Ge-nominalizations can be both indefinite and definite, allowing all kinds of definite +neuter determiners: the definite article het, the demonstratives dit/dat'this/that' and the possessive pronouns. They can also be quantified by means of elke/iedere'each/every', alle'all', veel/weinig'many/few' etc. Examples are given in (167).

ge-nominalizations can also be preceded by interrogative determiners like welke, and (168a) shows that they can be wh-moved as a result. Example (168b) shows that they can also be topicalized.

Pluralization of ge-nominalizations is not possible. This is, of course, not surprising, given that ge-nominalizations are substance nouns; cf. Section 1.2.2.1. The fact that some of the concrete ge-nouns and lexicalized nouns in (161) and (163) do allow pluralization merely confirms the view that these are not ge-nominalizations. Examples are, respectively, gebouw(en)'building(s)', gedicht(en)'poem(s)', and geschil(len)'dispute(s)' and gewaad/gewaden'gowns'.

Ge-nominalizations also behave like nouns with respect to adjectival modification: the fact that the adjectives prefer the suffix -e in definite constructions like (169a&b) shows that we are dealing with attributive modifiers, not with adverbial phrases. Nevertheless, the fact illustrated in the primed examples, that modification by means of adjectives expressing frequency or duration is possible, underlines the verbal quality of these nominals.

Example (170) provides a ge-nominalization with an intransitive input verb: both the verb wandelen'to stroll' and the ge-nominalization gewandel'strolling' have an argument structure with a position for an agent argument. As can be seen from (170b&b'), the agent can appear either postnominally as a van-PP or prenominally as a possessive pronoun or genitive noun phrase. Observe that the derived form is given the label ge-n, rather than N, in order to express the special nature of the derived noun, with its combination of nominal and verbal features.

Ge-nominalizations can also take a transitive verb like treiteren'to bully' as input. Despite the change in syntactic category, the argument structure of the verb is inherited in an essentially unchanged form by the derived form getreiter: both the number of arguments and their thematic functions remain the same. The verb and the derived noun do differ, however, in that the arguments are obligatorily expressed with the former, but can be left implicit with the latter. The (c)-examples in (171) further show that the theme argument of a ge-nominalization can only be realized in the form of a postnominal van-PP; it can appear neither in the form of a prenominal noun phrase (in contrast to inf-nominalizations), nor in the form of a possessive pronoun or genitive noun phrase (in contrast to er- and ing-nominalizations).

The examples in (172a&b) show that ge-nominalizations of ditransitive verbs also leave the argument structure essentially unchanged, although instances of such nominalizations where all three arguments are expressed are fairly rare. The (c)-examples show that, just like the theme argument, the recipient must be expressed as a postnominal PP; it can neither be realized as a prenominal noun phrase nor as a possessive pronoun.

Unaccusative verbs cannot be the input for ge-nominalization; cf. Section 1.3.1.4, sub IV.

ge-nominalizations can be formed on the basis of verbs selecting a PP-argument. Example (173b) shows that the preposition selected by the verb is inherited by the ge-nominalization.

Unlike other forms of nominalization, the process of ge-nominalization may add specific aspects of meaning to the meaning of the input verb; see Tálasi (2009), who also discusses the diachronic development of this type of nominalization. Thus the result of ge-nominalization are durative substance nouns like gestaar'staring', gedraaf'running' or gepraat'talking' that expresses that the eventuality expressed by the base verb occurs frequently. In addition, such nouns often have a negative connotation—they typically express a certain amount of irritation, condescension or “unfavorable connotation” (Kruisinga 1949) on the part of the speaker. That this pejorative effect is indeed a result of the nominalization process and not due to the semantics of the base verb is illustrated in (174), where ge-nominalization has a negative effect on such neutral base verbs as praten'to talk', regelen'to regulate/arrange' and wandelen'to walk'. Note that use of the expressive demonstrative dat'that' has the effect of enhancing the negative connotation of the deverbal noun.

Naturally, the pejorative effect cannot be detected with ge-nominalizations derived from verbs already carrying a negative meaning aspect, like jengelen'to whine', klagen'to complain', leuteren'to drivel', mekkeren'to yammer', zeuren'to nag', zwammen'to twaddle', etc.; it appears, however, that such verbs are particularly popular as input to ge-nominalizations (Mackenzie 1985a). Ge-nominalizations derived from verbs of sound emission are exceptional in that they lack this negative connotation (except for those cases in which the input verb already contains such a meaning aspect); the meaning of nouns like gefluister'whispering', gefluit'whistling', geronk'throbbing', gezoem'buzzing, humming', etc., can but need not be negatively affected by the nominalization process. For a detailed discussion of this type of nominalization.

Unaccusative verbs cannot be nominalized by means of ge-prefixation; cf., e.g., Hoekstra (1984a) and Knopper (1984). This is not only true of dyadic unaccusative (object-experiencer) verbs like ontgaan'to escape', bevallen'to please' and lukken'to succeed', but also for monadic unaccusatives. This means that the nouns in (175) are all ungrammatical.

This conclusion is supported by the fact that with those motion verbs that have both an unaccusative and an intransitive use, only the latter use allows ge-nominalization. This becomes clear from the examples in (176). The verb in example (176a) can be construed as the intransitive form of the verb springen'to jump', with the PP functioning as a locational adjunct, and (176a') shows that ge-nominalization is possible. Since the postpositional phrase in (176b) must be construed as an complementive, the verb can only be interpreted as an unaccusative verb, and (176b') shows that ge-nominalization is excluded.

An exception is formed by generic contexts like (177a&b), in which it is at least marginally possible for unaccusative verbs like sterven'to die' and trouwen'to marry' to undergo ge-nominalization. In these cases, the nouns obtain an iterative meaning aspect: the primed examples are unacceptable, since they do not allow an iterative reading.

The impossibility for unaccusative verbs to function as the input for ge-nominalization might be related to the fact that ge-nominalization is also disallowed with verbs denoting events that cannot be controlled by the participants in the event. As a result, verbs of expressing opinion such as menen'to think' (#gemeen), achten'to consider' (#geacht), and vinden'to consider' (*gevind) are excluded from ge-nominalization.
      The same thing is true for such typically -controlled verbs as slapen'to sleep' (*geslaap), liggen'to lie' (*gelig), zitten'to sit' (*gezit), kennen'to know' (*geken), blijven'to stay' (*geblijf), weten'to know' (*geweet). It is important to realize, however, that ge-nominalization is only excluded on the regular use of these verbs. If, in a certain context, the verbs can be given a +controlled interpretation, ge-nominalization is allowed. Due to a clash between the specific meaning aspect of ge-nominalizations and the base verbs, the resulting nouns are necessarily marked and, moreover, a negative connotation is almost inevitably present. The illustrations in (178) only acceptable if the states of affairs denoted by the nouns are interpreted as controlled by a participant in the event, which is therefore typically +human.

Another group of verbs that is systematically excluded from ge-nominalization is that of verbs with Germanic prefixes like be-, ver-, ont-, her-, which have a participial form without the prefix ge-; cf. Schultink (1978). Historically speaking, we are dealing with the same prefix.

There seems to be a motivated relation between the possibility of ge-nominalization and the form of the past/passive participle: particle verbs, which do form their past participles by mean of affixation with ge-, also allow ge-nominalization, although it should be noted that the result is sometimes marked and a negative connotation is always present. Some examples are given in Table (180).

The same thing can be illustrated by means of verbs with non-Germanic prefixes: they also have a past/passive participle preceded by ge-, and in most cases ge-nominalization does not seem to give rise to an outright ungrammatical result in the way the ge-nouns derived from verbs with a Germanic prefix are ungrammatical. At worst, they are unusual, which is clear from the fact that the cases marked as fully acceptable in Table (181) can be readily found on the internet and that the cases marked with a single question mark do occur on the internet, but are rare. Note that the case with two question marks has not been attested, but this might be due to the fact that it belongs to a more elevated register.

      A potential problem for the suggested relation between the possibility of ge-nominalization and the form of the past/passive participle is that example (182) shows that the ge- prefix can be found with verbs like herhalen'to repeat'; we found more than 50 occurrences of the form geherhaal on the internet. The relative acceptability of this example may be due to the fact that herhalen (unlike herlezen in (179)) is not interpreted as consisting of a base verb (halen'to fetch') and a prefix her-, but as a monomorphemic verb.

An obvious problem with this suggestion is, however, that we would expect that the past participle form geherhaald is also quite common, but this does not seem to be borne out; we found only 28 occurrences of this form on the internet, whereas the past participle form herhaald occurred over one million times.

It does not really come as a surprise that ge-nominalization of inherently reflexive verbs is rare. First, many inherently reflexive verbs are prefixed and for this reason excluded from ge-nominalization: zich vergissen'to be mistaken', zich begeven naar'to make oneʼs way to', zich bevinden'to be (located)', zich vergewissen van'to make sure of', zich bedrinken'to get drunk', zich uitleven'to live it up'). Second, we have seen that the reflexive pronoun cannot occur postnominally in inf-nominalizations but must be realized in prenominal position; cf. Section 1.3.1.2, sub IV. Given that ing-nominalizations only take post-nominal complements, the impossibility of the ing-nominalizations of inherently reflexive verbs in (183) is exactly what one would expect.

However, it seems at least marginally possible to use the corresponding ing-nominalizations if the postnominal PP containing the reflexive is dropped, as is shown in the examples in (184), which are both adapted versions of examples found on the internet.

Example (185b) shows that with non-inherently reflexive verbs, ge-nominalization is possible; zichzelf can be treated as a regular argument comparable to Marie.