In the komen + adjective constructions in (87), the adjective nat'wet' is predicated of, respectively, the noun phrases jij'you' and de badkamer'the bathroom'. This construction is of a very limited type: it only occurs in interrogative clauses like (87) in which a cause is questioned and yes-no questions like (88) that contain a causative door-phrase.

The examples in (89) show that the komen + adjective construction is also possible in embedded interrogatives and in interrogatives with main clause order. Note that the interrogative meaning of (89b) is triggered by the adverb immers/toch; the negative element niet'not' must be present.

The examples in (90) show that the construction is excluded in declaratives and in interrogatives that question something other than a cause. Note, however, that for some unknown reason (90a) becomes perfectly acceptable in syntactic frame (90a').

      The examples in (91) show that the deictic element zo is normally required in such constructions. This element zo may modify the complementive adjective, but it may also modify some other element: in (92), for example, zo is used to modify an adverbial phrase.

The examples in (91a&b) without zo can be saved, however, by adding a discourse particle such as nou, which is used to express astonishment. This is illustrated in (93); to our knowledge, examples like these have not been studied so far.

The fact that a cause phrase must be present suggests that the use of komen in (87) is related to its use in the examples in (94), which involve a finite clause instead of a complementive adjective. Observe that in these examples, the cause phrase is compulsory as well.

More evidence for the claim that the two uses of komen are related is found in the fact that, in both constructions, komen can only be combined with epistemic modal verbs: deontic modals, like willen with the meaning “to want", are excluded.

That the two uses of komen are related is also clear from the fact that the examples in (87) and (88) are near-synonymous with those in (96) and (97). Observe that in (94) to (97), het'it' is an anticipatory pronoun introducing the embedded finite clause. This is clear from the fact that it must be dropped if the finite clause is preposed: compare (94a) to Dat jij zo nat bent, komt door de regen.

      The (a)-examples in (98) show, however, that the komen + adjective and the komen + clause constructions differ in that only the latter is compatible with sentence negation. The (b)-examples show that if negation has a more limited scope, as in the case of adjectives prefixed with on -, both constructions are equally fine.

Paardekooper (1986) has suggested that the examples in (87) and (88) are “derived from" the infinitival counterparts of the examples in (96) and (97) by replacing the infinitival copula te zijn'to be' by a “null sign". Although this suggestion might be on the right track, it should be noted that, contrary to what Paardekooper claims, the overt realization of te zijn does not give rise to a very felicitous result according to most speakers of Dutch.

The modification possibilities of the adjective in the komen + adjective construction depend on what the element zo modifies. When it modifies some constituent unrelated to the adjective, as in (100), the possibilities are rather limited: (100a) shows that amplifiers like erg'very' or verschrikkelijk'terribly' and downtoners like vrij'rather' are not possible then, and (100b&c) show that comparative/superlative forms and adjectives preceded by te'too' are also excluded. Note that the clausal constructions in (101) are less deviant or even completely acceptable.

      If the element zo modifies the modifier of the adjective, as in (102a), amplifiers like erg'very' or verschrikkelijk'terribly' become possible in the komen + adjective construction; downtoners like vrij'rather', on the other hand, remain ungrammatical, probably because they cannot be modified by zo. Under the same condition, comparatives and adjective modified by te'too' can be used; this does not hold for superlatives, which may be due to the fact that they never combine with intensifiers. The examples in (103) show that the corresponding clausal constructions are also acceptable.

      Observe that the complex modifier zo A mogelijk'as A as possible' in (104), in which zo is used non-deictically, is excluded. Note, however, that some speakers can use komen as a copular verb. For them, example (104a) is acceptable with an inchoative meaning: “how can you become as small as possible", but this is irrelevant for our present discussion.

Adjectives that take a non-dative nominal complement, such as zat 'weary' in (106), do not occur in attributive position; cf. Section 5.3, sub IA.

Adjectives like gek 'fond' must be followed by their prepositional complement; cf. the contrast between (107a) and (107a'). Such adjectives cannot occur in attributive position as a result of the Head-final Filter on attributive adjectives; cf. Section 5.3, sub IB.

Example (108) provides some examples of adjectives that can only occur in combination with a (pseudo-)copular verb.

The primed examples in (109) show that these adjectives cannot be used attributively. For completeness’ sake, the doubly-primed examples show that these examples become fully acceptable if the verb appears as an attributively used present participle.

The examples in (110) also involve copular constructions, but are special in that the adjective seems to take a nominal complement.

The fact that these adjectives can only be used predicatively may therefore follow from the general restriction discussed in Subsection A that adjectives that take a non-dative complement cannot appear in attributive position. Observe that the doubly-primed examples, which contain the present participle of the verbs in (110), are again fully acceptable.

For completeness’ sake, (112a) shows that the adjective kwijt can also be used without a nominal complement. In this case it cannot be used attributively either, as is shown in (112b).

      The examples in (113) are comparable to resultative and vinden-constructions. Observe that the adjectives in (113b&d) may also occur in a copular construction; cf. (108a&d).

The fact that the adjectives in these fixed combinations cannot be used attributively is demonstrated in the primed examples in (114). The grammatical constructions in the doubly-primed examples again involve an attributively used present participle.

Some adjectives can be modified by a van-PP containing a bare noun. There are at least two types, which are illustrated in (115). The van-PP in (115a) expresses a restriction on the adjective “big as far as the stature is concerned", and the van-PP in (115b) indicates the cause of the occurrence of the property denoted by the adjective “red caused by excitement". The primed examples show that these two constructions cannot be used attributively.

The two constructions differ, however, in that the first indicates an individual-level property, whereas the latter denotes a stage-level property. Due to this, the latter, but not the former, can also be used as a supplementive. The two A + van + N sequences in (115) are more extensively discussed in Section 3.5, sub I.

There are a number of isolated cases of adjectives that can only be used in complementive position: alleen'alone', anders'different', bekaf/doodop'done in', klaar'ready', onwel'ill', and weg'away'.

Finally, observe the remarkable contrast between (118a) and (118b), which only differ in that in (118b) klaar'ready' is part of the compound kant-en-klaar'instant'.