De getuige die het voorval zag, was compleet verward.

Questions & Answers about De getuige die het voorval zag, was compleet verward.

Why is it compleet without an -e ending here?
In this sentence, compleet acts as an adverb of degree modifying the adjective verward (confused). When words like compleet, heel, or vreselijk are used as adverbs to intensify another adjective, they remain invariant, meaning they never get an -e ending. You would only add the -e if it were an adjective directly modifying a noun, such as in de complete waarheid (the complete truth).
Could I say the witness was verwarrend instead of verward?
No, that changes the meaning entirely! Just like in English, the past participle verward (confused) describes the internal feeling or state of the witness. If you used the present participle verwarrend (confusing), it would mean the witness themselves was confusing to other people.
Why does the verb zag come at the end of the phrase die het voorval zag?
The phrase die het voorval zag is a relative clause giving us more information about the witness. Because a relative clause is a type of subclause, it follows subclause word order, which pushes the conjugated verb (zag) to the very end of that specific clause.
Why do we use the relative pronoun die instead of wie for 'who'?
In Dutch, wie is generally only used as a question word for 'who' or directly after a preposition (like in de man met wie...). When you are simply referring back to a noun to say 'who' or 'that', you must use die for de words (like de getuige) and dat for het words. Since getuige is a de word, die is the correct choice.

Learn De getuige die het voorval zag, was compleet verward 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