For the sake of completeness, we want to note that the complementizer om is characteristic for the dialects in the Netherlands; in the Flemish varieties of Dutch the complementizer is often realized as van (and sometimes voor), and in some dialects van is even the only possibility; cf. Barbiers et al. (2005: §1.3.1.10). For the latter dialects, Craenenbroeck (2000) has shown that van can occur in a wider range of infinitival complement clauses than om, i.e. in some of the cases discussed in Section 5.2.2 on te-infinitivals. This might be related to the fact that van exhibits some of the properties of French de, which can also occur in certain infinitival constructions that would be incompatible with om in Dutch. This ultimately leads to an analysis of van (at least for these dialects) not as a complementizer but as an epistemic marker signaling that the speaker has doubts about the future realization of the eventuality denoted by the infinitival clause.