The perfect auxiliaries hebben and zijn and modal verbs like kunnen'to be able' allow only infinitival nominalization. Some examples are given in (102). The primeless examples are bare-inf nominalizations: in these cases the complements of the input verb appears as a noun phrase to the left of the derived nouns. The primed examples are det-inf nominalizations: in these cases the complements of the input verb appears as a postnominal van-PP. All other types of nominalization resist the auxiliary and modal verbs as their input.

Copular verbs allow only infinitival nominalization. As can be seen from the examples in (103), the predicate normally precedes the noun both in bare-inf and in det-inf nominalizations. It is nevertheless not hard to find on the internet det-inf nominalization in which a nominal predicate is realized as a postnominal van-PP; cf. (103a'). Realizing of a non-nominal predicate as a postverbal van-PP, as in (103b'), is categorically impossible.

So-called raising verbs like schijnen/lijken'to seem' and blijken'to appear' are categorically rejected as input verbs for nominalization; cf., e.g., Booij (1986b). As shown by (104), the ban on nominalization extends to infinitival nominalization, regardless of whether Subject Raising has taken place, as in (104b'), or not, as in (104a').

None of the nominalization types can take object-experiencer verbs as their input. Object-experiencer verbs can be divided into two groups, depending on the case assigned to the non-nominative argument in languages like German, which do express case morphologically (cf. Den Besten 1985 and references cited there): with the nom-dat verbs (cf. Section V2.1.3), the object is assigned dative case, whereas with nom-acc verbs, the object is assigned accusative case (cf. Section V2.5.1.3). Neither of these types can be nominalized.
      Nom-dat verbs like lukken'to succeed' and spijten'to regret' in (105) and (106) are dyadic unaccusative verbs, whose nominative argument is not an agent but a theme (it is the object experienced). They take an experiencer NP-complement that appears in the dative case. As is shown by the primed examples, these verbs cannot be the input for bare/det-inf, ing- or ge-nominalizations.

Er-nominalization is also excluded, which is of course due to the fact that the resulting noun must refer to the agent of the input verb, which is lacking with these verbs. So even for those nom-dat verbs that have a +human subject, er-nominalization is excluded. This is illustrated in (107) for the nom-dat verbs opvallen'to strike' and bevallen'to please'.

      The nom-acc verbs, which are also known as psych-verbs, take an accusative object. As in the case of nom-dat verbs, the object has the thematic role of experiencer (it is the argument who experiences the psychological state denoted by the verb), while the subject does not perform the role of agent. Examples with the psych-verbs amuseren'to amuse' and ergeren'to irritate' are given in (108) and (109). As can be seen, neither bare/det-inf nor ing- nor ge-nominalization of these verbs is possible.

As in the case of nom-dat verbs, nom-acc verbs cannot constitute the input to er-nominalization. This is shown in (110) for the +human versions of examples (108a) and (109b). These examples again suggest that it is the lack of agentivity of the subject that plays a role here, and not the animacy of the subject.