/ instituut voor de Nederlandse taal / Taalportaal
bibliography glossary about
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Saterfrisian
  • Afrikaans
Show all
    Finite declarative complement clauses: construction forms
    quickinfo

    Finite declarative complement clauses in Afrikaans prototypically take the form of a dependent clause embedded in a superordinate clause, usually called the main clause or matrix clause. This happens most frequently in a matrix clause with a subject and verb, to which the complement clause relates as an object clause, but declarative complement clauses can also be integrated as subject clauses or predicate clauses, as presented in the topic Finite Declarative complement clauses: Syntactic distribution.

    The finite declarative complement clause completes the meaning of a verb in the higher clause, and there is in the prototypical case a relationship of semantic dependency of the complement clause on the matrix clause. The functionally subordinate status of finite complement clauses may be formally encoded by dependent word order, and marked by the presence of a complementiser.

    Finite declarative complement clauses in standard Afrikaans take two construction forms: dat+[SXV] and Ø+[SVX]. The first construction form displays both markers of structural dependency: it includes the complementiser dat that, and uses verb-final dependent word order, in which all verbs occur in the final position. We refer to this construction as the dat+[SXV] construction.

    If the verb phrase consists of a single past or present-tense lexical verb only, the verb occurs in the final position, as in (1) and (2). Combinations of auxiliary and lexical verbs are desribed below.

    1
    Die ontwikkelaar sê dat die eenhede aansienlik minder kos.
    [(MC) die ontwikkelaar sê [(CC) [(COMP) dat] [(SUB) die eenhede] [(ADV) aansienlik minder] [(VF) kos]]]
    the developer say.PRS.PRS that.COMP the units considerably less cost.PRS
    The developer says that the units cost considerably less.
    TK, adapted
    2
    Die ontwikkelaar sê dat die eenhede aansienlik goedkoper was.
    [(MC) die ontwikkelaar sê [(CC) [(COMP) dat] [(SUB) die eenhede] [(ADJ) aansienlik goedkoper] [(VF) was]]]
    the developer say.PRS that.COMP the units considerably cheaper be.PRT
    The developer says that the units were considerably cheaper.
    TK, adapted

    Bosch (1999:12) points out that in spoken language, the complementiser dat may be replaced with laat/lat let, as in example (3) and (4), and Feinauer (1989:31) adds wat which as another possibility.

    3
    "Ma' Oupa, hoekom sê onse mammas lat ons’ie aan hulle moet raak of hulle doodmaak'ie?"
    but grandpa why say.PRS our mothers that.COMP we=not against them must.AUX.MOD touch.INF or them dead.make.INF=PTCL.NEG
    "But Grandpa, why do our moms say that we shouldn't touch them or kill them?"
    TK
    4
    "Jy moet nou lat Kleinbooi en Hendrik vir jou leer rook, hoor!"
    you must.AUX.MOD now that.COMP Kleinbooi and Hendrik for you teach.LINK smoke.INF hear.IMP
    "You must now let Kleinbooi and Hendrik teach you to smoke, hear!"
    TK

    The construction with the complementiser and verb-final word order corresponds to the construction for finite declarative complement clauses in standard Dutch, which are obligatorily introduced by the complementiser dat that and followed by dependent verb-final word order (Biberauer 2002:32; Van Bogaert and Colleman 2013: 496). However, in Afrikaans, as in English, the complementiser may be omitted. If this is the case, word order in the complement clause reverts to independent verb-second order. We refer to this form as the Ø+[SVX] construction. This phenomenon also occurs to a limited extent in (spoken) German Auer (1998), Weinert (2012), and in – but in Afrikaans it is widespread, occurring in between a third and two thirds of all cases, depending on text type (Biberauer 2002:36, Van Rooy and Kruger 2016).

    In this alternative construction for the finite declarative complement clause in Afrikaans, if there is a single past or present-tense lexical verb only, the verb occurs in the second position, as in (5) and (6). Combinations of auxiliary and lexical verbs are treated in Read More.

    5
    Die ontwikkelaar sê die eenhede kos aansienlik minder.
    [(MC) die ontwikkelaar sê [(CC) [(SUB) die eenhede] [(V2) kos] [(ADV) aansienlik minder]]]
    the developer say.PRS the units cost.PRS considerably less
    The developer says the units cost considerably less.
    TK, adapted
    6
    Die ontwikkelaar sê die eenhede was aansienlik goedkoper.
    [(MC) die ontwikkelaar sê [(CC) [(SUB) die eenhede] [(V2) was] [(ADJ) aansienlik goedkoper]]]
    the developer say.PRS the units be.PRT considerably cheaper
    The developer says the units were considerably cheaper.
    TK, adapted

    The choice between the two standard variants, dat+[SXV] and Ø+[SVX] is mainly an issue in object complement clauses. The verb of the main or matrix clause is the most important factor, with a number of high-frequency communication and mental verbs, such as sê to say, dink to think and weet to know usually taking the variant Ø+[SVX], while semantically more specific verbs (like meedeel to inform, eis to demand, bespiegel to speculate) and those that convey a causative meaning (like sorg to ensure, veroorsaak to cause) usually take the variant dat+[SXV]. Besides the verb of the matrix clause, first and second person singular pronoun subjects for this verb also increases the likelihood of the Ø+[SVX] variant, while inanimate third person subjects are more likely with the dat+[SXV] variant. Spoken language increases the likelihood of the Ø+[SVX] variant, while the more formal written registers are more likely to take the dat+[SXV] variant.

    In addition to the two main structural variants, a third construction variant exists. In this variant, the complementiser dat that is present, but main-clause verb-second word order is used. We refer to this form as the dat+[SXV] construction. This construction, illustrated in (7) is regarded as non-standard, or a grammatical error (Steyn 1976:46; Olivier 1985:93-102; Feinauer 1989; Carstens 1989:70-72), but is nevertheless widespread in spoken language.

    7
    Ek dink dat dit is vir my rêrig cool.
    [(MC) ek dink [(CC) [(COMP) dat] [(SUB) dit] [(V2) is] [(PP) vir my] [(COMPLM) rêrig cool]]]
    I think.PRS that.COMP it be.PRS for me really cool
    I think that to me it is really cool.
    PCSA, adapted

    Biberauer (2002) finds that the non-standard dat+[SXV] form is associated with two conditions. Firstly, the matrix-clause verb is one of a limited set of high-frequency epistemic verbs: dink to think, sien to see, sê to say, weet to know, glo to believe and voel to feel account for more than 90% of instances of the non-standard dat+[SXV] form. Secondly, the verb occurring in the verb-second position is typically (in 84% of cases) a non-thematic verb (a copular, modal or auxiliary verb).

    The three possible subconstructions for finite declarative clauses in Afrikaans are summarised in Figure 1, with the subconstruction perceived as non-standard indicated by dashed rather than solid lines.

    Figure 1: The three constructions for finite declarative clauses in Afrikaans
    [click image to enlarge]

    readmore
    [+]Introduction

    Variation in the form of the finite declarative complement clause is mainly encountered in the object clause use, and therefore the discussion will focus on the object clause use only. When used as a subject clause or predicate clause, the finite declarative complement clause almost always takes the form dat+[SXV]. If a finite declarative complement clause functions as subject clause, dat+[SXV] is obligatory, as illustrated in (8a), with (8a') judged ungrammatical.

    8
    a. Dat jy nie vooraf gepraat het nie is jammer.
    that.COMP you not in.advance speak.PST have.AUX PTCL.NEG be.PRS sorry
    That you haven't spoken in advance is a pity.
    [(MC) [(CC) Dat jy nie vooraf gepraat het nie] is jammer]
    Ponelis (1979:411)
    a.' *Jy het nie vooraf gepraat nie is jammer.
    you not in.advance speak.PST have.AUX PTCL.NEG be.PRS sorry
    You haven't spoken in advance is a pity.
    [(MC) [(CC) Jy het nie vooraf gepraat nie] is jammer]

    More detail on the limited use of the Ø+[SVX] construction beyond the object clause use is provided in Finite declarative complement clauses: Syntactic distribution. In the following Read More sections, further word order options within finite declarative complement clauses are discussed first: word order variation in declarative complement clauses with multiple verbs, and the limited occurrence of topicalisation in finite declarative complement clauses. Thereafter, the frequency of the two standard variants, dat+[SXV] and Ø+[SVX], and factors related to the choice between the variants are discussed, before their historical development is considered. Finally, more detail about the non-standard variant dat+[SXV] is presented, including frequency, factors that correlate with its occurrence, and its historical development.

    [+] Word order in complement clauses with multiple verbs

    In the Quick Info, the word order in complement clauses with a single lexical verb was presented in (1) and (2) for the variant dat+[SXV], and in example (5) and (6) for the variant Ø+[SVX]. If the main verb is accompanied by a modal auxiliary in the variant dat+[SXV], the modal verb occurs directly before the main verb, as in (9). The same holds for any aspectual verbs accompanying the main verb, as in (10).

    9
    Die ontwikkelaar sê dat die eenhede aansienlik minder kan kos.
    [(MC) die ontwikkelaar sê [(CC) [(COMP) dat] [(SUB) die eenhede] [(ADV) aansienlik minder] [(VF) kan kos]]]
    the developer say.PRS that.COMP the units considerably less can.AUX.MOD cost.INF
    The developer says that the units could cost considerably less.
    TK, adapted
    10
    Die ontwikkelaar sê dat die eenhede nou aansienlik minder begin kos.
    [(MC) die ontwikkelaar sê [(CC) [(COMP) dat] [(SUB) die eenhede] [(ADV) nou aansienlik minder] [(VF) begin kos]]]
    the developer say.PRS that.COMP the units now considerably less start.LINK cost.INF
    The developer says that the units are now starting to cost considerably less.
    TK, adapted

    In past-tense constructions formed with the auxiliary het have, the auxiliary always occurs after the main verb in the past-participle form, as in (11) and (12).

    11
    Die ontwikkelaar sê dat die eenhede aansienlik minder gekos het.
    [(MC) die ontwikkelaar sê [(CC) [(COMP) dat] [(SUB) die eenhede] [(ADV) aansienlik minder] [(VF gekos het]]]
    the developer say.PRS that.COMP the units considerably less cost.PST have.AUX
    The developer says that the units cost considerably less.
    TK, adapted
    12
    Die ontwikkelaar sê dat die eenhede aansienlik minder kon gekos het.
    [(MC) die ontwikkelaar sê [(CC) [(COMP) dat] [(SUB) die eenhede] [(ADV) aansienlik minder] [(VF) kon gekos het]]]
    the developer say.PRS that.COMP the units considerably less can.AUX.MOD.PRT cost.PST have.AUX
    The developer says that the units could have cost considerably less.
    TK, adapted

    In the other construction form, Ø+[SVX], an auxiliary is found in the second position, with the main verb and other auxiliaries in the clause-final position. If the main verb is only accompanied by a modal auxiliary, the modal verb takes the verb-second position, and the main verb is in the final position, as in (13). The same holds for any aspectual verbs accompanying the main verb, shown in (14).

    13
    Die ontwikkelaar sê die eenhede kan aansienlik minder kos.
    [(MC) die ontwikkelaar sê [(CC) [(SUB) die eenhede] [(V2) kan] [(ADV) aansienlik minder] [(VF) kos]]]
    the developer say.PRS the units can.AUX.MOD considerably less cost.INF
    The developer says the units could cost considerably less.
    TK, adapted
    14
    Die ontwikkelaar sê die eenhede begin nou aansienlik minder kos.
    [(MC) die ontwikkelaar sê [(CC) [(SUB) die eenhede] [(V2) begin] [(ADV) nou aansienlik minder] [(VF) kos]]]
    the developer say.PRS the units start.LINK now considerably less cost.INF
    The developer says the units are now starting to cost considerably less.
    TK, adapted

    In past-tense constructions formed with the auxiliary het have, the auxiliary occurs in the second position, with the past-participle form of the lexical verb in last position, as in (15). If a modal verb is present in addition, the modal verb occurs in the second position, with the past-tense auxiliary verb in the final position, preceded by the lexical verb, as in (16).

    15
    Die ontwikkelaar sê die eenhede het aansienlik minder gekos.
    [(MC) die ontwikkelaar sê [(CC) [(SUB) die eenhede] [(V2) het] [(ADV) aansienlik minder] [(VF) gekos]]]
    the developer say.PRS the units have.AUX considerably less cost.PST
    The developer says the units cost considerably less.
    TK, adapted
    16
    Die ontwikkelaar sê die eenhede kon aansienlik minder gekos het.
    [(MC) die ontwikkelaar sê [(CC) [[(SUB) die eenhede] [(V2) kon] [(ADV) aansienlik minder] [(VF) gekos het]]]
    the developer say.PRS the units can.AUX.MOD.PRT considerably less cost.PST have.AUX
    The developer says the units could have cost considerably less.
    TK, adapted
    [+]Topicalisation in complement clauses

    In complement clauses introduced by the complementiser dat that, non-subject elements (adverbials or topicalised elements) are barred from occurring in the initial position (Biberauer 2002:34), as shown in (17a) and (17b).

    17
    a. *Ek weet dat vandag hy die koerant lees.
    [(MC) ek weet [(CC) [(COMP) dat] [(ADV) vandag] [(SUB) hy] [(OBJ) die koerant] [(VF) lees]]]
    I know.PRS that.COMP today he the newspaper read.PRS
    I know that today he reads the newspaper.
    Biberauer (2002:34)
    .
    b. *Ek weet dat die koerant hy vandag lees.
    [(MC) ek weet [(CC) [(COMP) dat] [(OBJ) die koerant] [(SUB) hy] [(ADV) vandag] [(VF) lees]]]
    I know.PRS that.COMP the newspaper he today read.PRS
    I know that the newspaper he reads today.
    (Biberauer 2002:34)

    In Biberauer's (2002) corpus of written Afrikaans, topicalised elements do not occur at all in dat+[SXV] constructions. Adverbials occur in first position around 5% of the time in written Afrikaans, but these are all adverbial clauses that are consistently and obligatorily of the interpolative type(Biberauer 2002:34), as in (18).

    18
    Hy glo dat, as die span positief voel, hulle enige iemand kan klop.
    he believe.PRS that.COMP if the team positive feel.PRS they any somebody can.AUX.MOD beat.INF
    He believes that, if the team feel positive, they can beat anyone.
    Biberauer (2002:34)

    Biberauer (2002:33) points out that the Ø+[SVX] construction theoretically allows a variety of first-position elements, unlike the dat+[SXV] construction. Sentences like (19a) (with the adverbial in initial position) and (19b) (with the object in initial position) are therefore acceptable.

    19
    a. Ek weet vandag lees hy die koerant.
    [(MC) ek weet [(CC) [(ADV) vandag] [(V2) lees] [(SUB) hy] [(OBJ) die koerant]]]
    I know.PRS today read.PRS he the newspaper
    I know today he reads the newspaper.
    Biberauer (2002:33)
    b. Ek weet die koerant lees hy vandag.
    [(MC) ek weet [(CC) [(OBJ) die koerant] [(V2) lees] [(SUB) hy] [(ADV) vandag]]]
    I know.PRS the newspaper read.PRS he today
    I know the newspaper he reads today.
    Biberauer (2002:33)

    However, in practice topicalised elements as well as adverbials are very infrequent in Ø+[SVX] constructions in contemporary Afrikaans. In Biberauer's (2002:33) data, adverbials occur in less than 3% of Ø+[SVX] clauses in modern written Afrikaans, and topicalised elements do not occur at all. Where adverbials do occur, they typically occur in an adjunction structure, as in (20) (from Biberauer 2002:33).

    20
    Ek weet, as hy kom, gaan ons lekker partytjie.
    I know.PRS if he come.PRS go.PRS we nicely party
    I know, if he comes, we are going to have a ball.
    Biberauer (2002:33)
    [+]The alternation between the dat+[SXV] and Ø+[SVX] constructions: Frequency

    Generally there are no prescriptive restrictions on the dat+[SXV] and Ø+[SVX] forms. According to Stell (2011:175), it is mentioned by early standardisers, but with no proscription, and current normative sources do not prescribe the use of one form rather than the other.

    There has been little comprehensive research on the frequency of dat+[SXV] and Ø+[SVX] in Afrikaans until recently. Among earlier research, Malherbe (1966:13) points out that in spoken Afrikaans, Ø+[SVX] is prevalent, while in written language dat+[SXV] and Ø+[SVX] forms occur with equal frequency. While Ponelis (1979:440-441) classifies the omission of dat that as a less common strategy, he also points out that in written as well as spoken language, unmarked subordinate clauses are well established and very common. Similarly, Feinauer (1990:117) comments on the frequency of Ø+[SVX] in both written and spoken language. There are some remarks on regional differences: Steyn (1976:18) observes that in the speech of rural white speakers of Afrikaans dat that occurs much less frequently, and the Ø+[SVX] form is the most frequent.

    There are a few recent studies that quantify the frequency of the alternation between the two forms. Biberauer's (2002) analysis of a 80,000 word corpus of modern written Afrikaans from newspapers and magazines finds that the Ø+[SVX] construction occurs at a rate of 37%, a rate which is very similar for her 80,000 word corpus of early written Afrikaans composed of letters, diaries, newspaper columns, and novel extracts dating from 1887 to 1923, where the rate is 35% (Biberauer 2002:31-32). In a comprehensive corpus analysis of 104 verb lemmas that control finite declarative complement clauses, using the Taalkomissiekorpus of around 57 million words of written, published Afrikaans, Van Rooy and Kruger (2016) find an occurrence rate of 67% for Ø+[SVX]. Colleman et al. (2016) report an occurrence of 56% for Ø+[SVX] in their analysis of a newspaper corpus of more than 6 million words.

    In contemporary spoken Afrikaans the frequency of Ø+[SVX] is 46%, based on a corpus of 80,000 words of interview and television and radio broadcast data (Biberauer 2002:36). Stell (2011) analysed a limited set of high-frequency verbs typically associated with Ø+[SVX] (dink to think, glo to believe, hoop to hope, hoor to hear, sê to say, verstaan to understand, vertel to tell, weet to know and wens to wish), using a 415,000-word corpus consisting of different varieties of spoken Afrikaans, across different age cohorts. He finds that with these verbs the Ø+[SVX] form is selected between 70% and 100% of the time, and argues that the Ø+[SVX] form is becoming more generalised, across different varieties. For most groups, the rate of Ø+[SVX] is above 90%. Contrasts only exist in older age cohorts, with the Namibian Afrikaans samples as well as the sample of Afrikaans from northern, white, urban speakers demonstrating a comparably more limited preference for the Ø+[SVX] form (Stell 2011:175).

    [+]Factors that condition the choice between the dat+[SXV] and Ø+[SVX] constructions

    The choice between the two standard forms of the finite declarative complement clause in Afrikaans is conditioned by a number of lexicogrammatical and discourse factors. The choice between the two constructions is, in the first instance, lexically conditioned, in that some verbs demonstrate a distinct preference for the dat+[SXV] form, while others prefer the Ø+[SVX] construction (Braeckeveldt 2013, Colleman et al. 2016, Van Rooy and Kruger 2016).

    Van Rooy and Kruger (2016) find that the following verbs do not allow Ø+[SVX] at all: aanstip to note, aframmel to rattle off, agiteer to agitate, antisipeer to anticipate, bepleit to plead, bluf to bluff, deklameer to declaim, deursein to signal through, dikteer to dictate, gewaar to notice, herbeklemtoon to re-emphasise, herbevestig to reconfirm, konkludeer to conclude, konstateer to state, neul to nag, ontgaan to escape, paai to placate, postuleer to postulate, profeteer to prophesy, propageer to propagate, rondvertel to blab, stateer to state, teëkap to retort, teoretiseer to theorise, terugskryf to write back, verifieer to verify, verordineer to ordain, volg to follow and wink to beckon.

    They also report a set of verbs with very low percentages of Ø+[SVX], which are the following, with the percentage that occurs without the complementiser in brackets: vind to find (10), vra to ask (10), argumenteer to argue (6), bemerk to notice (6), spekuleer to speculate (6), afspreek to agree (6), verswyg to withhold (5), beveel to command (4), aanbeveel to recommend (4), stipuleer to stipulate (3).

    Verbs that do not allow omission, or generally prefer the full form, tend to be more formal, low-frequency verbs, with a higher incidence of communication verbs. Braeckeveldt (2013) lists more verbs that strongly prefer the dat+[SXV] construction, to the extent that the alternative is felt to be ungrammatical and hardly ever occurs, including sorg to ensure, veroorsaak to cause and eis to demand.

    The alternations in (21), (22) and (23) demonstrate the unacceptability of the Ø+[SVX] construction with these verbs.

    21
    a. Ek het gesorg dat ek in my spoor trap.
    I have.AUX ensure.PST that.COMP I in my track step.PRS
    I made sure that I kept my nose clean.
    TK, adapted
    a.' ?Ek het gesorg ek trap in my spoor.
    I have.AUX ensure.PST I step.PRS in my track
    I made sure I kept my nose clean.
    TK, adapted
    22
    a. Hierdie skryfwyse het veroorsaak dat die teller van die breuk meestal as 1 aanvaar is.
    this writing.manner have.AUX cause.PST that.COMP the numerator of the fraction mostly as 1 accept.PASS be.AUX.PASS.PST
    This way of writing has caused the numerator of the fraction mostly to be accepted as 1.
    TK
    a.' ?Hierdie skryfwyse het veroorsaak die teller van die breuk is meestal as 1 aanvaar.
    this writing.manner have.AUX cause.PST the numerator of the fraction be.AUX.PASS.PST mostly as 1 accept.PASS
    This way of writing has caused the numerator of the fraction mostly to be accepted as 1.
    TK, adapted
    23
    a. Dit vereis dat jy verstaan hoe die werkboeke gebruik word.
    this require.PRS that.COMP you understand.PRS how the workbooks use.PASS be.AUX.PASS.PRS
    This requires that you understand how the workbooks are used.
    TK, adapted
    a.' ?Dit vereis jy verstaan hoe die werkboeke gebruik word.
    this require.PRS you understand.PRS how the workbooks use.PASS be.AUX.PASS.PRS
    This requires you understand how the workbooks are used.
    TK, adapted

    These verbs, where the Ø+[SVX] form is felt to be unnatural or even ungrammatical, form a distinct group of verbs within the general class of verbs that control complement clauses, as discussed in more detail in Finite declarative complement clauses: Lexical and semantic associations. Most of the verbs that control complement clauses entail what Dor (2005), in his research on that-deletion in English, terms a truth claim: (Dor 2005:345). Complement-controlling verbs that involve this semantic entailment allow the deletion of the complementiser. Conversely, verbs that do not have this entailment generally disallow the omission of the complementiser. The verbs in (21), (22) and (23) do not meet this requirement, and it appears that many Afrikaans verbs which strongly disfavour the Ø+[SVX] construction share the feature of non-entailment of a truth claim. A very salient subset among these verbs is causative verbs, which are used with a complementiser most of the time (Colleman et al. 2016).

    For other verbs, it is less a case that the Ø+[SVX] form is judged unnatural or ungrammatical, but simply a case that the dat+[SXV] form occurs more frequently with these verbs than the Ø+[SVX] form does. Van Rooy and Kruger (2016), for example, find that verbs like postuleer to postulate, argumenteer to argue and vind to find occur infrequently with the Ø+[SVX] – despite the fact that these verbs do semantically entail a truth claim by a cognitive agent and the Ø+[SVX] form is acceptable. The alternations with these three verbs are illustrated in (24), (25) and (26). Despite the fact that the second Ø+[SVX] example in each pair is not unacceptable, it is simply extremely unlikely to occur.

    24
    a. Bohr postuleer dat elektrone in bane rondom die atoomkern beweeg.
    Bohr postulate.PRS that.COMP electrons in orbits around the atom.nucleus move.PRS
    Bohr postulates that electrons move in orbits around the atomic nucleus.
    TK
    a.' Bohr postuleer elektrone beweeg in bane rondom die atoomkern.
    Bohr postulate.PRS electrons move.PRS in orbits around the atom.nucleus
    Bohr postulates electrons move in orbits around the atomic nucleus.
    TK, adapted
    25
    a. In die hof is geargumenteer dat daar geen verskil tussen die Engelse en die Romeinse reg is nie.
    in the court be.AUX.PASS.PST argue.PASS that.COMP there no difference between the English and the Roman law be.PRS PTCL.NEG
    In the court it was argued that there is no difference between the English and the Roman law.
    TK, adapted
    a.' In die hof is geargumenteer daar is geen verskil tussen die Engelse en Romeinse reg nie.
    in the court be.AUX.PASS.PST argue.PASS there be.PRS no difference between the English and the Roman law PTCL.NEG
    In the court it was argued there is no difference between the English and the Roman law.
    TK, adapted
    26
    a. Hy vind dat sy gedagtes rondspring..
    he find.PRS that.COMP his thoughts around.jump.PRS
    He finds that his thoughts jump around.
    TK, adapted
    a.' Hy vind sy gedagtes spring rond..
    he find.PRS his thoughts jump.PRS around
    He finds his thoughts jump around.
    TK, adapted

    Feinauer (1990:117) proposes that the omission of dat that has the effect of placing greater emphasis on the semantic content of the embedded clause. Consequently the omission of dat that typically takes place after a main clause that is semantically less dominant (Feinauer 1990:117). This means that the Ø+[SVX] form is more likely to occur after a matrix verb that is semantically more neutral (e.g. sê to say) than one which is not (e.g. stamel to stammer). The Ø+[SVX] form after semantically specific verbs is not generally viewed as grammatically unacceptable, but is less common. According to Dor (2005:348), “manner of speaking” predicates do not semantically entail a truth claim, but may be pragmatically extended to imply such a claim.  For this reason, language users have more ambiguous judgements about the acceptability of the zero form with such verbs – which results in a lower frequency of the zero form with semantically rich verbs like these. Example (27) illustrates this with the verb mor to grumble – which only occurs with dat+[SXV] in the Taalkomissiekorpus.