The simplest way to explain the core meaning of quantificational personal pronouns is to use Figure 1 from Section 14.1.2, sub IIA, repeated below, to represent the subject-predicate relation in a clause. In this figure, A represents the denotation set of the lexical part (i.e. the NP-part) of the subject and B the set of entities denoted by the verb phrase. The intersection A ∩ B denotes the set of entities for which the proposition expressed by the clause is claimed to be true. For instance, in an example such as De jongen wandelt op straat, it is claimed that set A, which has cardinality 1, is properly contained in set B, which consists of the people walking in the street. In other words, it is expressed that A - (A ∩ B) is empty.

In the following discussion we will not be interested in the fact that the [+human] and [-human] pronouns are associated with two mutually exclusive denotation sets: for the former, set A is a set of individuals, while for the latter, set A is a set of non-human entities. We will rather focus on the implication of the pronouns for the intersection A ∩ B and the remainder of set A, i.e. A - (A ∩ B).

The existential pronouns iemand and iets behave similarly to indefinite noun phrases in that they indicate that A ∩ B is not empty, and do not imply anything about the set A - (A ∩ B), which may or may not be empty.

Note that unlike what we did with singular indefinite noun phrases (see example (8) in Section 18.1.1.1), here we follow the philosophical tradition of assuming that the existential pronouns express that the cardinality of the intersection A ∩ B is ≥ 1. The reason for this is that they can be used in yes/no-questions without implying that there is at most one person/entity that satisfies the description given by the verb phrase. This will be clear from the fact that the question-answer pairs in (398) form a perfectly coherent piece of interaction.

While the semantic contribution of existential pronouns is similar to that of indefinite noun phrases, universal pronouns are instead similar to definite noun phrases: they express that in the domain of discourse (domain D) all entities that satisfy the description of the pronoun (human/non-human) are included in the intersection A ∩ B, i.e. that the remainder of the set is empty: |A - (A ∩ B)| = 0.

Now that we have seen that the existential and the universal personal pronouns resemble noun phrases containing, respectively, an indefinite and a definite article, it is not surprising that the negative existential personal pronouns resemble noun phrases containing the negative article/quantifier geenno: they express that the intersection (A ∩ B) is empty.

The examples in (401) and (402) show that all quantificational personal pronouns are formally third-person singular and masculine (or neuter): this is clear from the form of the finite verb and from the fact that the third-person possessive pronoun zijnhis can take the quantificational pronoun as its antecedent. Note, however, that the use of feminine pronouns is encouraged for politically correct writing/speech.

The fact that the existentially quantified subject pronouns in (401a) and (402a) co-occur with the expletive erthere shows that they can be weak noun phrases. However, the examples in (403) show that these quantificational personal pronouns can also be strong, i.e. they can also occur in the regular subject position.

The primed examples, however, are marked in the sense that they require a special intonation pattern: they are only natural when the existential pronoun is assigned accent. The pronouns in the primed examples then receive a specific indefinite reading, which can be paraphrased een zeker persoon/dinga certain person/thing. The pronouns in the primeless examples, on the other hand, can be interpreted non-specifically, which is clear from the fact that they can be paraphrased by een of ander persoon/dingsome person/thing. The examples in (404) show that the more colloquial existential pronoun wat differs from iets in that it can only occur with the expletive, which shows that wat can only be interpreted non-specifically.

The fact that the existential pronouns in (403a&b) can be interpreted non-specifically does not mean that they must be interpreted that way. In fact, there is reason to think that they can have both a non-specific and a specific reading. The two readings can be made prominent by adding a quantified adverbial phrase such as verschillende kerenseveral times to the sentence. When the existential pronoun follows the adverbial phrase, as in (405), it can only be interpreted non-specifically, which is clear from the fact that it can then range over a non-singleton set of entities, i.e. that several persons have called or several things have fallen. This interpretation is usually expressed by saying that the existential pronoun is in the scope of the quantified adverbial phrase verschillende keren.

When the existential pronoun precedes the adverbial phrase, however, it must receive a specific interpretation; in (406a) the phone calls were all made by the same person, whose identity is concealed by the speaker; in (406b) it is a certain thing, not further specified, that has fallen several times. Note that iets in (406b) cannot be replaced by wat, which supports the claim made on the basis of (404) that wat is inherently non-specific.

Although the specific interpretation can in principle be expressed by saying that the existential pronoun has the quantified phrase in its scope, this may be beside the point, since a similar difference in meaning can be found in (407), where the adverbial phrase is not quantificational in nature. It seems easier, therefore, to simply assign to iemand/iets the reading “a certain person/thing” when it precedes a clause adverbial; cf. Hornstein (1984) for a similar claim concerning English existentially quantified noun phrases.

Note that although we can paraphrase the specific and non-specific readings of iemand and iets by means of indefinite noun phrases preceded by the indefinite article een, the former differs from the latter in that it does not allow a generic interpretation: while the generic sentence in (408b) is perfectly acceptable, example (408a) certainly cannot be interpreted generically.

Possible exceptions to the general rule that iemand and iets cannot be used generically are given in (409), taken from Haeseryn et al. (1997), which are special in that they contain two conjoined predicates that are mutually exclusive.

Of course, generic meanings can be and are in fact typically expressed by universal pronouns; cf. Iedereen is sterfelijkEveryone is mortal and Alles is vergankelijkEverything is transient.

The negative existential personal pronouns niemandnobody and niets/niksnothing are normally used as weak quantifiers, which is clear from the fact that as subjects they are preferably used in an expletive construction. Examples like (410a'&b') are acceptable, but generally require emphatic accent: the pronoun then receives an emphatic reading comparable to the “not a single N” reading of noun phrases with geen; cf. Section 18.1.5.1, sub III.

The negative pronouns niemand and niets are probably best thought of as the negative counterparts of the non-specific pronouns iemand and iets: if we want to negate a sentence containing the specific forms of these pronouns, the negation is expressed not by the pronoun, but by the negative adverb niet. Example (411) shows that the specific quantificational pronoun must precede this adverb. For completeness, note that in accordance with the earlier suggestion that it is inherently non-specific, wat cannot substitute for iets in (411b).

Unlike the existential pronouns (cf. (408a)), the negative existential pronouns in (412) can easily be used in generic statements. In such examples the negative pronouns behave like strong quantifiers, i.e. they cannot be used in an expletive construction.

Quantificational pronouns can be used in all regular argument positions. In (413) and (414) this is illustrated for the subject and object position, respectively.

The examples in (415) show that [+human] quantificational personal pronouns can also be used as the complement of a preposition. The existential pronoun in (415a) can be either specific or non-specific, and its negative counterpart in (415b) is interpreted with its normal, non-emphatic reading.

The situation is somewhat more complex with the [-human] pronouns, due to the fact that they can undergo R-pronominalization, i.e. the primeless examples in (416) alternate with the primed examples.

The examples in (417) show that the existential pronoun iets alternates with the R-word. The judgments are somewhat subtle, but it seems that (417a) is preferably interpreted as specific, while (417b) instead receives a non-specific interpretation.

With the negative existential pronouns, R-pronominalization seems to be the unmarked option. Realizing the pronoun as the complement of the preposition seems to yield a “not a single thing” reading.

With the universal pronoun, R-pronominalization may also be the unmarked option. Realizing the pronoun as the complement of the preposition seems to yield an emphatic “each and everything” reading.

The above observations are admittedly rather impressionistic, so more research is needed to determine whether the R-forms are indeed unmarked, and whether the two forms do indeed exhibit systematic meaning differences of the kind suggested here.

Finally, we note that the existential pronouns can also be used as the predicate in a copular construction, although they usually require some form of modification. This is illustrated in (420) for the non-specific use of the pronouns.

The negative existential pronouns in (421) can also be used as complementives, although this results in a more or less idiomatic interpretation.

The universal pronouns in (422) also have a severely limited distribution with a more or less idiomatic interpretation.

The predicatively used existential pronouns in the primeless examples of (423) are followed by a relative clause and receive a specific interpretation, which is clear from the fact that their negative counterparts in the (b)-examples do not involve the negative existential pronouns, which are preferably construed as non-specific, but the negative adverb niet.

Examples (420) and (423) have already shown that predicatively used existential pronouns can be modified. Quantificational personal pronouns in argument position often occur with postmodifiers, which then function to restrict the sets denoted by the pronouns. This is illustrated in (424) by the [+human] quantificational pronouns. In all these examples the (contextually determined) set of persons is restricted to a subset of it.

Premodification by an attributive adjective, on the other hand, seems to be ruled out. Note that an example such as (425a) is only an apparent counterexample to this claim: the fact that the form iemand is preceded by an indefinite article indicates that the pronoun is simply being used as a noun, comparable in meaning to a noun like persoonperson. Example (425b) shows that iets can be used in a similar way with the meaning “thing”; however, wat is completely unacceptable in such constructions. Note that the constructions in (425) actually require the presence of an attributive modifier; cf. *een iemand and *een iets.

Existential pronouns can be modified in two other ways. First, these pronouns can be followed by the element anderselse. These constructions are discussed in more detail in Section A29.4.

Second, the existential pronouns iemand and iets can be premodified by zosuch, which results in a “type” reading of the quantifier. The pronoun wat lacks this option, which is clear from the fact that a Google search (December 1, 2015) for the string [ook zo iets gelezen] yielded 31 hits, while no relevant results were obtained for the string [ook zo wat gelezen].