1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Dutch
  4. >
  5. "De vrouw heeft gezegd dat zi…

"De vrouw heeft gezegd dat zij jou niet wil zien."

Translation:The woman has said that she does not want to see you.

August 7, 2015



I was not ready for this one.


I'm not a native English speaker, but shouldn't the answer "The woman (has) said that she didn't want to see you." be accepted as well, because of the reported speech rules?


Right! "The woman said that she doesn't want to see you" is not grammatical in English! So our correct sentences with tense agreement in the reported speech were corrected for the wrong ones.


I think it's because the use of "did not/didn't" would imply that at one point she did not want to see you, but is now willing to do so. On the other hand, "does not/ doesn't" in this context implies that she stated that she has no intention to see you and that said statement continues into the present, e.g., she didn't want to see you and she still doesn't want to see you. I hope that makes sense. Good luck!~


Why does niet come before wil?


It is because 'dat' triggers the verb going to the end of the clause so 'niet' necessarily comes before 'wil' :)


Why isn't there a "t" at "wil" ? And I'm a little bit confused by the words order, isn't "wil" supposed to be at the end as it is the conjugated verb ?


"Willen", like all modal verbs, is slightly irregular. It's "hij/zij/het wil".

As for the word order, if a subordinate clause two verbs (for example, an auxiliary and a participle), then they can come in either order at the end of the clause. So "... dat zij jou niet zien wil." would also be correct.


Ok, got it. Thanks a lot !


I'm not a native but i think at least both answers should be accepted.

From https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/reported-speech/reported-speech-indirect-speech

"We can use the reporting verb in the present simple in indirect speech if the original words are still true or relevant at the time of reporting, or if the report is of something someone often says or repeats"

"Can" doesn't make it mandatory, a regular rule might be used as well.

Also your news examples are a bit off:

"We often use the present simple in newspaper headlines. It makes the reported speech more dramatic"

You shouldn't extrapolate a rule from an exception.

I understand you have used it that way to differentiate Dutch rules but since "didn't" is also correct it should be accepted. Note that there's a mechanism that provides the suggested (default) answer now so you'll get the desired effect anyway. Also use this tense in English to Dutch translation exercises (well it will work like that anyway). But you should not reject a correct answer.

Note also, the same is going to be true in the opposite direction. The "didn't" version can be translated in two ways to Dutch and both translations should be accepted, with suggested translation indication to stress the difference.


My first thought was to write it like this: "De vrouw heeft gezegd dat zij wilt jou niet zien". Is this completely wrong? If so, why?


"Willen", like all modal verbs, is slightly irregular. It's "hij/zij/het wil".

As for the word order, if a subordinate clause two verbs (for example, an auxiliary and a participle), then they can come in either order at the end of the clause. So "... dat zij jou niet zien wil." would also be correct.

In other words the verbs just go to the end of the sentence.

Not a native but it's what I've come to understand so far.


somehow, I do not think this logic is acceptable, first of all, I dont think people will say that when the sentence come out, and then, as "zij je niet XX" if you say "zien wil" its like for who to see? "zij(they) zien" or "zij(she) zien"? if so, it isnt correct."Zij(she) ziet" looks correct, and in english Duo says"she doesnt instead of they", so I suppose if you really want to say "zien before willen", is it better to say"zij je niet ziet willen". I have no idea which is correct, but to me , I will just remember "wil zien"


Could someone explain the word order for the sentence please? I'm not sure why gezegd is placed immediately after heeft or why the object comes before the verb in the latter half of the sentence.


I regarded this sentence as " The woman has said that she doesn't want you to see" at first. If "jou niet wil zien" -> "not want to see you" , how to say "not want you to see"?


Since it is "she doesn't want TO see you", why is it not "De vrouw heeft gezegd dat zij jou niet wil te zien"?


Because to see is the infinitive in English, and zien is the infinitive in Dutch.


Can "zien" in Dutch also mean "meet", or does it strictly mean "see with one's eyes"?


i wrote the same answer as above


I find it odd that both "zij" and "jou" are stressed pronouns here. I mean if you stress both persons involved, in the end you're not really putting the stress on either.

Learn Dutch in just 5 minutes a day. For free.