The paradigm for the present tense includes two morphologically realized affixes: the invariant plural affix -en (pronounced schwa), and the affix -t, which is used to mark the second-person and third-person singular. The first-person singular is not morphologically marked, which is indicated in Table 7 by the null morpheme -Ø. There is no gender agreement in Dutch. The relevant examples are repeated here in a slightly different form as (120).

The present tense inflection in (120) has just three different inflection markers and is thus relatively poor compared to languages such as Italian, which has six different present-tense forms; cf. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_conjugation for examples. This is often thought to be related to the fact that in Italian the subject can be omitted when it refers to information shared by the speaker and the addressee, whereas this is usually not possible in Dutch; argument drop only occurs with first-person subject pronouns in so-called diary contexts such as (121a), and with third-person pronouns if they refer to the discourse topic in contexts such as (121b); cf. Section 11.2.2.

The (a)-examples in (122) show that the agreement marker -t in (120b) can only be used to express second-person singular agreement if the colloquial subject pronoun je/jij precedes the verb; if it follows the verb, the agreement marker must be omitted. The (b)-examples show that this does not apply to the honorific pronoun uyou. The difference between the regular and the politeness form may be due to the fact that the politeness form behaves synchronically like a third-person pronoun, as can be seen from the fact that it can be the antecedent of the third-person reflexive pronoun zich(zelf); cf. Section N22 for examples.

Note in passing that more elaborate double agreement systems comparable to the standard Dutch one for the pronoun je/jij in (122) can be found in various West-Germanic languages, including some Dutch dialects; cf. Zwart (1997:136ff), Postma (2011), and Barbiers (2013) for discussion and references.

The examples in (123) show the spelling of plosives in the coda of the stem. Again, we see that the spelling is completely determined by the underlying form: /p/, /t/, and /k/ are represented by the letters p, t, and k, respectively; similarly, /b/ and /d/ are always represented by b and d, even when they occur word-finally and are thus devoiced.

Note also that the -t ending is not expressed in the spelling when the stem ends in a -t; this is not due to the fact that the phoneme sequence /tt/ is reduced to [t] in speech, since the same is true for the phoneme sequence /dt/; it is simply that Dutch orthography does not allow two identical consonant letters to be adjacent at the end of a word. For completeness’, note that the use of a single letter a in baden is due to the general orthographic rule that long vowels are represented by a single letter in open syllables: pra-ten versus praat; ba-den versus baad.

The examples in (124) show the spelling of fricatives in the coda of the stem. In this case, the spelling is not completely determined by the underlying form. Although voiceless /f/, /s/, and /x/ and voiced /ɣ/ are always represented by the letters f, s, ch and g, respectively, the realization of the phonemes /v/ and /z/ depends on the morphological context: they are represented by v and z in the plural present-tense form marked by -en, where they are also voiced, but by the letters f and s in the singular forms, where they are devoiced. Note that the use of a single o and a in lozen and zagen is again due to the general orthographic rule that long vowels are represented by a single letter in open syllables.

For completeness’ sake, note that the stems of verbs like rijdento drive and houdento keep, in which the diphthongs /εi/ and /ɔʋ/ are followed by an underlying /d/, are often pronounced without the [d] when they are followed by the first-person singular null morpheme Ø or the plural marker -en. First and second-person singular forms without d are also common in written language; the spellings with and without d alternate freely in the primeless and singly-primed examples in (125). The spellings of the plural forms without d, on the other hand, are much less common: rijen and houen in the doubly-primed examples occur, but are not accepted in formal writing. When the stem is followed by the person marker -t, the stem is always written with d: the spellings Hij rijt and Hij hout are usually not accepted.

Past tense is usually expressed by the suffix -de, which must be directly adjacent to the verb stem. This marker has the allomorph -te, which appears when the verb stem ends in a voiceless consonant. It is noteworthy that the final consonants of the stems kliev- and looz- are written with an f and an s, respectively, even though they are not word-final and thus pronounced as [v] and [z].

stem	past		stem	past
	singular	plural		singular	plural
schop-	schopte	schopten	straf-	strafte	straften
schrob-	schrobde	schrobden	kliev-	kliefde	kliefden
groet-	groette	groetten	kus-	kuste	kusten
baad-	baadde	baadden	looz-	loosde	loosden
lok-	lokte	lokten	juich-	juichte	juichten
no stem ending in /ɡ/			zaag-	zaagde	zaagden

Table (126) shows that subject-verb agreement in the past tense is even more limited than in the present tense, since there is no person agreement at all; there is only number agreement, marked by the plural marker -en. In fact, this plural marker is only observable in the spelling, since the plural marker -en is pronounced as schwa and therefore elided under identity with the schwa in the past suffix. Consequently, the forms schopte and schopten, strafte and straften, etc. are phonetically indistinguishable; the first two are both pronounced [sxɔptə] and the second two [strɑftə]. The fact that past-tense forms are marked for number can therefore only be established by looking at irregular verbs such as lopento walk, which do not express the past tense with the suffix -te, but with a vowel change; Ik loop I walk versus Ik liep I walked. An example such as Wij liepenWe walked, which is pronounced with a schwa ending, shows that past-tense forms are indeed marked for the plural.

Table (128) shows that infinitives are derived from the verb stem by adding the suffix -en (pronounced schwa). The left-hand side of the table also shows that, as in the case of the plural marker -en, the spelling of obstruents in the coda of the stem is fully determined by the underlying form: it corresponds to the actual pronunciation of the infinitive. --

stem	infinitive	pronunciation	stem	infinitive	pronunciation
schop-	schoppen	[sxɔpə]	straf-	straffen	[strɑfə]
schrob-	schrobben	[sxrɔbə]	kliev-	klieven	[klivə]
groet-	groeten	[ɣrutə]	kus-	kussen	[kœsə]
baad-	baden	[badə]	looz-	lozen	[lozə]
lok-	lokken	[lɔkə]	juich-	juichen	[jœyxə]
no stem ending in /ɡ/			zaag-	zagen	[zaɣə]

Infinitives, which are also used as citation forms in linguistic texts and dictionaries, have several syntactic uses, which will be briefly discussed in the following subsections.

Table (141) shows that past/passive participles are derived from the verb stem by adding the circumfix ge-..-d or ge-..-t. The -d/t part of the circumfix is not realized in the spelling when the stem ends in /t/ or /d/, because Dutch orthography does not allow two identical consonant letters to be adjacent at the end of a word, so the spelling gegroett and gebaadd are not found.

stem	participle	pronunciation	stem	participle	pronunciation
schop-	geschopt	[ɣəsxɔpt]	straf-	gestraft	[ɣəstrɑft]
schrob-	geschrobd	[ɣəsxrɔpt]	kliev-	gekliefd	[ɣəklift]
groet-	gegroet	[ɣəɣrut]	kus-	gekust	[ɣəkœst]
baad-	gebaad	[ɣəbat]	looz-	geloosd	[ɣəlost]
lok-	gelokt	[ɣəlɔkt]	juich-	gejuicht	[ɣəjœyxt]
no stem ending in /ɡ/			zaag-	gezaagd	[ɣəzaxt]

In written language, the choice between ge-..-d and ge-..-t is determined by the underlying form of the final obstruent in the stem, although both ge-..-d and ge-..-t are normally pronounced as [ɣə-stem-t], due to the phonological rule of word-final devoicing. However, devoicing does not occur when the participle is used in prenominal position with an attributive -e ending; the t and d are then actually pronounced as [t] and [d]. In (142) we provide examples for the plosives in Table (141): the primeless and primed examples give the voiceless and voiced cases, respectively. In (143) we find similar examples for the fricatives.

A systematic exception to the inflection pattern in Table (141) occurs with complex verbs derived by prefixation: for example, verbs prefixed by unstressed affixes like ont-, be-, ver-, and her- are never preceded by the ge- part of the circumfix; this part is simply not realized. Some examples showing this are given in (144). Note that many of these complex verb forms are not the result of a currently productive morphological process: their specialized meanings suggest that verbs like verdienento deserve/earn and herhalento repeat must be listed as such in the lexicon.

The same holds for compound verbs in which word accent is not assigned to the first member, as would normally be the case. The examples in (145a&b) therefore contrast with verbs such as raadplegento consult in (145c), in which the ge- part precedes the whole compound. Small caps are used to indicate the stressed syllable.

Since the stress pattern in (145c) is the regular one, we find many cases of this type. A complication, however, is that besides unsuspected compounds such as raadplegen there are also semantic N + V collocations that do not behave like compounds. In fact, the position of the ge- part of the participle is a reliable test for distinguishing the two cases. The (a)-examples in (146) show that in beeldhouwento sculpture the ge- part precedes the nominal part, suggesting that we are dealing with a true compound. The (b)-examples show that in the case of auto rijdento drive a car the ge- part follows the nominal part, suggesting a more or less fixed collocation. The (c)-examples show that in the case of stofzuigento vacuum the ge- part can either precede or follow the nominal part, suggesting that we are dealing with an ambiguous structure. Note that the N + V compound in (146c) differs from the N + V collocation in (146c') in that it has the regular participle form instead of a strong form; cf. De Haas & Trommelen (1993:442).

The claim that participles differ in the way indicated is confirmed by the behavior of verbs under verb-second. True N + V compounds cannot strand the nominal part, whereas fixed N + V collocations cannot pied-pipe the nominal part. Ambiguous cases such as stofzuigen seem to have both possibilities.

The fact that verbal particles such as uit in uitvoerento carry out or opbellento ring up precede the ge- part of the participle shows in a similar way that particles do not form a morphological unit with the verb, despite the fact that particle-verb combinations are normally written as single words and can also be the input for word formation; cf. (on)uitvoerbaar(un)practicable. Such combinations do not form a morphological unit, as is also clear from the fact that verbal particles are stranded in verb-second constructions such as (148).

Past/passive participles can be used both verbally and adjectivally. The former is the case in perfect-tense and passive constructions, as can be seen from the fact that these constructions stand in systematic opposition to simple present/past tense and active constructions, respectively. It is important to note here that the past/passive participle can either precede or follow the perfect/passive auxiliary, as this will become important later in the discussion; cf. example (151).

Past/passive participles of a more adjectival nature can be found in (150); example (150a) shows that past/passive participles can be used in prenominal attributive position, which is usually occupied by adjectives, and (150b) shows that they can also be used in the predicative position of a copular construction. That we are (or at least can be) dealing with adjectives is clear from the fact that the participle gekookt can be prefixed with the negative morpheme on- ‘un-’, which is a characteristic of adjectives, just as verbs are typically prefixed with the negative morpheme ont-; cf. Booij (2002: §3.3).

A typical semantic difference between verbal and adjectival participles is that the former refer to dynamic states of affairs and the latter to stative properties. In some cases, constructions can be ambiguous in this respect. For example, Jan is getrouwd can express that Jan has got married or that Jan is in wedlock (i.e. a married man). This ambiguity is resolved by the use of different time adverbials in (151): the adverbial phrase gisterenyesterday refers to the moment when the marriage took place, while al jarenlangfor years refers to the time interval during which the property of being married applies to Jan. These examples also show that the placement of verbal and adjectival participles is different: the former can precede or follow the auxiliary verb, while the latter must precede the copular (just like other complementive phrases).

This brief discussion of verbal and adjectival past/passive participles is sufficient for now. A more detailed discussion of their adjectival use can be found in Section A31.

Present participles are derived from the stem by adding the suffix -end. Since the final consonant of the stem is now in intervocalic position, devoicing does not take place. This is illustrated in Table (152).--

stem	participle	pronunciation	stem	participle	pronunciation
schop-	schoppend	[sxɔpənt]	straf-	straffend	[strɑfənt]
schrob-	schrobbend	[sxrɔbənt]	kliev-	klievend	[klivənt]
groet-	groetend	[ɣrutənt]	kus-	kussend	[kœsənt]
baad-	badend	[badənt]	looz-	lozend	[lozənt]
lok-	lokkend	[lɔkənt]	juich-	juichend	[jœyxənt]
no stem ending in /ɡ/			zaag-	zagend	[zaɣənt]

Although present participles are traditionally treated as a case of verbal inflection, it is not obvious that they are verbs. The present-day distribution of these participles is that of an adjective rather than a verb. First, unlike their English counterparts ending in -ing, they are never used as the semantic head of a clause. For example, Dutch does not have a verbal construction with a present participle corresponding to the English progressive; instead, the progressive aan het + infinitive construction is used.

Second, present participles are found in functions normally performed by adjectives: example (154a) shows that a present participle can occur in prenominal attributive position, and (154b) shows that it can be used as a supplementive. Nevertheless, the fact that the present participle can be modified by an adverbial phrase in a function other than that of a degree modifier shows that it has retained specific verbal features.

Given their adjectival nature, present participles will not be discussed here; cf. Chapter A31 for further discussion of this category.