 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main EMD200 "So wilthijd dat die rechtere ende schepene Mood: declarative eneghen claghere 7. Negation: neg schependoems warnen; si ne _MOGEN moeghen ghen 8. Tense: presens vonnesse segghen tote+dien+dat Time refererence SoA: future die claghere schependoem heft." (moeghen) 1. Meanings: dirperf EMD196 "Wat 2. Main verb: vonnesse segghen portre dat onghesekerde schoud escht van man van 3. Voice: active buten. met tven 4. First argument: si – 3pl – human – agent schepenen en[de] met enen portre; die man van buten 5. Type of SoA: action _MOGEN mach hem 6. Clause type: main seluen clarsen met sinen ede." (mach) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dirperf 7. Negation: neg 2. Main verb: hem clarsen 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: future 4. First argument: die man van buten – 3sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action END001 "sonder iet anders te
128 versonden voor de Neghene-Mannen ghecommitteert totter
129 6. Clause type: subordinate 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative 4. First argument: eenighe – 3pl – human – agent 7. Negation: aff 5. Type of SoA: action 8. Tense: presens 6. Clause type: subordinate Time refererence SoA: present Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff END013 Legt dan den visch metten scellen [schubben] 8. Tense: presens nederwaert, opdat hy te bat [des te beter] stiven Other aux.: zullen – preteritum
130 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: het schilderen – 3sg – other – processed 4. First argument: men – 3sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: process 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: subordinate 6. Clause type: main Mood: declarative Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff 7. Negation: aff 8. Tense: preteritum 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: past Time refererence SoA: generic END026 "Eyndlinghe wensch ick, niemant mijnen ghedaen END022 "Want niet eer en arbeydts halven my salmen oprechtelijck die conste van Medecynen tot salicheyt/ t'ondancken, t'zy om mijn onvolcomenheyt, oft yet dat hem profijt mishaghen
131 END034 "ende namen haer zusters zoo compasselic an END030 "niet gheheel om hemlien oorlof met weenenden den cost van het licht, dan vreesende dat hy zijn jongh teer lijf
132 2. Main verb: commen Other aux.: zullen – preteritum 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: past 4. First argument: de vijanden – 3pl – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action END043 "Zy selen voortane den 6. Clause type: subordinate magistraet subject zijn ende hennen dienst doen alleenelijck in Mood: declarative de dry 7. Negation: aff
133 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: vinden Time refererence SoA: future 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: men – 3sg – human – exp.agent END047 "Uwe E. sal daeromme believen nyet 5. Type of SoA: exp.action
134 6. Clause type: main Time refererence SoA: present Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff END060 "ende dattet nu 8. Tense: presens
135
136 8. Tense: preteritum 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: past Time refererence SoA: generic
END073 "want op den Paesdach die doen END077 "de welcke offerhande eenmael quam den XXVI^sten Meerte was, doen nae noen soe groote volcomentlijck ghedaen, tot verghevinghe onser zonden, en storm van groote soude
137 7. Negation: aff Waer viend 'ick Poffer nu? mij dunckt ick hoor hem singhen." 8. Tense: infinitive (moght) Other aux.: zullen – presens 1. Meanings: dyn-imp/epiperf Time refererence SoA: future 2. Main verb: bespringhen 3. Voice: active END081 "- en door genaede ghij de daed des wils beschut. 4. First argument: het dier – 3sg – animate – agent Vermits u will' niet wil, als't gun tot heijl mach
138 7. Negation: neg 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: niemant – 3sg – human – agent Time refererence SoA: present/future 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main END090 "Laet datte texploot // zy/n/, Mood: declarative Zoo muechdy
139 END099 "Doe hebt gy gans ons lant bevrijt 2. Main verb: vermengen Van brant en moorderyen, 3. Voice: active En selfs den onbeleefden nijt 4. First argument: ghy – 2sg – human – agent Uw' vroomheyt doen belyen; 5. Type of SoA: action Och! dat ghy mocht
140 6. Clause type: main END112 Laet dit tsamen met den capoen opstoven ende dienet Mood: declarative dan ter tafelen. Oock
141 7. Negation: aff van volck in alder haest te versekeren/ eenige dijcken door 8. Tense: infinitive steeckende/ Other aux.: zullen – preteritum
END119 "en dat hy een END123 "biddende/ dat de
142 meester van 'tspel worden/ te meer also de vereenichde Staten 3. Voice: active in groote 4. First argument: ghij – 2sg – human – agent verslagentheyd stonden." (mocht) 5. Type of SoA: action 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 6. Clause type: main 2. Main verb: worden Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: neg 4. First argument: hy – 3sg – human – processed 8. Tense: presens 5. Type of SoA: process Time refererence SoA: generic 6. Clause type: subordinate Mood: declarative END130 "Een yghelick die meester te wesen ende elcks sijn 7. Negation: aff hooft te 8. Tense: preteritum
143 7. Negation: aff
144 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: comen Time refererence SoA: present 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: alle menschen – 3pl – human – agent END147 "zulx hy nocht het verordende teeken, nocht eenigh 5. Type of SoA: action gewagh van hunnen kant 6. Clause type: main
145 gestelt, is verstaen te persisteren bij ?t antwoordt sonder 8. Tense: presens eenige Time refererence SoA: future alteratie off veranderinge daerinne te connen goedvinden." (moght) END155 "waerop gelet zijnde meenden de heeren van 1. Meanings: dirdes/dyn-imp Dordrecht dat men 2. Main verb: stellen
146
END160 "Wy vergaderen ons daer wy best END164 "want sy waren soo
147 4. First argument: de Heer – 3sg – human – agent Time refererence SoA: future 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main END172 ". Van des zelfs waardicheid Mood: declarative
148 END176 "Wien zoud'ic, ten laetsten, mijne eerste vruchten Mood: declarative
END179 "dat [het] geen END183 "
149 6. Clause type: main Time refererence SoA: present Mood: interrogative 7. Negation: aff END188 "'Kmagh me wat hulle -: Kijck, hoeder 8. Tense: presens dit hoofd uijt siet, Time refererence SoA: present 'tStaet noch schier as en knecht." (('k)magh) END184 "Maer me dunckt ick heb de Klock daer al thien 1. Meanings: deoperf/vol1perf ghetelt. 2. Main verb: sich hullen 3. Voice: active
150
END195 "Op dat'er de soldaet gerust in schuilen O dat ickse hier had ic souse met sulcken marge gift groeten
151 5. Type of SoA: action concurrentie. Nu is als voorwaarde gesteld dat de 6. Clause type: main maatregel niet
152 6. Clause type: subordinate 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative 4. First argument: een jongere – 3sg – human – agent 7. Negation: aff 5. Type of SoA: action 8. Tense: infinitive 6. Clause type: subordinate Time refererence SoA: generic Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff PDDW010 Gemeenten
153 Time refererence SoA: present/future 5. Type of SoA: exp.action 6. Clause type: main PDDW019 * een overnemingsbeding. Bij overlijden Mood: declarative
154 allerlei belangen", reageerde VWS-staatssecretaris 5. Type of SoA: action Vliegenthart na haar overtuigende presentatie. (mag) 6. Clause type: subordinate 1. Meanings: deoperf Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: beïnvloeden 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: passive.worden 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: allerlei belangen – 3pl – inanimate/human Time refererence SoA: generic – agent Passive subject: die kwaliteitsinstituut – 3sg – inanimate – PDDW033 Ik heb dan ook besloten om waakhonden te zetten goal bij elke bioscoop waar dit prul draait. 5. Type of SoA: action
155 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: generic 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – positioner 5. Type of SoA: position PDDW037 "De laatste prent, lezen we, is al verkocht. Vooruit 6. Clause type: subordinate - Mood: declarative voor een gulden
156 5. Type of SoA: action 4. First argument: elk team – 3sg – inanimate/human – 6. Clause type: main positioner Mood: declarative 5. Type of SoA: position 7. Negation: aff 6. Clause type: subordinate 8. Tense: presens Mood: declarative Time refererence SoA: present 7. Negation: aff 8. Tense: presens PDDW046 De vliegende zwembadspeeltjes van het Franse Time refererence SoA: generic theatergezelschap Plasticiens Volants
157 5. Type of SoA: PDDW054 En poosje heeft zijn dochter, Rachel, pianoles 6. Clause type: subordinate gehad van mijn vader. Zo heb ik het geluk gehad hem nog Mood: declarative eens de hand te
158 PDDW063 Dat is een positieve evolutie maar we moeten toch 5. Type of SoA: action even opletten. Studenten
159 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: wat – 3sg – other – Ø Time refererence SoA: present 5. Type of SoA: 6. Clause type: subordinate PDDW072 De indruk ontstaat dan dat kinderen nooit en te Mood: declarative nimmer zich met seksuele handelingen 7. Negation: neg
160 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: plaatsen 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: generic 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action PDDW081 De interne belasting voor zowel stikstof als fosfaat 6. Clause type: subordinate neemt in ieder geval duidelijk toe. Theoretisch Mood: declarative
161 care dan op cure. Het
162 6. Clause type: main PDDW103 Met andere woorden, er is een trainer in de Mood: declarative Belgische eerste klasse die zich stilaan zorgen 7. Negation: aff
163 Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dirdes 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: ingrijpen 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: generic 4. First argument: wij – 1pl – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action PDDW108 Wij gingen ons oor te luister leggen - de hond was 6. Clause type: main er wel meteen mee vandoor, maar na een korte klopjacht Mood: declarative werd het teruggevonden in de waterbak - bij enkele 7. Negation: aff studenten die het verschil aan den lijve 8. Tense: presens
164 PDDW121 Dat ons land niet meteen de grote voorloper was in PDDW117 "Ik was toch niet in vorm en laste liever een week het toekennen van stemrecht voor vrouwen, training in om klaar te zijn voor het ECC. Het heeft niet
165 3. Voice: active PDDW130 Arambasic
166 5. Type of SoA: action Time refererence SoA: future 6. Clause type: main Mood: declarative PDDW139 "Bob Dole is een onervaren jongeling in 7. Negation: neg vergelijking met 8. Tense: infinitive zijn partijgenoot en gewezen collega, Strom Thurmond, die in Other aux.: zullen – presens de Senaat Time refererence SoA: future honderd kaarsjes
167 VN-voedseltop in Rome hoor ik verklaren dat voedsel nooit 1. Meanings: dirdes een oorlogswapen mag zijn. 2. Main verb: moderniseren Maar Tanzania
168 6. Clause type: main Brussel). Hij mag er aan toevoegen dat zijn Vlaamse Mood: declarative vrienden het hierover helemaal met hem eens zijn. (mag) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: deoperf 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: vertellen Time refererence SoA: generic 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: Picqué – 3sg – human – agent PDDW152 Het onder woorden kunnen en 5. Type of SoA: action
169 Time refererence SoA: generic 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: hij – 3sg – human – agent PDDW161 Wat kan je zelf doen om je voedsel zo lang 5. Type of SoA: action mogelijk te bewaren? Wat
170 PDDW170 Het pedagogisch project, zo vond men in het debat, 2. Main verb: zich noemen
171 8. Tense: presens andere instantie wetten voorschreef, zelfs niet als die Time refererence SoA: generic alleen in geweten bindend waren. (mocht) 1. Meanings: deodes PDDW179 Niet alleen met betrekking tot de cultuur, maar ook 2. Main verb: dulden met het oog op den Christelijken Godsdienst en de 3. Voice: passive.worden Katholieke Kerk
172 Passive subject: het Wezen – 3sg – human – goal 5. Type of SoA: action PDDW192 Dan maar aanbellen en mijn vrouw, met een oude 6. Clause type: subordinate foto in de hand en haar jeugdverhaal, vragen of wij het Mood: declarative huis nogmaals
173 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main PDDS001 je mag helemaal nog niet. (mag) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dirdes 7. Negation: neg 2. Main verb: ruilen (ellips) 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: generic 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action PDDW197 Maar indien bijvoorbeeld een bloglezer straffeloos 6. Clause type: main (ik wil zeggen, zonder reactie van webmaster of Mood: declarative bloghouder) grensoverschrijdend 7. Negation: neg
PDDW198 Ik kan me best inbeelden dat,
174 Time refererence SoA: present 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: dat – 3sg – other – Ø PDDS007 mag ook (mag) 5. Type of SoA: 1. Meanings: deoperf/dirperf 6. Clause type: main 2. Main verb: mogen Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: aff 4. First argument: het (ellips) – 3sg – other – Ø 8. Tense: presens 5. Type of SoA: Time refererence SoA: generic 6. Clause type: main Mood: declarative PDDS013 uh ik mag erg graag aan sport doen (mag) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: boulo1perf 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: aan sport doen Time refererence SoA: present 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent PDDS008 ik mocht hier ik ik mocht van alles hier opslaan 5. Type of SoA: action (mocht) 6. Clause type: main 1. Meanings: dirdes Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: opslaan 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent Time refererence SoA: generic 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main PDDS014 dus maar d'r zijn altijd zoveel leuke dingetjes die d'r Mood: declarative zijn ik bedoel uh ik mag ook graag een beetje in huis 7. Negation: aff klussen en dan dit eventjes weer doen (mag) 8. Tense: preteritum 1. Meanings: boulo1perf Time refererence SoA: past 2. Main verb: klussen 3. Voice: active PDDS009 zeker als je de overheid tegenwoordig mag mag 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent geloven want die zegt van alles en nog wat van ja op 5. Type of SoA: action scholen moeten ze meer dit en op scholen moeten ze meer 6. Clause type: main dat ? (mag) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: geloven 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: generic 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – exp.positioner 5. Type of SoA: exp.position PDDS015 dus dat die had nog uh zesentwintig uur is 't 6. Clause type: subordinate officiële aantal uren wat je mag draaien (mag) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dirdes 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: draaien 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: generic 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action PDDS010 dus aanzien heb je absoluut niet meer; mocht je dat 6. Clause type: subordinate al ooit gehad hebben (mocht) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: cond 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: aanzien hebben 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: generic 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – zero 5. Type of SoA: state PDDS016 zou ik je nou nog een keer terug mogen bellen of 6. Clause type: subordinate vinden ze dat denk je dat ze dat niet goed vinden twee Mood: declarative twee keer achter mekaar (mogen) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dirdes 8. Tense: preteritum 2. Main verb: bellen Other aux.: hebben – infinitive 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: past 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action PDDS011 en ze mogen ook geen mensen houden voor vijf uur 6. Clause type: main (mogen) Mood: interrogative 1. Meanings: dirdes 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: houden 8. Tense: infinitive 3. Voice: active Other aux.: zullen – preteritum 4. First argument: ze – 3pl – human – positioner Time refererence SoA: future 5. Type of SoA: position 6. Clause type: main PDDS017 ja volgens mij mogen we ook wel zelf ophangen Mood: declarative hoor (mogen) 7. Negation: neg 1. Meanings: dirdes 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: ophangen Time refererence SoA: generic 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: we – 1pl – human – agent PDDS012 nou nee maar dat mag ggg stokpaardjes daar 5. Type of SoA: action houden we van (mag) 6. Clause type: main 1. Meanings: deoperf/dirperf Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: mogen 7. Negation: aff
175 8. Tense: presens Mood: interrogative Time refererence SoA: generic/present 7. Negation: aff 8. Tense: presens PDDS018 dan uh neem je natuurlijk naar Schiermonnikoog Time refererence SoA: future mag dat sowieso al niet je auto meenemen (mag) 1. Meanings: dirdes PDDS024 mag je dan niet mee naar Istanbul? (mag) 2. Main verb: mogen 1. Meanings: dirdes 3. Voice: active 2. Main verb: mee(gaan) (ellips) 4. First argument: dat – 3sg – other – Ø 3. Voice: active 5. Type of SoA: 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent 6. Clause type: main 5. Type of SoA: action Mood: declarative 6. Clause type: main 7. Negation: neg Mood: interrogative 8. Tense: presens 7. Negation: neg Time refererence SoA: generic 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: future PDDS019 Joost mag het weten wat met je wekker gebeurd is (mag) PDDS025 dan uh ja dan mag je blij wezen dat je drie twee 1. Meanings: other (Joost mag weten) wint hé (mag) 2. Main verb: weten 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 3. Voice: active 2. Main verb: blij wezen 4. First argument: Joost – 3sg – human – exp.zero 3. Voice: active 5. Type of SoA: exp.state 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – exp.positioner 6. Clause type: main 5. Type of SoA: exp.position Mood: declarative 6. Clause type: main 7. Negation: aff Mood: declarative 8. Tense: presens 7. Negation: aff Time refererence SoA: generic 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: generic PDDS020 en dan mag je ge*a aangeven of je dat wel of niet wil (mag) PDDS026 dus dat mag ook wel af en toe vind ik altijd (mag) 1. Meanings: dirdes 1. Meanings: boulo2perf/deoperf 2. Main verb: aangeven 2. Main verb: mogen 3. Voice: active 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent 4. First argument: dat – 3sg – other – Ø 5. Type of SoA: action 5. Type of SoA: 6. Clause type: main 6. Clause type: main Mood: declarative Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff 7. Negation: aff 8. Tense: presens 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: generic Time refererence SoA: generic
PDDS021 ja dat mag je wel uh zeggen (mag) PDDS027 terwijl als ze in 't echt doodgaat ik ga janken op de 1. Meanings: dirperf begrafenis puur omdat andere mensen janken maar zelf 2. Main verb: zeggen hoef ik voor haar geen traan te laten want ik mag 'r niet 3. Voice: active eens (mag) 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent 1. Meanings: boulo1perf 5. Type of SoA: action 2. Main verb: mogen 6. Clause type: main 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – Ø 7. Negation: aff 5. Type of SoA: 8. Tense: presens 6. Clause type: main Time refererence SoA: present Mood: declarative 7. Negation: neg PDDS022 dat mag niet (mag) 8. Tense: presens 1. Meanings: dirdes Time refererence SoA: generic/present 2. Main verb: mogen 3. Voice: active PDDS028 enne dan mogen ze over twee of drie jaar als we 4. First argument: dat – 3sg – other – Ø gaan UTMS-en mogen ze weer een nieuw toestel kopen 5. Type of SoA: (mogen) 6. Clause type: main 1. Meanings: dyn-imp Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: kopen 7. Negation: neg 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: ze – 3pl – human – agent Time refererence SoA: generic/present 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main PDDS023 hé wanne* wanneer mag ik weer? (mag) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dirdes 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: bellen (ellips) 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: future 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action PDDS029 ja dat dat mag dus niet (mag) 6. Clause type: main 1. Meanings: dirdes
176 2. Main verb: mogen 4. First argument: niemand – 3sg – human – agent 3. Voice: active 5. Type of SoA: action 4. First argument: dat – 3sg – other – Ø 6. Clause type: main 5. Type of SoA: Mood: declarative 6. Clause type: main 7. Negation: neg Mood: declarative 8. Tense: preteritum 7. Negation: neg Time refererence SoA: past 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: present PDDS035 nou dat lijkt me ik bedoel los wat je dan vindt dat is een politieke stand*a uh stellingname die mag ie denk ik PDDS030 maar ik was al ondertussen al want ik had tijdens dan innemen (mag) het werk mogen we allemaal drinken en zo (mogen) 1. Meanings: deoperf 1. Meanings: dirdes 2. Main verb: innemen 2. Main verb: drinken 3. Voice: active 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: ie – 3sg – human – agent 4. First argument: we – 1pl – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main 6. Clause type: main Mood: declarative Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff 7. Negation: aff 8. Tense: presens 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: generic Time refererence SoA: generic PDDS036 als ik vrij mag filosoferen zonder enig onderzoek PDDS031 hadden ze je opgebeld of zo dat je toch mocht hoor nu op*a wat Frank ze*a naar voren brengt dan denk komen? (mocht) ik dat dat te maken heeft met 't feit dat wij diersoort zijn 1. Meanings: dirdes die bij de territorium-uh-bouwers*u horen niet tot de 2. Main verb: komen nestbouwers (mag) 3. Voice: active 1. Meanings: dirdes 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent 2. Main verb: filosoferen 5. Type of SoA: action 3. Voice: active 6. Clause type: subordinate 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent Mood: declarative 5. Type of SoA: action 7. Negation: aff 6. Clause type: subordinate 8. Tense: preteritum Mood: declarative Time refererence SoA: past 7. Negation: aff 8. Tense: presens PDDS032 hij moet weten waar we 't zojuist al over gehad Time refererence SoA: present hebben uh hoe die woorden achter elkaar gezet mogen worden (mogen) PDDS037 als we als ik heel even terug mag in het uh verleden 1. Meanings: dirdes/dyn-imp (mag) 2. Main verb: zetten 1. Meanings: dirdes 3. Voice: passive.worden 2. Main verb: terug(gaan) (ellips) 4. First argument: Ø – Ø – Ø – agent 3. Voice: active Passive subject: die woorden – 3pl – inanimate – goal 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: subordinate 6. Clause type: subordinate Mood: declarative Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff 7. Negation: aff 8. Tense: presens 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: generic Time refererence SoA: present
PDDS033 en va*a toen ik vanmorgen in uh de trein op weg PDDS038 en nu mag 't draaiorgel wel uh blijven hè over hier naartoe inderdaad dat tijdschrift even doorbladerde burgerlijkheid gesproken (mag) dacht ik ook het het punt is niet uh je mag die ouders niet 1. Meanings: dirdes verwijten dat ze die vraag stellen (mag) 2. Main verb: blijven 1. Meanings: deoperf 3. Voice: active 2. Main verb: verwijten 4. First argument: het draaiorgel – 3sg – inanimate – zero 3. Voice: active 5. Type of SoA: state 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent 6. Clause type: main 5. Type of SoA: action Mood: declarative 6. Clause type: main 7. Negation: aff Mood: declarative 8. Tense: presens 7. Negation: neg Time refererence SoA: present 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: generic PDDS039 dat mag jij onderhand wel een soort alternatieve ont*a ontwikkelingshulp noemen (mag) PDDS034 ik las ergens dat jij uh onder b*a onder toeziend oog 1. Meanings: dyn-imp van omstanders een enorme truck d*a 't wiel daarvan 2. Main verb: noemen moest uh verwisselen en niemand mocht jou helpen 3. Voice: active (mocht) 4. First argument: jij – 2sg – human – agent 1. Meanings: dirdes 5. Type of SoA: action 2. Main verb: helpen 6. Clause type: main 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative
177 7. Negation: aff 5. Type of SoA: exp.state 8. Tense: presens 6. Clause type: main Time refererence SoA: generic Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff PDDS040 uhm maar wat mij verraste was de constatering dat 8. Tense: presens u na de ontwikkeling van die plannen tot de conclusie Time refererence SoA: present kwam er moeten vier of vijfhonderd woningen uit want die mochten niet volgens de uh quota van het KAN PDDS045 omdat een oplossing niet alleen een oplossing zal (mochten) moeten zijn voor de komende generaties de jaren die nog 1. Meanings: dirdes komen gaan maar ook voor diegenen die nu in het 2. Main verb: inplannen (ellips) Studiehuis zitten en die daar evenmin de dupe van mogen 3. Voice: passive.ellips worden (mogen) 4. First argument: Ø – Ø – Ø – agent 1. Meanings: deoperf Passive subject: die – 3pl – inanimate – goal 2. Main verb: dupe worden 5. Type of SoA: action 3. Voice: active 6. Clause type: main 4. First argument: die – 3pl – human – processed Mood: declarative 5. Type of SoA: process 7. Negation: neg 6. Clause type: subordinate 8. Tense: preteritum Mood: declarative Time refererence SoA: past 7. Negation: semi 8. Tense: presens PDDS041 voorzitter zou ik de heer De Wit mogen vragen stel Time refererence SoA: future nou dat of jee*a als de uitkomsten van de evaluatie of die nou tweeduizend één plaatsvindt of eerder wat uw PDDS046 uh maar dat mag natuurlijk niet tot het misverstand verzoek is stel nou dat daaruit komt dat 't een onderdelen leiden dat ik die ontwikkelingen niet belangrijk vind wellicht na een redelijk goed ? (mogen) (mag) 1. Meanings: dirdes 1. Meanings: vol2perf 2. Main verb: vragen 2. Main verb: tot het misverstand leiden 3. Voice: active 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent 4. First argument: dat – 3sg – other – force 5. Type of SoA: action 5. Type of SoA: process 6. Clause type: main 6. Clause type: main Mood: interrogative Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff 7. Negation: neg 8. Tense: infinitive 8. Tense: presens Other aux.: zullen – preteritum Time refererence SoA: present Time refererence SoA: present PDDS047 ze zeiden als kinderen vijfentwintighonderd uur zijn PDDS042 dank u wel mag ik de heer Degen vragen of de heer voorgelezen voordat ze in groep drie komen en dat is dus Schumacher om hier 'ns op te reageren (mag) voorgelezen door leerkrachten en door hun ouders en 1. Meanings: dirdes duizend uur naar Sesamstraat hebben mogen kijken dan 2. Main verb: vragen starten ze beter in dat leerproces (mogen) 3. Voice: active 1. Meanings: dirdes 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent 2. Main verb: kijken 5. Type of SoA: action 3. Voice: active 6. Clause type: main 4. First argument: kinderen – 3pl – human – exp.agent Mood: interrogative 5. Type of SoA: exp.action 7. Negation: aff 6. Clause type: subordinate 8. Tense: presens Mood: declarative Time refererence SoA: present 7. Negation: aff 8. Tense: infinitive PDDS043 ik zie nu even af dus van wat ik al vaker gezegd heb Other aux.: hebben – presens i*a in dit uh gesprek dat wij ook denken dat er een appèl Time refererence SoA: past mag uitgaan vanuit het woord van God op de samenleving maar even los daarvan (mag) PDDS048 je mag een papiertje gebruiken om even hè (mag) 1. Meanings: deoperf 1. Meanings: dirperf 2. Main verb: uitgaan 2. Main verb: gebruiken 3. Voice: active 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: een appél – 3sg – inanimate – processed 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: process 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: subordinate 6. Clause type: main Mood: declarative Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff 7. Negation: aff 8. Tense: presens 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: generic Time refererence SoA: present
PDDS044 daar mag u van overtuigd zijn maar 't heeft dus ook PDDS049 ze mochten zeg maar achter die slaven aanlopen om de nadrukkelijke aandacht van de gemeenten van hun d'r eentje te pakken te krijgen en die mochten ze dan uh organisatie de VNG en van de registratiekamer (mag) geselen uh uh een slavin
178 4. First argument: ze – 3pl – human – agent 7. Negation: aff 5. Type of SoA: action 8. Tense: presens 6. Clause type: main Time refererence SoA: present Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff PDDS055 't mag allemaal door (mag) 8. Tense: preteritum 1. Meanings: dirdes Time refererence SoA: past 2. Main verb: mogen 3. Voice: active PDDS050 dan mag je meteen loslaten je m*a (mag) 4. First argument: het – 3sg – other – Ø 1. Meanings: dirperf 5. Type of SoA: 2. Main verb: loslaten 6. Clause type: main 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent 7. Negation: aff 5. Type of SoA: action 8. Tense: presens 6. Clause type: main Time refererence SoA: present Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff PDDS056 je mag alleen maar boven 't middel aanvallen en 8. Tense: presens werpen (mag) Time refererence SoA: generic 1. Meanings: dirdes 2. Main verb: aanvallen, werpen PDDS051 vindt ie dat bepaalde dingen mogen of niet mogen? 3. Voice: active (mogen) 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent 1. Meanings: deodes 5. Type of SoA: action 2. Main verb: mogen//gebeuren (ellips) 6. Clause type: main 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative 4. First argument: bepaalde dingen – 3pl – inanimate – 7. Negation: aff Ø//processed 8. Tense: presens 5. Type of SoA: Ø//process Time refererence SoA: generic 6. Clause type: subordinate Mood: interrogative PDDS057 ik mag gewoon niet rijden*z dus ja je kunt niks 7. Negation: neg (mag) 8. Tense: presens 1. Meanings: dirdes Time refererence SoA: generic 2. Main verb: rijden 3. Voice: active PDDS052 oké uhm kun jij dat je wil heel graag wat zeggen dat 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent mag Dogan maar wel serieus (mag) 5. Type of SoA: action 1. Meanings: dirperf 6. Clause type: main 2. Main verb: mogen Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: neg 4. First argument: dat – 3sg – other – Ø 8. Tense: presens 5. Type of SoA: Time refererence SoA: present 6. Clause type: main Mood: declarative PDDS058 waardoor de narcose opgeheven wordt maar daarbij 7. Negation: aff is 't dus ook een stukje veiligheid dat mocht ik of iemand 8. Tense: presens anders per ongeluk iets binnenkrijgen dat we dan ieder Time refererence SoA: present geval tegengif al bij de hand hebben en klaar voor inspui*a uh voor inspuiting is (mocht) PDDS053 uh die roept nu iets in 't Engels wat uh zelfs een 1. Meanings: cond Zwitser zou moeten kunnen verstaan en ook dat kan 2. Main verb: binnenkrijgen zomaar een gele kaart zijn maar Denemarken mag verder 3. Voice: active met een vrije trap op een meter of zeven voor de 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – processed middellijn (mag) 5. Type of SoA: process 1. Meanings: dirdes 6. Clause type: subordinate 2. Main verb: verder (gaan/spelen) (ellips) Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: aff 4. First argument: Denemarken – 3sg – inanimate/human – 8. Tense: preteritum agent Time refererence SoA: generic 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main PDDS059 het college van B&W van Volendam mag blijven Mood: declarative (mag) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dirdes 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: blijven Time refererence SoA: present 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: het college van B&W van Volendam – PDDS054 en de Fransen mogen ingooien precies op de 3sg – human – positioner middenlijn (mogen) 5. Type of SoA: position 1. Meanings: dirdes 6. Clause type: main 2. Main verb: ingooien Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: aff 4. First argument: de Fransen – 3pl – human – agent 8. Tense: presens 5. Type of SoA: action Time refererence SoA: present 6. Clause type: main Mood: declarative
179 PDDS060 eerder dit jaar mocht het kalf Phoenix dat een PDDS065 naleving van de wet betekent vaak dat bewoners ruiming had overleefd in leven blijven (mocht) daar helemaal niet meer mogen roken (mogen) 1. Meanings: dirdes 1. Meanings: dirdes 2. Main verb: in leven blijven 2. Main verb: roken 3. Voice: active 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: het kalf Phoenix – 3sg – animate – zero 4. First argument: bewoners – 3pl – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: position 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main 6. Clause type: subordinate Mood: declarative Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff 7. Negation: neg 8. Tense: preteritum 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: past Time refererence SoA: generic/present
PDDS061 op de huwelijksdag twee februari tweeduizend twee PDDS066 want als je dat ook allemaal nog leren mag (mag) mag worden gedemonstreerd maar wel binnen wettelijke 1. Meanings: dyn-imp normen schrijft Kok (mag) 2. Main verb: leren 1. Meanings: dirperf 3. Voice: active 2. Main verb: demonstreren 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent 3. Voice: passive.worden 5. Type of SoA: action 4. First argument: Ø – Ø – Ø – agent 6. Clause type: subordinate Passive subject: Ø – Ø – Ø – Ø Mood: declarative 5. Type of SoA: action 7. Negation: aff 6. Clause type: main 8. Tense: presens Mood: declarative Time refererence SoA: generic 7. Negation: aff 8. Tense: presens PDDS067 of vindt u dat 't nog nog even tijd mag hebben? Time refererence SoA: future (mag) 1. Meanings: deodes PDDS062 nu stemt de NS dus toch in met de plannen waarin 2. Main verb: tijd hebben op zoek mag worden gegaan naar alternatieven voor het 3. Voice: active nieuwe dienstrooster dat zondag ingaat (mag) 4. First argument: het – 3sg – other – zero 1. Meanings: dirdes 5. Type of SoA: state 2. Main verb: op zoek gaan 6. Clause type: subordinate 3. Voice: passive.worden Mood: interrogative 4. First argument: Ø – Ø – Ø – agent 7. Negation: aff Passive subject: Ø – Ø – Ø – Ø 8. Tense: presens 5. Type of SoA: action Time refererence SoA: present 6. Clause type: subordinate Mood: declarative PDDS068 't mag dus bij de triatlon (mag) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dirdes 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: mogen Time refererence SoA: future 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: het – 3sg – other – Ø PDDS063 onderwijsminister Loek Hermans schrijft in een 5. Type of SoA: wetsvoorstel dat 't collegegeld mag oplopen tot 6. Clause type: main vijftienduizend gulden per jaar (mag) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dirdes 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: oplopen 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: generic 4. First argument: het collegegeld – 3sg – inanimate – processed PDDS069 er zijn ook heel duidelijke begrenzingen aan gesteld 5. Type of SoA: process door de minister acht treinen mogen maar in zuidelijke 6. Clause type: subordinate richting uh uh uh voor*a uh per dag rijden er maximaal Mood: declarative eenentwintig in noordelijke richting (mogen) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dirdes 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: rijden (ellips) Time refererence SoA: generic 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: acht treinen – 3pl – inanimate/human – PDDS064 apothekers mogen geen afspraken meer maken o*a agent met zorgverzekeraars over tarieven in de regio want dat 5. Type of SoA: action beperkt alleen maar de concurrentie zegt de kartelpolitie 6. Clause type: main de NMA (mogen) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dirperf 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: afspraak maken 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: present 4. First argument: apothekers – 3pl – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action PDDS070 ajax mag van mij nog wel effe een tiende doelpunt 6. Clause type: main maken (mag) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: boulo2perf/dirperf 7. Negation: neg 2. Main verb: maken 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: present 4. First argument: ajax – 3sg – inanimate/human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action
180 6. Clause type: main 4. First argument: jij – 2sg – human – agent Mood: declarative 5. Type of SoA: action 7. Negation: aff 6. Clause type: main 8. Tense: presens Mood: declarative Time refererence SoA: future 7. Negation: aff 8. Tense: presens PDDS071 en ik denk dat het niet helpt dat je gaat lopen Time refererence SoA: present schreeuwen tegen zo'n kind van uh en dat mag niet en uh van of let op je taalgebruik of zo (mag) PDDS077 {mag} ik hier nou verder? (mag) 1. Meanings: deoperf/dirperf 1. Meanings: dirdes 2. Main verb: mogen 2. Main verb: verder(gaan) (ellips) 3. Voice: active 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: dat – 3sg – other – Ø 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main 6. Clause type: main Mood: declarative Mood: interrogative 7. Negation: neg 7. Negation: aff 8. Tense: presens 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: generic Time refererence SoA: present
PDDS072 uhm nou laat 'k maar even zo beginnen want mag ik PDDS078 nou dus je {mag} ook een ontwikkelingskaart even weten wie nou... (mag) kopen. (mag) 1. Meanings: dirdes 1. Meanings: dirdes 2. Main verb: weten 2. Main verb: kopen 3. Voice: active 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – exp.agent 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: exp.action 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main 6. Clause type: main Mood: interrogative Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff 7. Negation: aff 8. Tense: presens 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: present Time refererence SoA: present
PDDS073 nou {mag} jij. (mag) PDDS079 dat {mag}. (mag) 1. Meanings: dirperf/dirdes 1. Meanings: dirdes 2. Main verb: spelen (ellips) 2. Main verb: mogen 3. Voice: active 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: jij – 2sg – human – agent 4. First argument: dat – 3sg – other – Ø 5. Type of SoA: action 5. Type of SoA: 6. Clause type: main 6. Clause type: main Mood: declarative Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff 7. Negation: aff 8. Tense: presens 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: present Time refererence SoA: present
PDDS074 of {mocht} dit niet? (mocht) PDDS080 ja nou je {mag} 't meenemen maar n dan neem jij 1. Meanings: deodes 'm maar mee. (mag) 2. Main verb: mogen 1. Meanings: dirperf 3. Voice: active 2. Main verb: meenemen 4. First argument: dit – 3sg – other – Ø 3. Voice: active 5. Type of SoA: 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent 6. Clause type: main 5. Type of SoA: action Mood: interrogative 6. Clause type: main 7. Negation: neg Mood: declarative 8. Tense: preteritum 7. Negation: aff Time refererence SoA: past 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: future PDDS075 je {mag} er niet over praten? (mag) 1. Meanings: dirdes PDDS081 en dan {mogen} ze mensen weer niet uitzetten. 2. Main verb: praten (mogen) 3. Voice: active 1. Meanings: deodes/dirdes 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent 2. Main verb: uitzetten 5. Type of SoA: action 3. Voice: active 6. Clause type: main 4. First argument: ze – 3pl – human – agent Mood: declarative 5. Type of SoA: action 7. Negation: neg 6. Clause type: main 8. Tense: presens Mood: declarative Time refererence SoA: present 7. Negation: neg 8. Tense: presens PDDS076 Henrika jij {mag}. (mag) Time refererence SoA: generic 1. Meanings: dirperf/dirdes 2. Main verb: spelen (ellips) PDDS082 {mogen} we even een stopcontact gebruik maken 3. Voice: active en dan ... (mogen)
181 1. Meanings: dirdes Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: gebruik maken 7. Negation: neg 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: preteritum 4. First argument: we – 1pl – human – agent Time refererence SoA: past 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main PDDS088 je {mag} wel wat zeggen. (mag) Mood: interrogative 1. Meanings: deoperf/dirperf 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: zeggen 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: present 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action PDDS083 uh {mag} ik tweehonderd gulden van de bank? 6. Clause type: main (mag) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: other (mogen hebben) 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: hebben (ellips) 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: present 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – recipient 5. Type of SoA: state PDDS089 en dat gebeurt natuurlijk al vaker dat uh dat 6. Clause type: main gebeurde altijd al tussen kwart voor twaalf en kwart voor Mood: interrogative één ook dat mensen die rechts zaten gingen opstaan om 7. Negation: aff links te gaan zitten waar ze {mochten} roken. (mochten) 8. Tense: presens 1. Meanings: dirdes Time refererence SoA: present 2. Main verb: roken 3. Voice: active PDDS084 wie xxx als eerste slaat {mag} alle kaarten hebben. 4. First argument: ze – 3pl – human – agent (mag) 5. Type of SoA: action 1. Meanings: dirdes 6. Clause type: subordinate 2. Main verb: hebben Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: aff 4. First argument: wie als eerste slaat – 3sg – human – 8. Tense: preteritum recipient Time refererence SoA: past 5. Type of SoA: state 6. Clause type: main PDDS090 oh dat {mag} niet. (mag) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dirdes 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: mogen 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: generic 4. First argument: dat – 3sg – other – Ø 5. Type of SoA: PDDS085 ggg nou {mag} ik wel genieten van mijn van van 6. Clause type: main van van mijn welverdiende rust vind ik. (mag) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: deoperf 7. Negation: neg 2. Main verb: genieten 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: generic/present 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – positioner 5. Type of SoA: position PDDS091 dan {mocht} ik mee hout op gaan meten in een bos. 6. Clause type: main (mocht) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dirdes 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: hout gaan opmeten 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: present 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action PDDS086 {mag} ik iets van jou? (mag) 6. Clause type: main 1. Meanings: other (mogen hebben) Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: hebben (ellips) 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: preteritum 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – recipient Time refererence SoA: past 5. Type of SoA: state 6. Clause type: main PDDS092 maar ha Rob {mag} ook helemaal niet zo heel veel Mood: interrogative hè als dat André laat doet geloven. (mag) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dirdes 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: doen (ellips) Time refererence SoA: present 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: Rob – 3sg – human – agent PDDS087 want ja be wij moesten zeggen bij ons in 't koor 5. Type of SoA: action zeggen heb ik xxx The ge doet dit niet ge doet dat niet 6. Clause type: main want dat word je dat wel maar dat {mocht} ie dan niet Mood: declarative want dat hoefde helemaal niet. (mocht) 7. Negation: neg 1. Meanings: dirdes 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: doen (ellips) Time refererence SoA: generic 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: ie – 3sg – human – agent PDDS093 je {mag} alleen mensen handvaten aandragen voor 5. Type of SoA: action een oplossing. (mag) 6. Clause type: main 1. Meanings: deoperf
182 2. Main verb: aandragen 3. Voice: active PDDS099 en die {mocht} ik hebben. (mocht) 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent 1. Meanings: other (mogen hebben) 5. Type of SoA: action 2. Main verb: hebben 6. Clause type: main 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – recipient 7. Negation: aff 5. Type of SoA: state 8. Tense: presens 6. Clause type: main Time refererence SoA: generic Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff PDDS094 nee jij {mag} gewoon afwachten. (mag) 8. Tense: preteritum 1. Meanings: dirdes Time refererence SoA: past 2. Main verb: afwachten 3. Voice: active PDDS100 dus vind ik dat school en kerk ook wel gescheiden 4. First argument: jij – 2sg – human – positioner {mag} worden. (mag) 5. Type of SoA: position 1. Meanings: deoperf 6. Clause type: main 2. Main verb: scheiden Mood: declarative 3. Voice: passive.worden 7. Negation: aff 4. First argument: Ø – Ø – Ø – agent 8. Tense: presens Passive subject: school en kerk – 3sg – inanimate – goal Time refererence SoA: generic 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: subordinate PDDS095 maar we {mogen} ook zelf wel verbreken want we Mood: declarative hebben d'r meer als vier minuten op zitten. (mogen) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dirdes 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: afbreken Time refererence SoA: future 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: we – 1pl – human – agent PDDS101 ja nee maar zeg hij mag ook iets hebben van zijne*d 5. Type of SoA: action vakantie xxx (mag) 6. Clause type: main 1. Meanings: deoperf Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: hebben 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: hij – 3sg – human – zero Time refererence SoA: present 5. Type of SoA: state 6. Clause type: main PDDS096 en je {mag} alles vergeten zijn. (mag) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: deoperf/dirdes 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: vergeten 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: present 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – processed 5. Type of SoA: process PDDS102 en als ik het nu ne*d keer radicaal mag zeggen xxx 6. Clause type: main daar al min of meer xxx (mag) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dirdes 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: zeggen 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Other aux.: zijn – infinitive 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent Time refererence SoA: generic 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: subordinate PDDS097 oh nee die {mag} niet weg. (mag) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dyn-imp/vol2perf 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: weg(gooien) (ellips) 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: passive.ellips Time refererence SoA: present 4. First argument: Ø – Ø – Ø – agent Passive subject: die – 3sg – inanimate – goal PDDS103 ja 'k heb nog mogen meegaan voor voor moeilijke 5. Type of SoA: action matchen (mogen) 6. Clause type: main 1. Meanings: dirdes Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: meegaan 7. Negation: neg 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent Time refererence SoA: present 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main PDDS098 ben je stiekem ook wel blij want dan {mag} je iets Mood: declarative nieuws kopen. (mag) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 8. Tense: infinitive 2. Main verb: kopen Other aux.: hebben – presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: past 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action PDDS104 wijlen*d hebben wel gezegd van oké hij mag maar 6. Clause type: main hij moet wel praten (mag) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dirperf 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: komen (ellips) 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: future 4. First argument: hij – 3sg – human – agent
183 5. Type of SoA: action 8. Tense: presens 6. Clause type: main Time refererence SoA: generic Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff PDDS110 en dan als ze dat boek mochten gebruiken en kijken 8. Tense: presens op 't einde van hun dictee (mochten) Time refererence SoA: future in the past 1. Meanings: dirdes 2. Main verb: gebruiken, kijken PDDS105 ge moogt niks niet meer horen (moogt) 3. Voice: active 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 4. First argument: ze – 3pl – human – agent 2. Main verb: horen 5. Type of SoA: action 3. Voice: active 6. Clause type: subordinate 4. First argument: ge – 2sg – human – exp.zero Mood: declarative 5. Type of SoA: exp.state 7. Negation: aff 6. Clause type: main 8. Tense: preteritum Mood: declarative Time refererence SoA: past 7. Negation: neg 8. Tense: presens PDDS111 maar dat wordt ook zo een beetje ingewikkeld hè Time refererence SoA: generic van een leraar fysica of geschiedenis of om 't even welk ander vak dat zij dus quoteren of dat ik hen uh hun uh PDDS106 maar van Gent naar hier dan zit je toch xxx je mag mag verbeteren dan en nakijken wat zij aan fouten vinden rekenen op bijna twee uren trein hè (mag) (mag) 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 1. Meanings: dirdes 2. Main verb: rekenen 2. Main verb: verbeteren, nakijken 3. Voice: active 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main 6. Clause type: subordinate Mood: declarative Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff 7. Negation: aff 8. Tense: presens 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: generic Time refererence SoA: generic
PDDS107 de paus is voorgegaan met uh tweehonderd zestig PDDS112 en ze mogen kiezen tussen ofwel het klassieke bisschoppen en meer of duizend priesters dan ook maar de paneelgesprek van ik doe dit aspect en jij doet dat aspect bisschoppen zaten op 't podium en de priesters mochten van het boek ofwel mogen ze dus totaal iets nieuws wel op een stoel zitten uhm (mochten) daarvan maken (mogen) 1. Meanings: dirdes 1. Meanings: dirperf 2. Main verb: zitten 2. Main verb: kiezen 3. Voice: active 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: de priesters – 3pl – human – positioner 4. First argument: ze – 3pl – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: position 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main 6. Clause type: main Mood: declarative Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff 7. Negation: aff 8. Tense: preteritum 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: past Time refererence SoA: generic
PDDS108 en dan komen d'r op een bepaald moment xxx PDDS113 als ik mocht beslissen zou daar veel meer tijd aan bijvoorbeeld om negen uur vijf mensen binnen en uh die uh besteed moeten worden (mocht) vijf mensen mogen een vr*a een examenvraag trekken en 1. Meanings: dirdes krijgen die voorbereidingstijd (mogen) 2. Main verb: beslissen 1. Meanings: dirdes 3. Voice: active 2. Main verb: trekken 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent 3. Voice: active 5. Type of SoA: action 4. First argument: die vijf mensen – 3pl – human – agent 6. Clause type: subordinate 5. Type of SoA: action Mood: declarative 6. Clause type: main 7. Negation: aff Mood: declarative 8. Tense: preteritum 7. Negation: aff Time refererence SoA: present 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: generic PDDS114 ja ik ben xxx ook geen uh lopende norm zo van dat mag en dat mag niet (mag) PDDS109 hè ze mogen eigenlijk nergens meer in straat nog 1. Meanings: deoperf/dirperf ergens vertoeven samen of de politie wordt erbij gehaald 2. Main verb: mogen hè (mogen) 3. Voice: active 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 4. First argument: dat – 3sg – other – Ø 2. Main verb: vertoeven 5. Type of SoA: 3. Voice: active 6. Clause type: main 4. First argument: ze – 3pl – human – positioner Mood: declarative 5. Type of SoA: position 7. Negation: neg 6. Clause type: main 8. Tense: presens Mood: declarative Time refererence SoA: generic 7. Negation: semi
184 PDDS115 aan leerlingen van middelbaar daar een vraag stelt 6. Clause type: main over hoe ze hoe ze dus die Europa zouden gaan zien dan Mood: declarative mag je d'rop rekenen dat je ongeveer een tien minuten 7. Negation: neg nodig hebt om het antwoord van hen te begrijpen (mag) 8. Tense: preteritum 1. Meanings: dyn-imp Time refererence SoA: past 2. Main verb: rekenen 3. Voice: active PDDS121 hè maar moogt de*d gij tot half ? (moogt) 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent 1. Meanings: dirdes 5. Type of SoA: action 2. Main verb: wegblijven (ellips) 6. Clause type: main 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative 4. First argument: gij – 2sg – human – positioner 7. Negation: aff 5. Type of SoA: position 8. Tense: presens 6. Clause type: main Time refererence SoA: generic Mood: interrogative 7. Negation: aff PDDS116 dat mag over van alles en nog wat gaan hè (mag) 8. Tense: presens 1. Meanings: deoperf Time refererence SoA: generic 2. Main verb: gaan over 3. Voice: active PDDS122 uhm ja dat zou wel nuttig zijn mochten we daar uh 4. First argument: dat – 3sg – other – zero een berichtje 'ns ooit van krijgen natuurlijk hè (mochten) 5. Type of SoA: state 1. Meanings: cond 6. Clause type: main 2. Main verb: krijgen Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: aff 4. First argument: we – 1pl – human – recipient 8. Tense: presens 5. Type of SoA: action Time refererence SoA: generic 6. Clause type: subordinate Mood: declarative PDDS117 ja mijn oor 'k denk dat ze d'r veel zullen mogen 7. Negation: aff wegsmijten (mogen) 8. Tense: preteritum 1. Meanings: dyn-imp Time refererence SoA: future 2. Main verb: wegsmijten 3. Voice: active PDDS123 dat 'm*d dan misschien Relatide mag nemen (mag) 4. First argument: ze – 3pl – human – agent 1. Meanings: dirdes 5. Type of SoA: action 2. Main verb: nemen 6. Clause type: subordinate 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative 4. First argument: 'm – 3sg – human – agent 7. Negation: aff 5. Type of SoA: action 8. Tense: infinitive 6. Clause type: subordinate Other aux.: zullen – presens Mood: declarative Time refererence SoA: future 7. Negation: aff 8. Tense: presens PDDS118 allee slechte collesterol*d dan moogt de*d dat niet Time refererence SoA: future teveel eten (moogt) 1. Meanings: deoperf/dirdes PDDS124 ik denk allee ik mag niet xxx aandringen eigenlijk 2. Main verb: eten maar ik denk het wel dus dat zet aan om vakantie te 3. Voice: active nemen want hè? (mag) 4. First argument: de – 2sg – human – agent 1. Meanings: dirdes 5. Type of SoA: action 2. Main verb: aandringen 6. Clause type: main 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent 7. Negation: neg 5. Type of SoA: action 8. Tense: presens 6. Clause type: main Time refererence SoA: generic Mood: declarative 7. Negation: neg PDDS119 ze mag mee naar een concert (mag) 8. Tense: presens 1. Meanings: dirdes Time refererence SoA: generic/present 2. Main verb: mee(gaan/komen) (ellips) 3. Voice: active PDDS125 dat moogt de*d ook niet hè (moogt) 4. First argument: ze – 3sg – human – agent 1. Meanings: dirdes 5. Type of SoA: action 2. Main verb: eten (ellips) 6. Clause type: main 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative 4. First argument: de – 2sg – other – agent 7. Negation: aff 5. Type of SoA: action 8. Tense: presens 6. Clause type: main Time refererence SoA: future Mood: declarative 7. Negation: neg PDDS120 maar hij hij mocht niet mee doen in den*d Tour 8. Tense: presens dees*d jaar hè (mocht) Time refererence SoA: present 1. Meanings: dirdes 2. Main verb: meedoen PDDS126 en 'k heb dan formulieren gekregen die 'k ook 3. Voice: active moeten invullen heb maar ik ben daar niet op sollicitatie 4. First argument: hij – 3sg – human – agent gemogen dus allee ja (gemogen) 5. Type of SoA: action 1. Meanings: dirdes
185 2. Main verb: mogen 3. Voice: active PDDS132 maar mogen de ondernemers daar niet over 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent beslissen? (mogen) 5. Type of SoA: action 1. Meanings: deodes/dirdes 6. Clause type: main 2. Main verb: beslissen Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: neg 4. First argument: de ondernemers – 3pl – human – agent 8. Tense: past.participle 5. Type of SoA: action Other aux.: zijn – presens 6. Clause type: main Time refererence SoA: past Mood: interrogative 7. Negation: neg PDDS127 vandaag mocht ik die gaan halen maar nu is 't 8. Tense: presens probleem gewoon van ja 'k ga nog zo weinig tijd Time refererence SoA: present overhebben om te vilten en ? (mocht) 1. Meanings: dirdes PDDS133 alleen merk ik dat ie dan tegelijkertijd schrijft dat ie 2. Main verb: halen hoopt dat ie in tweeduizend en drie terug in de regering 3. Voice: active mag stappen (mag) 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent 1. Meanings: dirdes/dyn-imp 5. Type of SoA: action 2. Main verb: stappen 6. Clause type: main 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative 4. First argument: ie – 3sg – human – agent 7. Negation: aff 5. Type of SoA: action 8. Tense: preteritum 6. Clause type: subordinate Time refererence SoA: past Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff PDDS128 dat wordt hier eigenlijk opgenomen en dat mag niet 8. Tense: presens (mag) Time refererence SoA: future 1. Meanings: dirdes 2. Main verb: mogen PDDS134 niettemin geeft Patrick Janssens in zijn stuk een 3. Voice: active fraaie als ik het zo mag noemen analyse van wat er in de 4. First argument: dat – 3sg – other – Ø SP allemaal fout is gegaan en zet die er een aantal 5. Type of SoA: remedies naast waarvan je toch zou zeggen ja hij moet 6. Clause type: main minstens de kans krijgen om die toe te pas (mag) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: deodes/dirdes 7. Negation: neg 2. Main verb: noemen 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: present 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action PDDS129 ge moogt*z geen onderscheid maken (moogt) 6. Clause type: subordinate 1. Meanings: deoperf Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: onderscheid maken 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: ge – 2sg – human – agent Time refererence SoA: generic 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main PDDS135 maar het heeft natuurlijk wel zijn kwaliteiten nodig Mood: declarative en en het mag zeker ook geen schrik hebben van water 7. Negation: neg want internationaal zit er ook altijd wel een hindernis met 8. Tense: presens water bij (mag) Time refererence SoA: generic 1. Meanings: dyn-sit 2. Main verb: schrik hebben PDDS130 dus hè dieje*d mag meegaan van mij (mag) 3. Voice: active 1. Meanings: boulo2perf/deoperf/dirperf 4. First argument: het – 3sg – animate – zero 2. Main verb: meegaan 5. Type of SoA: state 3. Voice: active 6. Clause type: main 4. First argument: die – 3sg – human – agent Mood: declarative 5. Type of SoA: action 7. Negation: neg 6. Clause type: main 8. Tense: presens Mood: declarative Time refererence SoA: generic 7. Negation: aff 8. Tense: presens PDDS136 u mag kiezen (mag) Time refererence SoA: future 1. Meanings: dirperf 2. Main verb: kiezen PDDS131 dus ik mag niet klagen (mag) 3. Voice: active 1. Meanings: deoperf/dyn-imp 4. First argument: u – 2sg – human – agent 2. Main verb: klagen 5. Type of SoA: action 3. Voice: active 6. Clause type: main 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent Mood: declarative 5. Type of SoA: action 7. Negation: aff 6. Clause type: main 8. Tense: presens Mood: declarative Time refererence SoA: present 7. Negation: neg 8. Tense: presens PDDS137 heeft u het gevoel dat uw klanten als ik ze m*a zo Time refererence SoA: present mag noemen dat die ja soms een beetje g*a g*a gratuit
186 met met die zaken bezig zijn gewoon omdat ze wel 'ns iets 3. Voice: passive.worden vreemds willen proeven maar dat dat eigenlijk niet diep 4. First argument: Ø – Ø – Ø – agent gaat? (mag) Passive subject: drugs – 3pl – inanimate – goal 1. Meanings: deodes/dirdes 5. Type of SoA: action 2. Main verb: noemen 6. Clause type: main 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent 7. Negation: neg 5. Type of SoA: action 8. Tense: presens 6. Clause type: subordinate Time refererence SoA: generic Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff PDDS143 als ik u even mag onderbreken (mag) 8. Tense: presens 1. Meanings: dirdes Time refererence SoA: generic 2. Main verb: onderbreken 3. Voice: active PDDS138 dus zestig procent van wat we mogen doen en wat 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent we niet mogen doen komt van Europa (mogen) 5. Type of SoA: action 1. Meanings: dirdes 6. Clause type: subordinate 2. Main verb: doen Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: aff 4. First argument: we – 1pl – human – agent 8. Tense: presens 5. Type of SoA: action Time refererence SoA: present 6. Clause type: subordinate Mood: declarative PDDS144 xxx gij stelt een vraag maar ik mag toch volledig 7. Negation: aff antwoorden op uw vraag? (mag) 8. Tense: presens 1. Meanings: dirdes Time refererence SoA: generic 2. Main verb: antwoorden 3. Voice: active PDDS139 dat is een een uitzondering daarop en dat betekent 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent dat je een rapport mag maken over een thema dat je zelf 5. Type of SoA: action mag voorstellen (mag) 6. Clause type: main 1. Meanings: dirdes Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: maken 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent Time refererence SoA: present 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: subordinate PDDS145 en je mag zeker zijn dat is dus allemaal aardolie hè Mood: declarative (mag) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: zeker zijn Time refererence SoA: generic 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – zero PDDS140 en ik zeg het zelfs journalisten zouden niet aan 5. Type of SoA: state opiniëring*d mogen doen maar aan duiding (mogen) 6. Clause type: main 1. Meanings: deoperf Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: doen aan iets 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: journalisten – 3pl – human – agent Time refererence SoA: present 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main PDDS146 Kathy moest jij nu moeten kiezen mogen d'r Mood: declarative volgens u nog nachtvluchten komen in Zaventem? 7. Negation: neg (mogen) 8. Tense: infinitive 1. Meanings: deodes/dirdes Other aux.: zullen – preteritum 2. Main verb: komen Time refererence SoA: generic 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: nachtvluchten – 3pl – inanimate/human – PDDS141 vandaag blijkt effectief dat er nog niets uhm is dat agent de burger zeker niet de eerstkomende jaren mag rekenen 5. Type of SoA: action op een uh afschaffing van het kijk- en luistergeld (mag) 6. Clause type: main 1. Meanings: dyn-imp Mood: interrogative 2. Main verb: rekenen op iets 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: de burger – 3sg – human – agent Time refererence SoA: future 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: subordinate PDDS147 wel je mag opschrijven in je werkbladen op Mood: declarative bladzijde zeventien (mag) 7. Negation: neg 1. Meanings: dirperf 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: opschrijven Time refererence SoA: future 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent PDDS142 uh u die zegt drugs mogen niet doodgezwegen 5. Type of SoA: action worden (mogen) 6. Clause type: main 1. Meanings: deoperf/dyn-imp/vol2perf Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: doodzwijgen 7. Negation: aff
187 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: present PDDS153 je mag spreken van eenrichtingsvoetbal (mag) 1. Meanings: dyn-imp PDDS148 schoenen mag je niet voorstellen zoals nu hè (mag) 2. Main verb: spreken 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 3. Voice: active 2. Main verb: voorstellen 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent 3. Voice: active 5. Type of SoA: action 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent 6. Clause type: main 5. Type of SoA: action Mood: declarative 6. Clause type: main 7. Negation: aff Mood: declarative 8. Tense: presens 7. Negation: neg Time refererence SoA: present 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: present PDDS154 Arif opletten het beste mag er toch nog ni* niet af zijn nu in de tweede helft (mag) PDDS149 mag dus geen vak zijn waar je afkeer van hebt 1. Meanings: deoperf/vol2perf (mag) 2. Main verb: af zijn 1. Meanings: deoperf/vol2perf 3. Voice: active 2. Main verb: zijn 4. First argument: het beste – 3sg – other – zero 3. Voice: active 5. Type of SoA: state 4. First argument: het (ellips) – 3sg – inanimate – zero 6. Clause type: main 5. Type of SoA: state Mood: declarative 6. Clause type: main 7. Negation: neg Mood: declarative 8. Tense: presens 7. Negation: semi Time refererence SoA: present 8. Tense: presens Time refererence SoA: generic PDDS155 hij vond dat hij krediet verdiende voor dat uh doelpunt dat dat best op uh zijn naam mocht geschreven PDDS150 allee bijvoorbeeld als uh als 't met instemming worden (mocht) gebeurt van dat kind zou dat dan toch niet mogen kunnen? 1. Meanings: deodes (mogen) 2. Main verb: op iemands naam schrijven 1. Meanings: deodes 3. Voice: passive.worden 2. Main verb: kunnen 4. First argument: Ø – Ø – Ø – agent 3. Voice: active Passive subject: dat – 3sg – inanimate – goal 4. First argument: dat – 3sg – other – Ø 5. Type of SoA: action 5. Type of SoA: 6. Clause type: subordinate 6. Clause type: main Mood: declarative Mood: interrogative 7. Negation: aff 7. Negation: neg 8. Tense: preteritum 8. Tense: infinitive Time refererence SoA: past Other aux.: zullen – preteritum Time refererence SoA: generic PDDS156 Michel Sangado Sanchis mag nog altijd meedoen (mag) PDDS151 zo heb ik 'ns een blinde mevrouw gehoord die zei ik 1. Meanings: dirdes mag nooit stilstaan aan de kant van de weg want heel vaak 2. Main verb: meedoen gebeurt het dan dat iemand mij bij de arm neemt en mij 3. Voice: active vlug naar de overkant van de straat brengt terwijl ik 4. First argument: Michael Sangado Sanchis – 3sg – human eigenlijk niet wou oversteken (mag) – agent 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 5. Type of SoA: action 2. Main verb: stilstaan 6. Clause type: main 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – positioner 7. Negation: aff 5. Type of SoA: position 8. Tense: presens 6. Clause type: main Time refererence SoA: present Mood: declarative 7. Negation: semi PDDS157 het mag dus nu al duidelijk zijn een neen morgen 8. Tense: presens komt formeel gezien neer op een status-quo (mag) Time refererence SoA: generic 1. Meanings: dyn-sit/opt 2. Main verb: duidelijk zijn PDDS152 ook M'penza meest uh doelgericht van allemaal en 3. Voice: active uh Wilmots ja dat had een beetje mogen meezitten die 4. First argument: het – 3sg – other – zero doelpoging (mogen) 5. Type of SoA: state 1. Meanings: boulo2perf 6. Clause type: main 2. Main verb: meezitten Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: aff 4. First argument: dat – 3sg – inanimate – zero 8. Tense: presens 5. Type of SoA: state Time refererence SoA: present 6. Clause type: main Mood: declarative PDDS158 als ik even een vergelijking mag maken in achttien 7. Negation: aff negenenvijftig naar aanleiding van de slag bij Solferino is 8. Tense: infinitive Herny Dunant op uh de idee gekomen uh een idee dat Other aux.: hebben – preteritum uiteindelijk zou leiden tot het ontstaan van het Rode Kruis Time refererence SoA: past (mag)
188 1. Meanings: dirdes 5. Type of SoA: action 2. Main verb: vergelijking maken 6. Clause type: main 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent 7. Negation: aff 5. Type of SoA: action 8. Tense: preteritum 6. Clause type: subordinate Time refererence SoA: past Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff PDDS164 als je wilt mag je mijn keel kneden (mag) 8. Tense: presens 1. Meanings: dirperf Time refererence SoA: present 2. Main verb: kneden 3. Voice: active PDDS159 ja mmm ggg in principe mag een luchtvaartm*a een 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent nationale luchtvaartmaatschappij binnen Europa geen 5. Type of SoA: action overheidssteun krijgen (mag) 6. Clause type: main 1. Meanings: dirdes Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: krijgen 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: een nationale luchtvaartmaatschappij – Time refererence SoA: present 3sg – inanimate – recipient 5. Type of SoA: process PDDS165 het moge duidelijk wezen (moge) 6. Clause type: main 1. Meanings: opt Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: duidelijk wezen 7. Negation: neg 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: het – 3sg – other – zero Time refererence SoA: generic 5. Type of SoA: state 6. Clause type: main PDDS160 VLD-voorzitter De Gucht vindt dat de NMBS geen Mood: declarative vers geld mag krijgen zolang er geen zuivering is geweest 7. Negation: aff van de top (mag) 8. Tense: subj.presens 1. Meanings: deodes Time refererence SoA: present 2. Main verb: krijgen 3. Voice: active PDDS166 dus uh maar de historische taalkunde is minder 4. First argument: de NMBS – 3sg – inanimate – recipient centraal mogen we wel zeggen in de taalkunde van de 5. Type of SoA: action laatste uh decennia dan de synchrone structuralistische uh 6. Clause type: subordinate beschrijving (mogen) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 7. Negation: neg 2. Main verb: zeggen 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: present/future 4. First argument: we – 1pl – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action PDDS161 mogen bijna nergens binnen (mogen) 6. Clause type: main 1. Meanings: dirdes Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: gaan (ellips) 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: ze (ellips) – 3pl – human – agent Time refererence SoA: present 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main PDDS167 maar ja dat moogt ge niet uh hardop zeggen Mood: declarative eigenlijk hè (moogt) 7. Negation: semi 1. Meanings: deoperf/dirdes 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: zeggen Time refererence SoA: present 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: ge – 2sg – human – agent PDDS162 het verkeer mocht druppelsgewijs door (mocht) 5. Type of SoA: action 1. Meanings: dirdes 6. Clause type: main 2. Main verb: door(stromen/gaan) (ellips) Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: neg 4. First argument: het verkeer – 3sg – inanimate/human – 8. Tense: presens agent Time refererence SoA: generic 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main PDDS168 uhm nu mag het mode zijn om blauwe kerstbollen Mood: declarative of roze of geel of noem maar op ? (mag) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: conc 8. Tense: preteritum 2. Main verb: mode zijn Time refererence SoA: past 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: het – 3sg – other – zero PDDS163 hij mocht de functies coach van de Belgische en 5. Type of SoA: state Vlaamse judofederatie celhoofd bij het BOIC en 6. Clause type: main olympisch trainier van zijn visitekaartje schrappen Mood: declarative (mocht) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: schrappen Time refererence SoA: present 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: hij – 3sg – human – agent
189 PDDS169 maar toen was heel de samenleving zo opgebouwd 3. Voice: active dat je wist wat je mocht antwoorden en eigenlijk ook nog 4. First argument: de – 2sg – human – agent wist wast*u je most*u mocht vragen (mocht) 5. Type of SoA: action 1. Meanings: dirdes 6. Clause type: main 2. Main verb: vragen Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: neg 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent 8. Tense: presens 5. Type of SoA: action Time refererence SoA: generic 6. Clause type: subordinate Mood: declarative PDDS175 Anaïs of dat ze die terug {mocht} geven aan 7. Negation: aff Isabelle efkes want ze moest ergens naartoe maar dat kon 8. Tense: preteritum niet volgens Isabelle. (mocht) Time refererence SoA: past 1. Meanings: dirdes 2. Main verb: teruggeven PDDS170 omdat het goed en het kwaad niet recht togenover*u 3. Voice: active elkaar meer staan maar eigenlijk door elkaar verlochten 4. First argument: ze – 3sg – human – agent zijn en xxx als het ware moet helemaal lost gaan halen om 5. Type of SoA: action dan te kunnen besluiten wat mag nu eigenlijk en wat mag 6. Clause type: subordinate niet (mag) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: deodes/dirdes 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: mogen 8. Tense: preteritum 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: past 4. First argument: wat – 3sg – other – Ø 5. Type of SoA: PDDS176 xxx bepaald moment heb je natuurlijk een min of 6. Clause type: subordinate meer gevestigde reputatie in een school en dan weet je ik Mood: declarative {mag} hier niet meer mislukken. (mag) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: mislukken Time refererence SoA: generic 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – processed PDDS171 en dus dan is dieje rooje kraan dat is zo een klep 5. Type of SoA: process mag ik die proberen di uh dicht te draaien of of (mag) 6. Clause type: main 1. Meanings: dirdes Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: proberen 7. Negation: neg 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent Time refererence SoA: generic 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main PDDS177 en ze deden dat graag en dat en dat dat {mocht} wat Mood: interrogative improvisatorisch zijn. (mocht) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dirdes 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: improvisatorisch zijn Time refererence SoA: present 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: dat – 3sg – inanimate – zero PDDS172 je mag altijd contact opnemen met mijn man om 5. Type of SoA: state zo'n gesprek te voeren (mag) 6. Clause type: main 1. Meanings: dirperf Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: contact opnemen 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: preteritum 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent Time refererence SoA: past 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main PDDS178 je {mag} mij tutoyeren. (mag) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dirperf 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: tutoyeren 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: present/future 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action PDDS173 ge moet hen ook direct zeggen buiten tot waar dat 6. Clause type: main ze {mogen} of niet en d'r ook op reageren als ze verder Mood: declarative gaan. (mogen) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dirdes 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: gaan (ellips) Time refererence SoA: generic/present 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: ze – 3pl – human – agent PDDS179 en daar {moogt} ge uw kleingeld afgeven. (moogt) 5. Type of SoA: action 1. Meanings: dirdes 6. Clause type: subordinate 2. Main verb: afgeven Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: aff 4. First argument: ge – 2sg – human – agent 8. Tense: presens 5. Type of SoA: action Time refererence SoA: future 6. Clause type: main Mood: declarative PDDS174 uhm de deuren {moogt} de niet kloppen. (moogt) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dirdes 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: kloppen Time refererence SoA: generic
190 4. First argument: we – 1pl – human – agent PDDS180 {mag} 'k ik dan even eventueel achter de examen 5. Type of SoA: action nog weer ne keer een beetje gaan winkelen voor weer een 6. Clause type: subordinate keer een paar nieuwe dingskes hebben. (mag) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dirdes 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: gaan winkelen 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: future 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action PDDS186 dus die persoon {mag} daar gebruik van maken. 6. Clause type: main (mag) Mood: interrogative 1. Meanings: dirdes 7. Negation: aff 2. Main verb: gebruik maken 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: future 4. First argument: die persoon – 3sg – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action PDDS181 ja maar 'k zal vanavond eens naar de Glenn bellen 6. Clause type: main om te vragen of dat 'k eventueel zijne sleutel {mag} Mood: declarative gebruiken. (mag) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dirdes 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: gebruiken Time refererence SoA: generic 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: k – 1sg – human – agent PDDS187 en we zaten daar voor een xxx allee we vroegen 5. Type of SoA: action {mogen} we hier aanzitten aan die tafel? (mogen) 6. Clause type: subordinate 1. Meanings: dirdes Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: aanzitten 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: we – 1pl – human – agent Time refererence SoA: future 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main PDDS182 xxx dat eerste xxx Shakira mag ook weg xxx {mag} Mood: interrogative ook weg. (mag) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: doen (ellips) Time refererence SoA: present 3. Voice: passive.ellips 4. First argument: Ø – Ø – Ø – agent PDDS188 en dan {mag} ie misschien naar huis? (mag) Passive subject: xxx (naam) – 3sg – human/inanimate – 1. Meanings: dirdes goal 2. Main verb: gaan (ellips) 5. Type of SoA: action 3. Voice: active 6. Clause type: main 4. First argument: ie – 3sg – human – agent Mood: declarative 5. Type of SoA: action 7. Negation: aff 6. Clause type: main 8. Tense: presens Mood: declarative Time refererence SoA: present 7. Negation: aff 8. Tense: presens PDDS183 of gij {moogt} mee-eten met mij. (moogt) Time refererence SoA: future 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 2. Main verb: mee-eten PDDS189 en daar dan uh met de vrienden van den Barfly uh 3. Voice: active gezellig uh eten en drinken en dan een stapje in Het 4. First argument: gij – 2sg – human – agent Hemelrijk zetten als ik er nog binnen {mag}. (mag) 5. Type of SoA: action 1. Meanings: dirdes 6. Clause type: main 2. Main verb: komen (ellips) Mood: declarative 3. Voice: active 7. Negation: aff 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent 8. Tense: presens 5. Type of SoA: action Time refererence SoA: generic 6. Clause type: subordinate Mood: declarative PDDS184 Cippolini ah nee die {mag} niet zeker. (mag) 7. Negation: aff 1. Meanings: dirdes 8. Tense: presens 2. Main verb: erbij zijn/deelnemen (ellips) Time refererence SoA: generic/future 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: die – 3sg – human – agent/positioner PDDS190 nee dit {mag} niet voor commerciële doeleinden 5. Type of SoA: action/position gebruikt worden. (mag) 6. Clause type: main 1. Meanings: deoperf/dirperf Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: gebruiken 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: passive.worden 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: Ø – Ø – Ø – agent Time refererence SoA: generic Passive subject: dit – 3sg – inanimate – goal 5. Type of SoA: action PDDS185 't zou kunnen zijn dat we de Koppenberg {mogen} 6. Clause type: main schrappen. (mogen) Mood: declarative 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 7. Negation: neg 2. Main verb: schrappen 8. Tense: presens 3. Voice: active Time refererence SoA: generic/future
191 5. Type of SoA: action PDDS191 {mogen} we roken? (mogen) 6. Clause type: main 1. Meanings: dirdes Mood: declarative 2. Main verb: roken 7. Negation: aff 3. Voice: active 8. Tense: presens 4. First argument: we – 1pl – human – agent Time refererence SoA: present 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main PDDS197 'k zal eerst nog 'ns vragen aan ons mama en onze Mood: declarative papa want ik weet niet of Marlien dat gaat {mogen} als 7. Negation: aff gij meerijdt misschien wel. (mogen) 8. Tense: presens 1. Meanings: dirdes Time refererence SoA: present 2. Main verb: doen (ellips) 3. Voice: active PDDS192 {moogt} de niet vergeten. (moogt) 4. First argument: Marlien – 3sg – human – agent 1. Meanings: dyn-imp/vol2perf 5. Type of SoA: action 2. Main verb: vergeten 6. Clause type: subordinate 3. Voice: active Mood: declarative 4. First argument: de – 2sg – human – processed 7. Negation: aff 5. Type of SoA: process 8. Tense: infinitive 6. Clause type: main Other aux.: gaan – presens Mood: declarative Time refererence SoA: future 7. Negation: neg 8. Tense: presens PDDS198 wij nemen ook deel aan het project Corpus Time refererence SoA: generic/future Gesproken Nederlands {mag} ik u voorstellen aan mijn gesprekspartner. (mag) PDDS193 ik sta daar eigenlijk elk jaar weer versteld van want 1. Meanings: dirdes ik vind ik {mag} ze dat niet opleggen omdat niet iedereen 2. Main verb: voorstellen het talent heeft vind ik om daar ja acteur te gaan zijn of 3. Voice: active scenario te schrijven decor te gaan uitwerken. (mag) 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent 1. Meanings: deoperf 5. Type of SoA: action 2. Main verb: opleggen 6. Clause type: main 3. Voice: active Mood: interrogative 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent 7. Negation: aff 5. Type of SoA: action 8. Tense: presens 6. Clause type: main Time refererence SoA: present Mood: declarative 7. Negation: neg PDDS199 we {mogen} er fier op zijn dat ie bij ons is. 8. Tense: presens (mogen) Time refererence SoA: generic 1. Meanings: dyn-imp 2. Main verb: fier zijn PDDS194 financies {mogen} geen reden zijn. (mogen) 3. Voice: active 1. Meanings: deoperf/vol2perf 4. First argument: we – 1pl – human – agent 2. Main verb: geen reden zijn 5. Type of SoA: action 3. Voice: active 6. Clause type: main 4. First argument: financies – 3pl – inanimate – zero Mood: declarative 5. Type of SoA: action 7. Negation: aff 6. Clause type: main 8. Tense: presens Mood: declarative Time refererence SoA: present 7. Negation: neg 8. Tense: presens PDDS200 en we moeten toegeven dat we daar soms ook Time refererence SoA: generic fouten in maken dat we soms uh mensen in de zaal brengen dat we achteraf zeggen we {mochten} dat niet PDDS195 volgende keer {mag} je eens bellen hè. (mag) gedaan hebben. (mochten) 1. Meanings: dirdes 1. Meanings: deoperf 2. Main verb: bellen 2. Main verb: doen 3. Voice: active 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: je – 2sg – human – agent 4. First argument: we – 1pl – human – agent 5. Type of SoA: action 5. Type of SoA: action 6. Clause type: main 6. Clause type: subordinate Mood: declarative Mood: declarative 7. Negation: aff 7. Negation: neg 8. Tense: presens 8. Tense: preteritum Time refererence SoA: future Other aux.: hebben – infinitive Time refererence SoA: past PDDS196 en ik {mag} trouwens nu nog altijd één duwen alhoewel dat 'k al drie keer één geduwd heb geloof ik. (mag) 1. Meanings: dirdes 2. Main verb: duwen 3. Voice: active 4. First argument: ik – 1sg – human – agent
192