# Max Havelaar, Chapter 11

Max Havelaar · Multatuli · The Novel

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/havelaar/hoofdstuk-11. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/havelaar/hoofdstuk-11.json. Audio: https://audio.1732studios.com/havelaar/<line id>.m4a.


Zoodat ik maar zeggen wil, om met Abraham Blankaart te spreken, dat ik dit hoofdstuk als "essentieel" beschouw, omdat het, naar ik meen, Havelaar beter doet kennen, en hy schynt nu toch eenmaal de held van de historie te zyn. --Tine, wat is dat voor ketimon?  
So all I mean to say, to put it as Abraham Blankaart would, is that I regard this chapter as "essential," because it makes Havelaar better known, I think, and after all he does seem to be the hero of the story. --Tine, what sort of ketimon is this?
> Causative doen kennen + comparative beter: doet kennen ('makes better known') is a causative doen + bare infinitive; beter is the comparative of goed. omdat sends the cluster to the end.
> schijnen + te-infinitive (impersonal flavor): schijnen ('to seem') governs a te-infinitive (te zyn, 'to be'). The chain of modal particles nu toch eenmaal ('after all, when it comes to it') is hard to translate but colors the resignation.

Lieve meid, doe nooit plantenzuur by vruchten! Komkommers met zout, ananas met zout, pompelmoes met zout, al wat uit den grond komt, met zout.  
My dear girl, never put vegetable acid with fruit! Cucumbers with salt, pineapple with salt, pomelo with salt, everything that comes out of the ground, with salt.
> Imperative + negative nooit: doe is the imperative ('put'); nooit ('never') is the single negation. by here is the period spelling of bij, and the elliptical list (… met zout) drops the verb for staccato effect.
> Indies vocabulary: ketimon is Malay for cucumber (a pickled relish), and pompelmoes is the pomelo — tropical foods that mark the Havelaars' new life in the Indies. The detail grounds the scene in Java.

Azyn by visch en by vleesch ... er staat iets van in Liebig ...  
Vinegar with fish and with meat ... there is something about it in Liebig ...
> Existential/locative er with split van: er staat … in ('there is … in') combines existential er with the stranded preposition; van iets ('about it') is split as iets … van. The clipped style mimics Havelaar's distracted chatter.

--Beste Max, vroeg Tine lachend, hoe lang meen je wel dat we hier zyn?  
--Dear Max, asked Tine, laughing, how long do you suppose we have been here?
> Long-distance question + verb-final embedded clause: The question word hoe lang belongs to the embedded dat-clause (dat we hier zyn), which is verb-final; meen je is the matrix inversion. wel is a coloring particle adding mild challenge.

Die ketimon is van mevrouw Slotering.  
This ketimon is from Mrs. Slotering.

En Havelaar had moeite zich te herinneren dat hy pas gister was aangekomen, en dat Tine met den besten wil nog niets had kunnen regelen in keuken of huishouding.  
And Havelaar had trouble remembering that he had only arrived the day before, and that Tine, with the best will in the world, could not yet have arranged a thing in kitchen or household.
> Reflexive zich herinneren + embedded pluperfect: zich herinneren ('to remember') is reflexive (zich … te herinneren). The dat-clause holds a pluperfect was aangekomen ('had arrived'), with the separable participle aangekomen at the end.
> Pluperfect modal + niets: had kunnen regelen is a pluperfect with a modal infinitive ('had not been able to arrange'); niets is the single negative. Such three-verb clusters all pile up at the clause end after dat.

Hyzelf was reeds lang te Rangkas-Betoeng!  
He himself had long since been at Rangkas-Betoeng!
> Emphatic pronoun hyzelf: hyzelf ('he himself') intensifies the subject by suffixing -zelf. te before a place name is the older/literary 'at' (te Rangkas-Betoeng), common in 1860 prose.

Had hy niet den ganschen nacht doorgebracht met lezen in 't archief, en was er niet reeds te veel door zyn ziel gegaan, dat in-verband stond met Lebak, dan dat hy zoo terstond weten kon dat hy eerst sedert gisteren dáár was?  
Had he not spent the whole night reading in the archive, and had too much not already passed through his soul that bore on Lebak, for him to be able to grasp, just like that, that he had only been there since yesterday?
> Rhetorical question in the pluperfect: Both clauses are pluperfects (had … doorgebracht, was … gegaan) fronting the verb for a rhetorical 'Had he not …?'. den ganschen nacht keeps the old accusative -n on article and adjective.
> te veel … dan dat (consecutive): The construction te veel … dan dat ('too much … for him to') expresses an excessive degree blocking a result; the dan dat-clause is verb-final (weten kon). This heavy syntax conveys Havelaar's overwhelmed state.

Tine begreep dit wel: zy begreep hem altyd!  
Tine understood this well: she always understood him!
> Imperfect begreep (strong verb): begreep is the strong imperfect of begrijpen ('to understand'), changing the stem vowel ij→ee rather than adding a dental ending. The narrative past carries the storytelling here.

--Ach ja, dat is waar, zeide hy. Maar toch moet je eens wat van Liebig lezen.  
--Ah yes, that is true, he said. But still you ought to read some of Liebig.
> Archaic past zeide: zeide is the older literary imperfect of zeggen ('said'); modern Dutch uses zei (which the text also uses elsewhere). The dialogue tags throughout favor this solemn form.

Verbrugge, heb jy veel gelezen van Liebig?  
Verbrugge, have you read much of Liebig?
> Stressed pronoun jy + perfect: jy (modern jij) is the stressed form of 'you', singled out as Havelaar turns to Verbrugge. heb … gelezen is the present perfect with the participle at the end.

--Wie is dat? vroeg Verbrugge.  
--Who is that? asked Verbrugge.
> Interrogative wie + demonstrative dat: wie ('who') asks after a person; dat is the demonstrative 'that (one)' standing in as predicate. The verb is stays in second position after the question word.

--Dat is iemand die veel geschreven heeft over 't inleggen van augurken.  
--He is someone who has written a great deal about the pickling of gherkins.
> Relative die + nominalized infinitive: die introduces the relative clause on iemand, with the perfect geschreven heeft at the end. 't inleggen ('the pickling') is a nominalized infinitive used like a noun.

Ook heeft hy ontdekt hoe men gras in wol verandert ... je begrypt wel?  
He has also discovered how one turns grass into wool ... you follow me, of course?
> Indirect question with men, verb-final: The embedded clause hoe men gras in wol verandert ('how one turns grass into wool') is verb-final after the question word hoe. men is the impersonal 'one'.

--Neen, zeiden Verbrugge en Duclari tegelyk.  
--No, said Verbrugge and Duclari at the same time.

--Wèl, de zaak zelf was toch altyd bekend: stuur een schaap 't land in ... en je zult zien!  
--Well, the thing itself was always known, after all: send a sheep out into the country ... and you will see!
> Imperative with circumposition 't … in: stuur is the imperative; het land in ('out into the country') is a circumpositional phrase where in follows its noun, expressing motion into. The clipped style fits Havelaar's teasing demonstration.

Maar hy heeft de manier nagespoord, waaròp het geschiedt.  
But he has traced out the manner in which it happens.
> Pronominal-adverb relative waaròp: waaròp ('on which / in which') is the relative pronominal adverb modifying manier ('the manner in which it happens'); het geschiedt is verb-final. nagespoord is the participle of separable naspeuren/nasporen.

Andere wyzen zeggen weer dat hy er weinig van weet. Nu is men bezig met zoeken naar middelen om 't heele schaap in de bewerking overteslaan ...  
Other sages say again that he knows little about it. Now they are busy looking for ways to leave the whole sheep out of the process altogether ...
> bezig met + om … te (joined: overteslaan): bezig zijn met ('to be busy with') leads into an om … te purpose clause; the te-infinitive of separable overslaan ('to skip') is printed solid as overteslaan (modern over te slaan).

O, die geleerden!  
Oh, those scholars!

Molière wist het wel ... ik houd veel van Molière.  
Molière knew it well ... I am very fond of Molière.
> Fixed verb: houden van: houden van ('to be fond of, love') is a fixed prepositional verb; veel intensifies it ('very fond'). wist is the strong imperfect of weten ('knew').

Als je wilt, zullen we samen een leerkursus houden, 's avends, een paar maal in de week.  
If you like, we shall hold a course of study together, in the evenings, a couple of times a week.
> Conditional als-clause + future zullen: The als-clause is verb-final (je wilt); since it fills first position, the main clause inverts to zullen we. zullen … houden is the explicit future ('we shall hold').
> Genitive-s adverbial 's avends: 's avonds ('in the evenings', here spelled 's avends) is a frozen genitive — the old des avonds contracted to 's. It survives as a fixed time adverbial.

Tine doet ook mee, als Max naar bed is.  
Tine will join in too, once Max is in bed.
> Separable meedoen + subordinate als: doet … mee is from separable meedoen ('join in'), split around ook. The als-clause is verb-final (Max naar bed is). Max here is the Havelaars' small son.

Duclari en Verbrugge wilden dit gaarne.  
Duclari and Verbrugge were quite willing.
> Imperfect of willen + archaic gaarne: wilden is the plural imperfect of willen ('wanted to'); gaarne is the literary/archaic word for graag ('gladly, willingly'). The brief vrij elliptical sentence implies 'wanted to do this'.

Havelaar zei dat hy niet veel boeken had, maar daaronder waren toch Schiller, Göthe, Heine, Vondel, Lamartine, Thiers, Say, Malthus, Scialoja, Smith, Shakespeare, Byron ...  
Havelaar said he did not have many books, but among them there were nonetheless Schiller, Goethe, Heine, Vondel, Lamartine, Thiers, Say, Malthus, Scialoja, Smith, Shakespeare, Byron ...

Verbrugge zei dat hy geen engelsch las.  
Verbrugge said that he read no English.
> geen with a language + verb-final dat-clause: geen negates the indefinite mass noun engelsch ('no English'); the dat-clause sends the imperfect las (strong past of lezen, 'read') to the end. Languages are lowercase in 1860 (engelsch).

--Wat drommel, je bent toch over de dertig!  
--What the deuce, you are past thirty, surely!
> Modal particle toch + over de dertig: toch ('surely, after all') appeals to shared knowledge; over de dertig ('past thirty') uses over for 'more than' with an age. The exclamation chides Verbrugge for not knowing English.

Wat heb je dan al dien tyd gedaan?  
What have you been doing all that time?

Maar dat moet nogal lastig voor je geweest zyn op Padang, waar zooveel engelsch gesproken wordt.  
But that must have been rather awkward for you at Padang, where so much English is spoken.
> worden-passive in a relative clause: gesproken wordt is a present worden-passive ('is spoken'), verb-final in the waar-relative clause. Process passives with worden describe an action ongoing rather than a finished state.

Heb je miss Mata-api gekend?  
Did you know Miss Mata-api?

--Neen, ik ken dien naam niet.  
--No, I do not know that name.
> Old accusative dien + niet: dien is the masculine accusative of die ('that name' as direct object), a case remnant alive in 1860. niet negates the verb, placed late before the object's already in front.

--'t Was ook haar naam niet. We noemden haar zoo, in 1843, omdat haar oogen zoo schitterden.  
--It was not her name either. We called her that, in 1843, because her eyes sparkled so.
> Weak imperfects noemden, schitterden: noemden and schitterden are weak imperfects, formed with the dental -den ending. omdat sends schitterden to the end of its clause. oogen is the period plural of ogen ('eyes').

Ze zal wel getrouwd zyn ...'t is al zoo lang geleden!  
She is surely married by now ... it is all so long ago!
> zullen for probability, not future: Here zal … zyn does not predict the future but expresses present probability ('she is surely married by now'); wel reinforces the guess. getrouwd zyn is a zijn-passive/state ('be married').

Nooit heb ik zoo-iets gezien ... ja toch, te Arles ... dáár moet je eens heen gaan!  
I have never seen anything like it ... yes, though, at Arles ... there you really must go someday!
> Directional pronominal adverb daar … heen: daar … heen ('there, to that place') is a split directional adverb expressing motion toward; moet … gaan is the modal cluster. The clause urges a visit to Arles.

Dat is 't schoonste wat ik gevonden heb op al myn reizen.  
That is the most beautiful thing I have found in all my travels.
> Superlative schoonste + free relative wat: 't schoonste is the superlative of schoon ('most beautiful'); after a superlative the relative is wat, not dat ('the most beautiful thing that …'). gevonden heb is the verb-final perfect.

Er bestaat niets, dunkt me, wat je zoo klaar de schoonheid in 't afgetrokkene voorstelt, als zichtbaar beeld van het ware, van 't onstoffelyk-reine, als een schoone vrouw. Gelooft me, gaat eens naar Arles en Nîmes ...  
There is nothing, it seems to me, that sets beauty before you so clearly in the abstract, as the visible image of the true, of the immaterial-pure, as a beautiful woman. Believe me, go once to Arles and Nîmes ...
> Existential er + niets + free relative wat: Er bestaat niets ('there exists nothing') uses existential er with the negative niets; the relative on niets is wat. voorstelt ('presents/sets before') is verb-final in the relative clause.
> Archaic plural imperative -t: Gelooft and gaat are old plural/polite imperatives ending in -t (modern Geloof, ga), addressed to the group. This -t imperative is a marker of solemn or 1860 register.

Duclari, Verbrugge en--ik moet het erkennen!--ook Tine, konden een luiden lach niet onderdrukken by de gedachte zoo op-eens uit den westhoek van Java overtestappen naar Arles of Nîmes in 't zuiden van Frankryk.  
Duclari, Verbrugge, and--I must confess it!--Tine too, could not suppress a loud laugh at the thought of leaping all at once from the western corner of Java over to Arles or Nîmes in the south of France.
> Imperfect modal konden + old accusative luiden: konden is the plural imperfect of kunnen; niet onderdrukken closes the cluster ('could not suppress'). een luiden lach keeps the old masculine accusative -n on the adjective.
> te-infinitive after a noun: overtestappen: The te-infinitive overtestappen (separable overstappen, 'leap over') depends on de gedachte ('the thought of'); 1860 prints it solid. The comedy is the absurd geographic jump from Java to Provence.

Havelaar, waarschynlyk in zyn verbeelding op den toren staande, die door de Saracenen gebouwd is op den omgang van de arena te Arles, had zich eenigszins intespannen, voor hy de oorzaak van dien lach begreep, en toen ging hy voort:  
Havelaar, probably standing in his imagination upon the tower the Saracens built on the gallery of the arena at Arles, had to collect himself somewhat before he grasped the cause of that laughter, and then he went on:
> Present participle staande as adjunct: staande ('standing') is a present participle forming an absolute-like adjunct describing Havelaar. The -end(e) form names an action in progress, framing him lost in his daydream.
> zijn-passive (state) in a relative clause: gebouwd is is a zijn-passive giving the resulting state ('was/is built'); door marks the agent 'by the Saracens'. The relative die refers to the tower (toren) and is verb-final.

--Nu ja, ik meen ... als je daar in de buurt komt.  
--Well yes, I mean ... if you happen to be in that neighborhood.

Zóó-iets heb ik nooit ergens meer ontmoet.  
I have never met with anything like it anywhere else.
> Fronting + single negative nooit: Fronting the object Zóó-iets ('anything like it') forces inversion (heb ik); nooit is the one carrying negative, with ergens ('anywhere') and meer reinforcing it without a second 'not'. ontmoet is the participle in this perfect.

Ik was gewoon aan teleurstellingen by 't zien van alles wat zoo hoog wordt opgehemeld.  
I was used to disappointments at the sight of everything that is praised so highly.
> worden-passive + free relative wat: wordt opgehemeld is a worden-passive of separable ophemelen ('to praise to the skies'); after alles the relative is wat. The whole forms 'everything that is praised so highly'.

Ziet eens, by-voorbeeld, de watervallen waarvan men zooveel spreekt en schryft. Wat my betreft, ik heb weinig of niets gevoeld te Tondano, te Maros, te Schafhausen, by den Niagara.  
Look, for instance, at the waterfalls people speak and write so much about. As far as I am concerned, I have felt little or nothing at Tondano, at Maros, at Schaffhausen, at the Niagara.
> Pronominal adverb waarvan + men: waarvan ('about which') fuses van with waar- for the relative on watervallen; men is the impersonal subject. spreekt en schryft are coordinated and stay verb-final in the relative clause.

Men moet zyn boekjen inzien om daarby de vereischte maat zyner bewondering by de hand te hebben, over "zóóveel voeten vals" en "zóóveel kubiek-voeten waters in de minuut" en als die cyfers dan hoog zyn, moet men hè zeggen. Ik wil nooit weer watervallen zien, althans niet als ik er een omweg voor moet maken.  
One has to consult one's guidebook to have the prescribed measure of one's admiration ready to hand, about "so many feet of fall" and "so many cubic feet of water per minute," and when those figures are high, one is supposed to say ooh. I never want to see waterfalls again, at least not if I have to go out of my way for one.
> Modal moeten + diminutive boekjen + om … te: moet … inzien ('must consult') is a modal over separable inzien; boekjen is the diminutive of boek ('little book, guidebook'). The om … te hebben clause states the purpose.
> Impersonal men + modal of obligation: men ('one') with moet … zeggen prescribes expected behavior ('one is supposed to say ooh'). The inversion (moet men) follows the fronted als-clause. hè is an interjection of feigned wonder.

Die dingen zeggen me niets! Gebouwen spreken me wat luider toe, vooral wanneer 't bladzyden uit de geschiedenis zyn.  
Those things say nothing to me! Buildings speak to me a little more loudly, especially when they are pages out of history.
> Subordinating wanneer + dummy 't: wanneer ('when') is subordinating, sending zyn to the end; 't (het) is a dummy/anticipatory subject preceding the plural predicate bladzyden ('pages'). bladzyden is the period plural.

Maar hierby spreekt een gevoel van heel anderen aard! Men roept de vergangenheid op, en laat de schimmen van 't verledene de revue passeeren.  
But here a feeling of an altogether different kind speaks! One calls up the past, and lets the shades of bygone things pass in review.
> Separable oproepen + causative laten: roept … op is separable oproepen ('call up'); laat … passeeren is causative laten + bare infinitive ('lets … pass'). en is coordinating, so the second clause keeps main-clause order.
> Germanism: vergangenheid: vergangenheid is a German-flavored word for 'the past' (standard Dutch verleden); Multatuli sprinkles such Germanisms into Havelaar's cultured speech. de revue passeeren is the French idiom 'pass in review'.

Hieronder zyn zeer afschuwelyke, en dus, hoe belangryk dit soms wezen moog, men vindt in zyn gewaarwordingen niet altyd voldoening voor schoonheidsgevoel ... onvermengd althans nooit!  
Among these are some that are quite ghastly, and so, however significant this may sometimes be, one does not always find in one's sensations a satisfaction for the sense of beauty ... unmixed, at any rate, never!
> Concessive 'hoe … ook' with archaic subjunctive moog: hoe belangryk … moog ('however significant it may be') is a concessive; moog is an archaic subjunctive of mogen. wezen is the older infinitive of zijn ('to be').

En zonder de geschiedenis er byteroepen, is er wel veel schoons in sommige gebouwen, maar 't wordt gewoonlyk bedorven door gidsen--van papier, van vleesch en been ...'t komt overeen uit!--gidsen, die je den indruk wegstelen door hun eentonig: "deze kapel is opgericht door den bisschop van Munster in 1423 ... de zuilen zyn 63 voeten hoog, en rusten op ... ik weet niet wat, en het kan me niet schelen ook.  
And without calling in history, there is indeed much that is beautiful in some buildings, but it is usually spoiled by guides--whether of paper, or of flesh and bone ... it comes to the same thing in the end!--guides who steal away your impression with their monotone: "this chapel was erected by the bishop of Münster in 1423 ... the columns are 63 feet high, and rest upon ... I do not know what, and I do not care, either.
> zonder + te-infinitive (joined byteroepen): zonder governs a te-infinitive ('without calling in'); the separable bijroepen with infixed te is printed solid as byteroepen. 'er' belongs to the verbal complex (erbij roepen = to summon in, additionally) or is a locative pronoun; it does not anticipate de geschiedenis, the explicit object stated before it.
> zijn-passive with agent door: is opgericht ('was erected') is a zijn-passive expressing the resulting state; door den bisschop names the agent, with the old dative -n on den. deze is the near demonstrative for a de-word.

Dat gebabbel is vervelend, want men voelt dat men dan juist drie-en-zestig voet bewondering moet gereed hebben, om niet in de oogen van sommigen doortegaan voor een Vandaal of geschäfts-reiziger ... dàt is een ras! --De Vandalen?  
That prattle is tiresome, for one feels that one must then have exactly sixty-three feet of admiration at the ready, so as not to pass, in the eyes of some, for a Vandal or a commercial traveler ... now there is a breed! --The Vandals?
> om … te + separable doorgaan voor: om niet door te gaan voor ('so as not to pass for') is a negative purpose clause closing on the separable doorgaan voor ('be taken for'). niet negates the action.
> geschäfts-reiziger — commercial traveler: Another mock-Germanism (German Geschäftsreisender) for a traveling salesman; pairing it with 'Vandaal' satirizes the cultureless philistine. The half-German wording itself is the joke.

--Neen, die anderen. Nu zou men zeggen, houd dan je gids in den zak, als hy gedrukt is, en laat hem buiten staan of zwygen in 't andere geval, maar behalve dat men werkelyk tot eenigszins juist oordeelen, dikwyls inlichting noodig heeft, zoude men, ook al kon men die inlichting altyd missen, toch te-vergeefs in eenig gebouw iets zoeken, dat langer dan een zeer kort oogenblik beantwoordt aan ons verlangen naar het schoone, omdat het niet beweegt.  
--No, those others. Now one might say: keep your guide in your pocket, then, if it is the printed kind, and let it stand outside or hold its tongue in the other case; but apart from the fact that one really does often need information in order to judge at all rightly, even if one could always do without that information, one would still seek in vain, in any building, for anything that answers our longing for the beautiful for longer than a very brief moment, because it does not move.
> Imperative + subordinate als + zijn-passive: houd is the imperative ('keep'); the als-clause is verb-final, and gedrukt is is a zijn-passive state ('is printed'). den zak keeps the old accusative -n.
> Archaic conditional zoude + nested clauses: zoude is the archaic full form of zou (conditional 'one would seek in vain'); a relative dat-clause and a causal omdat-clause both run verb-final to beweegt. The long periodic sentence is high literary style.

Dit geldt, geloof ik, ook voor beeldhouwwerk en schilderstukken.  
This holds, I believe, for sculpture and paintings as well.
> Parenthetical geloof ik + compounds: geloof ik ('I believe') is a parenthetical insertion that does not disturb the main V2 order (Dit geldt …). beeldhouwwerk and schilderstukken are right-headed noun compounds ('sculpture-work', 'painting-pieces').

Natuur is beweging.  
Nature is movement.
> Article-less abstract nouns: Abstract nouns used generically (Natuur, beweging) drop the article in Dutch as in this aphorism — 'Nature is movement'. The bare predicate noun gives the line its epigrammatic punch.

Groei, honger, denken, gevoelen, is beweging ... stilstand is de dood!  
Growth, hunger, thinking, feeling, is movement ... stillness is death!
> Nominalized infinitives as subjects: denken and gevoelen are infinitives used as nouns ('thinking, feeling'), listed beside ordinary nouns as compound subject. The singular verb is treats the whole list as one idea.

Zonder beweging, geen smart, geen genot, geen aandoening!  
Without movement, no sorrow, no delight, no emotion!
> geen in verbless ellipsis: With the verb elided, geen alone negates each indefinite noun ('no sorrow, no delight'). Repeating geen keeps the one-negative-per-phrase rule while building rhetorical force.

Beproef eens daar te zitten zonder u te verroeren, ge zult zien hoe spoedig je een spook-achtigen indruk maakt op ieder ander, en zelfs op je eigen verbeelding.  
Try once sitting there without stirring, and you will see how soon you make a ghostly impression on everyone else, and even on your own imagination.
> Reflexive zich verroeren + future ge zult: zich verroeren ('to stir') is reflexive, here with the literary u (zonder u te verroeren); ge zult zien is the archaic 'you' with future zullen. The imperative Beproef opens the sentence.

By 't mooiste tableau vivant verlangt men al gauw naar een volgend nummer, hoe heerlyk ook de indruk was in 't begin.  
At the finest tableau vivant one soon longs for the next number, however glorious the impression was at the beginning.
> Inversion + concessive 'hoe … ook': Fronting By 't mooiste tableau vivant forces inversion (verlangt men); naar … verlangen ('to long for') is a fixed prepositional verb. hoe heerlyk ook … ('however glorious') is a concessive subclause.

Daar nu onze schoonheidszucht niet voldaan is met één blik op iets schoons, maar behoefte heeft aan een reeks van opvolgende blikken, op de beweging van het schoone, lyden wy aan iets onvoldaans by 't aanschouwen van die soort van kunstwerken, en daarom beweer ik dat een schoone vrouw--mits geen portretschoonheid die stilstaat--het naast komt aan het ideaal van 't goddelyke.  
Now since our craving for beauty is not satisfied with a single glance at something beautiful, but needs a series of successive glances at the movement of the beautiful, we suffer something unsatisfying at the contemplation of that sort of artwork; and that is why I maintain that a beautiful woman--provided it is not portrait-beauty that stands still--comes nearest to the ideal of the divine.
> Causal Daar + main-clause inversion: Daar here is the literary causal conjunction 'since/because', which sends voldaan is to the end of its clause; the following main clause then inverts (lyden wy). lyden aan ('suffer from') is a fixed combination.
> Conditional mits + compound portretschoonheid: mits ('provided that') is a formal conditional conjunction; geen negates the indefinite noun. portretschoonheid ('portrait-beauty') is a right-headed compound, and stilstaat is from separable stilstaan ('stand still').

Hoe groot de behoefte is aan de beweging die ik bedoel, kan men eenigszins opmaken uit de walging die een danseres veroorzaakt, al ware zy Elssler of Taglioni, wanneer ze na een dans op haar linkerbeen staat en 't publiek toegrynst.  
How great the need is for the movement I mean, one can gather somewhat from the disgust caused by a danseuse, were she Elssler or Taglioni herself, when after a dance she stands on her left leg and grins out at the audience.
> Concessive 'al' + subjunctive ware: al + the subjunctive ware ('even were she') is a high-register concessive — ware is the old past subjunctive of zijn. It means 'even if she were Elssler or Taglioni herself'.

--Dit geldt hier niet, zei Verbrugge, want dat is absoluut leelyk.  
--That does not apply here, said Verbrugge, for that is absolutely ugly.

--Dat vind ik ook. Maar zy geeft het toch als schoon, en als climax op al 't vorige, waarin werkelyk veel schoons kan geweest zyn.  
--I think so too. But still she offers it as beautiful, and as the climax to all that went before, in which there really may have been much that was beautiful.
> schoon as predicate + nominalized 't vorige: schoon ('beautiful') stands uninflected as a predicate after als; 't vorige ('what went before') is an adjective used as a neuter noun. maar coordinates without changing word order.

Ze geeft het als de pointe van 't epigram, als 't aux armes! van de marseillaise die zy zong met haar voeten, als 't ruischen van de wilgen op het graf der zoo-even besprongene liefde. O, misselyk!  
She offers it as the point of the epigram, as the aux armes! of the Marseillaise she sang with her feet, as the rustling of the willows over the grave of the love just now assailed. Oh, sickening!
> Idiom: 'the Marseillaise … with her feet': Havelaar's flourish casts the dance as a performance 'sung with the feet'; aux armes! ('to arms!') is the Marseillaise's refrain, the rhetorical climax he likens to the dancer's pose.

En dat ook de toeschouwers, die gewoonlyk--zooals wy allen, meer of min--hun smaak gronden op gewoonte en navolging, dàt oogenblik beschouwen als het treffendste, blykt hieruit dat men juist dàn uitberst in toejuiching, alsof men wilde te kennen geven: al het vorige was ook wel heel mooi, maar nu kan ik 't waarachtig niet langer uithouden van bewondering!" je zei dat die slot-pose volstrekt leelyk was--ik ook! doch vanwaar komt dit?  
And that the spectators too, who usually--like all of us, more or less--ground their taste on habit and imitation, regard that very moment as the most striking, is plain from this: that it is precisely then that one bursts out in applause, as though one wished to convey: all that came before was very pretty too, but now I really cannot contain my admiration any longer!" You said that closing pose was utterly ugly--so do I! but where does this come from?
> Pronominal adverb hieruit + separable uitbarsten: blykt hieruit ('is plain from this') uses hieruit, the hier-form of the pronominal adverb; the dat-clause is verb-final with separable uitberst (uitbarsten, 'burst out'). The deferred dat-clause supplies the 'this'.
> alsof + imperfect subjunctive wilde: alsof ('as if') takes verb-final order; the imperfect wilde reads as an unreal subjunctive ('as though one wished'). te kennen geven is a fixed idiom 'to make known, convey'.

Het is omdat de beweging ophield, en daarmee de geschiedenis die de danseres verhaalde.  
It comes from the fact that the movement ceased, and with it the story the danseuse was telling.
> Cleft 'Het is omdat' + pronominal adverb daarmee: Het is omdat … is a causal cleft ('it comes from the fact that'); ophield is the strong imperfect of ophouden ('cease'). daarmee ('with it/thereby') links the second clause.

Geloof me, stilstand is de dood!  
Believe me, stillness is death!

--Maar, bracht Duclari in 't midden, ge hebt ook de watervallen verworpen als uitdrukking van het schoone. Watervallen bewegen toch!  
--But, put in Duclari, you have also rejected waterfalls as an expression of the beautiful. Waterfalls do move, after all!
> Archaic ge + perfect; nominalized adjective: ge is the literary 'you'; hebt … verworpen is the perfect with the strong participle verworpen ('rejected'). het schoone ('the beautiful') is an adjective used as a neuter noun.

--Ja, maar ... zonder geschiedenis!  
--Yes, but ... without a story!

Ze bewegen, maar komen niet van de plaats.  
They move, but they do not get anywhere.
> Coordinating maar keeps word order: maar ('but') is a coordinating conjunction, so the second clause keeps normal main-clause order (komen … niet), not verb-final. van de plaats komen ('to get anywhere, budge') is an idiom.

Ze bewegen zich als een hobbelpaard, minus nog het va et vient. Ze geven geluid, maar spreken niet.  
They move like a rocking horse, minus even the va et vient. They make a sound, but they do not speak.
> Reflexive zich bewegen: bewegen zich is reflexive here ('move themselves'); zich is the 3rd-person reflexive. als een hobbelpaard ('like a rocking horse') is the simile. va et vient is French for 'to and fro'.

Ze roepen: hrroe.. hrroe ... hrroe ... en nooit iets anders!  
They cry: hrroe.. hrroe ... hrroe ... and never anything else!

Roep jy eens zesduizend jaar, of langer: hrroe, hrroe ... en zie eens hoe weinigen je voor een onderhoudend mensch zullen aanzien.  
You cry for six thousand years, or longer: hrroe, hrroe ... and just see how few will take you for an entertaining fellow.
> Imperative + embedded future, verb-final: Roep and zie are imperatives ('cry', 'see'); the embedded clause hoe weinigen … zullen aanzien is verb-final with future zullen. iemand aanzien voor ('take someone for') is a separable idiom.

--Ik zal de proef niet nemen, zei Duclari, Maar ik ben het toch nog niet met u eens, dat de door u gevorderde beweging zoo volstrekt noodzakelyk wezen zou.  
--I will not put it to the test, said Duclari, but I am still not of one mind with you that the movement you demand should be so absolutely necessary.
> het eens zijn met + conditional wezen zou: het eens zijn met ('to agree with') is a fixed expression; the dat-clause states the point of disagreement and is verb-final with the conditional wezen zou ('would be'). u is the polite/literary 'you'.
> Pre-nominal participle phrase: door u gevorderde ('demanded by you') is a past participle used attributively before beweging, with -e agreement and the agent door u embedded inside the noun phrase — a compact, German-like construction common in formal Dutch.

Ik schenk u nu de watervallen, maar een goed schilderstuk kan toch, dunkt me, veel uitdrukken.  
I grant you the waterfalls for now, but a good painting can surely, it seems to me, express a great deal.
> Dative u with schenken: schenken takes an indirect object; u is the literary dative 'to you' ('I grant you the waterfalls'). The idiom here means to concede a point in argument.

--Wel zeker, maar slechts voor één oogenblik.  
--Why, certainly, but only for a single moment.

Ik zal trachten myn meening te verklaren door een voorbeeld.  
I shall try to make my meaning clear by an example.
> Future zullen + trachten + te-infinitive: zal trachten is the future of trachten ('try'), which itself governs the te-infinitive te verklaren ('to explain'). myn is the period spelling of mijn ('my').

Het is van daag 18 Februari ...  
Today is the 18th of February ...
> Impersonal het for dates: het here is the impersonal/dummy subject used for dates and time ('today is …'), pointing at no real entity — the same het as in weather expressions.

--Wel neen, zei Verbrugge, we hebben nog Januari ...  
--Why no, said Verbrugge, we are still in January ...

--Neen, neen, het is heden de 18de Februari 1587, en je bent opgesloten in 't kasteel Fotheringhay ...  
--No, no, today is the 18th of February 1587, and you are locked up in Fotheringhay Castle ...
> zijn-passive (state) opgesloten: bent opgesloten is a zijn-passive describing the resulting state ('are locked up'), from separable opsluiten. de 18de is the ordinal 'the 18th'.

--Ik? vroeg Duclari, die meende niet goed verstaan te hebben.  
--I? asked Duclari, who thought he had not heard rightly.
> Relative die + perfect te-infinitive: die introduces a relative clause on Duclari; meende ('thought') governs the perfect te-infinitive verstaan te hebben ('to have understood'). niet goed negates 'rightly'.

--Ja, gy.  
--Yes, you.
> The literary pronoun gy: gy (gij) is the emphatic literary/archaic 'you' of 1860 Dutch, here used for solemn address. In modern Dutch this would be jij or u.

Ge verveelt u, en zoekt afleiding.  
You are bored, and you look for some diversion.
> Reflexive zich vervelen with ge/u: zich vervelen ('to be bored') is reflexive — with archaic ge the reflexive is u (Ge verveelt u). en coordinates the second verb zoekt, keeping main-clause order.

Dáár in dien muur is een opening, maar zy is te hoog om er doortezien, en dit wil je toch.  
There in that wall is an opening, but it is too high to see through, and that is just what you want to do.
> te hoog om … te (joined doortezien): te hoog om … te ('too high to') frames an impossibility; the te-infinitive of separable doorzien ('see through') is written solid as doortezien. er stands for the opening (the thing seen through).

Ge zet uw tafel er voor, en daarop een stoel met drie pooten, waarvan één wat zwak, je zag eens op de kermis een akrobaat die zeven stoelen op elkaar zette, en zich zelf daarop met het hoofd naar beneden. Eigenliefde en verveling dringen u iets dergelyks te doen.  
You set your table before it, and on top of it a chair with three legs, one of them somewhat weak; you once saw at the fair an acrobat who stacked seven chairs on top of one another, and himself on top of them, head downward. Self-regard and boredom drive you to do something of the kind.
> Pronominal adverb split: er ... voor: Instead of 'voor het' (before it), Dutch fuses the preposition with a fronted 'er', and here even splits the two apart across the clause ('er' early, 'voor' late). This 'er ... voor' frame is the everyday way to say 'in front of it'.
> Relative waarvan: 'waarvan' is the pronominal-adverb relative meaning 'of which': 'a chair... of which one [leg was] somewhat weak'. It replaces 'van welke/van wie' for things.
> te + infinitive complement: 'dringen ... te doen' = 'drive [you] to do', with the governed verb appearing as 'te doen' at the clause end. Note the period spelling 'dergelyks' (= dergelijks) with y for ij.
> Period possessive uw: 'uw' is the possessive of the formal/literary 'gij/ge' used throughout this monologue. Multatuli addresses the reader directly with 'Ge ... uw ...'.

Ge beklimt waggelend dien stoel ... bereikt uw oogmerk ... slaat een blik door de opening, en roept: o, god!  
You climb the wobbling chair ... you reach your aim ... you cast a glance through the opening, and cry out: oh, God!
> Present participle as adverb; case-remnant dien: 'waggelend' is the -end present participle used adverbially ('totteringly'). 'dien stoel' shows the old masculine accusative 'dien' (modern 'die'), a 19th-century case remnant.
> Verb-second across a chain: Each main clause keeps the finite verb in second position even as Multatuli strings them with ellipses. The subject 'Ge' is understood and carried through the series.

En je valt!  
And you fall!
> vallen — strong verb, present: 'valt' is the present of strong 'vallen' (to fall). Note the abrupt switch from the formal 'Ge' of the previous lines to familiar 'je' for dramatic immediacy.

Weet je me nu te zeggen waarom je: o god! riep, en gevallen bent?  
Can you now tell me why you cried: oh God! and why you fell?
> weten te + infinitive; perfect of zijn-verb: 'Weet je ... te zeggen' is the idiom 'weten te' = 'be able to / know how to'. 'gevallen bent' is the perfect of 'vallen', which takes 'zijn' (not 'hebben') because it is a verb of motion/change of state.
> Verb-final subordinate clause: After 'waarom' the clause is a bijzin: its verbs ('riep', 'bent') sit at the end, behind the subject 'je'.

--Ik denk dat de derde poot van den stoel brak, zei Verbrugge sententieus.  
--I think the third leg of the chair broke, said Verbrugge sententiously.
> Verb-final dat-clause; case-remnant den: 'dat ... brak' sends the finite verb 'brak' (strong past of 'breken') to the end. 'van den stoel' preserves the old dative/accusative article 'den' after a preposition, typical of 1860 prose.

--Nu ja, die poot brak misschien, maar niet dáárom ben je gevallen.  
--Well yes, that leg may have broken, but that is not why you fell.
> Fronted dáárom forces inversion: Putting 'dáárom' (for that reason) first pushes the finite verb 'ben' into second position before the subject 'je' — classic V2 inversion. The accent marks the emphatic stress.

Die poot is gebroken omdat je gevallen bent.  
That leg broke because you fell.
> omdat sends verbs to the end: The subordinator 'omdat' (because) opens a verb-final clause: 'je gevallen bent'. Both 'is gebroken' and 'gevallen bent' are perfects, the second with 'zijn' for the motion verb 'vallen'.

Voor elke andere opening had je 't een jaar lang op dien stoel uitgehouden, en nu moest je vallen, al waren er dertien pooten onder dien stoel geweest, ja, al had je op den grond gestaan.  
For any other opening you would have held out on that chair for a year, but now you had to fall, even had there been thirteen legs under that chair, yes, even had you been standing on the ground.
> Concessive 'al' with inversion (= even if): 'al' + inverted verb ('al waren er...', 'al had je...') means 'even if / even though', the verb leading the clause. The pluperfect subjunctive ('waren ... geweest', 'had ... gestaan') marks a contrary-to-fact hypothesis.
> Conditional pluperfect; separable uithouden: 'had ... uitgehouden' is the pluperfect of separable 'uithouden' (to hold out/endure); the participle 'uitgehouden' closes the clause. The whole sentence is an unreal conditional ('would have held out').
> Existential er: 'er ... geweest' uses existential 'er' to assert existence: 'even had there been thirteen legs'. This 'er' has no English equivalent beyond 'there'.

--Ik neem er genoegen mee, zei Duclari.  
--I am content with that, said Duclari.
> Pronominal adverb split: er ... mee: The idiom 'genoegen nemen met' (to be content with) becomes 'er ... mee' when the object is a 'thing': 'er' and 'mee' (= met) wrap around 'genoegen'. Literally 'I take pleasure therewith'.

Ik zie dat ge u in 't hoofd hebt gezet, my coûte que coûte te laten vallen.  
I see that you have got it into your head to make me fall, coûte que coûte.
> Reflexive + perfect + causative laten: 'zich iets in 't hoofd zetten' = 'to get something into one's head'; with 'ge' the reflexive is 'u'. 'te laten vallen' is causative 'laten' (to make/let) + bare 'vallen': 'to make [me] fall'.
> te + laten + bare infinitive cluster: The end of the clause stacks 'te laten vallen': 'te' governs 'laten', which itself takes the bare infinitive 'vallen' (causative verbs take no 'te' on their complement).
> French interjection: A French set phrase, 'cost what it may / at all costs'. Multatuli sprinkles such French (and Latin/German) tags throughout to mark Havelaar's cosmopolitan, restless mind.

Ik lig daar nu zoo lang ik ben ... maar ik weet waarachtig niet waarom?  
Here I lie now, stretched out full length ... but I truly do not know why?
> Idiom: 'zoo lang als ik ben': 'Ik lig daar zoo lang ik ben' = 'I lie there stretched out to my full length'. The idiom uses one's own height as the measure of the sprawl.
> niet for verbal/adverbial negation: Here 'niet' negates the verb ('I truly do not know'), the default negator; 'geen' would be used only to negate an indefinite noun. 'waarachtig' = 'truly, really'.

--Wel, dat is toch zeer eenvoudig! Ge zaagt daar een vrouw, gekleed in 't zwart, die geknield lag voor een blok.  
--Why, that is quite simple! You saw there a woman, dressed in black, who knelt before a block.
> Imperfect zaagt; relative die: 'zaagt' is the 2nd-person imperfect of strong 'zien' (you saw); 'die geknield lag' is a relative clause ('who knelt'), 'die' for the de-word 'vrouw'.
> Past participle as adjective: 'gekleed' (dressed), the participle of 'kleden', modifies 'vrouw' attributively — the resulting-state sense. "'t zwart" = het zwart, the colour used as a noun.

En ze boog het hoofd, en blank als zilver was de hals die afstak by 't zwart fluweel. En daar stond een man met een groot zwaard, en hy hield het hoog, en zyn blik staarde op dien blanken hals, en hy zocht den boog dien zyn zwaard beschryven zou, om dáár ... dáár, tusschen die wervels heen, te worden doorgedreven met juistheid en kracht ... en toen viel je, Duclari. je viel omdat je dat alles zag, en dáárom riep je: o god!  
And she bowed her head, and white as silver was the neck that stood out against the black velvet. And there stood a man with a great sword, and he held it high, and his gaze rested on that white neck, and he sought out the arc his sword would trace, to be driven through right there ... there, between those vertebrae, with precision and force ... and then you fell, Duclari. You fell because you saw all that, and that is why you cried: oh God!
> Fronted predicate → inversion: Fronting the predicate 'blank als zilver' (white as silver) inverts subject and verb: 'was de hals'. Multatuli uses this poetic inversion for emphasis.
> Relative dien (acc.) + future zou: 'dien' is the old masculine accusative relative ('the arc that...'), object of 'beschryven'. 'beschryven zou' = conditional 'would trace', with the auxiliary at the clause end after the infinitive.
> om ... te + passive infinitive: 'om ... te worden doorgedreven' is a purpose clause ('in order to be driven through') with a worden-passive infinitive. 'doorgedreven' is the participle of separable 'doordrijven'.
> toen + inversion in the narrative past: Fronted 'toen' (then/when, of the past) forces inversion: 'viel je'. 'toen' is for completed past events, contrasting with 'dan' for present/future.

Volstrekt niet omdat er maar drie pooten aan je stoel waren. En lang nadat je uit Fotheringhay werd verlost--op voorspraak van je neef, denk ik, of omdat het de menschen verveelde je daar langer onverplicht den kost te geven, als een kanarievogeltje--lang daarna, ja, tot heden toe, droom je wakend van die vrouw, en in je slaap zelfs schrik je op, en valt met zwaren schok neer op je legerstede, omdat je den arm wilt grypen van den beul.  
Not at all because there were only three legs to your chair. And long after you were freed from Fotheringhay--through the intercession of your cousin, I suppose, or because people grew tired of keeping you there any longer, gratis, like a canary--long afterward, yes, to this very day, you dream waking of that woman, and even in your sleep you start up, and fall back with a heavy jolt onto your bed, because you mean to seize the arm of the executioner.
> worden-passive in a nadat-clause: 'werd verlost' is a worden-passive in the past ('were freed'), inside a verb-final clause opened by 'nadat' (after). The agent is unnamed, as passives allow.
> Present participle wakend; droom je: 'wakend' (waking) is an -end present participle used adverbially: 'you dream while awake'. 'dromen van' takes the preposition 'van'.
> Modal wil + bare infinitive; den (case remnant): Modal 'wilt' (want) sends 'grypen' to the end as a bare infinitive. 'den arm', 'den beul' keep the old accusative/dative 'den'. Note 'beul' = executioner.

Is dit niet waar?  
Is this not true?
> Yes/no question: verb first: A yes/no question puts the finite verb first ('Is dit ... waar?'). 'dit' is the neuter near demonstrative used as a pronoun, 'this'.

--Ik wil 't wel gelooven, maar bepaald zeker kan ik 't waarlyk niet zeggen, omdat ik nooit te Fotheringhay door een gat in den muur heb gezien.  
--I am willing enough to believe it, but I truly cannot say for certain, because I never looked through a hole in the wall at Fotheringhay.
> omdat-clause with negative nooit: The 'omdat' clause is verb-final ('heb gezien'); 'nooit' (never) is the single negative permitted in the clause — no double negation. 'den muur' shows the old accusative.
> Modal willen + bare infinitive: 'wil ... gelooven' = 'am willing to believe', modal 'willen' with the bare infinitive at the end. 'wel' here softens to 'readily/willingly'.

--Goed, goed! Ik ook niet.  
--Good, good! Neither did I.

Maar nu neem ik een schildery die 't onthoofden van Maria Stuart voorstelt.  
But now I take a painting that represents the beheading of Mary Stuart.
> Nominalized infinitive 't onthoofden: "'t onthoofden" = 'het onthoofden', the infinitive 'onthoofden' (to behead) used as a neuter noun, 'the beheading'. The relative 'die' + verb-final 'voorstelt' close the clause.

Laat ons aannemen dat de voorstelling volmaakt is. Daar hangt ze, in vergulden lyst, aan een rood koord als je verkiest ... ik weet wat je zeggen wilt, goed!  
Let us assume that the representation is perfect. There it hangs, in a gilded frame, on a red cord if you please ... I know what you want to say, fine!
> Hortative 'laat ons' (let us): 'Laat ons aannemen' is the literary hortative 'let us assume', formed with 'laten' + bare infinitive. Modern Dutch often prefers 'laten we'.
> Fronted Daar → inversion: Fronting locative 'Daar' inverts to 'hangt ze'. 'vergulden' (gilded) is a participle-adjective; 'lyst' = lijst, frame.
> Relative 'wat' without antecedent: 'wat' here is the free relative 'what' (no antecedent noun): 'I know what you want to say'. The clause is verb-final: 'zeggen wilt'.

Neen, neen, ge ziet die lyst niet, ge vergeet zelfs dat ge uw rotting hebt afgegeven aan den ingang van de schilderzaal ... ge vergeet uw naam, uw kind, het nieuw-model politiemuts, en dus alles, om niet te zien een schildery, maar om werkelyk daarop Maria Stuart te aanschouwen: geheel juist als te Fotheringhay.  
No, no, you do not see that frame, you even forget that you handed in your cane at the entrance of the picture-gallery ... you forget your name, your child, the new-model police cap, and so everything, in order not to see a painting, but really to behold Mary Stuart upon it: exactly as at Fotheringhay.
> Separable afgeven in a dat-clause: Inside the 'dat' clause the separable verb stays together as a perfect: 'hebt afgegeven' at the end ('afgeven' = to hand in/over). 'rotting' = a walking-cane.
> Twin om ... te purpose clauses: Two parallel 'om ... te' purpose clauses ('in order not to see... but really to behold...'). Note the archaic order 'te zien een schildery' rather than modern 'een schildery te zien'.
> Period spelling: schilder-, schildery: 'schildery' = schilderij (painting), with y for ij; 'schilderzaal' is a compound 'picture-gallery'. The 'sch-' cluster and the y-spelling are hallmarks of the 1860 page.

De beul staat er volkomen zóó als hy werkelyk moet gestaan hebben, ja, ik wil zóóver gaan dat je den arm uitstrekt om den slag afteweren!  
The executioner stands there entirely as he must really have stood, yes, I will go so far as to say that you stretch out your arm to ward off the blow!
> Modal perfect: moet gestaan hebben: 'moet gestaan hebben' stacks modal 'moeten' + perfect infinitive 'gestaan hebben' ('must have stood'). The cluster sits at the clause end after the comparative 'als'-clause opens.
> Separable uitstrekken; afteweren (= af te weren): 'uitstrekt' is separable 'uitstrekken' (stretch out). 'afteweren' is the 1860 joined spelling of 'af te weren' — om-te with a separable verb, where 'te' is written inside the verb.

Zóó ver dat je roept: "laat die vrouw leven, misschien betert zy zich!" je ziet, ik geef je beau jeu wat de uitvoering van 't schilderstuk aangaat ...  
So far that you cry: "let that woman live, perhaps she will mend her ways!" You see, I grant you beau jeu as far as the execution of the painting is concerned ...
> Imperative + causative laten: 'laat ... leven' is an imperative of causative 'laten' + bare infinitive: 'let that woman live'. 'die' is the demonstrative determiner before the de-word 'vrouw'.
> Reflexive 'zich beteren': 'zich beteren' = 'to mend one's ways'; with 3rd-person 'zy' the reflexive is 'zich'. Fronted 'misschien' inverts to 'betert zy'.
> French: 'beau jeu': 'ik geef je beau jeu' = 'I grant you fair play / a good hand' — i.e. Havelaar concedes the painting could be technically flawless, to make his point harder.

--Ja, maar wat dan verder?  
--Yes, but what then, further?

Is dan de indruk niet even treffend, als toen ik 'tzelfde in werkelykheid zag te Fotheringhay?  
Is the impression not just as striking as when I saw the same thing in reality at Fotheringhay?
> Comparison with als toen; verb-final: 'even treffend, als toen ik ... zag' = 'just as striking as when I saw...'. 'toen' opens a past time-clause that is verb-final ('zag'). "'tzelfde" = hetzelfde, 'the same'.

--Neen, volstrekt niet, en wel omdat je niet waart geklommen op een stoel met drie pooten.  
--No, not at all, and precisely because you had not climbed onto a chair with three legs.
> Pluperfect with zijn: waart geklommen: 'waart geklommen' is the pluperfect of motion verb 'klimmen', taking 'zijn' (here 2nd-person archaic 'waart'). It expresses the unreal 'you had not climbed'.

Je neemt een stoel--met vier pooten ditmaal, en liefst een fauteuil--je gaat voor de schildery zitten, om goed en lang te genieten--we genieten nu eenmaal by 't aanschouwen van iets akeligs--en welken indruk meent ge dat zy op je maakt?  
You take a chair--with four legs this time, and preferably an armchair--you sit down before the painting, to enjoy it well and long--we do, after all, enjoy the contemplation of something dreadful--and what impression do you suppose it makes on you?
> om ... te purpose: 'om ... te genieten' = 'in order to enjoy'. 'genieten' is intransitive here ('to take pleasure'); the adverbs 'goed en lang' sit before 'te genieten'.
> Nominalized infinitive 't aanschouwen: "'t aanschouwen van iets akeligs" = 'the contemplation of something dreadful', the infinitive 'aanschouwen' used as a noun after 'by' (= bij). 'nu eenmaal' = 'after all, just the way it is'.
> Interrogative welk(en) + embedded dat-clause: 'welken indruk' is the formal interrogative 'which/what impression' with the old accusative -en. The main question 'meent ge' embeds a verb-final 'dat zy op je maakt'.

--Wèl, schrik, angst, medelyden, ontroering ... evenals toen ik door de opening van den muur zag.  
--Why, fright, terror, pity, emotion ... just as when I looked through the opening in the wall.
> evenals + past time-clause: 'evenals toen ... zag' = 'just as when I looked', a verb-final comparison clause introduced by 'toen'. 'van den muur' again preserves old 'den'.
> medelijden — pity: 'medelyden' (= medelijden) is 'pity, compassion' (literally 'co-suffering'), a recurring keyword Havelaar will dissect into 'evenlydendheid' and 'gelykvoeligheid' below.

We hebben gesteld dat de schildery volmaakt is, ik moet dus daarvan geheel denzelfden indruk hebben als van de werkelykheid.  
We have stipulated that the painting is perfect, so I must have from it entirely the same impression as from reality.
> Genitive remnant: denzelfden indruk: 'denzelfden indruk' carries the old masculine accusative ending -en on both demonstrative and adjective ('the same impression'). 'dus' is a coordinating conjunction ('so'), so the verb stays in second position.

--Neen! Binnen twee minuten voel je pyn in je rechterarm, uit sympathie met den beul die zoo lang dat zwaar stuk staal onbewegelyk omhoog moet houden.  
--No! Within two minutes you feel a pain in your right arm, out of sympathy with the executioner who must hold that heavy piece of steel aloft, motionless, for so long.
> Fronted time phrase → inversion (T-M-P): The time adverbial 'Binnen twee minuten' is fronted, inverting to 'voel je'. In the middle field, Dutch favours Time before Manner before Place.
> Modal moet houden; relative die: Relative 'die' (the executioner who...) opens a verb-final clause; modal 'moet' + bare 'houden' close it. 'omhoog houden' is separable ('hold aloft').

--Sympathie met den beul?  
--Sympathy with the executioner?

--Ja! evenlydendheid, gelykvoeligheid, weetje? En tevens met de vrouw die daar zoo lang in ongemakkelyke houding, en waarschynlyk in onaangename stemming, voor dat blok ligt.  
--Yes! fellow-suffering, fellow-feeling, you know? And likewise with the woman who lies there before that block for so long, in an uncomfortable posture, and probably in an unpleasant frame of mind.
> Multatuli's coined compounds: Havelaar invents 'evenlydendheid' (fellow-suffering) and 'gelykvoeligheid' (fellow-feeling) to gloss 'sympathie'. Such transparent native compounds show Dutch's habit of gluing roots together.
> Relative die + delayed verb: The relative 'die' opens a long verb-final clause whose finite verb 'ligt' arrives only at the very end, after all the adverbials — a hallmark of Dutch subordinate order.

Je hebt nog altyd medelyden met haar, maar ditmaal niet omdat ze onthoofd moet worden, maar omdat men haar zoo lang laat wachten vóór ze onthoofd wordt, en als je nog iets zeggen of roepen zoudt, in 't eind--gesteld dat je aandrift voelt je met de zaak te bemoeien--zou 't niets anders wezen dan: "sla toch in-godsnaam toe, man, 't mensch wacht er op!" En wanneer je later die schildery weerziet, en meermalen weerziet, is zelfs reeds je eerste indruk: "is die historie nog niet afgeloopen?  
You still feel pity for her, but this time not because she is to be beheaded, but because they keep her waiting so long before she is beheaded; and if you were still to say or cry out anything, in the end--supposing you felt an urge to meddle in the affair--it would be nothing other than: "do strike, for God's sake, man, the poor creature is waiting for it!" And when you later see that painting again, and see it many times, even your first impression is already: "is that story still not over?
> worden-passive vs causative laten: 'onthoofd moet worden' is a modal + worden-passive ('must be beheaded'). Contrast 'laat wachten' = causative 'laten' + bare infinitive ('makes her wait'). 'men' is the impersonal 'one/they'.
> worden-passive after vóór: 'vóór ze onthoofd wordt' = 'before she is beheaded', a present worden-passive in a verb-final clause introduced by 'vóór'.
> Conditional zou(dt) in an als-clause: 'zoudt' is the archaic 2nd-person of 'zou' (conditional), here in an 'als' (if) clause: 'if you were still to say or cry out'. The infinitives precede the auxiliary at the end.
> 't mensch — neuter 'mensch': Normally 'de mens' (a person), but "'t mensch" (neuter) is a colloquial, often pitying or dismissive way to refer to a woman — here 'the poor creature'.

Staat hy, en ligt zy daar nòg?"  
Is he still standing, and is she still lying there?"
> Yes/no question with inversion: Two yes/no questions: verb first ('Staat hy...', 'ligt zy...'). The accented 'nòg' stresses 'still'. The pair echoes the painting frozen forever.

--Maar wat is dan voor beweging in de schoonheid der vrouwen te Arles? vroeg Verbrugge.  
--But then what kind of movement is there in the beauty of the women at Arles? asked Verbrugge.
> Genitive der; 'wat voor' (what kind of): 'der vrouwen' is the genitive plural 'of the women' (case remnant 'der'). 'wat ... voor beweging' is the split idiom 'wat voor' = 'what kind of'.

--O, dàt is iets anders!  
--Oh, that is something else!

Zy spelen een geschiedenis uit in haar trekken. Karthago bloeit en bouwt schepen op haar voorhoofd ... hoor den Hannibals-eed tegen Rome ... daar vlechten zy koorden voor de bogen ... daar brandt de stad ...  
They play out a whole history in their features. Carthage blooms and builds ships upon their brow ... hear the oath of Hannibal against Rome ... there they plait cords for the bows ... there the city burns ...
> Separable uitspelen: 'spelen ... uit' is separable 'uitspelen' (to act/play out): the prefix 'uit' splits to the end of the clause. 'haar trekken' = their features.
> Fronted 'daar' → inversion, repeated: Each clause fronts 'daar' (there), inverting to 'vlechten zy' and 'brandt de stad' — V2 driving an incantatory, present-tense vision.

--Max, Max, ik geloof waarlyk dat je te Arles je hart verloren hebt, plaagde Tine.  
--Max, Max, I truly believe you lost your heart at Arles, Tine teased.
> Perfect in a dat-clause: 'dat je ... verloren hebt' is verb-final ('hebt' last, participle 'verloren' before it). 'je hart verliezen' = 'to lose one's heart / fall in love'.

--Ja, voor een oogenblik ...maar ik vond het terug: dat zult ge hooren.  
--Yes, for a moment ... but I found it again: that you shall hear.
> Future with zullen; fronted object: Fronting the object 'dat' inverts to 'zult ge'; 'zult ... hooren' = future 'you shall hear', the infinitive at the end. 'ge' is the literary 'you'.

Verbeeldt u ... ik zeg niet, daar heb ik een vrouw gezien, die zóó of zóó schoon was, neen: allen waren zy schoon, en 't was dus een onmogelykheid daar pour tout de bon verliefd te worden, omdat elke volgende weer de vorige uit je bewondering verdrong, en ik dacht daarby waarlyk aan Caligula of Tiberius--van wien vertellen ze 't fabeltje? --die 't heele menschelyk geslacht maar één hoofd toewenschte.  
Imagine ... I do not say, there I saw a woman who was beautiful in this way or that, no: they were all of them beautiful, and so it was an impossibility to fall in love there pour tout de bon, because each one that followed crowded the one before out of your admiration again; and I truly thought there of Caligula or Tiberius--of which of them do they tell the little fable?--who wished the whole human race had but a single head.
> te + worden (to become): 'verliefd te worden' = 'to fall in love' (lit. 'to become in love'), a te-infinitive complement to the noun 'onmogelykheid'. 'verliefd worden' uses 'worden' for entering a state.
> Inseparable verdringen; strong imperfect; verb-final: 'verdrong' is the strong imperfect of 'verdringen' (to crowd/push out), here at the end of the 'omdat' clause. 'elke volgende ... de vorige' = 'each following one... the previous one'.
> Relative die; separable toewensen: The relative 'die' (who) opens a verb-final clause closing on 'toewenschte', imperfect of separable 'toewensen' (to wish upon someone). 'maar één' = 'only one'.
> French: 'in real earnest': 'pour tout de bon' = 'genuinely, in real earnest'. Another of Havelaar's French tags, underscoring that he could not fall truly in love amid so many beauties.

Zóó namelyk kwam onwillekeurig de wensch in my op, dat de vrouwen te Arles ...  
For in just that way the wish rose up in me, involuntarily, that the women of Arles ...
> Separable opkomen, split apart: 'kwam ... op' is separable 'opkomen' (to rise up / occur), with 'op' driven to the end. 'de wensch kwam in my op' = 'the wish rose up in me'. 'onwillekeurig' = involuntarily.

--Maar één hoofd hadden samen?  
--Had but a single head between them?
> Elliptical wish-clause (had but one head): An elided continuation of the previous wish: '[that the women of Arles] had but one head together'. 'hadden' (imperfect/subjunctive of 'hebben') closes the verb-final clause.

--Ja ... --Om 't afteslaan?  
"Yes ..." "To turn it down?"
> om ... te with separable verb (afteslaan): 'afteslaan' = 'af te slaan' written joined per 1860 convention; the pun on 'afslaan' = both 'to strike off (a head)' and 'to decline/refuse'. The om-te frames a purpose: 'in order to ...'.

--Wel neen! Om.. het te kussen op 't voorhoofd, wilde ik zeggen, maar dat is het niet!  
"Why, no! To ... to kiss it on the forehead, I meant to say — but that isn't it either!"
> om ... te + modal wilde: 'om ... te kussen' is the purpose infinitive; 'wilde ik zeggen' = 'I meant to say', imperfect of modal 'willen'. Note 'het' (the single head, a het-word) as object.

Neen, om er op te staren, en er van te droomen, en om ... goed te zyn!  
No, to gaze at it, and to dream of it, and to ... be good!
> Pronominal adverb in om-te: er op / er van: 'er op ... staren' and 'er van ... droomen' wrap 'er' (it, the head) around 'op' and 'van' inside two purpose clauses. 'staren op' and 'dromen van' fix the prepositions.
> om ... te zyn (period spelling): 'om ... goed te zyn' = 'in order to be good', the purpose infinitive of 'zijn'. 'zyn' shows y for ij. The bathetic turn ('to be good') is pure Havelaar.

Duclari en Verbrugge vonden waarschynlyk dit slot weer byzonder vreemd.  
Duclari and Verbrugge probably found this ending uncommonly strange once again.
> vonden — imperfect of vinden: 'vonden' is the strong imperfect plural of 'vinden' (to find/think). 'iets vreemd vinden' = 'to find something strange'. 'dit slot' = 'this ending/conclusion'.

Maar Max bemerkte hun verrassing niet, en ging voort:  
But Max did not notice their surprise, and went on:
> Separable voortgaan; niet negation: 'ging voort' is separable 'voortgaan' (to go on/continue). 'niet' negates the verb 'bemerkte'. 'hun' is the plural possessive 'their'.

--Want zóó edel waren de trekken, dat men iets als schaamte voelde, slechts een mensch te wezen, en niet een vonk ... een straal--neen, dat waar stof!--een gedachte!  
"For so noble were the features that one felt something like shame at being merely a human being, and not a spark ... a ray — no, that would be matter! — a thought!"
> want (coordinating) + zóó ... dat result clause: 'Want' (for/because) is coordinating and keeps V2 — but the fronted 'zóó edel' inverts to 'waren de trekken'. The 'dat' result clause is verb-final: 'voelde' at the end.
> te + wezen (archaic 'zijn'): 'te wezen' = 'te zijn' (to be), 'wezen' being the older/literary infinitive of 'zijn'. 'slechts' = only. The te-infinitive complements 'schaamte voelde ... te wezen'.
> Subjunctive 'ware' → 'waar': 'dat waar stof' = 'that would be matter', with 'waar' a shortened subjunctive of 'zijn' ('ware'), used for a hypothetical. A solemn, archaic touch.

Maar ... dan zat daar op-eens een broêr of een vader naast die vrouwen, en ... godbewaarme, ik heb er een gezien die haar neus snoot!  
"But ... then there would suddenly sit a brother or a father beside those women, and ... God preserve me, I once saw one of them blow her nose!"
> Fronted dan → inversion; imperfect zat: Fronted 'dan' (then) inverts to 'zat daar'. 'broêr' is the contracted spelling of 'broeder/broer' (brother). 'op-eens' = suddenly.
> Quantitative er; relative die; snoot: 'er een' uses quantitative 'er' standing for 'one of them'. 'snoot' is the strong imperfect of 'snuiten' (to blow one's nose). The bathos puncturing the rapture is the point.

--Ik wist wel dat je er weer een zwarten streep over halen zou, zei Tine verdrietig.  
"I knew very well that you would draw a black line through it all again," said Tine sorrowfully.
> Conditional zou; pronominal er ... over: 'er ... over halen' wraps 'er' and 'over' around the idiom ('a streep over iets halen' = to cross/cancel something out). 'halen zou' = conditional 'would draw', auxiliary last. 'zwarten' keeps old accusative -en.
> Idiom: to draw a black line through: 'er een streep door/over halen' is 'to cancel/spoil it'. Tine accuses Max of always undercutting his own raptures with a sour final stroke.

--Kan ik 't helpen?  
"Can I help it?"
> Modal kunnen; idiom 'het helpen': 'Kan ik 't helpen?' = 'Can I help it?' — yes/no question, modal 'kan' first. 'iets kunnen helpen' here means 'to be able to do anything about it'.

Ik had ze liever dood zien vallen!  
I would sooner have seen them drop down dead!
> Perception verb 'zien' + bare infinitive: 'had ze ... zien vallen' = 'would sooner have seen them fall dead': perception verb 'zien' takes a bare infinitive 'vallen', and in this perfect the cluster ends 'zien vallen' (the 'IPP/Ersatzinfinitiv' effect). 'liever' = comparative of 'graag', rather.

Mag zulk een meisje zich profaneeren?  
Is such a girl permitted to profane herself?
> Modal mogen; reflexive zich: 'Mag ... profaneeren?' = 'Is ... permitted to...', modal 'mogen' (may/be allowed). 'zich profaneeren' is reflexive ('profane oneself'). 'zulk een' = 'such a'.
> Diminutive 'meisje' is neuter: 'meisje' is itself a frozen diminutive (-je) and therefore a het-word, even though it denotes a girl — which is why the pronoun referring to it can be neuter ('het kind' too).

--Maar, mynheer Havelaar, vroeg Verbrugge, als ze nu eens verkouwen is?  
"But, Mr. Havelaar," asked Verbrugge, "what if she happens to have a cold?"
> als-clause: verb-final; verkouwen: 'als ze ... verkouwen is' = 'if/what if she happens to be cold-stricken', a verb-final 'als' clause. 'verkouwen' = verkouden (having a cold), the period -ou- spelling. 'nu eens' adds a hypothetical 'just suppose'.

--Wèl, ze moest niet verkouwen zyn met zulk een neus!  
"Well, she ought not to have a cold with a nose like that!"
> Modal moeten (ought) in the imperfect: 'moest ... zyn' = 'ought to be / should be', imperfect of modal 'moeten' used for a (counterfactual) propriety: 'she ought not to be cold-stricken'. 'niet' negates the predicate.

--Ja, maar ...  
"Yes, but ..."

Alsof 't booze spel sprak, op-eens moest Tine niezen, en ... voor ze er aan dacht, had ze haar neus gesnoten!  
As though some mischievous spirit had spoken, all at once Tine had to sneeze, and ... before she so much as thought of it, she had blown her nose!
> Pluperfect; pronominal er ... aan: 'had ze ... gesnoten' is the pluperfect of 'snuiten'. 'er aan dacht' wraps 'er ... aan' for 'denken aan' (to think of it). 'voor ze ...' = 'before she ...', verb-final.
> Idiom: as if mischief itself spoke: 'Alsof 't booze spel sprak' ≈ 'as though some mischievous spirit had spoken' — a fixed expression for an uncanny, ill-timed coincidence (Tine sneezes right after the nose-blowing argument).
> Modal moeten = 'had to': 'moest ... niezen' = 'had to sneeze' (an involuntary necessity). Fronted 'op-eens' inverts to 'moest Tine'.

--Beste Max, wil je er niet boos om worden? vroeg ze met teruggehouden lach.  
"Dearest Max, you won't be cross about it, will you?" she asked, holding back a laugh.
> Modal willen as polite future; er ... om: 'wil je ... worden?' softens into a request ('won't you...?'). 'er ... om' (boos worden om iets = to get angry about something) splits the pronominal adverb. 'worden' marks entering a state.
> Participle-adjective teruggehouden: 'teruggehouden' (held back, from separable 'terughouden') is a past participle used attributively before 'lach' (laugh): 'with a held-back laugh'.

Hy antwoordde niet.  
He gave no answer.

En, hoe gek het schynt of is ... ja, hy was er boos om!  
And — however foolish it may seem, or is ... yes, he was cross about it!
> Pronominal er ... om: 'er ... om' fills the 'om iets' slot of 'boos zijn om' (to be cross about something): 'he was cross about it'. The 'er' fronts, 'om' lands at the end.
> Impersonal het; schijnen: 'hoe gek het schynt of is' uses impersonal/dummy 'het' as subject of 'schynt' (it seems) and 'is'. 'hoe ... ook' is the concessive 'however foolish'.

En, wat óók vreemd klinkt, Tine was bly dat hy boos was, en van haar vergde meer te zyn dan de Phoceesche vrouwen te Arles al was 't dan ook niet omdat ze reden had grootsch op haar neus te wezen.  
And — what also sounds strange — Tine was glad that he was cross, and that he demanded of her that she be more than the Phocaean women at Arles, even if it was not because she had any reason to be proud of her nose.
> Genitive 'der' inside the clause; te + zyn: 'van haar vergde meer te zyn' = 'demanded of her to be more', with the te-infinitive 'te zyn'. 'vergen van' = to demand of. The whole rides on coordinating 'en' keeping V2.

Als Duclari nog meende dat Havelaar "gek" was, had men 't hem niet ten-kwade kunnen duiden wanneer hy zich in deze meening versterkt voelde, by 't bemerken der korte verstoordheid die er, na en om dat neussnuiten, op Havelaars gelaat te lezen was.  
If Duclari still thought Havelaar "mad," he could not have been blamed for feeling confirmed in that opinion at noticing the brief vexation that was to be read on Havelaar's face after, and on account of, that nose-blowing.
> Modal perfect with IPP: kunnen duiden: 'had men ... kunnen duiden' = 'one could not have held it against him', a pluperfect where modal 'kunnen' appears as a bare infinitive (not participle) — the IPP effect. 'iets ten kwade duiden' = to take something amiss.
> Reflexive zich; demonstrative deze: 'zich ... versterkt voelde' = 'felt himself confirmed', 3rd-person reflexive 'zich'. 'deze meening' (this opinion) uses near demonstrative 'deze' for the de-word 'meening'.
> Genitive 'der'; passive-like 'te lezen was': 'der korte verstoordheid' is genitive ('of the brief vexation'). 'te lezen was' = 'was to be read', the 'zijn + te + infinitive' construction expressing possibility/obligation, close to a passive.

Maar deze was teruggekeerd van Karthago, en hy las--met de snelheid waarmee hy lezen kon, als hy niet te ver van-huis was met zyn geest--op de gezichten van zyn gasten, dat zy de twee volgende stellingen opwierpen:  
But the man had returned from Carthage, and he read — with the swiftness with which he could read when his mind was not too far from home — on the faces of his guests that they were putting forward the two following propositions:
> Demonstrative 'deze' as 'the latter'; pluperfect: 'deze' here means 'the latter / this man' (Havelaar). 'was teruggekeerd' is the pluperfect of motion verb 'terugkeren', with 'zijn'.
> Pronominal relative 'waarmee': 'waarmee' = 'with which', a pronominal-adverb relative ('the swiftness with which...'). The clause is verb-final: 'lezen kon'.
> Separable opwerpen in a dat-clause: 'opwierpen' is the strong imperfect of separable 'opwerpen' (to raise/put forward), verb-final after 'dat'. 'stellingen' = propositions, set up for the numbered list that follows.

1° Wie niet wil dat zyn vrouw haar neus snuit, is een gek.  
1° Whoever does not want his wife to blow her nose is a fool.
> Free relative 'wie'; nested dat-clause: 'Wie ...' is the headless relative 'whoever'; its long subject clause ('Wie ... snuit') is itself verb-final, and the main verb 'is' follows in second position of the whole. 'snuit' = present of 'snuiten'.

2° Wie gelooft dat een in schoone lynen geteekende neus niet mag gesnoten worden, doet verkeerd dit geloof toetepassen op mevrouw Havelaar, wier neus een beetje en pomme de terre is.  
2° Whoever believes that a nose drawn in fine lines may not be blown does wrong to apply this belief to Mrs. Havelaar, whose nose is a little en pomme de terre.
> Extended participle attribute (German-style): 'een in schoone lynen geteekende neus' = 'a nose drawn in fine lines': the participle 'geteekende' (drawn) carries a whole phrase 'in schoone lynen' before it, framed between article and noun — a learned, German-flavoured construction.
> Modal + worden-passive infinitive: 'mag gesnoten worden' = 'may be blown', modal 'mogen' + a worden-passive infinitive. 'gesnoten' is the participle of strong 'snuiten'.
> Separable toetepassen; genitive relative 'wier': 'toetepassen' = 'toe te passen' joined (apply). 'wier' is the genitive relative 'whose' (for a female/de-word antecedent): 'Mrs. Havelaar, whose nose...'.
> French: 'like a potato': 'en pomme de terre' = 'potato-shaped' — a teasing way to describe Tine's nose as a little round and homely, undercutting the high aesthetic argument.

De eerste stelling liet Havelaar rusten, maar ... de tweede!  
The first proposition Havelaar let pass, but ... the second!
> Fronted object + causative laten: Fronting the object 'De eerste stelling' inverts to 'liet Havelaar'. 'liet rusten' = causative 'laten' + bare 'rusten': 'let [it] rest / let pass'.

--O, riep hy, alsof hy te antwoorden had, schoon zyn gasten te beleefd waren geweest hun stellingen uittespreken, dàt zal ik u verklaren. Tine is ...  
"Oh," he cried, as though he had something to answer, although his guests had been too polite to speak their propositions aloud, "that I shall explain to you. Tine is ..."
> 'te + infinitive + hebben' (have to): 'te antwoorden had' = 'had something to answer', the 'iets te doen hebben' = 'to have something to do' pattern, verb-final after 'alsof'.
> Archaic 'schoon' (= although); separable uitspreken: 'schoon' here is the literary concessive 'although' (= hoewel/ofschoon). 'te beleefd ... uittespreken' uses 'te ... om te' sense ('too polite to speak'); 'uittespreken' = 'uit te spreken' joined.
> Fronted object + future zullen: Fronted 'dàt' inverts to 'zal ik'; 'zal ... verklaren' = future 'I shall explain', infinitive last. 'u' is the formal/respectful object pronoun.

--Beste Max! zeide zy smeekend. Dit beteekende: "vertel toch niet aan die heeren waarom ik in uw schatting verheven moest zyn boven verkoudheid!"  
"Dearest Max!" she said imploringly. This meant: "do not tell those gentlemen why, in your estimation, I was to be raised above catching cold!"
> Modal moeten + verb-final waarom-clause: 'waarom ik ... verheven moest zyn' is verb-final ('moest zyn' last): 'why I had to be raised'. 'verheven' (exalted) is a participle-adjective; 'uw schatting' = your estimation.
> Archaic 'zeide'; participle smeekend: 'zeide' is the older literary imperfect of 'zeggen' (modern 'zei'). 'smeekend' is the -end present participle used adverbially ('imploringly').

Havelaar scheen te verstaan wat Tine meende, want hy antwoordde:  
Havelaar seemed to understand what Tine meant, for he answered:
> scheen te + infinitive; want keeps V2: 'scheen te verstaan' = 'seemed to understand' (schijnen governs 'te'). 'want' (for) is coordinating, so 'hy antwoordde' stays V2. 'wat Tine meende' is a free relative, verb-final.

--Goed, kind! Maar weet je wel, heeren, dat men zich dikwyls bedriegt in 't beoordeelen der aanspraken van sommige menschen op stoffelyke onvolkomenheid?  
"Very well, child! But do you know, gentlemen, that one is often mistaken in judging the claims of certain people to material imperfection?"
> Reflexive zich; nominalized infinitive; genitive der: 'zich bedriegt' = reflexive 'is mistaken'; 'men' is impersonal 'one'. "'t beoordeelen der aanspraken" = 'the judging of the claims', a nominalized infinitive governing a genitive plural 'der'.

Ik ben zeker dat de gasten nooit van die aanspraken gehoord hadden.  
I am certain that the guests had never heard of such claims.

--Ik heb op Sumatra een meisje gekend, ging hy voort, de dochter van een datoe ... welnu, ik houd het er voor dat zy op die onvolkomenheid geen recht had.  
"On Sumatra I once knew a girl," he went on, "the daughter of a datu ... well now, I hold that she had no right to that imperfection."
> Idiom 'het ervoor houden dat'; geen: 'ik houd het er voor dat...' = 'I hold/maintain that...' (the 'er voor' is fixed). 'geen recht' uses 'geen' to negate the indefinite noun 'recht' (right) — 'no right'.

En toch heb ik haar in 't water zien vallen by een schipbreuk ... evenals een ander.  
"And yet I saw her fall into the water in a shipwreck ... just like anyone else."
> Perfect + perception 'zien' + bare infinitive (IPP): 'heb ik haar ... zien vallen' = 'I saw her fall' in the perfect, where 'zien' surfaces as a bare infinitive (IPP) rather than a participle. 'by een schipbreuk' = during a shipwreck.

Ik, een mensch, heb haar moeten helpen om aan land te komen.  
"I, a human being, had to help her reach the shore."
> Modal moeten (IPP) + om ... te: 'heb ... moeten helpen' is a perfect with modal 'moeten' as a bare infinitive (IPP). 'om aan land te komen' = 'in order to reach the shore', a purpose clause.

--Maar.. had ze dan moeten vliegen als een meeuw?  
"But ... was she supposed to fly like a gull, then?"
> Modal moeten in a yes/no question: 'had ze ... moeten vliegen?' = 'was she supposed to fly?', a perfect with modal 'moeten' (IPP) fronted as a question. 'als een meeuw' = like a gull.

--Wel zeker, of ... neen, ze had geen lichaam moeten hebben.  
"Why, certainly — or ... no, she ought to have had no body at all."
> geen + modal moeten: 'geen lichaam' negates the indefinite noun 'lichaam' (body): 'no body'. 'had ... moeten hebben' = 'ought to have had', a counterfactual modal perfect (IPP).

Wilt ge dat ik u vertel hoe ik kennis met haar maakte? 't Was in '42.  
"Would you like me to tell you how I came to know her? It was in '42."
> Modal willen as a question; nested clauses: 'Wilt ge dat ...?' = 'Would you like me to ...?' The 'dat' clause and the embedded 'hoe ...' clause are both verb-final ('vertel', 'maakte'). 'kennis maken met' = to get to know.
> Impersonal het with a date: "'t Was in '42" uses dummy 'het' for time ('it was in '42'). The apostrophe-42 = 1842, situating the Si Oepi Keteh tale in Havelaar's early career.

Ik was kontroleur van Natal ... ben je daar geweest, Verbrugge?  
"I was controller of Natal ... have you been there, Verbrugge?"
> Perfect of zijn-verb in a question: 'ben je daar geweest?' = 'have you been there?', the perfect of 'zijn' (which takes 'zijn' as auxiliary), inverted for a yes/no question.

--Ja.  
"Yes."

--Welnu, dan weet je dat er peperkultuur in 't Natalsche is.  
"Well then, you know that there is pepper-growing in the Natal district."
> Existential er; compound peperkultuur: 'er peperkultuur ... is' = 'there is pepper-growing', existential 'er'. 'peperkultuur' is a noun compound (peper + kultuur). "'t Natalsche" = the Natal district.

De pepertuinen liggen te Taloh-Baleh, benoorden Natal, aan de kust.  
The pepper gardens lie at Taloh-Baleh, north of Natal, along the coast.
> Compound pepertuinen; archaic 'benoorden': 'pepertuinen' (pepper-gardens) is a plural compound. 'benoorden' is an older directional preposition = 'to the north of', formed with the be- prefix (cf. bezuiden, beoosten).

Ik moest ze inspekteeren, en daar ik geen verstand van peper had, nam ik in de prahoe een datoe mee, die er meer van wist.  
I had to inspect them, and since I had no understanding of pepper, I took along in the prahu a datu who knew more about it.
> Causal 'daar' (= since); separable meenemen: 'daar' here is the literary causal conjunction 'since/because', sending its verb to the end ('had'); the main clause inverts to 'nam ik'. 'nam ... mee' is separable 'meenemen' (to take along).
> Prahu — a Malay boat: A 'prahoe' (also spelled 'prauw' below) is a prau, a traditional Indonesian sailing boat. Multatuli uses Malay loanwords freely to colour the East Indies setting.

Zyn dochtertje, toen een kind van dertien jaren, ging mee.  
His little daughter, then a child of thirteen, came along.
> Diminutive dochtertje; separable meegaan: 'dochtertje' is the diminutive of 'dochter' (-tje), neuter and affectionate ('little daughter'). 'ging mee' is separable 'meegaan' (to come along).

We zeilden langs de kust, en verveelden ons ... --En toen hebt ge schipbreuk geleden?  
We sailed along the coast, and were bored ... "And then you suffered a shipwreck?"
> Reflexive 'zich vervelen' (1st pl. ons): 'verveelden ons' = 'were bored', reflexive 'zich vervelen'; in the 1st person plural the reflexive is 'ons'. 'zeilden' and 'verveelden' are weak imperfects.
> Perfect 'geleden'; fronted toen: 'hebt ge ... geleden?' = 'did you suffer...?', perfect of 'lijden'. Fronted 'toen' inverts. 'schipbreuk lijden' = to suffer a shipwreck.

--Wel neen, t was mooi weer, al te mooi.  
"Why no, the weather was fine, all too fine."

De schipbreuk waarop je doelt, viel veel later voor. Anders zou ik me niet verveeld hebben.  
"The shipwreck you mean came much later. Otherwise I should not have been bored."
> Relative waarop; separable voorvallen: 'waarop je doelt' = 'that you mean / refer to' (doelen op), a pronominal-adverb relative. 'viel ... voor' is separable 'voorvallen' (to occur/happen).
> Conditional perfect; reflexive me: 'zou ik me ... verveeld hebben' = 'I should not have been bored', a conditional perfect ('zou ... hebben'). The 1st-person reflexive is 'me'.

Zoo zeilden we langs de kust, en 't was stikheet.  
So we sailed along the coast, and it was stiflingly hot.
> Fronted Zoo → inversion; impersonal het: Fronted 'Zoo' (so/thus) inverts to 'zeilden we'. "'t was stikheet" uses impersonal 'het' for weather/sensation ('it was stiflingly hot'); 'stikheet' = stik- (intensifier 'choking') + heet.

Zoo'n prauw biedt weinig gelegenheid tot afleiding, en daarby was ik juist in een verdrietige stemming, waartoe veel oorzaken het hare bydroegen.  
A prau like that offers little chance of diversion, and besides I happened to be in a melancholy mood, to which many causes contributed their share.
> Relative waartoe; separable bijdragen: 'waartoe ... bydroegen' = 'to which [many causes] contributed', pronominal-adverb relative (bijdragen tot). 'het hare' = 'their share/part'. 'bydroegen' is the imperfect of separable 'bijdragen'.

Ik had, primo, een ongelukkige liefde, ten-tweede, een ... ongelukkige liefde, ten-derde ... nu ja, nòg iets van dien aard, enz. Och, dat hoort er zoo by.  
I had, first, an unhappy love; second, an ... unhappy love; third ... well, yes, something more of the same kind, and so forth. Ah, that's all part of it.
> Ordinal enumerators: Havelaar mixes Latin 'primo' (first) with Dutch 'ten-tweede', 'ten-derde' ('secondly', 'thirdly'). 'enz.' = enzovoort ('etc.'). The mock-formal list parodies his own self-pity.
> Separable erbij horen: 'dat hoort er zoo by' = 'that's just part of it', separable 'erbij horen' (to belong to / be part of), with 'er ... by' wrapping. A resigned colloquialism.

Maar bovendien bevond ik my in een statie tusschen twee aanvallen van eerzucht. Ik had me koning gemaakt, en was weer onttroond.  
But moreover I found myself in a lull between two fits of ambition. I had made myself king, and had been dethroned again.
> Reflexive 'zich bevinden'; fronted bovendien: 'bevond ik my' = 'I found myself', reflexive 'zich bevinden'; with 'ik' the reflexive is 'my' (= mij). Fronted 'bovendien' (moreover) inverts the verb.
> Perfect with hebben vs zijn: 'had me koning gemaakt' (perfect with 'hebben', plus reflexive 'me'); 'was ... onttroond' is a state passive with 'zijn' + participle ('was dethroned'). The mix marks transitive vs passive.

Ik was op een toren geklommen, en weer op den grond gevallen ... ik zal nu maar overslaan hoe dat kwam!  
I had climbed a tower, and fallen to the ground again ... I shall just skip over how that came about!
> Pluperfect of motion verbs (zijn): Both 'geklommen' (climbed) and 'gevallen' (fallen) form a pluperfect with 'zijn' ('was ... geklommen ... gevallen'), because they are motion/change-of-state verbs. 'den grond' keeps the old accusative.
> Future zullen; separable overslaan: 'zal ... overslaan' = future 'I shall skip', infinitive last. 'overslaan' is separable (skip over). 'hoe dat kwam' is a verb-final embedded clause.

Genoeg, ik zat daar in die prauw met een zuur gezicht en slecht humeur, en was, wat de Duitschers noemen: ungeniessbar.  
In short, I sat there in that prau with a sour face and a foul temper, and was what the Germans call: ungeniessbar.
> Free relative 'wat' as parenthetical: 'wat de Duitschers noemen' = 'what the Germans call', a free relative inserted parenthetically before the German adjective. 'ungeniessbar' (German, 'unpalatable/insufferable') is one of Havelaar's foreign tags.
> German: insufferable: 'ungeniessbar' literally 'inedible/unenjoyable', here applied to a person's foul mood — Havelaar quoting the Germans to mock his own sourness.

Ik vond onder anderen dat het niet te-pas kwam my pepertuinen te laten inspekteeren, en dat ik lang had moeten aangesteld zyn tot gouverneur van een zonnestelsel.  
Among other things, I found it unbecoming that I should be sent to inspect pepper gardens, and that I ought long since to have been appointed governor of a solar system.
> Impersonal het; te + causative laten: 'het ... te-pas kwam' uses impersonal 'het' ('it was unbecoming'); 'te-pas komen' = to be fitting. 'my ... te laten inspekteeren' = causative 'laten' + bare 'inspekteeren', governed by 'te'.
> Modal pluperfect; passive infinitive: 'had moeten aangesteld zyn' = 'ought long since to have been appointed', stacking pluperfect + modal 'moeten' (IPP) + a zijn-passive ('aangesteld zyn'). 'aanstellen tot' = to appoint as.

Hierby kwam het me voor als zedelyke moord, een geest als den mynen in één prauw te zetten met dien dommen datoe en zyn kind.  
On top of this it struck me as a kind of moral murder to set a mind like mine in a single prau with that stupid datu and his child.
> Separable voorkomen; impersonal het; fronted Hierby: 'kwam het me voor' = 'it struck/seemed to me', separable 'voorkomen' (to seem) with dummy 'het'. Fronted 'Hierby' (= hierbij, 'on top of this') inverts the verb.
> Possessive 'den mynen'; te + infinitive: 'den mynen' = 'mine' (a mind like mine), with the independent possessive 'de mijne' carrying the old accusative 'den'. 'te zetten' is the te-infinitive completing 'als ... moord ... te zetten'.

Ik moet je zeggen, dat ik anders de maleische Hoofden wèl lyden mocht, en goed met hen overweg kon.  
I must tell you that otherwise I rather liked the Malay chiefs, and got along well with them.
> Modal mogen ('lijden mogen' = to like); verb-final: 'lyden mocht' = the idiom 'mogen lijden' = 'to like/be fond of' (with modal 'mogen' in the imperfect). The whole 'dat' clause is verb-final; 'overweg kunnen met' = to get along with.

Zelfs bezitten zy veel dat my hen doet voortrekken boven de javaansche Grooten.  
They even possess much that makes me prefer them to the Javanese grandees.
> Fronted Zelfs; causative doen: Fronted 'Zelfs' (even) inverts to 'bezitten zy'. 'dat my hen doet voortrekken' = 'that makes me prefer them', causative 'doen' + bare 'voortrekken' (separable, 'to favour').

Ja, ik weet wel, Verbrugge, dat je dit niet met my eens bent, er zyn slechts weinigen die 't me toestemmen ... maar dit laat ik nu dáár.  
Yes, I know well, Verbrugge, that you do not agree with me on this — there are only a few who grant it to me ... but I shall let that rest for now.
> Idiom 'het eens zijn met'; verb-final: 'het eens zijn met' = 'to agree with'; here 'dit ... eens bent' = 'agree on this'. The 'dat' clause is verb-final ('bent' last). 'met my' = with me.
> Idiom 'iets daarlaten'; fronted object: 'iets daarlaten' = 'to leave something aside / let it rest'. Fronting 'dit' inverts to 'laat ik'. The accent 'dáár' stresses the spatial metaphor.

Als ik dat reisjen op een anderen dag gedaan had--met wat minder muizenesten in 't hoofd, meen ik--zou ik waarschynlyk terstond met dien datoe in gesprek zyn gekomen, en misschien had ik gevonden dat hy myn omgang wel waard was.  
Had I made that little voyage on another day — with rather fewer mice nesting in my head, I mean — I should probably have fallen at once into conversation with that datu, and perhaps I should have found that he was well worth my company.
> Unreal conditional: als-pluperfect + zou-perfect: An unreal conditional: the 'als' clause is a pluperfect ('gedaan had'), the main clause a conditional perfect ('zou ... gekomen zyn'). 'in gesprek komen met' = to fall into conversation with.
> Diminutive 'reisje' (+ paragogic -n): 'reisjen' is the diminutive of 'reis' (journey) → 'reisje', here with an old written final -n ('reisjen'). The -je marks it as a little trip; diminutives are always neuter.

Wellicht had ik dan ook het meisjen aan 't spreken gebracht, en dit had my misschien onderhouden en vermaakt, want een kind heeft meestal iets oorspronkelyks ... schoon ik erkennen moet dat ikzelf toen nog te veel kind was, om belang te stellen in oorspronkelykheid.  
Perhaps then I should also have drawn the girl into talk, and this might have entertained and amused me, for a child usually has something original about it ... though I must admit that I myself was then still too much of a child to take any interest in originality.
> Conditional pluperfect; idiom 'aan 't spreken brengen': 'had ik ... gebracht' continues the unreal past ('I should also have drawn... into talk'). 'aan 't spreken brengen' = to get someone talking. 'meisjen' is again the -n-spelled diminutive 'meisje'.
> Archaic 'schoon' (although); verb-final: 'schoon' = literary 'although'. The clause is verb-final ('moet' after 'erkennen'), and embeds another verb-final 'dat'-clause. 'te veel kind' = 'too much of a child'.

Thans is dit anders. Nu zie ik in elk meisje van dertien jaren een manuskript waarin nog weinig of niets is doorgestreken.  
Now it is otherwise. Now I see in every girl of thirteen a manuscript in which little or nothing has yet been struck out.
> Fronted Nu → inversion: Fronted 'Nu' (now) inverts to 'zie ik'. 'meisje' is a neuter diminutive. The metaphor (a thirteen-year-old as an unrevised manuscript) is Multatuli's writerly self-image.
> Relative waarin; zijn-passive doorgestreken: 'waarin' = 'in which', pronominal-adverb relative. 'is doorgestreken' is a state passive ('has been struck out') of separable strong 'doorstrijken' (strijken -> streek -> gestreken), giving participle door-ge-streken.

Men verrast den auteur en négligé, en dit is dikwyls aardig.  
One surprises the author en négligé, and this is often charming.
> Impersonal men; case-remnant den: 'Men' is the impersonal subject 'one'. 'den auteur' keeps the old masculine accusative 'den'. The author is 'caught off guard' — surprised undressed.
> French: 'en déshabillé': 'en négligé' = in undress / informally dressed. Havelaar means one catches the 'author' (the child) before she has composed herself for the world.

Het kind reeg kralen aan een snoer, en scheen al haar aandacht daarby noodig te hebben.  
The child was stringing beads onto a thread, and seemed to need all her attention for it.
> Strong imperfect 'reeg'; neuter 'het kind': 'reeg' is the strong imperfect of 'rijgen' (to string/thread); 'kralen aan een snoer rijgen' = to string beads on a thread. 'het kind' is neuter (a het-word).
> schijnen te + infinitive; daarby: 'scheen ... te hebben' = 'seemed to need', schijnen governing 'te'. 'daarby' (= daarbij) is the pronominal adverb 'for it / thereby'.

Drie rooden, één zwarte ... drie rooden, één zwarte: 't was mooi!  
Three red, one black ... three red, one black: it was pretty!

Ze heette Si Oepi Keteh.  
She was called Si Oepi Keteh.

Dit beduidt op Sumatra zooveel als: kleine freule ... ja, Verbrugge, jy weet het wel, maar Duclari heeft altyd op Java gediend.  
On Sumatra this means as much as: little young lady ... yes, Verbrugge, you know it well enough, but Duclari has always served on Java.
> Demonstrative 'dit'; 'zooveel als': 'Dit beduidt ... zooveel als' = 'this means as much as / amounts to'. 'dit' is the neuter near demonstrative. 'freule' is a Dutch title for a young noblewoman.

Ze heette Si Oepi Keteh, maar in myn gedachten noemde ik haar "stumpert" of zoo-iets, omdat ik naar myn schatting zoo hemelhoog boven haar verheven was.  
She was called Si Oepi Keteh, but in my thoughts I called her "poor little thing" or some such, because by my own reckoning I was so heaven-high exalted above her.
> Fronted phrase → inversion; possessive myn: Fronting 'in myn gedachten' inverts to 'noemde ik'. 'myn' = mijn (period spelling). 'stumpert' = a poor/pitiable wretch.
> omdat-clause; zijn-passive verheven: The 'omdat' clause is verb-final ('verheven was' last). 'verheven was' is a state ('was exalted'), a participle 'verheven' from 'verheffen'. 'hemelhoog' = heaven-high.

't Werd middag ... avend byna, en de kralen werden opgeborgen.  
It grew to midday ... nearly evening, and the beads were put away.
> worden-passive; separable opbergen: 'werden opgeborgen' = 'were put away', a past worden-passive of separable 'opbergen'. The participle 'opgeborgen' closes the clause.
> Impersonal het with time: "'t Werd middag" = 'it grew/became midday', impersonal 'het' + 'worden' for the passing of the day. 'avend' = avond (evening), with the period -e- spelling.

Het land schoof langzaam naast ons weg, en kleiner en kleiner werd de Ophir rechts achter ons.  
The land slid slowly away beside us, and smaller and smaller grew the Ophir to the right behind us.
> Comparative reduplication; inversion: 'kleiner en kleiner' is the doubled comparative for a gradual change ('smaller and smaller'). Fronting it inverts to 'werd de Ophir'.

Links in 't westen boven de wyde, wyde zee, die geen grens heeft tot waar Madagaskar ligt, en Afrika daar achter, zakte de zon, en liet haar stralen in gedurig stomper buiging kiskassen over de golven, en zy zocht verkoeling in de zee.  
To the left, in the west, above the wide, wide sea that has no boundary until where Madagascar lies, with Africa behind it, the sun sank, and let its rays skip in ever flatter arcs over the waves, and it sought coolness in the sea.
> Relative die; geen; verb-final waar-clause: 'die geen grens heeft' = 'that has no boundary', relative 'die' + 'geen' negating the indefinite 'grens'. 'tot waar Madagaskar ligt' = 'as far as where Madagascar lies', verb-final.
> Causative laten + bare infinitive; reflexive-ish zocht: 'liet haar stralen ... kiskassen' = causative 'laten' + bare infinitive 'kiskassen' (to skip stones / ricochet). The poetic personification ('zy zocht verkoeling in de zee') keeps V2 in each clause.
> Comparative 'stomper': 'stomper' is the comparative of 'stomp' (blunt/flat): 'in ever flatter arc(s)'. 'gedurig' = continually. The image is the sun's rays striking the water at an ever lower angle.

Hoe drommel was ook weer dat ding?  
How on earth did that thing go again?
> 'ook weer' = 'again' (jogging memory): 'Hoe ... was ook weer ...?' is the idiom for 'how did ... go again?', when trying to recall something. 'Hoe drommel' = 'how on earth' ('drommel' a mild devil-euphemism).

--Wat voor ding ... de zon?  
"What sort of thing ... the sun?"

--Ach, neen ... ik maakte verzen in die dagen!  
"Ah, no ... I used to make verses in those days!"
> Imperfect for habitual past: 'maakte ... in die dagen' uses the simple past for a habit ('I used to make verses in those days'). 'verzen maken' = to write verse.

O, verrukkelyk! Hoor eens:  
Oh, delightful! Just listen:

Ge vraagt waarom toch de O Die Natals ree bespoelt, Schoon elders minzaam en gedwee, Ontstuimig slechts op Natals ree, Gedurig kookt en woelt?  
You ask why then the O— / That washes Natal's roadstead, / Though gentle and meek elsewhere, / Tempestuous only off Natal's roadstead, / Forever seethes and churns?
> Embedded waarom-question, verb-final: The whole stanza is one embedded question after 'Ge vraagt': 'waarom toch ... kookt en woelt?' is verb-final, the verbs landing at the end. 'toch' adds insistence ('why on earth').
> Archaic 'schoon' (although); genitive Natals: 'Schoon' = 'although' (literary). 'Natals ree' = 'Natal's roadstead', an -s genitive on a place name. 'minzaam', 'gedwee', 'ontstuimig' are elevated poetic diction.

Ge vraagt, en de arme visschersknaap Heeft nauw uw vraag verstaan, Of wenkend met het donker oog, Wyst hy u aan d'onmeetbren boog Het verre Westen aan.  
You ask, and the poor fisher-boy / Has scarcely understood your question / Before, beckoning with his dark eye, / He points you out, along the measureless arc, / The distant West.
> 'nauwelijks ... of' (scarcely ... when): The 'nauw ... Of ...' frame = 'scarcely ... when / before': 'has scarcely understood your question before he points...'. 'Wyst ... aan' is separable 'aanwijzen' (to point out).
> Elided article d'; old accusative -en: "d'onmeetbren" = 'de(n) onmeetbren', the article elided before a vowel and the adjective carrying the old accusative ending. 'onmeetbaar' = immeasurable.
> Compound: visschersknaap: 'visschersknaap' = 'fisher-boy', a compound (visscher + s + knaap). 'sch' and the linking -s- are typical; 'knaap' is an elevated word for 'boy/lad'.

Hy wendt den blik van 't donker oog En staart naar 't Westen heen, En toont u, daar ge rondsom ziet, Slechts water, water, in 't verschiet, En zee, en zee alleen!  
He turns the glance of his dark eye / And stares away toward the West, / And shows you, as you look all round, / Only water, water, in the distance, / And sea, and sea alone!
> Causal 'daar' (= as); single negative slechts: 'daar ge rondsom ziet' = 'as you look all round', causal/temporal 'daar' with the verb at the end. 'Slechts water' = 'only water'; the poem's hammering repetition.
> Case-remnant den; present tense narration: 'den blik' keeps the old masculine accusative. The poem narrates in the vivid present ('wendt', 'staart', 'toont'). "'t donker oog" = het donkere oog, with uninflected attributive 'donker' before a neuter noun.

En dáárom schuurt hier de Oceaan Zoo fel het oeverzand: 't Is zee slechts, waar ge rondsom ziet, En water, water, anders niet, Tot Madagaskars strand!  
And therefore here the Ocean scours / So fiercely at the shore-sand: / It is sea only, wherever you look round, / And water, water, nothing else, / Right up to Madagascar's strand!
> Fronted dáárom → inversion: Fronted 'dáárom' (and therefore) inverts to 'schuurt ... de Oceaan'. 'het oeverzand' is the object ('the shore-sand'). 'fel' = fiercely. A pronominal-adverb of cause (daar+om).

En menig offer werd gebracht Ten zoen voor d'Oceaan!  
And many an offering was brought / In atonement to the Ocean!
> worden-passive (past); 'menig' + singular: 'werd gebracht' = 'was brought', a past worden-passive. 'menig offer' = 'many an offering', where 'menig' takes a singular noun. 'ten zoen' = in atonement (frozen dative 'ten' = te + den).

En menig kreet, in 't nat gesmoord, Door vrouw, noch kind, noch maag gehoord, Werd slechts door God verstaan!  
And many a cry, smothered in the flood, / Heard by neither wife, nor child, nor kin, / Was understood by God alone!
> Passive with door-agent; 'noch ... noch': 'Werd ... verstaan' is a past worden-passive; the agent is marked by 'door God'. 'noch ... noch' = 'neither ... nor', a single sustained negation. 'maag' here is the archaic word for 'kinsman/relative'.
> Archaic 'maag' = kinsman: Not 'stomach': here 'maag' is the old word for a blood-relative/kinsman (cf. 'maagschap'). 'noch vrouw, noch kind, noch maag' = neither wife, nor child, nor kin.

En menig hand voor 't laatst gestrekt Rees opwaarts uit het meer, En voelde en greep en plaste in 't rond, En zocht of ze ergens steunsel vond, En zonk voor eeuwig neer!  
And many a hand, stretched out for the last time, / Rose upward from the deep, / And felt and grasped and splashed about, / And sought whether it found somewhere a hold, / And sank down forever!
> Strong imperfects rees / zonk; separable neerzinken: 'Rees' (rose) and 'zonk' (sank) are strong past forms of 'rijzen' and 'zinken'. 'zonk ... neer' is separable 'neerzinken'. The hand rises, gropes, and sinks forever.
> Embedded yes/no 'of'-clause; verb-final: 'of ze ergens steunsel vond' = 'whether it found a hold somewhere', an indirect yes/no question with 'of', verb-final ('vond' last). 'steunsel' = a support/hold.

En...  
And ...

--En ... en ... ik weet de rest niet meer. --Die is weertevinden door er om te schryven aan Krygsman, uw klerk te Natal.  
"And ... and ... I don't remember the rest. — That can be recovered by writing for it to Krygsman, your clerk at Natal."
> om … te purpose clause: The frame 'door er om te schryven' uses om … te to express purpose ('by writing for it'), with the infinitive schryven closing the clause. Note the period spelling weertevinden ('weer te vinden') written as one joined infinitive.
> Pronominal adverb 'er … om': Dutch cannot say 'om het' for a thing, so the preposition om fuses with er into a pronominal adverb meaning 'for it'. The two halves are split here, with om following er.

Hy heeft het, zei Verbrugge. --Hoe komt hy daaraan? vroeg Max.  
"He has it," said Verbrugge. "How does he come to have it?" asked Max.
> Period spelling: hy: 1860 prose writes the pronoun 'hij' as hy, using y for the modern ij digraph throughout the text.
> Pronominal adverb 'daaraan': 'Daaraan' is daar + aan ('to it / by it'), the demonstrative counterpart to eraan. The idiom 'ergens aan komen' means 'to come by something'.

--Misschien uit uw papiermand.  
"Perhaps out of your wastepaper basket."
> papiermand: A right-headed compound, papier + mand ('paper' + 'basket') = wastepaper basket. Dutch glues nouns into single words, with the last element carrying the core meaning.

Maar zeker is 't, dát hy het heeft!  
"But it is certain that he has it!"
> Verb-second after a fronted element: By fronting the predicate 'zeker', the finite verb is must come second, before the subject 't ('het'). This inversion is the V2 rule that governs every Dutch main clause.
> dat-clause sends verb to the end: The subordinating conjunction dat opens a content clause whose finite verb heeft moves to the very end. The accent on dát is the author's emphasis, not a separate word.

Volgt er niet de legende van de eerste zonde, die 't eiland zinken deed waardoor vroeger de reede van Natal werd beschermd? De geschiedenis van Djiwa met de twee broeders?  
"Doesn't the legend of the first sin follow next — the one that made the island sink, by which the roadstead of Natal was formerly sheltered? The story of Djiwa with the two brothers?"
> Relative die + causative doen: The relative pronoun die refers back to de eerste zonde (a de-word), and the construction 'zinken deed' uses doen as a causative ('made the island sink') with a bare infinitive. Modern Dutch prefers laten here.
> Pronominal adverb + worden-passive: 'Waardoor' (waar + door, 'by which') is a relative pronominal adverb, and 'werd beschermd' is a worden-passive in the past: the roadstead underwent the action of being sheltered.

--Ja, dàt is waar.  
"Yes, that's true."

Die legende ... was geen legende. Het was een parabel die ik maakte, en die misschien over een paar eeuwen legende worden zal als Krygsman dat ding wat veel opdeunt.  
That legend ... was no legend. It was a parable that I made, and which perhaps a couple of centuries from now will become a legend, if Krygsman drones that thing out a bit too often.
> Future with zullen: 'Worden zal' is the future tense: zullen + the infinitive worden, with the finite zal here pushed to clause-final position because it sits in a relative clause introduced by die.
> Impersonal 'het was': 'Het was een parabel' opens with dummy het as a placeholder subject, a presentational frame common in Dutch ('it was a …'). The relative die then introduces the clause 'that I made'.
> opdeunen: A separable verb op + deunen meaning to recite or drone something out monotonously, often by rote. The prefix op- splits off, but here stays attached in the verb-final position of the als-clause.

Zóó begonnen alle mythologien. Djiwa is: ziel, zooals je weet, ziel, geest of zoo-iets.  
That is how all mythologies began. Djiwa is: soul, as you know — soul, spirit, or some such.
> Subordinate clause: verb-final: In 'zooals je weet' the conjunction zoals (period spelling zooals) sends the finite verb weet to the end of its clause. Note je as the informal 'you' subject.

Ik maakte er een vrouw van, de onmisbare, ondeugende Eva ...  
I made a woman of it, the indispensable, naughty Eve ...
> Split pronominal adverb 'er … van': The idiom 'ergens iets van maken' fuses van + the thing into er … van, split around the object 'een vrouw': literally 'I made a woman of it'. The verb maakte is the simple past of maken.
> Attributive adjectives in -e: Both onmisbare and ondeugende take the -e ending because they stand attributively before the de-word Eva preceded by the definite article. Predicatively (e.g. 'zij is ondeugend') they would lose the -e.

--Wel, Max, waar blyft onze kleine freule met haar kraaltjes? vroeg Tine. --De kralen waren opgeborgen.  
"Well, Max, what has become of our little young lady with her beads?" asked Tine. — The beads had been put away.
> Question word order + period spelling: An interrogative fronted by waar keeps the finite verb blyft (period spelling of blijft) second, before the subject. Freule is a title for an unmarried noblewoman.
> Diminutive kraaltjes: Kraaltjes is the plural diminutive of kraal ('bead') — kraal → kraaltje → kraaltjes — conveying that the beads are small and dear. Every -je diminutive is grammatically neuter.
> zijn-passive (resultant state): 'Waren opgeborgen' (imperfect of zijn + participle of the separable opbergen) expresses a resulting state — the beads were in a put-away condition — rather than an ongoing action.

Het was zes uur, en daar onder de evennachtslyn--Natal ligt op weinige minuten noord: als ik over-land naar Ayer-Bangie ging, stapte ik te paard over de linie heen, of nagenoeg ...'t was om er over te struikelen, waarachtig!--dáár was zes uur 't sein tot avendgedachten.  
It was six o'clock, and there beneath the equinoctial line — Natal lies a few minutes north: when I traveled overland to Ayer-Bangie, I stepped on horseback right across the line, or near enough ... one could fairly trip over it, truly! — there six o'clock was the signal for evening thoughts.
> Separable verb 'overstappen … heen': After the fronted als-clause the verb inverts (stapte ik), and the directional particle heen splits to the end, framing 'over … heen' ('right across'). 'Te paard' is a frozen idiom meaning 'on horseback'.
> om … te with pronominal adverb: 'om er over te struikelen' is an om … te purpose/result phrase ('enough to trip over it'), where er over is a split pronominal adverb standing for 'over it (the line)'.
> avendgedachten: A compound, avond + gedachten ('evening thoughts'), here in period spelling avend. The whole monologue turns on Havelaar's theory that people soften at dusk.

Nu vind ik dat een mensch 's avends altyd iets beter is, of minder ondeugend liever, dan 's morgens, en dit is natuurlyk. 's Morgens houdt men zich te-zamen--ik weet wel dat dit een germanismus is, maar hoe moet ik het zeggen in 't hollandsch? --men is ... deurwaarder of kontroleur, of ... neen, dit is genoeg!  
Now I find that a person is always somewhat better in the evening, or less ill-natured rather, than in the morning, and this is only natural. In the morning one holds oneself together — I know well that this is a Germanism, but how else am I to say it in Dutch? — one is ... bailiff or controller, or ... no, that is enough!
> Fronted 'Nu' triggers inversion: The adverb Nu opens the sentence, so the verb vind comes second and the subject ik follows. The dat-clause then runs verb-final, ending in is.
> Reflexive zich + impersonal men: Men ('one') is the impersonal subject, and zich is its third-person reflexive pronoun. Havelaar even flags 'zich te-zamen houden' as a Germanism calqued on German sich zusammenhalten.
> The frozen genitive 's: 's in 's avonds and 's morgens is a fossilized genitive (des avonds, 'of the evening') surviving as an adverb of time. It marks habitual 'in the evening / in the morning'.

Een deurwaarder hält sich zusammen om dien dag eens terdeeg zyn plicht te doen ... god, welk een plicht! Hoe moet dat zusammen gehalten hart er uitzien!  
A bailiff hält sich zusammen so as to do his duty thoroughly for the day ... God, what a duty! How must that held-together heart look!
> om … te + case-remnant 'dien': An om … te purpose clause ('so as to do his duty'), with the finite-free infinitive doen at the end. 'Dien dag' shows the old masculine accusative den/dien, a frozen case remnant in 1860 prose.
> Participle as attributive adjective: Havelaar germanizes deliberately: the German past participle 'gehalten' is used attributively before hart, mocking the bailiff's stiffly 'held-together' heart. In Dutch this slot takes a participle like 'samengehouden'.
> Macaronic German: Havelaar slips into German ('hält sich zusammen', holds himself together) after admitting the Dutch idiom is a Germanism — a running joke about the limits of his Dutch.

Een kontroleur--ik zeg dit niet voor u, Verbrugge!--een kontroleur wryft zich de oogen uit, en ziet er tegen op den nieuwen adsistent-resident te ontmoeten, die een bespottelyk overwicht wil aannemen op een paar jaren diensttyd meer, en van wien hy zooveel zonderlings gehoord heeft ... op Sumatra. Of hy moet dien dag velden opmeten, en staat in dubio tusschen zyn eerlykheid--jy weet dit zoo niet, Duclari, omdat je militair bent, maar er zyn werkelyk eerlyke kontroleurs!  
A controller — I do not say this for you, Verbrugge! — a controller rubs his eyes, and dreads meeting the new assistant resident, who means to assume a ridiculous superiority over a couple of years' extra service, and of whom he has heard so much that is peculiar ... on Sumatra. Or he must measure fields that day, and stands in dubio between his honesty — you don't know this, Duclari, because you are a military man, but there really are honest controllers!
> niet vs geen: Because the object dit is definite, negation uses niet, not geen. Geen would be required only with an indefinite noun ('ik zeg geen woord').
> Separable 'opzien tegen' + te-infinitive: 'Ergens tegen opzien' (to dread something) splits across the clause: er … tegen … op, with the te-infinitive ontmoeten closing it. 'Den … adsistent-resident' carries the old accusative den.
> Relative 'wien' in the genitive/oblique: 'Van wien' is the older oblique relative ('of whom'), with wien an inflected form of wie. The perfect 'gehoord heeft' closes the relative clause verb-final.

--dan staat hy te waggelen tusschen die eerlykheid en de vrees dat Radhen Dhemang, zóó of zóó hem den schimmel zal terugvragen, die zoo goed telt.  
— then he stands wavering between that honesty and the fear that Radhen Dhemang will, on this pretext or that, demand back the gray horse that paces so well.
> staan te + infinitive (progressive): 'Staat te waggelen' is the posture-verb progressive: staan + te + infinitive expresses an action in progress ('he stands wavering'). The fronted dan forces the inversion staat hy.
> Relative die + verb-final: The relative die refers to den schimmel (a de-word) and its clause ends in the finite verb telt. 'Telt' here is the equestrian term 'to pace/amble', not 'to count'.

Of wel, hy moet dien dag kordaat ja of neen zeggen in antwoord op missive nummer zóóveel.  
Or else he must, that day, say a firm yes or no in answer to dispatch number so-and-so.
> Modal moeten + bare infinitive: The modal moet sends its main verb zeggen to the clause end as a bare infinitive (no te). 'Dien dag' again shows the frozen accusative den.
> missive: A 'missive' is an official letter or dispatch in colonial bureaucratese. The numbering ('nummer zóóveel') mocks the faceless paperwork an official must answer.

Kortom, 's morgens by 't ontwaken valt je de wereld op 't hart, en dat is zwaar voor een hart, al is het sterk.  
In short, in the morning at waking the world weighs down upon your heart, and that is heavy for a heart, even a strong one.
> Separable 'opvallen' + dative je: Here 'op 't hart vallen' splits with the directional phrase to the end; je is a dative ('on you'). The fronted '’s morgens by 't ontwaken' triggers the inversion valt … de wereld.
> Concessive 'al' (even though): 'Al is het sterk' is a concessive clause ('even if it is strong') in which al triggers inversion (verb is before subject het) rather than verb-final order.

Maar 's avends heeft men een pauze. Er liggen tien volle uren tusschen nu en 't oogenblik dat men zyn rok weerziet.  
But in the evening one has a respite. There lie ten full hours between now and the moment one sees one's coat again.
> Existential 'er' with liggen: The word er here is the existential/presentational subject placeholder ('there lie ten full hours …'), letting the real subject tien volle uren follow the verb.
> Relative dat + separable weerzien: After the het-word oogenblik the relative is dat, and the clause closes with weerziet ('sees again'), the separable weer-zien held together in verb-final position.

Tien uren: zes-en-dertig-duizend sekonden om mensch te zyn! Dit lacht ieder toe.  
Ten hours: thirty-six thousand seconds in which to be human! This smiles on everyone.
> om … te (purpose): 'om mensch te zyn' is a bare om … te purpose phrase: thirty-six thousand seconds 'in order to be human'. The infinitive zyn (zijn) closes it.
> Separable verb 'toelachen': The separable verb toelachen ('to smile upon') splits: the prefix toe lands at the end, leaving lacht in second position after the fronted subject Dit.

Dit is 't oogenblik waarop ik hoop te sterven, om ginder aantekomen met een inofficieel gezicht. Dit is 't oogenblik waarop je vrouw iets weervindt in je gelaat, van wat haar ving toen ze je dien zakdoek behouden liet met een gekroonde E op de punt ...  
This is the moment in which I hope to die, so as to arrive over there with an unofficial face. This is the moment in which your wife finds again something in your face of what captivated her when she let you keep that handkerchief with a crowned E in the corner ...
> Relative pronominal adverb 'waarop': 'Waarop' (waar + op, 'on/in which') is the relative form used for a thing instead of 'op het welk'. 'Hoop te sterven' shows hopen governing a te-infinitive.
> om … te + joined infinitive: A purpose clause 'om … aan te komen' (in order to arrive), where the period text joins it as aantekomen. The separable aankomen splits its te between prefix and stem.
> Relative 'wat' without antecedent: 'van wat haar ving' uses wat as a free relative ('of what captivated her'), referring to no specific noun. Ving is the strong past tense of vangen.

--En toen ze nog 't recht niet had, verkouwen te wezen, zei Tine.  
"And when she had not yet the right to catch cold," said Tine.
> Subordinating 'toen' (past time): Toen ('when', in past narration) opens a subordinate clause whose finite verb had moves toward the end. 'Verkouwen te wezen' is a te-infinitive complement (to be / to catch cold).
> verkouwen: A colloquial/period form of verkouden ('having a cold'). Tine's joke turns on the handkerchief: before they were engaged she had 'no right' even to a runny nose in his presence.

--Ach, plaag me niet!  
"Ah, don't tease me!"
> Imperative + reflexive object: Plaag is the bare-stem imperative of plagen ('to tease'), negated by niet after the object me. The bare stem is the standard Dutch command form.

Ik wil maar zeggen dat men 's avends gemütlicher is.  
I only want to say that in the evening one is gemütlicher.
> Modal willen + bare infinitive: The modal wil sends zeggen to the end as a bare infinitive; maar ('only/just') is a softening particle. The dat-clause then runs verb-final.
> gemütlicher: Havelaar again borrows German, here the comparative of gemütlich ('cosier, more at ease'), poking fun at his own struggle to find the Dutch word for that evening softness.

Toen alzoo de zon langzamerhand verdween, ging Havelaar voort, werd ik een beter mensch. En als eerste blyk van die beterschap moge gelden, dat ik tot de kleine freule zei:  
So when the sun gradually went down, Havelaar continued, I became a better person. And as the first proof of that improvement let this stand, that I said to the little young lady:
> Fronted toen-clause + main-clause inversion: The subordinate toen-clause comes first (verb-final verdween), so the main clause inverts: werd ik. This is the classic 'first slot filled, verb second' pattern.
> Subjunctive 'moge': 'Moge gelden' is the optative subjunctive of mogen ('let it count / may it stand'), an archaic, solemn register that suits the mock-grand tone here.

"Het zal nu gauw wat koeler worden."  
"It will soon grow a bit cooler now."
> Future + impersonal het: 'Het zal … worden' is the future (zullen + worden), and het is the impersonal weather subject ('it'). The comparative koeler ('cooler') is built with -er.

"Ja, toewan!" antwoordde zy.  
"Yes, tuan!" she answered.

Maar ik boog myn hoogheid nog dieper tot die "stumpert" neer, en ving een gesprek met haar aan.  
But I bent my loftiness lower still toward that "poor little thing," and struck up a conversation with her.
> Separable 'aanvangen': The separable verb aanvangen ('to begin') splits: the strong past ving stands in second position and the prefix aan goes to the clause end. 'Myn' is the period spelling of mijn.
> stumper(t): A stumper(d) is a poor wretch or hapless soul; Havelaar's word for the little girl, half pitying, half condescending. The quotation marks signal his own self-aware irony.

Myn verdienste was te grooter omdat zy heel weinig antwoordde.  
My merit was the greater because she answered very little.
> Causal omdat + verb-final: Omdat ('because') opens a subordinate clause whose finite verb antwoordde lands at the end. 'Te grooter' is the comparative groter used absolutely ('all the greater').

Ik had gelyk in al wat ik zei ... dat ook al vervelend wordt, al is men nòg zoo verwaand.  
I was right in everything I said ... which also grows tiresome, however conceited one may be.
> Free relative 'wat': 'al wat ik zei' uses wat as a free relative after al ('everything that I said'), with no noun antecedent. The clause ends verb-final in zei.
> Concessive 'al … nog zo': 'al is men nòg zoo verwaand' is a concessive ('however conceited one may be') with al + inversion. The idiom nog zo + adjective intensifies the concession.

"Zou je graag een volgenden keer weer meegaan naar Taloh-Baleh?" vroeg ik.  
"Would you like to come along again to Taloh-Baleh another time?" I asked.
> Conditional zou + separable meegaan: 'Zou je … meegaan' uses zou (conditional of zullen) to soften the question into a polite 'would you like to'. Meegaan is separable, but stays joined here as the clause-final infinitive after zou.
> Case remnant 'volgenden': 'Een volgenden keer' carries the old masculine accusative -en on the adjective (volgenden) before the de-word keer — a frozen case ending typical of 1860 written Dutch.

"Zoo als toewan kommandeur beveelt."  
"As tuan commander orders."
> Subordinate clause: verb-final: 'Zoo als … beveelt' is a comparative subordinate clause sending the finite verb beveelt to the end. The girl frames her answer entirely as deference to authority.

"Neen, ik vraag u of gy zoo'n reisjen aangenaam vindt?" "Als myn vader het verkiest." antwoordde zy.  
"No, I am asking whether you find such a little voyage pleasant." "If my father chooses it," she answered.
> Archaic 2nd person 'gy' + indirect question: Havelaar switches from informal je to the literary/polite gy ('you') addressing the girl formally; the of-clause ('whether …') is verb-final, ending in vindt.
> Diminutive reisje(n): Reisjen is the diminutive of reis ('voyage'), the -en here a period spelling of the -je suffix. The diminutive softens it to 'a little trip'.
> Conditional 'als' clause: 'Als myn vader het verkiest' is an als ('if') conditional sending the verb verkiest to the end. Verkiezen here means 'to prefer / choose to'.

Zegt eens, heeren, was 't niet om dol te worden? Welnu, ik werd niet dol.  
Tell me, gentlemen, was it not enough to drive one mad? Well, I did not go mad.
> Archaic plural imperative 'zegt': 'Zegt' is the older -t plural imperative addressing the gentlemen ('say, gentlemen'); modern Dutch would drop the -t. The particle eens softens the command.
> om … te (result/extent): 'om dol te worden' is an om … te phrase expressing extent ('enough to drive one mad'). The fronted 'was 't' is yes/no question inversion.

De zon was onder, en ik voelde my gemüthlich genoeg om nòg niet afgeschrikt te worden door zóóveel domheid. Of liever, ik geloof dat ik begon vermaak te scheppen in 't hooren van myn stem--er zyn weinigen onder ons, die niet gaarne luisteren naar zichzelf--maar na myn mutisme van den heelen dag, meende ik, nu ik eindelyk aan 't spreken geraakt was, iets beters te verdienen dan de al te onnoozele antwoorden van Si Oepi Keteh.  
The sun was down, and I felt gemütlich enough not to be put off yet by so much stupidity. Or rather, I believe I began to take pleasure in hearing my own voice — there are few among us who do not gladly listen to themselves — but after my muteness throughout the whole day, I felt that now, having at last got into speech, I deserved something better than the all too silly answers of Si Oepi Keteh.
> om … te + worden-passive: This stacks an om … te purpose phrase onto a worden-passive infinitive: 'afgeschrikt te worden' = 'to be put off', with door marking the agent (zóóveel domheid).
> te + infinitive complement: Beginnen governs a te-infinitive ('began to take pleasure'), and 't hooren is a nominalized infinitive ('the hearing'). Both show Dutch turning verbs into noun-like complements.
> Existential er + reflexive zichzelf: Existential er introduces 'there are few among us', and the relative die-clause is verb-final (luisteren). 'Zichzelf' is the emphatic third-person reflexive ('themselves').

Ik zal haar een sprookje vertellen, dacht ik, dan hoor ikzelf het met-een, en ik heb niet noodig dat ze my antwoordt.  
I shall tell her a fairy tale, I thought, then I shall hear it myself into the bargain, and I need not have her answer me.
> Future zal + clause-final infinitive: 'Ik zal … vertellen' is the future with zullen; the infinitive vertellen closes the clause. Sprookje is the diminutive of sprook ('fairy tale').
> niet + dat-clause: Negation niet here scopes over the whole need, with the dat-clause 'dat ze my antwoordt' verb-final. 'Hoor ikzelf' shows ikzelf, the emphatic 'I myself'.

Nu weet ge dat, even als by het lossen van een schip de laatst ingeladen krandjang suiker 't eerst weer voor den dag komt, ook wy gewoonlyk die gedachte of die vertelling 't eerst lossen, die 't laatst is ingeladen.  
Now you know that, just as in unloading a ship the last basket of sugar loaded comes out first again, so too we usually unload first the thought or the tale that was loaded last.
> Archaic 'ge' + fronted-adverb inversion: The fronted Nu forces inversion (weet ge), and ge is the literary 'you'. 'het lossen' is a nominalized infinitive ('the unloading').
> Relative die + perfect passive: The relative die introduces 'that was loaded last'; 'is ingeladen' is a perfect/state form of the separable inladen. The image: last loaded, first unloaded.

In het Tydschrift van Nederlandsch Indie had ik kort tevoren een verhaal gelezen van Jeronimus: de Japansche Steenhouwer ...  
In the Journal of the Netherlands Indies I had, not long before, read a story by Jeronimus: the Japanese Stonecutter ...
> Pluperfect after fronted phrase: 'Had ik … gelezen' is the pluperfect (imperfect had + participle gelezen), with inversion after the fronted locative 'In het Tydschrift …'. The participle closes the clause.

Hoort eens, die Jeronimus heeft lieve dingen geschreven!  
Listen, that Jeronimus has written lovely things!
> Archaic imperative 'hoort' + present perfect: 'Hoort eens' is the old -t imperative ('listen!'), and 'heeft … geschreven' is the present perfect (hebben + participle), the participle closing the clause.

Hebt ge zyn Vendutie in een sterfhuis gelezen?  
Have you read his Auction in a House of Mourning?
> Perfect question with archaic ge: A yes/no question in the present perfect: Hebt ge … gelezen ('have you read'). Ge is the literary second person, and the participle gelezen sits clause-final.

En zyn: Graven?  
And his: Graves?

En, vooral: de Pedatti?  
And, above all: the Pedatti?

Ik zal 't u geven.  
I shall give it to you.

Ik dan had pas de Japansche Steenhouwer gelezen.  
I, then, had just been reading The Japanese Stonecutter.
> Pluperfect with 'pas': 'had pas … gelezen' is the pluperfect ('had just read'), pas meaning 'only just'. The discourse particle dan ('then, as for me') is interjected after the subject.

Ach, nu herinner ik my op-eenmaal hoe ik zoo-even verdwaald ben geraakt in dat liedje, waarin ik 't "donker oog" van dien visschersknaap tot scheelwordens toe "rond-om laat dwalen" in één richting ... heel gek!  
Ah, now it comes back to me all at once how I just now lost myself in that little song, in which I make the "dark eye" of that fisher-boy "wander round about" in one direction until it goes cross-eyed ... quite mad!
> Reflexive 'zich herinneren' + inversion: 'Herinner ik my' shows the reflexive verb zich herinneren ('to recall'), with my as the period-spelled reflexive and inversion after the fronted nu. 'Verdwaald ben geraakt' is a perfect with zijn.
> Relative 'waarin' + causative laten: 'Waarin' (waar + in, 'in which') opens a relative clause; 'laat dwalen' is causative laten + bare infinitive ('make it wander'). Both are split apart in the verb-final frame.
> tot scheelwordens toe: A vivid idiom 'tot … toe' ('to the point of'), here with the genitive-form nominalized infinitive scheelwordens: 'until it goes cross-eyed'. Comic self-mockery of his own poem.

Dat was een aaneenschakeling van denkbeelden.  
That was a chain of associations.
> aaneenschakeling: Aaneenschakeling ('a chaining-together') is built from aaneen + schakeling, and denkbeeld ('idea') from denk + beeld. Both show Dutch noun-compounding; the phrase names a chain of associations.

Myn verstoordheid van dien dag stond in verband met het gevaarlyke der Natalsche ree ... je weet, Verbrugge, dat geen oorlogschip die reede mag aandoen, vooral niet in Juli ... ja, Duclari, de westmousson is daar in Juli 't sterkst, juist andersom dan hier.  
My ill humour that day was bound up with the danger of the Natal roadstead ... you know, Verbrugge, that no warship may put in at that roadstead, especially not in July ... yes, Duclari, the west monsoon is strongest there in July, exactly the reverse of here.
> Nominalized adjective + genitive 'der': 'Het gevaarlyke' is an adjective used as a neuter noun ('the dangerousness'), and 'der Natalsche ree' is the old feminine genitive der ('of the Natal roadstead'), a living case remnant in 1860.
> geen + modal mag + separable aandoen: Geen negates the indefinite oorlogschip ('no warship'), the modal mag sends aandoen to the end, and the dat-clause is verb-final. Aandoen ('to call at a port') is separable but stays joined here.

Welnu, 't gevaarlyke van die reede schakelde zich vast aan myn gekrenkte eerzucht, en die eerzucht hangt weer samen met dat liedjen over Djiwa. Ik had den resident herhaaldelyk voorgesteld te Natal een zeewering te maken, of althans een kunsthaven in de monding van de rivier, met het doel om handel te brengen in de Afdeeling Natal, die de zoo belangryke Battahlanden met de zee verbindt.  
Well, the danger of that roadstead linked itself fast to my wounded ambition, and that ambition is in turn connected with that little song about Djiwa. I had repeatedly proposed to the resident that we build a breakwater at Natal, or at least an artificial harbour at the mouth of the river, with the aim of bringing trade into the Natal District, which links the so important Battah lands with the sea.
> Reflexive separable 'zich vastschakelen': The separable, reflexive verb 'zich vastschakelen aan' ('to link itself to') splits: schakelde … zich vast … aan. 'Gekrenkte' is a participle used attributively ('wounded ambition').
> Pluperfect + te-infinitive object: 'had … voorgesteld' is the pluperfect of the separable voorstellen, and 'te maken' is its te-infinitive complement ('proposed to build'). 'Den resident' shows the accusative den.
> om … te purpose: 'om handel te brengen' is the om … te purpose clause ('in order to bring trade'), governed by 'met het doel'. The infinitive brengen closes it.

Anderhalf millioen menschen in 't binnenland wisten geen weg met hun produkt, omdat de Natalsche ree--en terecht!--in zulk een slecht blaadje stond.  
A million and a half people in the interior had no way to dispose of their produce, because the Natal roadstead — and rightly so! — stood in such ill repute.
> geen with indefinite object: Geen negates the indefinite 'weg' ('knew no way'), the standard Dutch indefinite-noun negation. The idiom 'geen weg weten met' means to be unable to dispose of or handle something.
> Causal omdat + verb-final: Omdat opens a causal clause whose finite verb stond lands at the end. 'In een slecht blaadje staan' is an idiom ('to be in bad repute'); blaadje is a diminutive of blad.

Welnu, die voorstellen waren door den resident niet goedgekeurd, of althans hy beweerde dat de Regeering ze niet zou goedkeuren, en je weet dat behoorlyke residenten nooit iets voorstellen, dan wat ze vooruit kunnen berekenen dat aan 't Gouvernement bevallen zal.  
Well, those proposals had not been approved by the resident, or at any rate he maintained that the Government would not approve them; and you know that proper residents never propose anything except what they can reckon in advance will please the Government.
> Pluperfect passive with door: 'waren … goedgekeurd' with door den resident is a past passive ('had not been approved by the resident'); door marks the agent. 'Den resident' keeps the accusative den.
> Conditional zou in reported speech: 'zou goedkeuren' is the conditional (zou + infinitive), here reporting what the resident claimed the Government 'would' do. The dat-clause runs verb-final.
> Negative spread with 'nooit': The single negative nooit ('never') carries the clause's negation — Dutch avoids stacking negatives. The relative wat then opens 'what they can reckon in advance'.

Het maken van een haven te Natal streed in principe tegen 't stelsel van afsluiting, en wel verre van schepen daarheen te lokken, was 't zelfs verboden--tenzy in geval van force majeure--raschepen op de reede toetelaten.  
The building of a harbour at Natal ran in principle counter to the system of closure, and far from luring ships there, it was even forbidden — except in case of force majeure — to admit sailing ships to the roadstead.
> Archaic 'verre van … te': 'verre van … te lokken' is an archaic, literary 'far from luring' construction with a te-infinitive. 'Daarheen' is the pronominal adverb 'thither / there'.
> zijn-passive + te-infinitive subject: 'was 't … verboden … toetelaten' is a state passive ('it was forbidden to admit'), where the joined infinitive toetelaten ('toe te laten', from separable toelaten) is the real subject.

Als er nu toch een schip kwam--'t waren meestal Amerikaansche walvischvangers, of Franschen die peper hadden geladen in de onafhankelyke rykjes op den noordhoek--liet ik my altyd door den kapitein een brief schryven, waarin hy verlof vroeg om drinkwater intenemen.  
Whenever a ship did come after all — they were mostly American whalers, or Frenchmen who had taken on pepper in the independent little kingdoms on the northern cape — I always had the captain write me a letter in which he asked leave to take on drinking water.
> Causative laten + door-agent: 'liet ik my … een brief schryven' is causative laten + bare infinitive ('I had a letter written'), with door den kapitein marking who did it and my the beneficiary. The fronted als-clause triggers the inversion liet ik.
> Relative waarin + om … te: 'Waarin' ('in which') opens the relative clause, and 'om drinkwater in te nemen' (joined as intenemen) is the om … te purpose phrase. Innemen ('to take on board') is separable.

De verstoordheid over 't mislukken myner pogingen om iets ten-voordeele van Natal te bewerken, of liever de gekrenkte ydelheid ... was 't niet hard voor me, nog zoo weinig te beteekenen dat ik niet eens een haven kon laten maken waar ik wilde? Nu, dit alles, in verband met myn kandidatuur voor 't regelen van een zonnestelsel, had me dien dag zoo onbeminnelyk gemaakt.  
The ill humour over the failure of my efforts to do something for the good of Natal, or rather the wounded vanity ... was it not hard on me, counting still for so little that I could not even have a harbour made where I wished? Now all this, taken together with my candidacy for the regulating of a solar system, had made me so disagreeable that day.
> Genitive 'myner' before a noun: 'Myner pogingen' is the old genitive of mijn ('of my efforts'), and 't mislukken is a nominalized infinitive ('the failing'). The genitive possessive is a hallmark of 1860 prose.
> Modal kon + causative laten: The modal kon governs 'laten maken' (causative laten + bare infinitive, 'have made'), all clause-final after the dat. 'Niet eens' = 'not even'.
> regelen van een zonnestelsel: Havelaar's self-ironic flourish: he frames his frustrated ambition as a 'candidacy for regulating a solar system'. 'Zonnestelsel' is a compound, zon + stelsel ('sun-system').

Toen ik door 't ondergaan der zon eenigszins genas--want ontevredenheid is een ziekte--bracht juist die ziekte my den Japanschen Steenhouwer voor den geest, en misschien dacht ik alleen dáárom die geschiedenis overluid, om, mezelf wysmakende dat ik het deed uit welwillendheid voor dat kind, ter-sluik den laatsten druppel intenemen van het drankje dat ik voelde noodig te hebben.  
When the setting of the sun cured me somewhat — for discontent is a sickness — it was that very sickness that called The Japanese Stonecutter to mind, and perhaps that was the only reason I recited the tale aloud: so that, while persuading myself I did it out of kindness toward the child, I might slyly take the last drop of the draught I felt I needed.
> Toen-clause + genitive der: Toen opens a verb-final past clause (genas, strong past of genezen). 'Der zon' is the feminine genitive ('of the sun'), and 't ondergaan a nominalized infinitive.
> Fronted clause forces inversion: After the long fronted toen-clause the main verb bracht stands second, subject die ziekte following. 'Den Japanschen Steenhouwer' and 'den geest' both show the accusative den.
> om … te (joined) for purpose: 'om … in te nemen' (joined as intenemen) is the om … te purpose frame; the separable innemen splits its te. 'Den laatsten druppel' carries the accusative den/-en.

Maar zy, dat kind, genas me--voor een dag of wat althans--beter dan myn vertelling, die ongeveer aldus moet geluid hebben:  
But she, that child, cured me — for a day or so, at least — better than my telling did, which must have run roughly thus:
> Modal moet + perfect infinitive: 'moet geluid hebben' is a modal of inference ('must have run/sounded'), stacking moet with the perfect infinitive 'geluid hebben'. The relative die opens the clause.

"Oepi, er was een man die steenen hieuw uit de rots.  
"Oepi, there was a man who hewed stones from the rock.
> Existential er + strong past 'hieuw': 'er was een man' is the existential frame opening the fairy tale, and die introduces 'who hewed stones'. Hieuw is the strong simple past of houwen ('to hew').

Zyn arbeid was zeer zwaar, en hy arbeidde veel, doch zyn loon was gering, en tevreden was hy niet.  
His labour was very heavy, and he laboured much, yet his wage was small, and content he was not.
> Coordinating 'doch' (archaic 'but'): Doch is an archaic/literary coordinating conjunction meaning 'yet, but'; like en and maar it joins equals and does not send the verb to the end. The biblical cadence suits the tale.
> Fronted predicate + V2 (refrain): By fronting tevreden, the verb was stands second before hy, and niet closes the clause. This inverted refrain 'tevreden was hy niet' recurs throughout the parable for solemn effect.

Hy zuchtte omdat zyn arbeid zwaar was.  
He sighed because his labour was heavy.
> Causal omdat + verb-final: Omdat opens the causal clause, pushing the finite verb was to the end ('because his labour was heavy'). Zuchtte is the weak past of zuchten.

En hy riep: och, dat ik ryk ware, om te rusten op een baleh-baleh met klamboe van roode zyde.  
And he cried out: oh, that I were rich, to rest upon a baleh-baleh with a mosquito-net of red silk.
> Subjunctive 'ware' (optative wish): 'Ware' is the past subjunctive of zijn used as an optative ('oh, that I were rich'), an archaic, solemn form fitting the fairy-tale register.
> om … te (purpose): 'om te rusten' is a bare om … te purpose phrase ('in order to rest'). The infinitive rusten closes it.

En er kwam een engel uit den hemel, die zeide: u zy gelyk gy gezegd hebt.  
And there came an angel out of heaven, who said: be it unto you as you have spoken.
> Subjunctive 'zy' (let it be): 'Zy' here is the third-person present subjunctive of zijn ('be it / let it be'), a frozen liturgical formula. 'Gy … hebt' uses the archaic second person with present-perfect gezegd hebt.
> Existential er + accusative den: 'er kwam een engel' is the existential frame ('there came an angel'); kwam is the strong past of komen, and 'den hemel' shows the old accusative den.

En hy wàs ryk.  
And he was rich.
> Coordinating 'en' (no inversion): The coordinating en joins clauses as equals and does not trigger verb-final order — the verb wàs stays in second position. The accent (wàs) marks the tale's emphatic 'and he WAS rich'.

En hy rustte op een baleh-baleh, en de klamboe was van roode zyde.  
And he rested upon a baleh-baleh, and the mosquito-net was of red silk.

En de koning des lands toog voorby, met ruiters voor zyn wagen. En ook achter den wagen waren ruiters, en men hield den gouden pajong boven het hoofd van den koning.  
And the king of the land passed by, with horsemen before his carriage. And behind the carriage too there were horsemen, and the golden pajong was held above the king's head.
> Genitive 'des lands' + separable voorbijgaan: 'Des lands' is the masculine/neuter genitive ('of the land'), a case remnant. 'Toog … voorby' is the strong past of the separable voorbijtrekken/voorbijgaan, the prefix voorby split to the end.
> Impersonal men + accusative den: Men ('one / they') is the impersonal subject ('the pajong was held'), and 'den gouden pajong' carries the accusative den with the -en case-ending on the adjective.

En toen de ryke man dit zag, verdroot het hem dat er geen gouden pajong, werd gehouden boven zyn hoofd. En tevreden was hy niet.  
And when the rich man saw this, it grieved him that no golden pajong was held above his head. And content he was not.
> Impersonal het + worden-passive: 'verdroot het hem' uses impersonal het as subject of verdrieten ('it grieved him'); the dat-clause holds a worden-passive 'werd gehouden' ('was held') with geen negating the indefinite pajong.

Hy zuchtte, en riep: ik wenschte koning te zyn.  
He sighed, and cried out: I wish I were a king.
> Imperfect 'wenschte' + te-infinitive: 'Wenschte … te zyn' is the weak past of wensen + te-infinitive, used as a softened wish ('I wished to be a king'). Note no article: 'koning te zyn' as a predicate role.

En er kwam een engel uit den hemel, die zeide: u zy gelyk gy gezegd hebt.  
And there came an angel out of heaven, who said: be it unto you as you have spoken.

En hy wàs koning.  
And he was a king.

En voor zyn wagen reden vele ruiters, en ook waren er ruiters achter zyn wagen, en boven zyn hoofd hield men den gouden pajong.  
And before his carriage rode many horsemen, and there were horsemen behind his carriage too, and above his head they held the golden pajong.

En de zon scheen met heete stralen, en verbrandde het aardryk, zoodat de grasscheut dor werd.  
And the sun shone with hot rays, and scorched the earth, so that the blade of grass withered.
> Result clause 'zoodat': Zoodat ('so that') opens a result clause sending its finite verb werd to the end. 'Verbrandde' is the weak past of verbranden; aardryk ('earth') is a compound aard + rijk.

En de koning klaagde dat de zon hem schroeide in het gelaat, en macht had boven hem. En tevreden was hy niet.  
And the king complained that the sun seared him in the face, and held power above him. And content he was not.
> dat-clause with two verb-final verbs: The dat-clause coordinates two verb-final predicates (schroeide … en macht had), both pushed to clause end by the subordinating dat. 'Hem schroeide' shows object before verb in the subclause.

Hy zuchtte, en riep: ik wenschte de zon te zyn.  
He sighed, and cried out: I wish I were the sun.
> Past wish + te-infinitive: 'Wenschte … te zyn' again pairs the imperfect of wensen with a te-infinitive to voice the recurring wish. The structure mirrors each escalation of the parable.

En er kwam een engel uit den hemel, die zeide: u zy gelyk gy gezegd hebt.  
And there came an angel out of heaven, who said: be it unto you as you have spoken.

En hy wàs de zon.  
And he was the sun.

En hy zond zyn stralen naar boven, en naar beneden, naar de rechterzyde en naar de linkerzyde, en alom.  
And he sent his rays upward, and downward, to the right hand and to the left hand, and everywhere.
> Prepositional 'naar' (direction): Naar marks direction ('to / toward') with each side. 'Rechterzyde' and 'linkerzyde' are compounds (rechter/linker + zyde), the period spelling of -zijde.

En hy verschroeide den grasscheut op het aardryk, en het gelaat der vorsten die op de aarde waren.  
And he scorched the blade of grass upon the earth, and the faces of the princes who were on the earth.
> Genitive 'der vorsten' + relative die: 'Der vorsten' is the genitive plural ('of the princes'), a case remnant; the relative die then opens 'who were on the earth', verb-final in waren.

En een wolk stelde zich tusschen de aarde en hem, en de stralen van de zon stuitten daarop terug.  
And a cloud set itself between the earth and him, and the rays of the sun rebounded from it.
> Reflexive 'zich stellen': 'Stelde zich' is the reflexive verb zich stellen ('to position itself'), with zich the third-person reflexive. 'Stuitten … terug' is the separable terugstuiten, prefix terug to the end.

En hy werd toornig dat zyner macht weerstaan werd, en hy klaagde dat die wolk machtig was boven hem. En tevreden was hy niet.  
And he grew wrathful that his power was withstood, and he complained that the cloud was mightier than he. And content he was not.
> Worden-passive + genitive 'zyner': 'weerstaan werd' is a worden-passive ('was withstood'); the verb weerstaan governs a genitive object, hence zyner macht ('his power'), an archaic case usage. 'Toornig' = wrathful.

Hy wilde de wolk zyn, die zoo machtig was.  
He wished to be the cloud, which was so mighty.
> Modal wilde + relative die: The modal wilde sends zyn to the clause end as a bare infinitive ('wished to be'); the relative die then opens 'which was so mighty', verb-final in was.

En er kwam een engel uit den hemel, die zeide: u zy gelyk gy gezegd hebt.  
And there came an angel out of heaven, who said: be it unto you as you have spoken.

En hy werd een wolk, en plaatste zich tusschen de zon en de aarde, en ving de stralen op, zoodat het gras groen werd.  
And he became a cloud, and placed himself between the sun and the earth, and caught the rays, so that the grass grew green.
> Separable opvangen + result clause: 'Ving … op' is the strong past of separable opvangen, prefix op at the end. The zoodat-clause then runs verb-final ('so that the grass grew green'). 'Plaatste zich' is reflexive.

En de wolk regende in groote druppen op het aardryk, en deed de rivieren zwellen, en banjirs voerden de kudden weg.  
And the cloud rained in great drops upon the earth, and made the rivers swell, and banjirs swept the herds away.
> Causative doen + bare infinitive: 'deed … zwellen' uses doen as a causative ('made the rivers swell') with a bare infinitive — the older, more literary alternative to laten. Common in this elevated parable style.

En hy verwoestte door veel waters het veld.  
And he laid waste the field with much water.

En hy viel neer op een rots, die niet week. En hy klaterde in groote stroomen, maar de rots week niet.  
And he fell down upon a rock, which would not yield. And he came pouring down in great streams, but the rock did not yield.
> Separable neervallen + strong past 'week': 'Viel neer' is the separable neervallen, prefix neer to the end. The relative die opens 'which would not yield', and week is the strong simple past of wijken ('to give way').

En hy werd toornig omdat de rots niet wyken wilde, en omdat de sterkte van zyn stroomen ydel was.  
And he grew wrathful because the rock would not give way, and because the force of his streams was vain.
> Two omdat-clauses, verb-final: Both omdat-clauses are verb-final: 'wyken wilde' (modal pushed to the end after its bare infinitive) and 'ydel was'. Modern Dutch would more often write 'wilde wijken'.

En tevreden was hy niet.  
And content he was not.

Hy riep: aan die rots is macht gegeven boven my.  
He cried out: to that rock is given power above me.
> zijn-passive (state) + fronted PP: 'is … gegeven' is a state passive ('power is given'); the fronted 'aan die rots' triggers inversion (is macht gegeven). The agentless passive heightens the biblical tone.

Ik wenschte die rots te zyn.  
I wish I were that rock.
> Past wish + demonstrative 'die': 'Wenschte … te zyn' is the recurring wish (imperfect + te-infinitive); 'die rots' uses the far demonstrative die for the de-word rots ('that rock').

En er kwam een engel uit den hemel, die zeide: u zy gelyk gy gezegd hebt.  
And there came an angel out of heaven, who said: be it unto you as you have spoken.

En hy wèrd rots, en bewoog niet als de zon scheen, en niet als het regende.  
And he became rock, and did not stir when the sun shone, nor when it rained.
> Temporal/conditional 'als' + impersonal het: Each als-clause is verb-final (scheen … regende). 'Het regende' uses impersonal het for weather ('it rained'). 'Wèrd' is the strong past of worden.

En daar kwam een man met houweel, en met puntigen bytel, en met zwaren hamer, die steenen hieuw uit de rots.  
And there came a man with a pickaxe, and with a pointed chisel, and with a heavy hammer, who hewed stones from the rock.
> Presentational 'daar' + relative die: 'daar kwam een man' is a presentational frame ('there came a man'), and die opens the relative 'who hewed stones', verb-final in hieuw. The tale circles back to its opening image.
> The stonecutter's tools: Houweel (pickaxe), beitel (chisel, here bytel), and hamer (hammer) name the worker's tools. 'Puntigen' and 'zwaren' carry the old accusative -en endings before their de-words.

En de rots zeide: wat is dit, dat die man macht heeft boven my, en steenen houwt uit myn schoot? En tevreden was hy niet.  
And the rock said: what is this, that this man has power above me, and hews stones from my bosom? And content he was not.
> Exclamatory 'wat is dit, dat …': 'wat is dit, dat …' is an indignant exclamatory frame; the dat-clause runs verb-final ('that this man has power'). 'Steenen houwt uit myn schoot' keeps the strong verb houwen.

Hy riep: ik ben zwakker dan deze ... ik wenschte die man te zyn.  
He cried out: I am weaker than this one ... I wish I were that man.
> Comparative with 'dan': 'Zwakker dan deze' is the comparative (zwak + -er) with dan ('than') and the near demonstrative deze ('this one'). 'Ik wenschte die man te zyn' repeats the wish formula.

En er kwam een engel uit den hemel, die zeide: u zy gelyk gy gezegd hebt.  
And there came an angel out of heaven, who said: be it unto you as you have spoken.

En hy was een steenhouwer.  
And he was a stonecutter.

En hy hieuw steenen uit de rots, met zwaren arbeid, en hy arbeidde zeer zwaar voor weinig loons, en hy was tevreden."  
And he hewed stones from the rock, with heavy labour, and he laboured very hard for little wage, and he was content."
> Partitive genitive 'loons' + resolved refrain: 'Weinig loons' is the partitive genitive ('little of wage'), an archaic case form. The closing 'hy was tevreden' finally drops the inverted negative refrain — the parable's resolution.

--Heel aardig, riep Duclari, maar nu zyt ge ons nog 't bewys schuldig dat die kleine Oepi imponderabel had moeten wezen.  
— Very charming, cried Duclari, but now you still owe us the proof that little Oepi must have been imponderable.
> Archaic 'zyt ge' + idiom 'schuldig zyn': 'Zyt ge' is the archaic second-person singular (formal/literary) of zijn ('are you'), historically derived from the plural but here addressing one person, inverted after fronted nu. 'Iemand iets schuldig zyn' is an idiom ('to owe someone something').
> Pluperfect modal 'had moeten wezen': 'had moeten wezen' stacks the pluperfect of moeten with the bare infinitive wezen ('ought to have been'). The dat-clause is verb-final after the relative reference to the proof.

--Neen, ik heb u dat bewys niet beloofd!  
— No, I did not promise you that proof!
> Present perfect + niet: 'heb … beloofd' is the present perfect (hebben + participle), negated by niet because the object dat bewys is definite. The participle beloofd closes the clause.

Ik heb alleen willen vertellen hoe ik kennis met haar maakte.  
I only meant to tell how I came to know her.
> Perfect of modal (IPP) 'heb willen vertellen': When a modal takes an infinitive in the perfect, the modal appears as an infinitive too: 'heb … willen vertellen' (not 'gewild'). The hoe-clause then runs verb-final in maakte.

Toen myn verhaaltjen uit was, vroeg ik: "En jy, Oepi, wat zou jy kiezen, als een engel uit den hemel je kwam vragen wat je begeerde?"  
When my little tale was done, I asked: "And you, Oepi, what would you choose, if an angel from heaven came and asked you what you desired?"
> Conditional zou + als-clause: 'zou jy kiezen' is the conditional ('what would you choose'), paired with an als-clause (kwam vragen, verb-final). 'Wat je begeerde' is an embedded indirect question.
> Toen-clause + diminutive: Toen opens the verb-final past clause ('when my little tale was done'). 'Verhaaltjen' is the diminutive of verhaal ('tale'), -tjen the period spelling of -tje.

"Voorzeker, mynheer, ik zou hem bidden my meetenemen naar den hemel."  
"Most certainly, sir, I would beg him to take me with him to heaven."
> Conditional zou + om-less te-infinitive: 'zou … bidden' is the conditional ('I would beg'); 'my mee te nemen' (joined as meetenemen) is the te-infinitive complement, from the separable meenemen. 'Den hemel' keeps the accusative den.
> voorzeker: Voorzeker is an emphatic archaic/literary 'most certainly, assuredly'. The girl's final answer — to be taken to heaven — is the moral counterpoint to the stonecutter's earthly climbing.

--Is dat niet beeldig? vroeg Tine aan haar gasten, die 't misschien heel gek vonden ...  
— Is that not lovely? Tine asked her guests, who perhaps found it all quite mad ...
> Relative die (de-word plural): The relative die refers to haar gasten (plural, so die regardless of gender) and the clause is verb-final in vonden. 'Aan haar gasten' marks the indirect object with aan.

Havelaar stond op, en vaagde iets weg van het voorhoofd.  
Havelaar rose, and wiped something away from his forehead.
> Two separable verbs: opstaan, wegvagen: 'stond op' (opstaan, 'rose') and 'vaagde … weg' (wegvagen, 'wiped away') are both separable, their prefixes op and weg landing at the clause end. The gesture quietly hints at a tear.
---

Source text: public domain (Multatuli / Eduard Douwes Dekker, d. 1887; Dutch 1860, Project Gutenberg #11024). English translation: original, © 1732 Studios (2026); rendered freshly from the public-domain Dutch, not derived from any prior English translation. Sentence-aligned by 1732 Studios.