Van der Horst (2008:1977ff) notes that V1-constructions are often used as exhortatives. In such cases, the inverted subject is usually the pronoun wijwe; the exhortative reading does not arise in (non-inverted) V2-construction. Two of Van der Horst’s examples are given in (107); the first example is taken from François Haversmidt’s Winteravondvertellingen (1894) and the second one from Johan Huizinga’s Erasmus (1924).

Examples of the type in (107) sound rather old-fashioned and bookish to modern ears: nowadays we would use instead the exhortative laten-constructions in (108), which are of course also V1-constructions; again the inverted subject is usually the pronoun wijwe.

The exhortative laten-construction has quite a remarkable history, which can be nicely traced in Van der Horst (2008). The construction originated in the Middle Ages as a periphrastic conjunctive and could only be used with an object pronoun: laat ons ...let us. The construction with a subject pronoun emerged in the 14th century, while the construction with an object pronoun remained the dominant one until the 16th century; cf. Van der Horst (2008:439, 665 & 911). The use of the subject pronoun arose especially in the northern part of the Netherlands (to which it seems to have been confined until now), possibly in analogy to exhortative constructions of the type in (107); cf. Van der Horst (2008:911). In the 18th century, the coexistence of laten wij and laat ons gave rise to speculation about the difference in meaning between the two constructions. Normative grammarians claimed that the former was exhortative and the latter permissive; cf. Van der Horst (2008:1459 & 1787). For the subsequent gradual suppression of the laat ons construction in favor of the laten we construction since the early 19th century, see Van de Velde (2017: §2.4). Given the history of the laten we construction, it seems safe to conclude that it does not belong to Dutch core grammar and should therefore be set aside when evaluating the claim that the V1-order is a superficial phonetic phenomenon. For further discussion of V1-structures with laten, see Section 5.2.3.4, sub VI.

Conjunctive clauses may occasionally appear as V1-structures, but this is not necessary; cf. Van der Horst (2008:336) for examples from Old Dutch that exhibit the same property.

Since examples such as (109) are clearly historical relics and thus part of the periphery of the grammar, we can set these cases aside as irrelevant to our claim that the V1-order is a superficial phonetic phenomenon. Note, however, that we find the same property in the more productive construction in (110) which is formed by using the “past tense” form of the verb; cf. Paardekooper (1986:16).

There may be many more or less idiomatic constructions that originated as abbreviations of longer constructions. When someone finally decides to go to the doctor for a flu jab, he may express his premonition that something will go wrong by saying something like (111a): constructions of this type may have originated as abbreviations of the conditional construction in (111b).

Another case, also used in more formal settings or in writing, is given in (112a); cf. Van der Horst & Van der Horst (1999:273). An example such as (112a) typically would be used when the final issue of a (mental) list is addressed. It does not seem too far-fetched that we are dealing with an omitted connective like dan in (112b).

The two more or less randomly selected cases discussed in this subsection show that each individual V1-structure should be examined in its own right before it is possible to decide whether the structure in question might pose a problem for the hypothesis that the V1-order is a superficial phonetic phenomenon. A full evaluation of this hypothesis will have to wait until we have a more complete inventory of V1-constructions at our disposal.