Talk:veel

The declension table for the Dutch determiner veel is wrong. It does not become vele in common gender unless preceded by an article: veel tijd, but: de vele tijd. In the plural veel and vele are used interchangeably: veel kinderen or vele kinderen. The normal adjective rules are just not applicable for this word.

I reverted your edit, as in the example you gave, veel's used as an adverb, not pronoun. You might want to read up on what a pronoun is. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 20:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't think you're right. It's a pronoun. "I ate too much" means "I ate too large a quantity of food". Nothing adverbial in my opinion. Besides, do you need to be so condescending?!?! But, okay, one might use a more unambiguous example: Er is veel gedaan. ("Much has been done.") Would that be all right with you, smart guy?

I am right. Read up on pronoun. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you want an explanation: Pronouns are substitutes for nouns. Adverbs describe adverbs, verbs, adjectives and sometimes the whole sentence. In this case veel or too much, describes the actions -> to eat; it is NOT the object of the sentence. Hence it is an adverb. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 00:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Actually, Jamesjiao the anon does have a point. Vele is pretty much limited to the plural case, mostly for semantic reasons. In the singular veel is mostly used for abstract or uncountable words and that results in an indefinite neutral like "veel werk". Even if the noun is masc/fem the form is veel, not vele: "veel liefde". *Vele liefde is downright wrong. Constructions with the definite article are pretty rare, something like "de vele liefde die hij daar ontving.." sounds pretty artificial to me. Even in the plural the form vele is not particularly common: "Veel auto's" sounds a lot better than "Vele auto's". When dealing with persons "Vele" is bit more useful.

So, no veel is not a normal adjective. That also goes for a form like the partitive veels or (o horror!) meers. Veels was still used in the 18th early 19th century and survives in colloquialisms like "veels te moe". Meers? I have never ever seen that... Jcwf (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

The table is really not correctly arranged for this, because it doesn't distinguish common definite and indefinite. The indefinite form is veel regardless of gender, while the definite form is vele regardless of gender. —CodeCat 01:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was the "anon" (before having created this account). As to the question whether veel in the sentence "Ik heb te veel gegeten" is a pronoun or an adverb... Is it possible in Dutch to say the following?

Wat heb je gegeten? − Te veel.

In German at least, this perfectly normal:

Was hast du gegessen? − Zu viel.

This proves that "zu viel" can indeed be the object of the sentence... And even if we say that it's more properly analyzed as an adverb, the way Jamesjiao answered on my statement says enough about his character. What's going on in your head? (I hadn't read the second answer until just now.)Kolmiel (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

And another argument I would come up with: Ik heb te veel vettigs gegeten. Isn't that good Dutch? It's certainly good German to say: Ich habe zu viel Fettiges gegessen.Kolmiel (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

The sentences you gave are both normal correct Dutch. veel a determiner, which makes it adjective-like. "te veel" is parallel to "te weinig" and in some cases also "te groot". Most determiners can also be used as pronouns, this is not limited to this word alone. —CodeCat 15:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply