The verb doen in (122a) is combined with an adjective, whose syntactic function is not immediately clear. This gek doen-construction is similar to the copular construction in (122b), although the two constructions differ semantically in that in the copular construction the adjective is predicated of the subject itself (Jan is mad), whereas in the doen-construction it expresses something about the subject’s behavior (Jan’s behavior is strange). In this respect, the gek doen-construction is similar to the construction in (122c), which will be discussed in Subsection III and in which the adjective seems to be used adverbially.

Since the adjective in the gek doen-construction expresses something about the behavior of the subject, the subject must be of the “behaving” type: noun phrases like de jongenthe boy or mijn computermy computer are possible in (123a), but not a noun phrase such as het boekthe book. For the same reason, the adjective must express a property that applies to certain kinds of behavior; while an adjective such as raarweird in (123a) is fine, a measure adjective such as groot in (123b) is impossible in its usual sense of “big/large”.

An important difference between (122a) and (122b) is that in the former, but not in the latter, the adjective usually has a negative connotation; cf. (124a). A special effect comes about in examples such as (124b), in which the adjective expresses a positively valued property: it is somehow implied that the subject’s behavior is not sincere, or at least artificial. The adjectives gewoon/normaalnormal in (124c) are exceptional in that they simply express a state of affairs.

That the gek doen-constructions in (124a) have a negative connotation is also clear because the collocations typically occur in negative imperatives with the modifier zo: while the negative imperatives in (125a) are fine, their positive counterparts are generally impossible (though they are conceivable as stage directions without zo). The positively valued adjectives in (125b&c) behave like their declarative counterparts in (124): the constructions in (125b) imply that the behavior of the subject is insincere or at least artificial, whereas the constructions with gewoon/normaalnormal in (125c) are more neutral and simply express a state of affairs. The degraded status of the examples in (125b') becomes particularly clear when compared to their counterparts with zijnto be, e.g. Wees aardig!Be nice!.

The primeless examples in (126) show that adjectives in the declarative gek doen-construction can be modified by a degree modifier and be input for comparative and superlative formation, whereas the primed examples show that this is impossible in the negative imperative constructions; the latter is probably due to the obligatory presence of the modifier zo.

Remarkably, the use of the comparative form makes it easier for the combination doen + adjective to be used in a positive imperative: the examples in (127) show that if we are dealing with a majorative form, the adjectives must denote a positively valued property. Furthermore, the negative connotation that we find in the constructions in (124b) does not occur; to the extent that the examples in (127a) are possible, the adjectives actually receive a positive connotation.

Minorative forms of the adjective must express a negatively valued property; the imperative constructions in (128b) also take on a negative connotation when used as commands, although the same strings can also be used more neutrally as advice.

For completeness, note that doen + zo A mogelijk can occur in both declarative and positive imperative constructions; such constructions need not have a negative connotation.

The use of the combination zien + adjective is quite limited. The (a)-examples in (130) show that the verb zien can only occur with color adjectives and adjectives like bleekpale and grauwashen; adjectives like vriendelijkfriendly gekcrazy or langtall are excluded. The adjectives usually denote a property of (a part of) a living being and can usually be modified by a degree modifier and display comparative formation. The English translations in (130) show that the logical subject of the adjective is usually interpreted totum pro parte; e.g. in (130a) the property denoted by the adjective geel/bleek/grauw is attributed to Jan’s complexion.

The adjectives not only belong to a limited class, they must also denote a transitory property. Generic statements, e.g. about the color of the skin, cannot be expressed with this zien + A construction. This is illustrated in (131): while we can express the (false) generalization that all frogs are yellow by the copular construction in (131a), this is not possible with the combination zien + adjective in (131a'); and although in the copular construction in (131b) we do not have to take into account that chameleons can change color, this is implied by (131b').

Some more or less idiomatic examples of the zien + A construction are given in (132). Note that they contain a van-PP that expresses the cause of the transitory property; cf. Section 25.5, sub I, for a more detailed discussion of this PP. Example (132c) is special in that the subject does not refer to (a part of) a living being.

The zien + A constructions in (130) are similar to those in (133). They differ, however, in that the cases in (133) contain the pronominal PP er ... uit. Since this PP cannot be replaced by some other PP such as daaruit or uit + NP, it is clear that er uit zien is a fixed expression.

A closer look reveals that the two constructions behave quite differently. First, in the er A uit zien construction, the adjective is not restricted to the class of color adjectives. The adjectives in (130a') become perfectly acceptable when the PP er ... uit is added.

Second, the adjective need not express a transitory property; generic statements are possible in this construction, as will become clear by comparing (135) to (131a').

Third, the sequence er A uit zien can enter into the syntactic frame er uit zien alsof pronoun + A + copular in (136a), while this is not possible for the sequence zien + A. This contrast may be related to the fact, illustrated by the (b)-examples, that er uit zien, but not zien, can be followed by an als-phrase of comparison.

Finally, the zien + A construction implies that the subject actually has the property denoted by the adjective, whereas this need not be the case in the er A uit zien construction. This can be illustrated by contextualizing the examples in (137). While looking at a photo of Jan, one can say something like (137b) without contradicting oneself. Example (137a), on the other hand, would be a contradiction. The primed examples show that in this respect the combination zien + adjective resembles the copular verb zijnto be, while the combination er A uit zien resembles the copular verb lijkento seem.

We conclude by listing some other fixed combinations of verbs and adjectives that resemble complementive constructions. A first group are inherently reflexive verbs of the kind in (138), where the reflexive zich cannot be replaced by a full noun phrase such as Jan or the full reflexive form zichzelfhimself; cf. Section V2.5.2.

A second group is idiomatic in nature. This is most clearly the case with the color adjectives in (139). The adjective zwart is typically used to refer to situations in which one does not pay what one owes. The adjective grijs has more recently been introduced to refer to situations in which one does not pay what one owes in full.

The combination zwart + V denotes an illegal act. It is therefore not surprising that witwhite can be used in the resultative construction in (140), which refers to the activity of making illegally obtained money (seemingly) legal. Another fixed combination related to money is rood staan. This usage has its origin in the fact that banks used to print deficits on an account in red ink.

Other idiomatic combinations of verbs and adjectives are given in (141). The examples in (141a&b) are no longer semantically transparent: the verb bakerento nourish and the adjective bekaaid (Amsterdam dialect for meagre) are no longer used in the standard language. Example (141c) involves an absolute met-construction.

A case such as (142a) seems to involve metaphorical language use rather than an idiom; example (142b) illustrates the more literal meaning of the lexical units vastlopento get stuck and vastzittento be stuck.