Finite clauses usually refer to propositions or questions; consequently, we do not expect them to be predicated of noun phrases referring to entities, and examples like those in (776) are indeed completely uninterpretable in Dutch, as in English.

What we might expect is that finite clauses can be predicated of noun phrases headed by proposition nouns like feitfact or speech act nouns like vraagquestion, and at first glance the primeless examples in (777) seem to suggest that this might well be possible.

However, the examples in (777) alternate with the near-synonymous examples in (778), in which the noun phrases clearly function as complementives that are predicated of the finite clauses introduced by the anticipatory pronoun hetit.

The examples in (778) cast some doubt on the idea that we are dealing with complementive clauses in (777), since we know that the anticipatory pronoun hetit is often (and sometimes preferably) omitted when the complementive of the copular construction is topicalized. This is illustrated in (779) for copular clauses with the adjectival predicates duidelijkclear and onduidelijkunclear; cf. Section 5.1.3, sub III, for further discussion. It may therefore be the case that the examples in (777) are simply derived from the copular constructions in (778) by topicalization of the complementives, as a result of which the anticipatory pronoun can be omitted.

A first piece of evidence for such an analysis is that the anticipatory pronoun can at least marginally be used in examples such as (777); the resulting examples in (780) have more or less the same status as the primed examples in (779).

The analysis can also be tested by considering the embedded counterparts of the examples in (777); since topicalization is not possible in embedded clauses, the claim that finite clauses can function as complementives predicts that the pronoun het is not needed because the DP een feit would then appear as the subject. However, it seems that this prediction is clearly wrong; the examples in (781) are marked when the pronoun het is not present. This is also shown by a Google search (November 11, 202) on the strings [dat het een feit is dat] and [dat een feit is dat]: while the former is very common, the latter produced only two relevant hits from very formal texts; the string [dat een (open) vraag is of] was not found at all in the intended sense.

We can conclude that the examples in (777) and (778) should receive a similar analysis, with the noun phrase headed by the proposition noun being a complementive that is predicated of the finite clause. For the sake of completeness, we should note that there is a striking difference between (777a) and (778a), which may be unexpected in light of this conclusion. Hoeksema (2000) has shown that een feit is often replaced by the bare noun feit in sentence-initial position, while this seems impossible in other environments. It is not clear how general this is, since the use of the bare noun vraag in cases such as (777b) seems less felicitous (although such examples do occur on the internet); cf. ??Vraag is of zij voldoende vaardigheden heeft. Since we have no insights to offer here, we leave this problem for future research.

Although we have seen that the finite clauses in (777) do not function as complementives, we still cannot conclude that this is categorically blocked. In (777) and (778), the noun phrases are indefinite and thus very suitable as complementives. This is different with definite noun phrases, which are only used as complementives in equative copular constructions of the type De directeur is de voorzitterThe director is the chairman. Such copular constructions are characterized by the fact that the definite noun phrases can change function depending on what is considered familiar or new information (expressed by the subject and the complementive of the construction, respectively). The word order of the embedded clauses in (783) indicates the syntactic function of the two NPs; subjects always precede complementives, which must occur left-adjacent to the clause-final copular verb.

So the question is whether finite clauses can be used as complementives in equative copular constructions. According to our own intuition, the case in (784a) is preferred to the acceptable but somewhat marked case in (784b); this seems to be confirmed by a Google search (November 2, 2023) on these two strings, which showed that (784b) does occur, though not very frequently. In (784a), the noun phrase de vraagthe question clearly functions as a nominal complementive; we are dealing with a subject clause introduced by the anticipatory pronoun hetit. The earlier discussion of the examples in (781) suggests that a similar analysis is unlikely for (784b); the absence of het suggests instead that we are dealing with a clausal complementive.

In short, there is reason to think that the two examples in (784) stand in a similar opposition as the two equative copular constructions in (783). One possible problem, however, is that this is not directly supported by the word order; the finite clauses occur in the right periphery of the clause, i.e. after the clause-final verbs (as is usual for all non-adverbial finite clauses). Fortunately, there is another reliable indicator, namely the position of the definite noun phrase: if it functions as a complementive, it should be left-adjacent to the clause-final verbs, whereas it should be able to occur more to the left if it functions as a subject. Now consider the examples in (785).

The fact that the order in example (785b) seems possible (and can be found in similar contexts on the internet) strongly suggests that finite clauses can indeed function as predicates in equative copular constructions when the subject is a definite noun phrase headed by a speech act noun like vraagquestion. In (786) we give similar examples with proposition nouns.

The situation may be somewhat different for vinden-constructions; the obligatoriness of the pronoun hetit in (787) shows that we only find cases where the finite clause functions as the logical subject of the nominal complementive; the finite clause cannot be used as a complementive. Vinden-constructions of the type in (787) seem to be found only with the speech act noun vraagquestion; we have not been able to construct/find any other cases.

Another case with a finite complementive clause is given in (788a), where it remains to be seen which of the two finite clauses functions as subject and which as complementive. We can decide this by introducing the anticipatory pronoun het. The fact that this forces extraposition of the dat-clause, illustrated in (788b), suggests that this is the subject clause. For completeness’ sake, example (788c) shows that the presumed complementive clause must again be placed after the copular verb in clause-final position.

Note in passing that we have ignored the possibility that the adjective waarschijnlijk is the complementive: cf. Het is (on)waarschijnlijk dat hij komtIt is (not) likely that he will come; the fact that it can be omitted in the examples in (788) shows that the analysis given above is also possible.

Other possible cases from a similar semantic domain are given in (789). Like the omdat-clause in (788a), the dat-clauses in these examples refer to a reason (or cause), but here that reason motivates an exception to an expected state of affairs. The putative copular sentence is typically conjoined with some other sentence referring to that expected state of affairs (which may be left out if its content is recoverable from the context). However, it is difficult to prove that the dat-clause really functions as a complementive because the pronoun het cannot be replaced by a non-pronominal noun phrase, for which reason Paardekooper (1986: 263-4) refers to these cases as half-fixed expressions.

A final possible case with a finite complementive clause is given in (790a), which again involves the obligatory subject pronoun hetit. However, it may be that this pronoun simply functions as an anticipatory pronoun introducing a subject clause, since zijnto be can easily be replaced by a modal verb such as lijkento appear; cf. Paardekooper (1986:263). Section 5.2.2.2 gives some reasons for adopting such an analysis for examples such as (790b).

Note that we have not included free relative clauses in copular constructions such as (791a) in our discussion above; this is because we analyze them as nominal complementives, not as complementive clauses. The reason for this is that Section N16.3.2.2, sub I, has argued that free relatives are nominal in nature; this is clear, for example, from the fact that they can occur in positions typically occupied by nominal arguments, such as the subject position in (791b).

This subsection discusses a number of constructions that have been analyzed as cases in which infinitival clauses function as complementives. It will be shown briefly that these analyses are not without their problems, and that there are sometimes reasonable alternatives. For this reason, the cases under discussion have been discussed in more detail elsewhere in the grammar; the references are given in the subsections.