This subsection discusses some properties of the high and low degree quantifiers veel and weinig. It should be noted that these quantifiers are not only used as modifiers of the noun phrase, but can also be used as adverbial phrases. Since it would disturb our present discussion too much to also discuss this adverbial use here, we will return to it in a separate section; cf. Section 6.2.6.

Besides the high and low degree quantifiers discussed above, there are quantifiers such as voldoende'sufficient', genoeg'enough' and zat'plenty', which express that the cardinality of the intersection satisfies a certain contextually determined norm. The examples in (157) with voldoende'enough' show that degree modifiers of this type are able to modify both count and non-count nouns, and are normally used with a weak reading. Recall from the discussion of the semantic representations in (150) that n and n' in (157a') refer to, respectively, the lower and the upper bound of the range that falls within the contextually determined norm.

      The degree quantifiers like genoeg and zat allow somewhat more freedom in their syntactic distribution than the other degree quantifiers; (158) shows that these quantifiers need not be placed in prenominal position, but can also occur postnominally. This is reminiscent of their behavior as modifiers of the adjectives illustrated in the primed examples, where they must follow the modified element.

      The quantifiers genoeg and voldoende (but not zat) can also be negated, thus expressing sentential negation. Two examples are given in (159). The examples differ in that sentential negation is brought about by means of the negative adverb niet in the case of genoeg, whereas in the case of voldoende negation is brought about by means of affixation with on-. Since negation is morphologically expressed on the quantifier itself in the case of voldoende, one might suggest that the negative adverb niet forms a constituent with the quantifier genoeg in (159a), and in fact there is some evidence that this is indeed the case; as (159a') shows, the presence of niet excludes postnominal placement of the quantifier, which might be due to the fact that the quantifier is now complex.

Although there is some reason for assuming that sentential negation is realized as part of the quantifier in (159), this cannot be the case for all negated quantifiers. This is clear from the examples in (160) with the quantifier genoeg. Example (160a), which has basically the same meaning as (159a), shows that the noun phrase genoeg boeken can be topicalized while stranding the negative adverb niet, which suggests that sentential negation can also be expressed externally to the quantified noun phrase, which is confirmed by example (160b), in which sentential negation is realized on the time adverb nooit'never'. Example (160c) shows that sentential negation can also be expressed within the noun phrase by means of the negative article geen'no'; this case contrasts sharply with the one in (159a), however, in that the quantifier must be placed postnominally.

The examples in (159a&b) express that the cardinality of the set denoted by the noun does not satisfy the lower bound of the contextually determined norm. It is also possible to express that the cardinality exceeds the upper bound of this norm by using the complex phrase meer dan genoeg/voldoende'more than enough'; zat sounds somewhat marked (although we found a couple of cases on the internet). A more extensive discussion of examples such as (161a) can be found in Section 6.2.5.

This subsection makes a distinction between uninflected and inflected veel/weinig and show that these two instances differ in several respects. We start with a discussion of the uninflected forms. Like most existential quantifiers, the degree quantifiers veel and weinig are normally not used as independent arguments: example (162b) is acceptable due to the presence of quantitative er, but example (162c), in which the quantifier is truly independent, is unacceptable.

Things are different, however, if we are dealing with non-count nouns. Since the quantitative er construction requires the empty noun to be plural, it does not really come as a surprise that example (163b) is excluded. However, in contrast to (162c), (163c) is acceptable. This example can be construed with a count noun interpretation, in which case veel/weinig can refer to a certain quantity of wine. Alternatively, veel/weinig may be construed as referring to a set of discrete entities of a miscellaneous sort (“loads of different things”).

The judgments on the examples in (162) and (163) remain the same if the quantifiers veel and weinig are modified by degree modifiers like erg'very' or te'too', or if they are replaced with their comparative forms meer'more' and minder'less'. Replacement by the superlative forms (het) meest'(the) most' and (het) minst'(the) least' is of course excluded since this would make the noun phrases definite; definite noun phrases do not license quantitative er and are not possible in expletive constructions.
      The examples in (164) show that veel/weinig can also be used as the predicate in a copular construction or as a measure phrase with verbs like kosten. In this case, veel and weinig can also be replaced by both the comparative and the superlative form; the latter can optionally take an -e ending.

      Let us now continue with the inflected form. The examples in (154), repeated here as (166), show that while veel may also occur in an inflected form; inflected weinige gives rise to a marked/degraded result. If no overt article is present, veel can either be inflected or uninflected, and we assume that the form depends on the absence or presence of the phonetically empty indefinite article ∅.

The (a)-examples in (167) show that quantified non-count nouns never occur in noun phrases containing a definite article. If we conclude from this that it cannot co-occur with the indefinite article either, we correctly predict that non-count nouns are always preceded by the uninflected forms.

      It is not really surprising that the quantitative er construction in (168b) is acceptable to about the same degree as the examples in (168a). What is surprising, is that the independent uses of these quantifiers in (168c) also give rise to a more or less acceptable result; this shows that the inflected forms differ markedly from their uninflected counterparts in (162c), which cannot be used as independent arguments. Furthermore, the fact that both the independent use of velen and that of weinigen are judged grammatical suggests that there is in fact no direct relation between these independent uses of the quantifiers in (168c) and their use as modifiers of the noun phrases in (168a&b). Recall that the orthographic rules require a (mute) -n on the independently used quantifiers in (168c) if they are +human.

      The fact that the independently used quantifiers velen and weinigen in (168c) function as the subject of an expletive construction shows that they can be used as weak noun phrases, but they can also be used as strong noun phrases, as is illustrated by (169a). The remaining examples in (169) show that such independently used quantifiers can be used in all regular argument positions, that is, as a direct or indirect object or as the complement of a preposition.

The degree modifiers which express that the cardinality of the intersection satisfies a contextually determined norm pattern more or less like uninflected veel'many' and weinig'few'. If genoeg, voldoende and zat trigger plural agreement on the finite verb, they must be accompanied by quantitative er.

However, if these elements trigger singular agreement, quantitative er cannot be realized. Just like veel/weinig in (163c), the quantifiers in (171c) can be construed with a non-count noun interpretation, in which case they refer to a certain quantity of wine, or they can be used to refer to a set of discrete entities of a miscellaneous sort.