De bevende getuige kon de dader identificeren en aanwijzen.

Questions & Answers about De bevende getuige kon de dader identificeren en aanwijzen.

If someone asked 'Was de getuige bevend?' (Was the witness trembling?), how would you answer using the resumptive pronoun het taught in this lesson?
You would say: Ja, hij was het. In Dutch, when replacing a previously mentioned adjective like bevend in the predicate, you use het to represent that state. You cannot simply say Ja, hij was, as leaving the predicate empty feels incomplete in Dutch.
Why is it bevende with an -e ending instead of just bevend?
Bevend is the present participle of beven (to tremble). When you use a present participle as an adjective in front of a noun, it follows the normal adjective inflection rules. Since getuige is a de-word, the adjective gets an -e.
Because aanwijzen is a separable verb, shouldn't the aan be separated from wijzen?
Not in this case. The modal verb kon pushes the main verbs (identificeren en aanwijzen) to the end of the sentence as infinitives. When a separable verb is placed at the end of a sentence as a full infinitive, the prefix stays attached.
Could I use kende instead of kon for 'was able to'?
No, kende is the past tense of kennen (to know a person or thing), whereas kon is the past tense of kunnen (to be able to, can). While they look and sound slightly similar, their meanings are strictly separated in Dutch.

Learn De bevende getuige kon de dader identificeren en aanwijzen and more in Dutch

All course content and exercises are completely free — no paywalls, no trial periods, no signup needed.

  • Practice with interactive exercises
  • Track your progress with spaced repetition
  • Learn at your own pace — completely free