"I am stopped", "I was stopped"
How would you say these two sentences? Especially the second one. After having gone through the skill "Passive voice: Present and Perfect", I would say "Ik word gestopt" and "Ik ben gestopt". But the second sentence means "I've stopped", because "stoppen" is a zijn word in this case, isn't it so? So I beg you, help me solve this riddle.
Actually I think a better word to use is 'tegenhouden'. That's what I would use rather.
I am stopped = Ik ben tegengehouden. I was stopped = Ik werd tegengehouden.
If someone else or something else stops you, you use the word 'tegenhouden'. If you yourself stop doing something it is 'stoppen'.
For example you can say: "Houd hem tegen!' = 'Stop him!' (If he's running away with your money)
I hope I haven't made you confused, maar er is niets dat je tegenhoudt om mij vragen te stellen :)
This is indeed confusing, because "stoppen" can be both transitive (I am stopping something or someone) or intransitive (I am stopping [myself]).
So the Dutch sentence "Ik ben gestopt" can mean two different things. It can be the present perfect of the intransitive verb (= I have stopped) or it can be the passive voice of the transitive verb (= I have been stopped). You would have to determine from the context which one is meant.
However, I would agree with Multitaal. In most sentences, "I was stopped" = "I werd gestopt".
Here's the link - https://www.duolingo.com/skill/dn/Passive-voice%3A-Present-and-Perfect.
And thank you so much, I'm probably stupid, this should have occured to me. You probably have a lot more lingots than I do, but still, have some.
And when I say zijn word, I mean that you use zijn instead of hebben when creating the present perfect tense. As a native speaker, you will probably complain, but that's how I see it now.
That's probably because Dutch is not among the languages you study. You'd have to start the course here. But even if you did, you probably couldn't access the explanation until you'd reached that section of the Dutch tree. Luckily, I can just copypaste it.
The passive voice is used to describe actions from the point of view of the object of the verb: "I am being seen." or "The book has been read". This way, the subject (the person who is seeing me, or who has read the book) is eliminated from the sentence.
In Dutch the passive is constructed using the past participle (also used in the present perfect) and an auxiliary verb. There are two different auxiliary verbs used in the Dutch passive: worden for the dynamical passive voice and zijn for the stative passive voice. This distinction does not really exist in English, but it roughly corresponds to the different tenses, as explained below.
Worden (lesson 1)
The dynamical passive voice is constructed with the auxiliary verb worden, to describe ongoing actions. In the present tense, this refers to things that are going on right now, that will happen in the near future, or that happen repeatedly. In English this often translates to the continuous aspect. For example:
- Het boek wordt gelezen. - "The book is being read."
- Ik word gezien. - "I am being seen."
- De maaltijd wordt gekookt. - "The meal is being cooked."
But in some cases, especially recurring events or general truths, the present simple works as well:
- Het boek wordt vaak gelezen. - "The book is read often."
In English one can also use the informal "get"-construction for the dynamical passive voice:
- Het boek wordt gelezen. - "The book gets/is getting read."
Note: The subject, who performs the action, can still be added to the sentence using the preposition door.
- Het boek wordt door mij gelezen. - "The book is being read by me."
Zijn (lesson 2)
The stative passive voice is constructed with the auxiliary verb zijn, to describe the state of things after something has been done to them. This corresponds to the perfect aspect: the action has been completed, it lies in the past. There are several ways to translate this to English, the most natural one being the present perfect progressive:
- Het boek is gelezen. - "The book has been read."
- Ik ben gezien. - "I have been seen."
- De maaltijd is gekookt. - "The meal has been cooked."
However, it is also possible to use the past simple, or in some cases, the present:
- Het boek is gelezen. - "The book was read."
- Het is gedaan. - "It is done."
The Impersonal Passive Voice (lesson 3)
Unlike English, Dutch can also use the passive voice with intransitive verbs: verbs that do not have an object. In this case, the place of the object is taken by that versatile and infuriating little word, er. The advantage is that one can use a verb to describe an action without any subject or object. The disadvantage is that there is simply no good way to translate this construction literally into English. For example:
- Er wordt gelopen.
This means that someone, somewhere, is walking. Who and where should be derived from context, the sentence only states that walking is what is happening. The best we can do in English is to use the gerund (a noun created from a verb with the suffix "-ing"):
- Er wordt gelopen. - "There is walking (going on)."
Another option is to introduce an undetermined subject:
- "Somebody is walking."
- "People are walking."
In other cases, it might be best to completely change the structure of the sentence.
The impersonal passive voice is used a lot in Dutch, and finding an English translation is always awkward. It can be used both with worden and with zijn as an auxiliary. If you are confused, do not be afraid to use the hints.
Thank you for copying.
It is always interesting to read explanations about your own language. It gives a different perspective. Of course I learnt the passive voice from Dutch to English. But never realized we had a third form in Dutch that is missing in English.
De auto is gestopt. = The car has been stopped.
But wait, doesn't "de auto is gestopt" mean "the car (has) stopped"?
Can't react below.
Yes, it feels to me it can translated both ways in English. It is somewhat confusing. I think it is because "zijn" has a double function. To form the passive voice and also to form the present perfect for some verbs. Unlike English that always uses "have" in present perfect.
If it's confusing for a native speaker, then it's sure as hell gonna be confusing for me. But thanks anyway for all your help, here you got a complimentary lingot.
I know, that was what I was talking about. I've already been aquainted with a similar concept in French. Thank god (ik ben helemaal ongelovig, maar niemand begrijpt me nu, huehuehue) at least English has just one word for creating present perfect.