[Course Forum] Dutch Verb Conjugation ♫ Audio

Community-Created Courses Dutch
, ,
21

Hey!

Thanks for responding so quickly this. I do not think it is a super big deal. It is a massive course and past participles are not exactly the easiest thing. Actually, I started your course specifically because you have both audio and past participles. I also would not complain if you added even more verbs or made a part II :wink:

Though really, it took about a year for the moderators of 1-1001 and 1002-2002 to respond. In the end, they just gave me access to correct things myself :sweat_smile:

1 Like
22

omg. :face_exhaling: I mourn the loss of difficult words. :cry:

1 Like
23

Feel you. Did my own forked course here. My course

has the very same source than the 1-1001 and 1002-2002 course. All words from the 1-1001 and 1002-2002 courses not already listed in

are listed in my 2500 words follow-up course.

1 Like
24

haha!

Yeah, I spent the past few weeks “cleaning” up 2001-2002 (nothing major, just making things more consistent and replacing “he/it” with “he/she/it” – so many instances)

After the verbs course (about 1/3 done), my plan was to tick off your pronoun course and then move onto your academic Dutch. I promise to complain if I see any issues.

1 Like
25

Hi @Robert-Alexander,

For Past Participle Irregular, I found a couple more issues:

  • one of the two audio clips for for geboden is actually geborgen
  • gave → given
  • hid → hidden
  • strike → stricken
  • raise → risen
  • knew → known
  • sang → sung
  • stole → stolen
  • took shelter → taken shelter
  • went → gone (x2)
  • rose → risen

cheers

1 Like
26

:white_check_mark:

You’re awesome. Thx a lot. Corrected this. Plus, I found more similar errors - which I won’t reveal and won’t discuss since I feel tremendously stupid already :smiley:

1 Like
27

Hi @Robert-Alexander,

I might have two more for you:

  • The audio file for geschoren sounds like it might actually be the audio file for geschoten (though maybe I just cannot hear the difference between the audio file got geschoren and the second audio file for geschoten)
  • Missing “not” in the translation for geschenen:
    – shone, seemed [geglommen, geblonken, geleken] → … [not …]
1 Like
28

PS I just want to add that I do appreciate you spending time to maintain the verb conjugation course. I find this course to be incredibly useful. I mean, how many other courses have a dedicated component on such a technical aspect of the Dutch language? Fine, the English simple past was used mistakenly instead of the past participle :scream:, but this was easy enough to fix! (It is also a pretty pedantic point! :wink: ) Thanks again for the hard work!

1 Like
29

Done (bad TTS - soundoftext.com [which is Google’s TTS really] has improved since then. Added new TTS generated pronunciation and Forvo.com variant [wasn’t available back in the time]) and done (<-- added the not).

1 Like
30

Thanks @Robert-Alexander!

1 Like
31

Hi @Robert-Alexander,

Not 100% sure about this one but the audio for “gezworven” sounds more like “gezworen.” However, this might just be Dutch and my inability to hear a ridiculously soft-sounding v :sweat_smile:

1 Like
32

Me neither. Could be okay - Dutch has surprisingly many strange dialects. But I’ve replaced this with the pronunciation from Forvo.com.

1 Like
33

I could check the quality of the audio for you in future if you would give me the link to the level for the word in question.

1 Like
34

Thx for the offer. For the time being, it was easier to remove the mediocre TTS and add Forvo.com files but I may come back to your offer later.

35

Hi @Robert-Alexander,

Speaking of audio, I think “rekende” in simple past tense (singular) has “tekende” as its audio.

1 Like
36

Another case of bad TTS I guess. I replaced this with the - now improved - soundoftext.com files.

1 Like
37

Hi @Robert-Alexander,

Here is another one from simple past tense (singular): legde (I think the audio is leefde, but not sure!)

Oh, and a super minor thing: for duurde, the word “lastst” should be “lasted” :slight_smile:

1 Like
38
  • lasts → lasted :white_check_mark: check:
  • audio → I’d say that’s totally fine. But for what it’s worth I’ve added a Flemish speaker (from forvo.com) and a TTS version (from soundoftext.com and a file from wiktionary.

Thx again. Your thorough reporting is much appreciated. Herzlichen Dank. :heart_decoration:

1 Like
39

Hi @Robert-Alexander,

Long time no chat :wink:

Right, now working my way through simple past tense irregular verbs and came across this:

  • zond uit: (I/you/he/she/it) broadcast(ed) [not z…]

I am guessing you want to say “[not zende]” or maybe something else? It is not wrong of course. However, it does seems a bit confusing to me since the correct answer begins with z. Thoughts? :smiley:

cheers

1 Like
40

I see your point. I’ve thought about that when adding this to the database but I wasn’t able to come up with a better solution. It’s about differentiating uitzenden from just zenden.

  • zond :arrow_right: (I/you/he/she/it) sent [not z… uit]
  • zonden :arrow_right: (we/you/they) sent [not z… uit]
  • zond uit :arrow_right: (I/you/he/she/it) broadcast(ed) [not z…]
  • zonden uit :arrow_right: (we/you/they) broadcast(ed) [not z…]

The most simple solution is of course to eliminate uitzenden from the course. It’s just a derived conjugation pattern anyway. To me, as a native German speaker, it makes total sense that uit splits off (and how uit alters the bare zenden to give it a somewhat different meaning) but this is maybe very counter-intuitive to English speakers. Thus I kept uitzenden.

I don’t see any optimal solution. I mean, if you happen to know the trick, the answer hint is enough to discern both verbs. But as your comment shows, learners might stumble over this entry. Maybe one could add +u… or w/o u… to the respective entries. Or *1 word" 2 words, respectively. Any thoughts?

1 Like