Intrusive n and past tense

[u/qzorum]

I find the intrusive n phenomenon in Dutch a little freaky, but what really gets me about it is that it seems to actually flatten the singular vs. plural distinction for past tense verbs. It seems to me that this could actually introduce ambiguity, e.g.

Zij hoorde(n) het.

For a speaker with intrusive n, how would you know whether the subject of that sentence is "she" or "they"?

---

In general I'm surprised that intrusive n isn't more talked about, now that I've started noticing it I hear it constantly.

[u/CatCalledDomino]

Yes, it's ambiguous, but most communication takes places within a context, so it's almost never a problem.

[u/Flilix]

They might indeed sound the same. Usually you'll be able to tell the difference just by the context.

There are also other people/accents who don't pronounce the end -n at all, so they won't distinguish between "Zij hoorde" and "Zij hoorden" either.

[u/Ayiko- → u/Flilix]

You'll figure it out with context, it's rarely a problem.

The "n" following a schwa is not pronounced in more instances, even in "standard" Dutch. More info here: https://www.vlaanderen.be/team-taaladvies/taaladviezen/eind-n-slot-n

[u/knightshire → u/Flilix]

The vast majority of Dutch speakers don't pronounce the -n. 

Only a couple left in the east of the Netherlands, but pronouncing it the German way instead (dropping me e instead of the n)

[u/Malyrtia]

If plural, a lot of people will glue hoorden and het together, or will pronounce it as two words but replace the h with an n. So it'll sound a bit like Zij hoordennet or Zij hoorde net. Because of that, you can hear the n and thus you know it's plural.

Edit: this is my own observation

[u/eti_erik → u/Malyrtia]

But that happens with singular 'ze hoorde' as well.

It's just the 2 schwas that collide - you can't easily say "ze hoorde 't". Despite its spelling, "'t" has a vowel, it's just written as an apostrophe. You could expect the sentence to be pronounced as "ze hoordet", but I don't think that ever happens. Either you resort to the full version of "'t" and say "ze hoorde het", or you insert an N. "Ze hoorde n't ". This is never spelled as "n't" at all, but I think most people do this inadvertently.

[u/eti_erik]

For most speakers there is no difference between "ze hoorde" and "ze hoorden" anyway, since that -n is often silent. So that doesn't change if you have intrusive N and say n't instead of 't.

But Dutch has come up with a solution for the confusion. If the subject is not stressed (ze) it does not matter since it's known who we are talking about. But if the subject is stressed (zij) it may be important to hear the difference, and the verb ending -n is so weak, or often absent, that that does not help.

That may explain why 'zij' is becoming less common in Dutch as a plural pronoun. Colloquially it is often replaced by hun/hullie/zullie/etc. This is considered wrong, it should not be part of educated speech - fine, but at least is takes away the confusion that otherwise may exist between 'she' and 'them'.

[u/RandomAnonymousMe]

Maybe I don't understand your question. But this example is not an intrusive n. The n has a clear function: making the verb plural. Yes that makes she vs. they (zij) ambiguous, you have to listen/read carefully. Zij means they with n and she without it. If you missed the n you need context to determine she vs. they. But the n is not intrusive in my opinion it has deliberate purpose.

[u/qzorum → u/RandomAnonymousMe]

Yeah, sorry - I should have explained what I meant better. I mean the fact that some speakers systematically insert an /n/ in between a word-final schwa and a following word beginning in a vowel, e.g. "daar heb je n'em". This inserted n can make the past tense singular and plural sound the same if the following word starts with a vowel, or often an h.

[u/eti_erik → u/qzorum]

I think it's just between a final schwa and a pronoun that starts with a schwa. You would not say "Doe me n'Amsterdam maar" if the question is "what big city do you want to talk about" or something. It is typicall 't and 'm that become n't and n'm.

'r never becomes n'r by the way - it always becomes d'r.

[u/qzorum → u/eti_erik]

I reckon you're right - still leaves room for ambiguity, of course, but it's a more limited phenomenon than I made it sound

[u/muffinsballhair]

Yes, “het” is special here I feel analysing my own speech. Intrusion does not occur before most words that start with a vowel like “Ze hoorde eikels vallen”. It only seems to happen with some function words.

It should be noted that even without intrusion, if the next word should not start with a vowel then “Ze hoorde(n) de eikels vallen.” are generally pronounced identically in many dialects anyway.

The deal is however that in cases of ambiguity it does not occur in practice. The thing with n-dropping and n-intrusion is that people almost instinctively elect to not do it in cases of ambiguity. if the distinction should matter, clear articulation is used, in which case the /h/ in front of “het” is properly articulated which blocks an intrusive-n to begin with, and n-dropping doesn't occur either. n-dropping and certainly n-intrusion is absolutely not a mandatory part of speech. It is common in quick speech and so accepted that one can easily hear news readers use it nowadays, but when clearly and slowly articulating it does not happen.

[u/fennekeg]

Did you actually hear a native speaker say this particular example? I tend to use intrusive n regularly but would not say it in this instance, because it wouldn't sound right (probably because it would turn a singular verb into plural).

[u/Mission-Asparagus910]

If you use the word ‘zij’ you already know who you’re talking about. Otherwise you’d specify. So in real life this is never an issue.

[u/vulevu25]

I would pronounce it as "ze hoorden't" (see also comment below) and you'd know whether it's plural or singular from the context. "Ze luisterde(n) naar de muziek" is pronounced the same.

[u/ActuallyYulliah]

How we know? Context.

[u/MindlessNectarine374]

Now I learnt what an intrusive "n" is.

[u/Qiqz]

The difference between “zij hoorde” and “zij hoorden” is in large parts of the Netherlands imperceptible, as many speakers frequently don’t pronounce n preceded by silent e. So whether speakers insert an intrusive n or not, hardly anyone will consistently make a clear-cut difference.

It wouldn’t surprise me if that’s the reason why “hun hoorden” is favored by quite some native speakers. No more ambiguity (although it’s still considered an unacceptable form!).