Grammar: Present perfect
- Past participle: regular verbs
- Past participle: irregular verbs
- Hebben or zijn?
Don’t let the name fool you: the “present perfect” tense is all about the past. In English, the present perfect tense is formed using the auxiliary verb “to have” and a past participle.
- I have eaten.
In Dutch, this tense is also formed using the Dutch counterpart of the verb “to have”, namely hebben, but you also use the verb zijn (to be). You then use the past participle of the verb having the action that is being done in the past.
Past participle: regular verbs
As with the simple past tense, the past participle of regular verbs is formed using the stem as a base (infinitive without -en).
If one of the voiceless consonants -t, -k, -f, -s, -ch, or -p (helpful mnemonic: ’t kofschip) is at the end of the stem, the prefix ge- is added to the front, and -t is added to the end.
To simplify things, you can think of the “stem” as the “ik-form”. (i.e. ik werk, ik speel, etc.)
If “ik-form” ends in a voiceless consonant: ge- + “ik-form” + -t = past participle
In all other cases, the participle ends in -d:
If “ik-form ends in anything elsege- + “ik-form” + -d = past participle
- wonen - Waar heb jij gewoond? (Where did you live?)
- leren - Wij hebben veel geleerd. (We have learned a lot.)
NOTE: If the “ik-form” already ends in -d or -t, no additional d/t is added!
- ik zet - ik heb gezet
- ik antwoord - ik heb geantwoord
ANOTHER NOTE: Verbs having stems ending in -v or -z get a -d ending for the past participle!
- leven -> ik leef -> ik heb geleefd
- verhuizen -> ik verhuis -> ik ben verhuisd
The participle does not get the ge- prefix if it begins with any of the following unstressed prefixes:
Achtung German learners/speakers - unlike in German, the end of a verb does not determine whether the prefix ge- is added:
- studeren - ik heb gestudeerd (ich habe studiert - I have studied)
- proberen - ik heb geprobeerd (ich habe probiert - I have tried)
Past participle: irregular verbs
Some past participles are formed irregularly.
They often undergo a vowel change:
You can find a list of irregular Dutch verbs here.
Hebben or zijn?
As stated at the beginning, both hebben and zijn are used for the perfect tense. However, hebben is used in most cases.
- Zij heeft niet geluisterd. (She did not listen.)
- Ik heb het mes gebruikt. (I have used the knife.)
A certain number of verbs are always conjugated using zijn:
- Some irregular verbs such as blijven and zijn:
- Ik ben thuis gebleven. (I have stayed home.)
- Ik ben ziek geweest. (I have been sick.)
- Verbs that do not involve an object and indicate a change in condition:
- worden (to become) - Ik ben oud geworden. (I have become old.)
- komen (to come) - Ik ben niet gekomen.
NOTE: There are some exceptions where verbs that do involve an object still use "zijn".
These are: beginnen, kwijtraken, naderen and tegenkomen
Verbs of motion can use either hebben or zijn depending on the situation. If the emphasis is on the action, then the verb hebben is used. If the destination or direction should be emphasized, then the verb zijn is used.
Achtung German learners/speakers - in contrast to German, the following Dutch verbs use zijn (bold: Dutch; italics: German; plain: English):
- afnemen - abnehmen - to decrease
- beginnen - beginnen - to begin
- bevallen - gefallen - to be pleasing
- eindigen - enden - to end
- ophouden - aufhören - to stop
- stoppen - aufhören, anhalten - to stop
- toenemen - zunehmen - to increase
- trouwen - heiraten - to marry
The simple past and the present are not at all identical in German. The simple past, called the Präteritum is not much used in speech these days with the present perfect being used instead, which is probably the source of this misconception.
Hopefully this is the correct place to post this; if not then I apologize. Also if this error has already been posted, again I apologize.
In the Tips text of Present Perfect 1, the words used in last paragraph suggest that there is an error, in my view, because of the use of a double-negative. The text excerpt is "This is not impossible in Dutch. Instead, you must use".
If the construct really is not impossible in Dutch (meaning that is it IS possible), then it is unusual to then say "Instead", since "Instead" introduces an alternative. In this case, better text would be "And so in Dutch, you must use".
However, if the construct is not possible in Dutch (meaning that it is impossible), then the double-negative should be changed to a single negative. In this case, the following are correct English - "This is not possible in Dutch. Instead, you must use..." or "That is impossible in Dutch. Instead, you must use".
It's an utterly wrong simplification to say "the 'present tense' is all about the past'. I have been waiting here. (and I still am), I "have waited" here for ten minutes." (I'm still waiting). I "have struggled" with this misleading article all afternoon." (still struggling) etc. etc. etc.
The "simple past" is all about the past. The "present perfect" is partly about the past, and partly about the present. It has various uses and yes, it is hard to describe well.