Verbs that co-occur with a participle or an infinitive, such as perfect/passive auxiliaries and modal/aspectual verbs, can only be the input for infinitival nominalization. The (a)-examples in (105) provide cases with the perfect auxiliary hebben and the (b)-examples cases with the modal verb kunnento be able. The primeless examples are bare-inf nominalizations: in these cases, the complements of the input verb appear to the left of the derived nouns in the same form in which they appear with the verb (noun or prepositional phrase). The primed examples are det-inf nominalizations: in these cases the complements of the input verb usually appear as a postnominal PP (a van-PP in the case of direct objects). All other types of nominalization resist verbs that co-occur with a main verb.

Copular verbs only allow infinitival nominalization, both with and without a determiner. The examples in (106) show that the predicate usually precedes the nominalized copular verb. However, it is not hard to find det-inf nominalizations in which a nominal predicate is realized as a postnominal van-PP; nominalizations such as het zijn van een NP in (106a') are common on the internet. Note that the realization of a non-nominal predicate as a van-PP, as in (106b'), is impossible.

Modal subject-raising verbs like schijnen/lijkento seem and blijkento appear are categorically rejected as input verbs for nominalization; cf. Booij (1986b). The primed examples in (107) show that the prohibition of nominalization extends to infinitival nominalization, regardless of whether subject raising has taken place, as in (107b'), or not, as in (107a').

None of the nominalization types can take object-experiencer verbs as their input. Object-experiencer verbs can be divided into two groups, depending on the case assigned to the non-nominative argument in languages such as German, which express case morphologically (cf. Sections and ): nom-dat verbs assign dative case to their object, while nom-acc verbs assign accusative case to their object. Neither type can be nominalized.

Nom-dat verbs like lukkento succeed and spijtento regret in (108a) and (109a) are dyadic unaccusative verbs, whose nominative argument is not an agent but a theme (i.e. the object experienced). They take a nominal experiencer object in the dative case. The (b), (c) and (d)-examples show that these verbs cannot be the input for bare/det-inf, ing or ge-nominalization.

Derivation of person nouns by er-nominalization of nom-dat verbs is also excluded, even with [+human] subjects; this is illustrated in (110) for the nom-dat verbs opvallento strike and bevallento please. The unacceptability of the primed examples follows on the assumption that er-nominalization requires the subject of the verb to be an agent; animacy of the subject does not play a role. For this reason, we will henceforth use the term agentive er-nominalization for the formation of person nouns such as danserdancer.

Nom-acc verbs, which are also known as psych-verbs, take an accusative object. As in the case of nom-dat verbs, the object has the thematic role of experiencer (it is the argument that experiences the psychological state denoted by the verb), while the subject does not perform the role of agent. Examples with the psych-verbs amuserento amuse and ergerento irritate are given in (111) and (112). As can be seen, neither bare/det-inf nor ing nor ge-nominalization of these verbs is possible.

As in the case of nom-dat verbs, nom-acc verbs cannot be the input for er-nominalization, as shown in (113) for the [+human] versions of examples (111a) and (112a); cf. Jan amuseert/ergert mijJan amuses/annoys me. The unacceptability of the examples in (113) again suggests that it is the lack of agentivity of the subject that plays a role here, and not the animacy of the subject.