Just wanted to check two things in simple past tense plural irregular:
- The second audio for schreven sounds a bit off, but that is likely just me
- I am guessing that the audio for maten (which drops the m) is just an accent variation?
cheers
1 Like
“Guilty” on both accounts. Recordings were scrambled. Replaced it with better files. Thx a lot for telling.
1 Like
Thanks, as always, for the fast response and update. I am speeding through present tense irregular and have two thoughts. These are only suggestions, so feel free to disregard them as you wish 
- Extending the translation of zullen (and conjugations) from will to will / shall. (I tend to think that shall is a better translation for questions, e.g., zullen we … ? → shall we … ?)
- Extending the subjects of 3rd person singular verbs (e.g., komt, bent) from he to he/she/it. This is partly for consistency with the remainder of the course but it also seems odd to not include she/it from the definitions
Again, only suggestions! Thanks again for putting the course together. Looking forward to finishing this course and moving onto pronouns. (An easy mindless break before the academic course.)
1 Like
I guess this would also apply to the other present tense levels, too 
1 Like
Hi,
Perhaps it is just me but it seems like one of the audios for wees (in simple past irregular singular, I believe) sounds like bewees. Any thoughts?
best
1 Like
I disagree. It’s just that Dutch speakers often make that little www-sound (like imitating a bee or a humming bird 
). Well, it’s not a crazy lip flapping like a horse does but English w’s are often different. (Not surprisingly b and w are kind of related - ask Spanish speakers 
In fact, I believe that Dutch w’s often are more similar to English v’s. I guess others can explain this better.
I added another human sound recording though.
1 Like
Let’s leave it as it is. I guess that’s sufficient to learn conjugation. This course isn’t exactly made to teach vocabulary. Use and transformation (and conjugation) of zullen is super complex. You need a good dictionary to understand its various applications anyway. In it’s most basic variant it’s will. The entry reads (we/you/they) will anyway. Yes, admittedly, I will and I shall is almost the same (many prefer the latter to indicate future tense in questions, in particular BE speakers), but you shall and they shall have a very different ring to it. Of course the two latter options are also a valid interpretation but they represent more of a modal use. English speakers might become confused very quickly. Thus, I’d rather not add shall.
Nerd comments: Just like will, zullen transforms: in past tense it can also be like would (and I doubt that most English speakers think of would as a conjugated variant ot will). In its modal capacity it could be will, shall, may, might. Or even should (which is another conjugation of shall which most do not connect to shall anymore). And ik zal/we zullen can of course be a plain future I shall/we shall. I don’t know why, but at some point in time Germanic languages must have gotten that all scrambled up and now German sollen/sollten, English shall/should, Dutch zullen/zouden (and Norwegian skulle) are different to a degree and yet strangely related. Thus, it’s perhaps best to give just one (prevalent) translation for those entries and let learners discover the complex stuff themselves.
1 Like
It’s a bit unfair gender-wise, isn’t it? I guess, that’s just to be consistent. This is still a point I consider. I feel an earlier comment of yours (about adding is/has to all participles) is kind of related. It’s about making entries more complex to reflect various usages. I must keep the course simple but accurate. And that’s difficult to balance. I will keep your comments in mind (this and the older comment) but I still haven’t made up my mind.
1 Like
I appreciate the responses for wees and zullen. I understand and sympathize with your points.
For the exclusion of “she/it” in the present tense levels, as you said, there seems to be a bit of gender unfairness/bias. I am not sure including “she/it” to these translations would complicate things too much. I mean, in simple past tense singular levels you have the whole shebang: “I/you/he/she/it” and it does not feel complicated. Including these extra subject pronouns feels simple and is accurate.
(The disclaimer is that I am just empathizing with friends. I feel it is a bit of a drag that “he/him” are seen as natural, default options for, e.g., translations, but folks need time to think things over when “she/her” are suggested as options for translations. Makes one think… 
)
anyway, thanks for the maintenance of the courses!
1 Like