Talk:hun

Dutch
I see a possible discrepancy in the Dutch section. Does the marker 'proscribed' mean proscribed as in proscribed by Christiaan van Heule or proscribed by the Taalunie? If it's Van Heulen, this should be changed because the wikipedia article says hun is not accusative. Hen is. Hun is supposed (again..according to Van Heule) to be used in all other cases where hen is not used (doh). These are dative (unless preceded by preposition), and some cases I've never heard of called 'belanghebbend voorwerp' 'ondervinded voorwerp' and 'bezittend voorwerp', all of which are not entirely the same as dative, and all under the condition that it must not be preceded by preposition. That's when hun is used according to Van Heule.

A bit of clarification about the marker 'proscribed' is in order I believe. 81.68.255.36 15:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * O-my-god, I will just leave this text in here..just to let people know how annoying this difference actually is, but I thought proscribe was prescribe. So nevermind.

"The artificially created distinction between hen (for the accusative) and hun was invented by the seventeenth century scholar Christiaen van Heule, to make Dutch look more like Latin."

Man liest und staunt…  So einfach! As simple as that! As simple as it is plausible… so plausible indeed, you can actually see our scholar showing up and proclaiming: “Gentlemen, here is something that will make our barbaric tongue look more like latin!”

Von der vielleicht nicht so völlig belanglosen Tatsache, daß auf einem vorigen Sprachgestalt der Unterschied zwischen Wer- und Wen-fall sicherlich vorhanden war (als er noch ist, auf anderen westgermanischen Mundarten: ihn/ihm, sie/ihnen) —  von all dem, kein Wort.

Et le tout dit dans un ton, comme s’il s’agissait là d’une évidence, connue de tous, qu’il suffirait de rappeler, sans besoin de citer quoi que ce soit — quel culot !

En un mot : weg, gone!