Van der Horst (2008:1977ff) observes that V1-constructions are often used as exhortatives. In such cases, the inverted subject is normally the pronoun wij'we'; the exhortative reading does not arise in (non-inverted) V2-construction. Two of Van der Horst's examples are given in (79); the first example is taken from François Haversmidt's Winteravondvertellingen (1894) and the second one from Johan Huizinga's Erasmus (1924).

Examples of the type in (79) sound quite outdated and bookish to present-day ears: nowadays we would instead make use of the exhortative laten-constructions in (80), which are of course also V1-constructions; again the inverted subject is normally the pronoun wij'we'.

The exhortative laten -construction has quite a remarkable history, which can be nicely traced in Van der Horst (2008). The construction originated in the middle ages as a periphrastic conjunctive and could only be used with an object pronoun: laat ons … 'let us' . The construction with a subject pronoun came into existence in the 14th century, while the construction with the object pronoun remained the prominent one until the 16th century; cf. Van der Horst (2008:439, 665 & 911). The use of the subject pronoun arose especially in the northern part of the Netherlands (to which it seems to be restricted until this date), possibly in analogy to exhortative constructions of the type in (79); cf. Van der Horst (2008:911). In the 18th century, the coexistence of laten wij and laat ons gave rise to speculations about the meaning difference between the two constructions. Normative grammarians claimed that the former was exhortative and the latter permissive; cf. Van der Horst (2008:1459 & 1787). Given the history of the construction, it seems that we can safely conclude that it does not belong to Dutch core grammar, and should therefore be put aside in the evaluation of the claim that the V1-order is a superficial phonetic phenomenon. For more discussion of V1-structures with laten , we refer the reader to Section 5.2.3.4, sub VI.

Conjunctives may occasionally surface as V1-structures, but this is not necessary; see Van der Horst (2008:336) for examples from Old Dutch that exhibit the same property.

Since examples such as (81) are clearly historical relics and thus part of the periphery of the language, we can put these cases aside as irrelevant for our claim that the V1-order is a superficial phonetic phenomenon. It should be noted, however, that we find the same property in the more productive construction in (82) which is formed by means of the "past tense" form of the verb; see, e.g., Paardekooper (1986: 16).

There may be many more or less idiomatized constructions that originated as abbreviations of longer constructions. When someone finally decides to see his GP for a flu jab, he may express his premonition that something will go wrong by saying something like (83a): constructions of this type may have originated as abbreviated forms of the conditional construction in (83b).

Another case, which is also used in more formal settings or in writing, is given in (84a); cf. Van der Horst & Van der Horst (1999:273). An example such as (84a) typically would be used when the final issue of a (mental) list is addressed. It does not seem too far-fetched that we are dealing with an omitted connective like dan in (84b).

The two more or less randomly chosen cases discussed in this subsection show that each individual V1-structure should be investigated in its own right before it is possible to decide whether the structure in question may constitute a problem for the hypothesis that the V1-order is a superficial phonetic phenomenon. A full evaluation of this hypothesis will have to wait until we have a more exhaustive inventory of V1-constructions at our disposal.