# Max Havelaar, Chapter 8

Max Havelaar · Multatuli · The Novel

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/havelaar/hoofdstuk-8. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/havelaar/hoofdstuk-8.json. Audio: https://audio.1732studios.com/havelaar/<line id>.m4a.


ACHTSTE HOOFDSTUK  
EIGHTH CHAPTER
> Ordinal achtste: achtste ('eighth') is the ordinal of acht, formed with -ste; hoofdstuk ('chapter') is a neuter compound of hoofd + stuk.

Havelaar had den kontroleur verzocht, de hoofden die te Rangkas-Betoeng, aanwezig waren, uittenoodigen daar tot den volgenden dag te vertoeven om de Sebah bytewonen, die hy beleggen wilde.  
Havelaar had asked the controller to invite the chiefs who were present at Rangkas-Betoeng to remain there until the following day, so as to attend the Sebah that he meant to convene.
> Stacked te-infinitives: verzoeken governs a te-infinitive (uit te noodigen, here joined as uittenoodigen in 1860 style), which itself governs a further te vertoeven ('to remain'). Note uitnoodigen is separable, splitting around te.
> Relative clause with die: die ('who') relativizes the de-word plural hoofden and sends its verb waren to the clause end. te is the formal/literary 'at' before a place name.

Zulk een vergadering had gewoonlyk eens in de maand plaats, doch hetzyd-i aan sommige Hoofden die wat ver van de hoofdplaats woonden--want de Afdeeling Lebak is zeer uitgestrekt--het onnoodig heen-en weerreizen wilde besparen, hetzyd-i wenschte, terstond en zonder den vastgestelden dag aftewachten, hen op plechtige wyze toetespreken, hy had den eersten Sebah-dag op den volgenden morgen bepaald.  
Such a meeting was ordinarily held once a month; but whether he wished to spare certain chiefs who lived rather far from the chief town — for the District of Lebak is very extensive — the needless journey there and back, or whether he wished, at once and without awaiting the appointed day, to address them in a solemn manner, he had fixed the first Sebah-day for the next morning.
> Separable plaatshebben: plaatshebben ('to take place') is separable; plaats stands at the clause end. zulk een ('such a') is an archaic determiner combination favored in formal 1860 prose.
> Correlative hetzy ... hetzy: hetzy ... hetzy is the literary correlative 'whether ... or'. d-i is a clitic contraction of die/hy (he), so hetzyd-i = 'whether he'. doch ('but, yet') is an archaic adversative conjunction.
> Separable toespreken with te: toespreken ('to address') is separable; with te it is written toetespreken in 1860 (modern: toe te spreken). hen is the object 'them', the verb pushed to the end of its te-phrase.

Links voor zyn woning, doch op 'tzelfde "erf" en tegenover 't huis dat mevrouw Slotering bewoonde, stond een gebouw dat gedeeltelyk de bureaux der adsistent-residentie bevatte, waartoe tevens de landskas behoorde, en gedeeltelyk bestond in een vry ruime open galery, die een zeer goede gelegenheid tot zulk een vergadering aanbood.  
To the left of his residence, but on the same "yard" and facing the house that Mevrouw Slotering occupied, stood a building that partly contained the offices of the assistant-residency — to which the public treasury also belonged — and partly consisted of a fairly spacious open gallery, which offered a very good place for such a meeting.
> Relative dat for a het-word: dat (not die) relativizes the neuter het-word gebouw ('building'), and its verb bevatte goes to the clause end. The matching pattern recurs with die ... aanbood for the de-word galery.
> Genitive der + pronominal adverb: der is the feminine/plural genitive article ('of the'), a 1860 case form; waartoe ('to which') is a pronominal adverb relativizing tot. landskas ('public treasury') is a noun compound.

Daar waren dan ook den volgenden morgen de Hoofden vroegtydig vereenigd.  
There, accordingly, the chiefs were assembled early the next morning.
> Fronted adverb + passive/state: The fronted Daar ('there') forces V2 inversion (waren before the subject). vereenigd ('assembled', participle of vereenigen) with waren gives a resulting-state reading. dan ook ≈ 'accordingly'.

Havelaar trad binnen, groette, en nam plaats.  
Havelaar stepped in, greeted them, and took his seat.
> Separable binnentreden + plaatsnemen: Two separable verbs in a row: binnentreden splits (binnen to the end of trad binnen), and plaatsnemen ('to take a seat') splits as nam ... plaats. trad and nam are strong-verb pasts.

Hy ontving de geschreven maandelyksche berichten over landbouw, veestapel, politie, en justitie, en legde die tot nader onderzoek ter-zyde.  
He received the written monthly reports on agriculture, livestock, police, and justice, and laid them aside for closer examination.
> Separable terzijdeleggen: terzijdeleggen ('to lay aside') is separable, sending ter-zyde to the clause end. die here is a demonstrative object pronoun standing for the reports. nader is a comparative ('closer').
> Bureaucratic vocabulary: maandelyksche ('monthly', 1860 -sche spelling) berichten are official reports; veestapel ('livestock', literally 'cattle-stock') is a compound noun typical of administrative Dutch.

Ieder verwachtte hierop een toespraak als die welke de resident op den vorigen dag had gehouden, en het is niet geheel-en-al zeker dat Havelaar zelf van voornemen was iets anders te zeggen, doch men moest hem by zulke gelegenheden gehoord en gezien hebben om zich voortestellen hoe hy, by toespraken als deze, zich opwond en door zyn eigenaardige wyze van spreken aan de bekendste zaken een nieuwe kleur meedeelde, hoe zich dan zyn houding oprichtte, hoe zyn blik vuur schoot, hoe zyn stem van 't vleiend zachte in 't vlymend scherpe overging, hoe de beelden van zyn lippen vloeiden als strooide hy iets kostbaars om zich heen dat toch hèm niets kostte, en hoe, als hy ophield, ieder hem aanstaarde met open mond als om te vragen: "myn God, wie zyt ge?"  
Everyone expected an address like the one the resident had delivered the day before, and it is not altogether certain that Havelaar himself had intended to say anything different; yet one must have heard and seen him on such occasions to picture how he, in addresses like this, worked himself up and, by his peculiar manner of speaking, gave a fresh color to the most familiar matters; how his bearing then drew itself up, how his glance shot fire, how his voice passed from the flatteringly soft into the cuttingly sharp, how the images flowed from his lips as though he were scattering something precious about him that yet cost him nothing — and how, when he fell silent, everyone stared at him open-mouthed, as if to ask: "my God, who are you?"
> Formal relative welke: als die welke ('like the one which') stacks a demonstrative die with the heavier formal relative welke — a deliberately weighty, period-formal construction. had gehouden is the pluperfect.
> Modal perfect 'must have': moest + the perfect infinitive gehoord en gezien hebben expresses 'one must have heard and seen him' — a modal of inference over a past event, with the participles preceding hebben at the end.
> Present participle as adjective: vleiend ('flattering') and vlymend ('cutting') are present participles (-end) used adjectivally, nominalized here as 't ... zachte / 't ... scherpe. overging is the strong past of separable overgaan.

Het is waar dat hyzelf, die by zulke gelegenheid sprak als een apostel, als een ziener, later niet juist wist hoe hy gesproken had, en zyn welsprekendheid had dan ook meer de eigenschap van te verbazen en te treffen, dan door bondigheid van redeneering te overtuigen.  
It is true that he himself, who on such an occasion spoke like an apostle, like a seer, afterward did not quite know how he had spoken, and his eloquence had, in fact, more the property of astonishing and striking than of convincing through soundness of reasoning.
> Relative die in a long clause: die relativizes hyzelf ('he himself') and governs a long verb-final clause; the finite verbs sprak and wist sit at its boundaries. hyzelf joins hy + zelf emphatically.
> te + infinitive after a noun: The noun eigenschap ('property, quality') governs a van + te-infinitive complement: 'the quality of astonishing and striking'. Two te-infinitives are coordinated with en.

Hy zou den krygslust der Atheners, zoodra tot den oorlog tegen Philippus besloten was, tot dolzinnigheid hebben kunnen aanvuren, maar minder goed waarschynlyk zou hy geslaagd zyn, als zyn taak geweest ware hen door redeneering tot dien oorlog te bewegen.  
He could have fired the war-spirit of the Athenians to a frenzy once the war against Philip had been resolved upon, but less well, in all likelihood, would he have succeeded had his task been to move them to that war by reasoning.
> Conditional perfect with a modal: zou ... hebben kunnen aanvuren stacks the conditional zou, the perfect auxiliary hebben, the modal kunnen, and the main infinitive aanvuren — 'could have fired up' — a four-verb cluster at the clause end.
> Past subjunctive ware: ware is the past subjunctive of zijn ('had been / were'), an archaic mood form used in counterfactual conditions, here 'had his task been'. The verb sits at the end of the als-clause.

Zyn aanspraak tot de Lebaksche hoofden was natuurlyk in 't maleisch, en ontleende hieraan een eigenaardigheid temeer, daar de eenvoudigheid der oostersche talen aan veel uitdrukkingen een kracht verleent, die in ònze idiomen door litterarische gekunsteldheid is verloren gegaan, terwyl aan den anderen kant het zoetvloeiende van 't maleisch moeielyk in eenige andere taal is weertegeven.  
His address to the chiefs of Lebak was naturally in Malay, and drew from this a peculiarity all its own, since the simplicity of the Eastern tongues lends to many expressions a force that in our own idioms has been lost through literary artifice, while on the other hand the mellifluous quality of Malay is hard to render in any other language.
> Causal daar + pronominal adverb hieraan: daar here is a subordinating conjunction meaning 'since/because', sending its clause's verb (verleent) to the end. hieraan ('from this') is a pronominal adverb. der oostersche talen is a genitive.
> Perfect of zijn-verb verloren gaan: verloren gaan ('to be lost') takes zijn as its perfect auxiliary: is verloren gegaan, 'has been lost'. The stressed ònze ('our') is contrasted with the Eastern tongues.

Men bedenke bovendien, dat het meerendeel zyner hoorders uit eenvoudige, doch geenszins domme menschen bestond, en tevens dat het Oosterlingen waren, wier indrukken zeer verschillen van de onze.  
Let one consider, moreover, that the greater part of his listeners were simple yet by no means stupid men, and likewise that they were Easterners, whose impressions differ greatly from our own.
> Hortative subjunctive bedenke: bedenke is the present-subjunctive 'let one consider', an archaic exhortative formed with -e and no -t. The dat-clause that follows is verb-final (bestond ... at the end).
> Genitive zyner: zyner is an inflected genitive possessive ('of his'), a 1860 form replaced today by van zijn. wier later in the sentence is the genitive relative 'whose'.

Havelaar moet nagenoeg aldus gesproken hebben:  
Havelaar must have spoken more or less as follows:
> Modal of inference + perfect infinitive: moet ... gesproken hebben is 'must have spoken' — the modal moeten plus a perfect infinitive expressing inference about the past. aldus ('thus') is a literary connector.

Mynheer de Radhen Adhipatti, Regent van Bantan-Kidoel, en gy, Radhens Dhemang die Hoofden zyt der distrikten in deze Afdeeling, en gy, Radhen Djaksa die de justitie tot uw ambt hebt, en ook gy, Radhen Kliwon die gezag voert op de hoofdplaats, en gy Radhens, Mantries, en allen die Hoofden zyt in de afdeeling Bantan-Kidoel, ik groet u!  
Mynheer the Radhen Adhipatti, Regent of Bantan-Kidoel, and you, Radhens Dhemang who are chiefs of the districts in this District, and you, Radhen Djaksa who hold justice as your office, and you too, Radhen Kliwon who exercise authority in the chief town, and you, Radhens, Mantries, and all who are chiefs in the district of Bantan-Kidoel, I greet you!
> Archaic pronoun gy / u: gy is the solemn second-person pronoun of 1860 (modern jij/u), taking the verb form zyt ('are'); the object form is u. Havelaar's whole oration uses this elevated, biblical register.

En ik zeg u dat ik vreugde voel in myn hart, nu ik hier u allen vergaderd zie, luisterende naar de woorden van myn mond.  
And I tell you that I feel joy in my heart, now that I see you all gathered here, listening to the words of my mouth.
> Present participle luisterende: luisterende ('listening') is the present participle used adverbially to describe the chiefs. nu functions as 'now that', a subordinating link sending zie to the clause end.

Ik weet dat er onder u lieden zyn, die uitsteken in kennis en in braafheid van hart: ik hoop myn kennis door de uwe te vermeerderen, want zy is niet zoo groot als ik wenschte. En ik heb wel de braafheid lief, maar dikwyls bespeur ik dat er in myn gemoed fouten zyn, die de braafheid overschaduwen en daaraan den groei benemen ... gy allen weet hoe de groote boom den kleinen verdringt en doodt.  
I know that there are among you men who excel in knowledge and in goodness of heart: I hope to increase my knowledge by means of yours, for it is not so great as I could wish. And though I do love goodness, yet often I perceive that there are faults in my soul which overshadow that goodness and rob it of its growth ... you all know how the great tree crowds out the small one and kills it.
> Existential er + relative die: er ... zyn is the existential 'there are', and die relativizes the implied antecedent 'men among you'. u lieden is the older expanded 'you people' (source of modern jullie).
> Separable liefhebben: liefhebben ('to love') is separable; lief stands at the clause end while heb is second. wel here is an affirmative particle ('indeed'), setting up the maar contrast. braafheid means 'goodness/integrity', not 'bravery'.
> Relative die + pronominal adverb daaraan: die relativizes the plural fouten and governs a verb-final clause; daaraan ('from it') is a pronominal adverb, and den groei keeps the case-remnant den.

Daarom zal ik letten op degenen onder u, die uitstekend zyn in deugd, om te trachten beter te worden dan ik ben.  
Therefore I shall heed those among you who are eminent in virtue, that I may strive to become better than I am.
> Purpose om ... te + comparative: om ... te frames a purpose clause ('in order to try'), and trachten itself governs a further te worden. The comparative beter ... dan ('better than') uses dan for 'than'.

Ik groet u allen zeer.  
I greet you all most warmly.

Toen de Gouverneur-generaal my gelastte tot u te gaan om adsistent-resident te zyn in deze afdeeling, was myn hart verheugd.  
When the Governor-General charged me to go to you, to be assistant-resident in this district, my heart was glad.
> Fronted toen-clause triggers inversion: The subordinate toen-clause ('when the Governor-General charged me') fills the first slot, so the main clause inverts: was comes before its subject myn hart. te gaan is the te-infinitive complement of gelasten.

Het kan u bekend zyn dat ik nooit Bantan-Kidoel had betreden. Ik liet my dus geschriften geven, die over uwe afdeeling handelen, en heb gezien dat er veel goeds is in Bantan-Kidoel.  
It may be known to you that I had never set foot in Bantan-Kidoel. I therefore had documents brought to me that deal with your district, and I have seen that there is much that is good in Bantan-Kidoel.
> Negative nooit + pluperfect: nooit ('never') is the single negative of the dat-clause (Dutch forbids double negation); had betreden is the pluperfect 'had set foot in', verb-final after dat.
> Causative laten: laten + a bare infinitive (geven) is causative: 'I had documents given to me'. The reflexive-like my is the recipient. The bare infinitive takes no te after laten.

Uw volk bezit rystvelden in de dalen, en er zyn rystvelden op de bergen.  
Your people possess rice-fields in the valleys, and there are rice-fields upon the mountains.
> Coordination en + existential er: en is a coordinating conjunction joining two main clauses without sending any verb to the end; the second uses existential er zyn ('there are'). rystvelden ('rice-fields', 1860 ry- for rij-) is a compound.

En ge wenscht in vrede te leven, en ge begeert niet te wonen in de landstreken die bewoond worden door anderen.  
And you wish to live in peace, and you do not desire to dwell in the regions inhabited by others.
> Archaic ge + te-infinitive: ge is the clitic/literary form of gy ('you'), here governing te leven and te wonen. niet negates the verb te wonen ('do not desire to dwell').
> worden-passive: bewoond worden is the process passive: worden + the past participle bewoond ('are inhabited'), with the agent marked by door ('by others'). die relativizes the plural landstreken.

Ja, ik weet dat er veel goeds is in Bantan-Kidoel!  
Yes, I know that there is much that is good in Bantan-Kidoel!

Maar niet hierom alleen was myn hart verheugd. Want ook in andere streken zou ik veel goeds gevonden hebben.  
But not for this reason alone was my heart glad. For in other regions too I should have found much that is good.

Doch ik ontwaarde dat uwe bevolking arm is, en hierover was ik blyde in het binnenste myner ziel.  
Yet I became aware that your population is poor, and over this I was glad in the innermost part of my soul.
> Pronominal adverb hierover + genitive myner: hierover ('over this') is a pronominal adverb fronted for emphasis, forcing inversion (was ik). myner ziel is a genitive ('of my soul'), a 1860 case form.
> ontwaren — 'to become aware of': ontwaren is a literary verb meaning 'to perceive, become aware of', loftier than the everyday zien or merken — part of the elevated register of the speech.

Want ik weet dat Allah den arme liefheeft, en dat Hy rykdom geeft aan wien hy beproeven wil. Maar tot de armen zendt Hy wie zyn woord spreekt, opdat zy zich oprichten in hun ellende.  
For I know that Allah loves the poor, and that He gives riches to whomever He would put to the test. But to the poor He sends those who speak His word, that they may rise up out of their misery.
> Headless relative wien (dative): wien ('to whom') is a headless relative pronoun in the old dative case ('to whomever'); its clause is verb-final (beproeven wil). Frozen wie/wien distinctions survive in 1860 prose.
> Purpose opdat + reflexive: opdat ('so that') is a formal final conjunction sending its verb to the end; zich oprichten ('to raise themselves up') is reflexive. The clause is verb-final.

Geeft Hy niet regen waar de halm verdort, en een dauwdrup in den bloemkelk die dorst heeft?  
Does He not give rain where the stalk withers, and a drop of dew in the flower-cup that thirsts?
> Rhetorical yes/no question (inversion): A yes/no question fronts the finite verb Geeft before the subject Hy; niet makes it a rhetorical 'does He not...?' expecting agreement. This question form recurs throughout the oration.
> Compounds + relative die: dauwdrup ('dewdrop') and bloemkelk ('flower-cup') are right-headed noun compounds; die relativizes bloemkelk and closes with heeft. den keeps the case remnant.

En is het niet schoon, te worden uitgezonden om de vermoeiden te zoeken, die achterbleven na den arbeid en neerzonken langs den weg, daar hun knieën niet sterk meer waren om optegaan naar de plaats van het loon?  
And is it not a fine thing to be sent out to seek the weary, who stayed behind after the labor and sank down beside the road, because their knees were no longer strong enough to climb up to the place of reward?
> Dummy het + passive infinitive: het is the impersonal subject ('is it not fine'); te worden uitgezonden is a passive te-infinitive ('to be sent out'), with the separable uitzenden split around the cluster.
> Causal daar + om ... te: daar is causal 'because', verb-final (waren at the end). om optegaan ('in order to climb up', separable opgaan) is a purpose clause; 1860 joins it as optegaan.

Zou ik niet verheugd wezen de hand te mogen reiken aan wie in de groeve viel, en een staf te geven aan wien de bergen beklimt?  
Should I not rejoice to be allowed to reach out my hand to him who fell into the pit, and to give a staff to him who climbs the mountains?
> Conditional zou + modal te-infinitive: zou ... wezen is the conditional ('should I not be...'), and te mogen reiken stacks the modal mogen inside a te-infinitive ('to be allowed to reach out'). wien is again the dative relative.

Zou niet myn hart opspringen als het ziet gekozen te zyn onder velen, om van klagen een gebed te maken en dankzegging van geween?  
Should my heart not leap up when it sees itself chosen out of many, to make a prayer out of lamentation and a thanksgiving out of weeping?
> Conditional + separable opspringen: Conditional zou with separable opspringen ('leap up'); the als-clause is verb-final. gekozen te zyn ('to be chosen') is a passive te-infinitive built on the participle gekozen.
> Purpose om ... te + nominalized infinitives: om ... te maken ('in order to make'); klagen ('to lament') is an infinitive used as a noun (a nominalized infinitive); geween ('weeping') is a separate ge-noun, formed with the ge- prefix from the stem of wenen (to weep) — a different word-formation process.

Ja, ik ben zeer blyde geroepen te zyn in Bantan-Kidoel!  
Yes, I am very glad to have been called to Bantan-Kidoel!

Ik heb gezegd tot de vrouw die myne zorgen deelt en myn geluk grooter maakt: "verheug u, want ik zie dat Allah zegen geeft op het hoofd van ons kind!  
I have said to the woman who shares my cares and makes my happiness greater: "rejoice, for I see that Allah gives His blessing upon the head of our child!
> Relative die + comparative grooter: die relativizes vrouw ('the woman who...'), the clause verb-final; grooter maken ('to make greater') uses the comparative grooter (1860 -oo- for groter). myne is the inflected possessive.

Hy heeft my gezonden naar een oord waar niet alle arbeid is afgeloopen, en Hy keurde my waardig daar te zyn vóór den tyd van den oogst.  
He has sent me to a place where not all the labor is finished, and He deemed me worthy to be there before the time of the harvest.
> Perfect vs imperfect side by side: heeft ... gezonden is the present perfect ('has sent'), while keurde is the simple past of weak keuren ('deemed') — the speech shifts between the two narrative pasts. waardig keuren is 'to deem worthy'.

Want niet in het snyden der padie is de vreugde: de vreugde is in het snyden der padie die men geplant heeft.  
For the joy is not in the reaping of the padi: the joy is in the reaping of the padi that one has planted.
> Nominalized infinitive + genitive der: het snyden ('the reaping') is a neuter nominalized infinitive; der padie is a genitive ('of the padi'). men ('one') is the impersonal subject, and geplant heeft is the perfect, verb-final after die.

En de ziel des menschen groeit niet van het loon, maar van den arbeid die het loon verdient.  
And the soul of man does not grow from the reward, but from the labor that earns the reward.
> Genitive des menschen: des menschen is the masculine singular genitive ('of man'), with the old -s on the article des and the -en ending — a textbook 1860 case remnant for modern van de mens.

En ik zeide tot haar: Allah heeft ons een kind gegeven, dat eenmaal zeggen zal: "weet ge dat ik zyn zoon ben?" En dan zullen er wezen in het land, die hem groeten met liefde, en die de hand zullen leggen op zyn hoofd, en zeggen zullen: "zet u neder aan ons maal, en bewoon ons huis, en neem uw deel aan wat wy hebben, want ik heb uwen vader gekend."  
And I said to her: Allah has given us a child, who will one day say: "do you know that I am his son?" And then there will be those in the land who greet him with love, and who will lay their hand upon his head, and will say: "sit down at our meal, and dwell in our house, and take your share of what we have, for I knew your father."
> Future with zullen (twice): zeggen zal and zullen ... wezen both build the future with zullen + infinitive; in the relative clause the verb-cluster goes final (zeggen zal). er wezen is existential 'there will be'.
> Imperatives + reflexive zich neerzetten: zet ... neder, bewoon, and neem are bare-stem imperatives (commands/invitations); zich nederzetten ('sit yourself down') is reflexive and separable. want is a coordinating 'for'. uwen keeps the case ending.

Hoofden van Lebak, er is veel te arbeiden in uwe landstreek!  
Chiefs of Lebak, there is much to be labored at in your land!
> er is + te-infinitive ('there is much to do'): The pattern er is veel te + infinitive means 'there is much to be done'; arbeiden ('to labor') is governed by te. uwe is the inflected possessive 'your'.

Zegt my, is niet de landman arm?  
Tell me, is the husbandman not poor?
> Archaic plural imperative + rhetorical question: Zegt (with -t) is the old plural/polite imperative 'tell (you all)'; the following yes/no question fronts is and uses niet for the rhetorical 'is the husbandman not poor?'.

Rypt niet uw padie dikwerf ter voeding van wie niet geplant hebben?  
Does your padi not often ripen for the feeding of those who have not planted?
> Headless relative wie: wie ('those who') is a headless relative with no antecedent, governing the verb-final hebben. dikwerf is an archaic 'often' (cf. dikwijls). Rypt fronts the verb for the rhetorical question.

Zyn er niet vele verkeerdheden in uw land?  
Are there not many wrongs in your land?
> Existential er in a question: Zyn ... er ('are there') is the existential turned into a yes/no question by fronting the verb; niet makes it rhetorical. vele is the inflected 'many'.

Is niet het aantal uwer kinderen gering?  
Is the number of your children not small?

Is er niet schaamte in uwe zielen, als de bewoner van Bandoeng dat daar ten-oosten ligt, uwe streken bezoekt, en vraagt: "waar zyn de dorpen, en waar de landbouwers? En waarom hoor ik den gamlang niet, die blydschap spreekt met koperen mond, noch het gestamp der padie uwer dochters?"  
Is there not shame in your souls when the dweller of Bandoeng, which lies there to the east, visits your regions and asks: "where are the villages, and where the husbandmen? And why do I not hear the gamlang, which speaks gladness with its mouth of copper, nor the pounding of the padi by your daughters?"
> als-clause verb-final: als ('when') subordinates the clause, sending bezoekt and vraagt to the end. dat daar ten-oosten ligt is a relative interjection ('which lies to the east'), itself verb-final.

Is het u niet bitter, te reizen van hier tot de Zuidkust, en de bergen te zien die geen water dragen op hunne zyden, of de vlakten waar nooit een buffel den ploeg trok?  
Is it not bitter to you, to travel from here to the South Coast, and to see the mountains that bear no water on their flanks, or the plains where never a buffalo drew the plow?
> te-infinitive + relative die + geen: te zien depends on bitter; die relativizes bergen and is verb-final (dragen). geen water ('no water') negates the indefinite noun — geen, not niet. hunne is the inflected possessive 'their'.
> Relative waar + negative nooit: waar functions as a relative 'where', and nooit ('never') is the single clause negative; the verb trok ('drew', strong past of trekken) sits clause-finally. den ploeg keeps the case remnant.

Ja, ja, ik zeg u dat uw en myn ziel daarover bedroefd is! En daarom juist zyn wy Allah dankbaar dat hy ons macht heeft gegeven om hier te arbeiden.  
Yes, yes, I tell you that your soul and mine are grieved over this! And precisely for this reason are we thankful to Allah that He has given us power to labor here.
> Fronted daarom + inversion: The fronted daarom ('for this reason') forces V2 inversion: zyn precedes the subject wy. Allah dankbaar zyn ('to be thankful to Allah') takes a bare dative-like object.

Want wy hebben in dit land akkers voor velen, schoon de bewoners weinig zyn.  
For we have in this land fields for many, although the inhabitants are few.
> Concessive schoon: schoon is an archaic/literary concessive conjunction ('although'), sending its verb zyn to the clause end — not to be confused with the adjective schoon ('beautiful').

En het is niet de regen die ontbreekt, want de toppen der bergen zuigen de wolken des hemels ter aarde.  
And it is not the rain that is wanting, for the summits of the mountains draw the clouds of heaven down to earth.
> Cleft het is ... die + coordinating want: het is niet ... die is a cleft ('it is not the rain that...'), the relative die verb-final on ontbreekt. want ('for') coordinates and does NOT send its verb to the end (zuigen stays second). der bergen / des hemels are genitives.

En niet overal zyn rotsen die plaats weigeren aan den wortel, want op veel plaatsen is de grond week en vruchtbaar, en roept om de graankorrel die hy ons wil weergeven in gebogen halm.  
And not everywhere are there rocks that refuse a place to the root, for in many spots the ground is soft and fertile, and cries out for the grain of corn that it will give back to us in the bending stalk.
> Fronted niet overal + relative die: The fronted negative phrase niet overal ('not everywhere') inverts the verb (zyn). die relativizes rotsen and closes verb-final (weigeren). aan den wortel keeps the case remnant den.
> Modal wil + separable weergeven: wil sends the separable main verb weergeven ('give back') to the end as a bare infinitive. gebogen ('bent') is a past participle used adjectivally. die relativizes graankorrel.

En er is geen oorlog in het land die de padie vertreedt als ze nog groen is, noch ziekte die den patjol nutteloos maakt.  
And there is no war in the land to trample the padi while it is still green, nor sickness to make the patjol useless.
> geen ... noch (negative coordination): geen negates the indefinite oorlog, and noch ('nor') extends the negation to ziekte — Dutch keeps one negation marker spread across coordinated items, not a double negative.

Noch zyn er zonnestralen, heeter dan noodig is om het graan te doen rypen dat u en uw kinderen voeden moet, noch banjirs die u doen jammeren: "wys my de plaats waar ik gezaaid heb!"  
Nor are there sunbeams hotter than is needed to ripen the grain that must feed you and your children, nor banjirs to make you wail: "show me the place where I sowed!"
> Fronted Noch + comparative dan: The fronted noch ('nor') inverts the verb (zyn er, existential). heeter dan ('hotter than') is the comparative with dan introducing the standard. The clause continues a long negative chain.

Waar Allah waterstroomen zendt, die de akkers wegnemen ... waar Hy den grond hard maakt als dorre steen ... waar Hy Zyn zon doet gloeien ter verschroejing ... waar Hy oorlog zendt, die de velden omkeert ... waar Hy slaat met ziekten die de handen slap maken, of met droogte die de aren doodt ... daar, Hoofden van Lebak, buigen wy deemoedig het hoofd, en zeggen: "Hy wil het zoo!"  
Where Allah sends torrents of water that carry off the fields ... where He makes the ground hard as barren stone ... where He makes His sun blaze down to scorching ... where He sends war to overturn the fields ... where He strikes with sicknesses that make the hands slack, or with drought that kills the ears of grain ... there, Chiefs of Lebak, we bow our heads in humility, and say: "He wills it so!"
> Relative waar + separable wegnemen: Each clause opens with relative waar ('where'), verb-final (zendt, maakt, etc.); die de akkers wegnemen embeds a further relative with separable wegnemen ('carry off'). The anaphora builds to the climactic 'He wills it so!'.
> Causative doen + bare infinitive: doen + the bare infinitive gloeien is causative, 'makes (His sun) glow/blaze' — doen, like laten, takes no te. ter verschroejing ('to scorching') is a frozen te + der dative.

Maar niet aldus in Bantan-Kidoel!  
But not so in Bantan-Kidoel!

Ik ben hier gezonden om uw vriend te zyn, uw ouder broeder.  
I have been sent here to be your friend, your elder brother.
> zijn-passive + purpose om ... te: ben ... gezonden is a perfect/state passive with zijn ('have been sent'); om ... te zyn is the purpose clause ('in order to be'). uw ouder broeder apposes 'your elder brother'.

Zoudt gy uw jongeren broeder niet waarschuwen als ge een tyger zaagt op zyn weg?  
Would you not warn your younger brother if you saw a tiger on his path?
> Conditional zou + counterfactual als: Zoudt gy ('would you') is the archaic conditional with the -t ending for gy; the als-clause uses the past zaagt ('saw') for a counterfactual condition, verb-final. jongeren keeps the case ending.

Hoofden van Lebak, we hebben dikwyls misslagen begaan, en ons land is arm omdat we zooveel misslagen begingen.  
Chiefs of Lebak, we have often committed offenses, and our land is poor because we committed so many offenses.
> Causal omdat verb-final: omdat ('because') sends its verb begingen ('committed', strong past of begaan) to the clause end. The main-clause verb is is. misslagen ('blunders, offenses') is a compound.

Want in Tjikandi en Bolang, en in het Krawangsche, en in de ommelanden van Batavia, zyn velen die geboren zyn in ons land, en die ons land verlaten hebben.  
For in Tjikandi and Bolang, and in the Krawang country, and in the environs of Batavia, there are many who were born in our land, and who have left our land.
> zijn-passive geboren + perfect verlaten: geboren zyn ('are/were born') uses zijn as auxiliary (birth always takes zijn); verlaten hebben ('have left') uses hebben. Two relative die-clauses, both verb-final.

Waarom zoeken zy arbeid, ver van de plaats waar ze hun ouders begroeven?  
Why do they seek work, far from the place where they buried their parents?

Waarom vlieden zy de dessah waar zy de besnydenis ontvingen?  
Why do they flee the dessah where they received their circumcision?
> Question inversion + relative waar: The interrogative Waarom fronts the verb vlieden ('flee', archaic). waar relativizes dessah, sending ontvingen to the end. vlieden is a literary variant of vluchten.

Waarom verkiezen zy de koelte van den boom die dáár groeit, boven de schaduw onzer bosschen?  
Why do they prefer the coolness of the tree that grows yonder, above the shade of our own woods?
> Comparison with boven + genitive onzer: verkiezen ... boven means 'prefer ... over', using boven rather than dan. onzer bosschen is a genitive plural ('of our woods'), with onzer the inflected 'our'.

En ginds in 't noordwesten over de zee, zyn velen die ònze kinderen moesten zyn, maar die Lebak hebben verlaten om rondtedolen in vreemde streken met kris en klewang, en schietgeweer.  
And over there in the northwest, beyond the sea, there are many who ought to be our own children, but who have left Lebak to roam in strange regions with kris and klewang, and firearm.
> Perfect + purpose om ... te: hebben verlaten is the present perfect; om rondtedolen ('to roam about', separable ronddolen, 1860-joined) is a purpose clause. ònze is stressed for contrast.

En ze komen ellendig om, want er is macht van de Regeering daar, die de opstandelingen verslaat.  
And they come to a wretched end, for there is power of the Government there, which defeats the rebels.
> Separable omkomen + coordinating want: omkomen ('to perish') is separable; om stands at the clause end. want ('for') coordinates and keeps its verb second (is). die de opstandelingen verslaat is a relative clause, verb-final.

Ik vraag u, Hoofden van Bantan-Kidoel, waarom zyn er zoovelen die weggingen, om niet begraven te worden waar ze geboren zyn?  
I ask you, Chiefs of Bantan-Kidoel, why are there so many who went away, not to be buried where they were born?
> Negated passive purpose clause: om niet begraven te worden is a negated passive te-infinitive ('not to be buried'); weggingen is the strong past of separable weggaan. die relativizes zoovelen ('so many').

Waarom vraagt de boom, waar de man is dien hy als kind zag spelen aan zyn voet? * * * * *  
Why does the tree ask, where is the man it saw as a child playing at its foot? * * * * *
> Accusative relative dien + perception verb: dien is the old masculine accusative relative ('whom'); zag spelen pairs the perception verb zien with a bare infinitive ('saw playing'). The embedded clause is verb-final.

Havelaar hield hier een oogenblik op.  
Here Havelaar paused for a moment.
> Separable ophouden: ophouden ('to stop, pause') is separable; the prefix op lands at the clause end while hield (strong past) stands second. een oogenblik ('a moment') is an adverbial of duration.

Om eenigszins den indruk te begrypen dien zyn taal maakte, had men hem moeten hooren en zien.  
To grasp in some degree the impression that his speech made, one would have had to hear and see him.
> Conditional inversion + modal perfect: Fronting the purpose Om ... te ... clause inverts the main clause (had men). moeten hooren en zien is 'must have heard and seen', a modal with the perfect auxiliary had. den indruk dien is again the accusative relative.

Toen hy sprak van zyn kind, was er in zyn stem iets zachts, iets onbeschryfelyk roerends, dat uitlokte tot de vraag: "waar is de kleine?  
When he spoke of his child, there was in his voice something tender, something indescribably moving, that drew forth the question: "where is the little one?
> Fronted toen-clause + existential er: The toen-clause fills slot one, inverting was er; iets zachts ('something tender') shows the neuter -s ending adjectives take after iets/wat. onbeschryfelyk roerends repeats the pattern.

Reeds nu wil ik 't kind kussen, dat zyn vader zoo spreken doet!" Maar toen hy kort daarna, schynbaar met weinig geleidelykheid, overging tot de vragen waarom Lebak arm was, en waarom er zooveel bewoners van die streken verhuisden naar elders, klonk er in zyn toon iets dat denken deed aan 't geluid dat een boor maakt, als ze met kracht wordt geschroefd in hard hout.  
Even now I want to kiss the child that makes its father speak so!" But when, shortly afterward, with seemingly little transition, he passed to the questions of why Lebak was poor, and why so many inhabitants of those regions were moving away elsewhere, there sounded in his tone something that called to mind the noise a drill makes when it is forcibly screwed into hard wood.
> Fronted toen + V2 inversion: The long toen-clause is verb-final (overging at its end); the main clause then inverts (klonk er). zyn vader zoo spreken doet earlier uses causative doen + bare infinitive.
> worden-passive: wordt geschroefd is the process passive ('is screwed'), worden + the participle geschroefd; the als-clause is verb-final. ze refers back to the de-word boor ('drill').

Toch sprak hy niet luid, noch drukte hy byzonder op enkele woorden, en zelfs was er iets eentonigs in zyn stem, maar hetzy studie of natuur, juist deze eentonigheid maakte den indruk zyner woorden sterker op gemoederen die zoo byzonder ontvankelyk waren voor zulke taal.  
Yet he did not speak loudly, nor did he lay any particular stress on single words, and there was even something monotonous in his voice; but whether by study or by nature, it was precisely this monotony that made the impression of his words the stronger upon temperaments so peculiarly receptive to such speech.
> Fronted Toch / noch + inversion: Both Toch ('yet') and noch ('nor') trigger V2 inversion (sprak hy, drukte hy). noch continues the negation across coordinated clauses without doubling it.
> Comparative sterker + case remnant: sterker maken ('make stronger') uses the comparative sterker; den indruk keeps the accusative den. hetzy ... of is the correlative 'whether ... or'.

Zyn beelden, die altyd genomen waren uit het leven dat hem omringde, waren voor hem werkelyk hulpmiddelen tot begrypelyk maken van wat hy bedoelde, en niet, zooals vaak geschiedt, lastige aanhangsels die de zinsneden der redenaars bezwaren, zonder eenige duidelykheid toetevoegen aan 't begrip der zaak die men voorgeeft toetelichten.  
His images, always drawn from the life that surrounded him, were for him true aids toward making intelligible what he meant, and not, as so often happens, troublesome appendages that burden the clauses of orators without adding any clarity to the understanding of the matter one pretends to elucidate.
> Relative die + zijn-passive (pluperfect): die relativizes beelden; genomen waren is a state passive in the past ('had been drawn'). A second relative dat (for the het-word leven) nests inside, verb-final on omringde.
> Genitive der + relative die: der redenaars is a genitive plural ('of the orators'); die relativizes aanhangsels and is verb-final on bezwaren. toetevoegen later is separable toevoegen joined with te.

We zyn thans gewoon aan de ongerymdheid van de uitdrukking: "sterk als een leeuw" maar wie in Europa dit beeld het eerst gebruikte, toonde dat hy zyn vergelyking niet had geput uit de zielepoëzie die beelden geeft voor redeneering en niet anders spreken kan, doch zyn aanvullende gemeenplaats eenvoudig had afgeschreven uit een of ander boek--uit den bybel misschien--waarin een leeuw voorkwam.  
We are nowadays accustomed to the absurdity of the expression "strong as a lion"; but whoever in Europe first used this image showed that he had not drawn his comparison from the soul-poetry which gives images in place of reasoning and can speak in no other way, but had simply copied his stock phrase out of one book or another — out of the Bible, perhaps — in which a lion appeared.
> Headless relative wie + V2 main clause: wie ('whoever') opens a headless relative that occupies slot one; the main verb toonde then stands second. The dat-clause is verb-final (afgeschreven had at the end).

Want niemand zyner hoorders had ooit de sterkte des leeuws ondervonden, en 't ware dus veeleer noodig geweest hun die sterkte te doen beseffen door vergelyking van den leeuw met iets waarvan de kracht hun by ervaring bekend was, dan omgekeerd. Men erkenne dat Havelaar werkelyk dichter was.  
For none of his listeners had ever experienced the strength of the lion, and it would therefore rather have been necessary to make them feel that strength by comparing the lion to something whose force was known to them by experience, than the reverse. Let it be granted that Havelaar was truly a poet.
> Counterfactual ware + causative doen: 't ware ... geweest is the past subjunctive ('it would have been'); te doen beseffen is causative doen with a te-infinitive ('to make them realize'). veeleer is 'rather'.
> Pronominal adverb waarvan: waarvan ('of which') is a pronominal adverb relativizing van — 'something of which the force was known to them'. The clause is verb-final on was. Men erkenne is a hortative subjunctive.

Ieder gevoelt dat hy, sprekende van de rystvelden die er waren op de bergen, de oogen daarheen richtte door de open zyde der zaal, en dat hy die velden inderdaad zag. Men beseft, als hy den boom liet vragen waar de man was die als kind aan zyn voet gespeeld had, dat die boom daar stond en voor de verbeelding van Havelaars toehoorders in werkelykheid vragend rondstaarde naar de heengegane bewoners van Lebak.  
Everyone feels that, speaking of the rice-fields that lay upon the mountains, he turned his eyes thither through the open side of the hall, and that he really saw those fields. One senses that, when he made the tree ask where the man was who as a child had played at its foot, that tree stood there and, to the imagination of Havelaar's listeners, in very truth gazed questioningly about for the departed inhabitants of Lebak.
> Present participle sprekende + daarheen: sprekende ('speaking') is the present participle used adverbially; daarheen ('thither') is a directional pronominal adverb. The clause die er waren op de bergen embeds a relative with existential er.
> Causative laten + bare infinitive: liet vragen is causative laten with the bare infinitive vragen ('made the tree ask'); no te follows laten. The embedded indirect question waar de man was is verb-final.

Ook verzon hy niets: hy hoorde den boom spreken, en meende slechts natezeggen wat hy in zyn dichterlyke opvatting zoo duidelyk verstaan had.  
Nor did he invent anything: he heard the tree speak, and meant only to repeat what, in his poetic apprehension, he had understood so clearly.
> Fronted Ook + negative niets: The fronted Ook ('also') inverts the verb (verzon hy). niets ('nothing') is the single clause negative — Dutch uses one negative word, never a double. verzon is the strong past of verzinnen.
> Perception hoorde + bare infinitive; te-infinitive: hoorde ... spreken pairs the perception verb with a bare infinitive ('heard the tree speak'); natezeggen is separable nazeggen joined with te ('to repeat'). den boom keeps the case remnant.

Wanneer misschien iemand de opmerking maken mocht, dat het oorspronkelyke in Havelaars wyze van spreken niet zoo onbetwistbaar is, daar zyn taal denken doet aan den styl der profeten van 't Oude-Testament, moet ik herinneren reeds gezegd te hebben dat hy in oogenblikken van vervoering werkelyk iets had van een ziener. Gevoed door de indrukken die 't leven in wouden en op bergen hem had meegedeeld, omgeven door de poëzie-ademende atmosfeer van het oosten, en alzoo scheppende uit gelyksoortige bron als de Vermaners der Oudheid waarmee men soms zich genoopt voelde hem te vergelyken, gissen wy dat hy niet ànders zou gesproken hebben, ook wanneer hy nooit de heerlyke dichtstukken van het Oude-Testament gelezen had.  
Should anyone perhaps make the observation that the originality in Havelaar's manner of speaking is not so incontestable, since his language calls to mind the style of the prophets of the Old Testament, I must recall that I have already said he had, in moments of rapture, truly something of a seer. Nourished by the impressions that life in forests and on mountains had imparted to him, surrounded by the poetry-breathing atmosphere of the East, and thus drawing from a source like that of the Admonishers of antiquity, with whom one sometimes felt compelled to compare him, we surmise that he would not have spoken any differently, even had he never read the glorious poems of the Old Testament.
> Conditional wanneer + modal mocht: The fronted wanneer-clause ('should anyone...') uses the past modal mocht for tentative possibility and is verb-final (maken mocht); the main clause then inverts (moet ik). Gevoed / omgeven / scheppende are participles building a long periodic sentence.
> Past participles as absolute phrases: Gevoed ('nourished') and omgeven ('surrounded') are past participles opening absolute adjectival phrases describing Havelaar; door marks the agent. The main clause inverts to gissen wy.

Vinden we niet reeds in de verzen die van zyn jeugd dagteekenen, regels als deze, die geschreven waren op den Salak--een der reuzen, maar niet de grootste, onder de bergen van de Preanger Regentschappen--waarin alweder de aanhef de zachtheid zyner aandoeningen teekent, om op-eens overtegaan in 't naspreken van den donder dien hy onder zich hoort: 't Is zoeter hier zijn Maker luid te loven... 't Gebed klinkt schoon langs berg- en heuvelrij...  
Do we not find already, in the verses dating from his youth, lines such as these, which were written on the Salak — one of the giants, though not the greatest, among the mountains of the Preanger Regencies — in which once again the opening marks the softness of his emotions, only to pass all at once into the echoing of the thunder he hears beneath him: 'Tis sweeter here to praise aloud one's Maker... The prayer rings fair along the ridge and hill...
> Rhetorical question + zijn-passive (past): Vinden we niet fronts the verb for a rhetorical question; geschreven waren is a past state passive ('had been written'). deze is the near demonstrative 'these'.

Veel meer dan ginds rijst hier het hart naar boven: Men is zijn God op bergen meer nabij! Hier schiep Hijzelf altaar en tempelkoren, Nog door geen tred van 's menschen voet ontwijd, Hier doet Hij zich in 't raat'lend onweer hooren...  
Far more than yonder does the heart rise heavenward here: One is upon the mountains nearer to one's God! Here God Himself made altar and temple choirs, By tread of human foot not yet profaned, Here in the rattling tempest He makes Himself heard...
> Impersonal men + comparison meer nabij: men ('one') is the impersonal subject; meer nabij ('nearer') is an analytic comparative. Note these verses use modern -ij spelling (rijst, Hij), unlike the surrounding 1860 prose's y.
> Fronted Hier + zijn-passive participle: The fronted Hier inverts the verb (schiep Hij). ontwijd ('profaned') is a participle in a reduced passive; geen tred negates the indefinite noun. schiep is the strong past of scheppen.

En rollend roept Zijn donder: Majesteit!(*) (*)Frits zegt: ijd en eit rijmt niet, althans niet in Friesland en Zeeland.  
And rolling His thunder cries: Majesty!(*) (*)Frits says: ijd and eit do not rhyme, at least not in Friesland and Zeeland.
> Present participle rollend + inversion: rollend ('rolling') is a present participle used adverbially; the fronted En rollend triggers inversion (roept Zijn donder). The footnote is Frits's pedantic objection about rhyme.

Die Sjaalman schijnt dan niet eens verzen te maken, die deugen. 't Is waar, 't was in zijn jeugd. B.  
That Sjaalman, it seems, cannot even write verses that are any good. True enough, it was in his youth. B.
> Sjaalman and deugen: Sjaalman ('Shawl-man') is Droogstoppel's contemptuous name for the impoverished author of the manuscript (Havelaar's alter ego). deugen means 'to be any good, be worth something'; the demonstrative die ('that') drips with disdain.

Droogstoppel ... en gevoelt men niet, dat hy de laatste regels niet zóó had kunnen schryven, als hy niet werkelyk had meenen te hooren en te verstaan hoe Gods donder hem die regels in klaterende trilling tegen de wanden van 't gebergte toeriep?  
Droogstoppel ... and does one not feel that he could not have written those last lines so, had he not really believed he heard and understood how God's thunder roared those lines to him in clattering vibration against the walls of the mountain range?
> Modal perfect in a counterfactual: had kunnen schryven is 'could have written' (modal kunnen + perfect had), inside a counterfactual: he could not have written so 'had he not really believed...'. The als-clause is verb-final.

Maar hy hield niet van verzen. "Het was een leelyk ryglyf" zeide hy, en als hy er toe gebracht werd iets te lezen van wat hy "begaan" had, zooals hy zich uitdrukte, schiep hy er vermaak in, zyn eigen werk te bederven, òf door 't voortedragen op een toon die 't belachelyk maken moest, òf door op-eenmaal, vooral by een hoogst-ernstigen passus, aftebreken, en er een kwinkslag tusschen te werpen, die de toehoorders pynlyk aandeed, maar die by hem niets anders was dan een bloedige satire op de onevenredigheid tusschen dat keurslyf en zyn ziel die zich daarin zoo benauwd voelde.  
But he had no love for verses. "It was an ugly corset," he would say, and when he was brought to read aloud something of what he had "perpetrated," as he put it, he took pleasure in spoiling his own work — either by delivering it in a tone meant to make it ridiculous, or by breaking off all of a sudden, especially at a highly earnest passage, and throwing in some jest that pained the listeners, but that with him was nothing other than a savage satire on the disproportion between that strait-jacket and his soul, which felt itself so cramped within it.
> worden-passive (past) + pronominal er ... toe: gebracht werd is the process passive in the past ('was brought'); er ... toe ('to it') is a split pronominal adverb. The als-clause is verb-final on werd.
> Correlative òf ... òf + nominalized infinitive: òf ... òf is the correlative 'either ... or'; 't voortedragen and aftebreken are nominalized te-infinitives of separable verbs (voordragen, afbreken). schiep ... in is separable scheppen in ('took pleasure in').

Er waren onder de Hoofden slechts weinigen die van de rondgediende ververschingen iets gebruikten. Havelaar had namelyk met een wenk gelast, de by zoodanige gelegenheid onvermydelyke thee met maniessan rondtedienen.  
There were among the chiefs only a few who partook of anything from the refreshments handed round. Havelaar had, namely, ordered by a sign that the tea with maniessan, unavoidable on such an occasion, be served round.
> Existential er + relative die: Er waren ... weinigen ('there were only few') is existential; die relativizes weinigen and is verb-final on gebruikten. de rondgediende ververschingen uses a participle rondgediend as an attributive adjective.
> Causative gelasten + separable te-infinitive: gelasten ('to order') governs a te-infinitive; rondtedienen is separable ronddienen ('serve round') joined with te. namelyk ('namely') is an explanatory connector.

Het scheen dat hy met voordacht na de laatste zinsnede zyner toespraak een rustpunt wilde laten. En hier was reden toe.  
It seemed that he wished, with deliberate purpose, to leave a pause after the last clause of his address. And there was reason for this.
> Impersonal het scheen + modal laten: het scheen dat ('it seemed that') uses dummy het; the dat-clause is verb-final with the modal/causative cluster wilde laten ('wished to leave') at the end.
> Split pronominal adverb hier ... toe: hier ... toe ('reason for this') is a pronominal adverb whose two halves are split, with reden between them — 'there was reason for this'. The fronted hier inverts the verb (was).

"Hoe, moesten de Hoofden denken, hy weet reeds dat er zoovelen onze Afdeeling verlieten, met bitterheid in 't hart? Reeds is hem bekend hoeveel huisgezinnen naar naburige landstreken verhuisden, om de armoede te ontwyken die hier heerscht?  
"How," the chiefs must have thought, "he already knows that so many left our District with bitterness in their hearts? Already it is known to him how many households moved away to neighboring regions, to escape the poverty that reigns here?
> dat-clause verb-final + existential er: dat sends the verb verlieten ('left', strong past of verlaten) to the end; er zoovelen ('so many') is existential. reeds ('already') stresses the chiefs' alarm.
> Purpose om ... te + relative die: om ... te ontwyken ('in order to escape') is a purpose clause; die relativizes armoede and is verb-final on heerscht ('reigns'). verhuisden is the weak past 'moved house'.

En zelfs weet hy dat er zooveel Bantammers zyn onder de benden die in de Lampongs de vaan des opstands hebben ontrold tegen 't nederlandsch gezag? Wat wil hy?  
And he even knows that there are so many Bantammers among the bands that in the Lampongs have unfurled the banner of revolt against the Dutch authority? What does he want?
> Stacked verb-final clauses: dat ... zyn is verb-final, and the nested relative die ... hebben ontrold ('that have unfurled') is also verb-final — Dutch routinely stacks such end-weighted clauses. de vaan des opstands keeps the genitive des.

Wat bedoelt hy? Wien gelden zyne vragen?  
What does he mean? At whom are his questions aimed?
> Interrogative dative wien: wien is the old dative interrogative ('at/to whom'); gelden ('to be aimed at, apply to') takes it. The fronted wien inverts the verb. This case form survives in 1860 questions.

En er waren er die Radhen Wiera Koesoema, het distriktshoofd van Parang-Koedjang aanzagen. Maar de meesten sloegen de oogen ter-aarde.  
And there were some who looked at Radhen Wiera Koesoema, the district-chief of Parang-Koedjang. But the most of them cast their eyes to the ground.
> Double er + relative die: The first Er is existential, the second er is the quantitative 'of them' (er waren er ≈ 'there were some'); die relativizes them, verb-final on aanzagen ('looked at'). de meesten sloegen de oogen ter-aarde follows.

"Kom eens hier, Max!" riep Havelaar, die zyn kind gewaar werd, spelende op het erf, en de Regent nam den kleine op den schoot. Maar deze was te wild om daar lang te blyven.  
"Come here a moment, Max!" called Havelaar, who caught sight of his child playing on the yard, and the Regent took the little one upon his lap. But the boy was too wild to stay there long.
> gewaar worden + present participle spelende: gewaar worden is a fixed phrase 'to become aware of, catch sight of'; spelende ('playing') is the present participle modifying kind. de Regent nam den kleine op den schoot keeps two case remnants.
> Demonstrative deze + om ... te: deze ('this one') is the near demonstrative standing for the child; te wild om ... te blyven is the 'too X to Y' construction ('too wild to stay'). riep / nam are strong pasts.

Hy sprong weg, en liep den grooten kring rond, en vermaakte de Hoofden door zyn gekeuvel, en speelde met de gevesten van hun krissen. Toen hy by den Djaksa kwam, die de aandacht van 't kind trok omdat hy sierlyker dan de anderen gekleed was scheen deze iets op 't hoofd van kleinen Max te wyzen aan den Kliwon die naast hem zat en een gefluisterde opmerking daarover scheen te beamen.  
He sprang away, and ran round the great circle, and entertained the chiefs with his prattle, and played with the hilts of their krisses. When he came to the Djaksa, who drew the child's attention because he was dressed more elegantly than the others, the latter seemed to point out something on little Max's head to the Kliwon, who sat beside him and seemed to confirm a whispered remark about it.
> Separable wegspringen + rondlopen: Two separable verbs: wegspringen splits (weg to the end) and the rond of rondlopen lands clause-finally (liep ... rond). The three main clauses are joined by coordinating en, none verb-final. krissen is the plural of kris.
> Causal omdat + comparative sierlyker: omdat ('because') sends gekleed was to the clause end; sierlyker dan de anderen ('more elegantly than the others') is the comparative with dan. die relativizes Djaksa.

--Ga nu heen, Max, zei Havelaar, papa heeft iets aan die heeren te zeggen. De kleine liep weg nadat hy met kushandjes gegroet had.  
"Go away now, Max," said Havelaar; "papa has something to say to these gentlemen." The little one ran off after he had greeted them with blown kisses.
> Imperative + separable heengaan; nadat-clause: Ga ... heen is an imperative of separable heengaan ('go away'); liep weg is separable weglopen. nadat ('after') sends gegroet had to the clause end.
> kushandjes — blown kisses (diminutive): kushandjes is the diminutive plural of kushand ('a kiss thrown from the hand'); the -je suffix here conveys the small, endearing gesture of the child. Diminutives are always neuter.

Hierop ging Havelaar aldus voort: --Hoofden van Lebak!  
Hereupon Havelaar continued thus: "Chiefs of Lebak!
> Fronted Hierop + separable voortgaan: Hierop ('hereupon') is a pronominal adverb fronted to slot one, inverting the verb (ging Havelaar); voortgaan ('to continue') is separable, voort landing at the clause end. aldus means 'thus'.

Wy allen staan in dienst des Konings van Nederland. Maar Hy, die rechtvaardig is, en wil dat wy onzen plicht doen, is vèr van hier.  
We all stand in the service of the King of the Netherlands. But He, who is just, and wills that we do our duty, is far from here.
> Genitive des Konings: des Konings is the masculine singular genitive ('of the King'), with the -s on both article and noun — a frozen case form. Hy, die rechtvaardig is ... uses a relative die referring to the King.

Dertig-maal duizend-maal duizend zielen, ja, meer dan zooveel, zyn gehouden zyn bevelen te gehoorzamen, maar hy kan niet wezen naby allen die afhangen van zynen wil.  
Thirty times a thousand times a thousand souls, yes, more than so many, are bound to obey his commands, but he cannot be near all who depend upon his will.
> zijn-passive gehouden + te-infinitive: gehouden zyn te ('to be bound to') is a fixed passive-of-obligation; te gehoorzamen ('to obey') is the te-infinitive. naby allen die afhangen van zynen wil uses a relative die. zynen keeps the case ending.

De Groote-Heer te Buitenzorg is rechtvaardig, en wil dat ieder zyn plicht doe. Maar ook deze, machtig als hy is, en gebiedende over al wat gezag heeft in de steden en over allen die in de dorpen de oudsten zyn, en beschikkende over de macht des legers en over de schepen die op zee varen ook hy kan niet zien waar onrecht gepleegd is, want het onrecht blyft verre van hem.  
The Great Lord at Buitenzorg is just, and wills that each do his duty. But even he, mighty as he is, and commanding over all that holds authority in the cities and over all who are the elders in the villages, and disposing over the power of the armies and over the ships that sail upon the sea — even he cannot see where injustice has been done, for the injustice stays far from him.
> Present participles gebiedende / beschikkende: gebiedende ('commanding') and beschikkende ('disposing') are present participles forming long adverbial phrases; concessive 'machtig als hy is' ('mighty as he is') inverts after itself. des legers / des Konings are genitives.

En de resident te Serang, die heer is over de landstreek Bantam, waar vyf-maal-honderd-duizend menschen wonen, wil dat er recht geschiede in zyn gebied, en dat er rechtvaardigheid heersche in de landschappen die hem gehoorzamen.  
And the resident at Serang, who is lord over the region of Bantam, where five times a hundred thousand people dwell, wills that justice be done in his territory, and that righteousness reign in the lands that obey him.
> Subjunctive geschiede / heersche after wil: geschiede and heersche are present-subjunctive forms ('that justice be done / reign'), used after wil to express a wish; the dat-clauses are verb-final. existential er introduces each.

Doch waar onrecht is, woont hy verre.  
Yet where injustice is, he dwells far off.

En wie boosheid doet, verschuilt zich voor zyn aangezicht omdat hy straffe vreest.  
And whoever does evil hides himself from his face, because he fears punishment.
> Headless wie + reflexive + omdat: wie ('whoever') opens a headless relative filling slot one; zich verschuilen ('to hide oneself') is reflexive; omdat ('because') sends vreest to the end. straffe is an archaic accusative of straf.

En de heer Adhipatti, die Regent is van Zuid-Bantam, wil dat ieder leve die het goede betracht, en dat er geen schande zy over de landstreek die zyn regentschap is.  
And the lord Adhipatti, who is Regent of South Bantam, wills that everyone live who pursues the good, and that there be no disgrace over the region that is his regency.
> Subjunctives leve / zy + geen: leve and zy are present subjunctives after wil ('that everyone live / that there be no disgrace'); geen schande negates the indefinite noun. die zyn regentschap is uses a relative die, verb-final.

En ik, die gisteren den Almachtigen God tot getuige nam dat ik rechtvaardig zou zyn en goedertieren, dat ik recht zou doen zonder vrees en zonder haat, dat ik zal zyn: "een goed adsistent-resident" ... ook ik wensch te doen wat myn plicht is.  
And I, who yesterday took Almighty God as my witness that I would be just and merciful, that I would do justice without fear and without hatred, that I would be "a good assistant-resident" ... I too wish to do what is my duty.
> Relative die + reported conditional zou: die relativizes ik, governing a long verb-final clause (nam at its end); the embedded oaths use the conditional zou ... zyn ('would be') in indirect speech. den Almachtigen God keeps the case remnant.

Hoofden van Lebak! Dit wenschen wy allen!  
Chiefs of Lebak! This we all wish!

Maar als er soms onder ons mochten zyn, die hun plicht verwaarloozen voor gewin, die het recht verkoopen voor geld, of die den buffel van den arme nemen, en de vruchten die behooren aan wie honger hebben ... wie zal ze straffen? Als een van u het wist, hy zou 't beletten.  
But if there should sometimes be among us those who neglect their duty for gain, who sell justice for money, or who take the buffalo of the poor man, and the fruits that belong to those who hunger ... who shall punish them? If one of you knew of it, he would prevent it.
> Conditional modal mochten + relative die: mochten zyn ('there should be', tentative modal) makes the condition hypothetical; three relative die-clauses follow, each verb-final (verwaarloozen, verkoopen, nemen). The als-clause sets up the central question.
> Counterfactual als + conditional zou: wist (past) in the als-clause is counterfactual ('if one of you knew'), and the main clause uses zou ... beletten ('would prevent it'). beletten is 'to prevent'.

En de Regent zou niet dulden dat zoo-iets geschiedde in zyn regentschap. En ook ik zal het tegengaan waar ik kan.  
And the Regent would not tolerate that such a thing happened in his regency. And I too shall counter it wherever I can.
> Conditional zou + subjunctive geschiedde: zou ... dulden is the conditional ('would not tolerate'); the dat-clause uses geschiedde (past subjunctive 'should happen'), verb-final. ook ik fronts for emphasis, inverting (zal ik) implicitly.

Maar als noch gy noch de Adhipatti noch ik het wisten ... Hoofden van Lebak!  
But if neither you, nor the Adhipatti, nor I knew of it ... Chiefs of Lebak!
> noch ... noch ... noch (spread negation): The triple noch ('neither ... nor ... nor') spreads a single negation across three subjects without doubling it — 'if neither you, nor the Adhipatti, nor I knew'. The als-clause is verb-final on wisten.

Wie toch zal dan recht doen in Bantan-Kidoel? Hoort naar my, als ik u zeggen zal hoe er dan recht zal gedaan worden.  
Who then shall do justice in Bantan-Kidoel? Listen to me, as I shall tell you how justice shall then be done.
> Imperative Hoort + future passive: Hoort is the archaic plural imperative 'listen (you all)'; zal gedaan worden is a future passive ('shall be done'), stacking zal + the passive worden. The als- and hoe-clauses are verb-final.

Er komt een tyd dat onze vrouwen en kinderen schreien zullen by het gereedmaken van ons doodkleed, en de voorbyganger zal zeggen: "daar is een mensch gestorven." Dan zal wie aankomt in de dorpen, tyding brengen van den dood desgenen die gestorven is, en wie hem herbergt zal vragen: "wie was de man die gestorven is?" En men zal zeggen:  
There comes a time when our wives and children will weep at the making-ready of our shroud, and the passerby will say: "there a man has died." Then whoever arrives in the villages will bring tidings of the death of him who has died, and whoever takes him in will ask: "who was the man who has died?" And they will say:
> Existential er + relative dat + future: Er komt een tyd ('there comes a time') is existential; the relative dat introduces a verb-final clause with the future schreien zullen. by het gereedmaken is a nominalized separable infinitive.
> Genitive desgenen + zijn-perfect: desgenen is the genitive of degene ('of him who'), a heavy 1860 case form; gestorven is uses zijn as auxiliary (death always takes zijn). den dood keeps the case remnant.

"Hy was goed en rechtvaardig.  
"He was good and just.

Hy sprak recht en verstootte den klager niet van zyn deur.  
He spoke justice and did not turn the complainant away from his door.
> niet negating the verb + case remnant: niet negates the verb verstootte ('did not turn away'); den klager keeps the old accusative den. verstootte is the weak past of verstoten.

Hy hoorde geduldig aan, wie tot hem kwam, en gaf weder wat ontnomen was.  
He listened patiently to whoever came to him, and gave back what had been taken away.
> Separable aanhoren + headless wie/wat + passive: aanhoren ('to listen to') is separable (aan to the end); wie ('whoever') and wat ('what(ever)') are headless relatives. wat ontnomen was is a past state passive ('what had been taken'). weder is archaic 'again/back'.

En wie den ploeg niet dryven kon door den grond omdat de buffel uit den stal was gehaald, hielp hy zoeken naar den buffel. En waar de dochter was geroofd uit het huis der moeder, zocht hy den dief en bracht de dochter weder.  
And whoever could not drive the plow through the ground because the buffalo had been hauled out of the stall, he helped to search for the buffalo. And where the daughter had been carried off from the mother's house, he sought the thief and brought the daughter back.
> Fronted free relative resets the verb: The whole 'wie ... kon' clause fills the first position, so the main clause inverts to put the finite verb 'hielp' second, before the subject 'hy'. This verb-second rule is the backbone of Dutch main-clause order.
> Frozen accusative -n: den: 1860 prose still marks masculine nouns as direct objects (or objects of a preposition) with den, a leftover of the old case system that modern Dutch has dropped. Here den ploeg, den grond, den buffel are all objects.
> Pluperfect passive: 'was gehaald' and 'was geroofd' pair the past tense of zijn with a past participle to say the action had been done to the subject before the main events. It is the past form of the worden/zijn passive.
> Genitive der: 'der moeder' is an old genitive ('of the mother'), where der marks a feminine/possessive form that modern Dutch would render as van de moeder. These inflected genitives give the speech its biblical weight.
> weder = 'back, again': An archaic adverb meaning 'back' or 'again' (modern terug / weer); 'bracht de dochter weder' means 'brought the daughter back'. It survives today only in compounds like wederkeren.

En waar men gearbeid had onthield hy het loon niet, en hy ontnam de vruchten niet aan wie den boom geplant hadden.  
And where men had labored, he did not withhold the wages, and he did not take the fruits from those who had planted the tree.
> Impersonal 'men' + pluperfect: 'men' is the generic 'one/people', and 'had gearbeid' is the pluperfect (imperfect of hebben + participle) describing labour completed before the main verb. The subordinate clause sends 'had' to the end.
> niet negates the whole clause: Because 'het loon' is already a definite object, full negation falls to niet placed late in the clause: 'he did not withhold the wage'. Compare geen, which would be needed only for an indefinite object.
> iets ontnemen aan iemand: ontnemen means to take (something) away from someone, governed by the preposition aan: 'hy ontnam de vruchten niet aan wie ...' = he did not take the fruits away from those who ... The past tense ontnam is strong.

Hy kleedde zich niet met het kleed dat anderen dekken moest, noch voedde zich met voedsel dat den arme behoorde."  
He did not clothe himself with the garment that was meant to cover others, nor feed himself with the food that belonged to the poor."
> Reflexive zich: zich is the third-person reflexive pronoun: 'kleedde zich' = clothed himself, 'voedde zich' = fed himself. Dutch uses zich for he/she/it/they; the other persons use me/je/ons.
> Modal pushes the verb to the clause end: In the relative clause the modal 'moest' carries the tense while the main verb 'dekken' stands as a bare infinitive at the very end: 'that was meant to cover others'. Modals always send their verb to the end as an infinitive.
> Dative den arme: behoren ('to belong to') takes a dative object, here marked by the old -n: 'dat den arme behoorde' = that belonged to the poor man. The case ending is a remnant preserved in 1860 prose.
> noch = 'nor': A literary correlative conjunction meaning 'nor'. Here it links the two things the just man did not do; in pairs it appears as noch ... noch ('neither ... nor').

Dan zal men zeggen in de dorpen--"Allah is groot, Allah heeft hem tot zich genomen.  
Then they will say in the villages — "Allah is great, Allah has taken him to Himself.
> Future with zullen + V2: 'zal ... zeggen' is the future (zullen + infinitive), and because the adverb 'Dan' opens the sentence the finite 'zal' inverts to second position before 'men'. The infinitive zeggen waits at the end.
> Present perfect + reflexive 'tot zich': 'heeft ... genomen' is the present perfect, with the participle at the end; 'tot zich nemen' literally 'to take to oneself' uses the reflexive zich to mean 'has taken him to Himself'.

Zyn wil geschiedde ... er is een goed mensch gestorven."  
His will was done ... a good man has died."
> Weak imperfect 'geschiedde': geschiedde is the simple past of geschieden ('to come to pass, be done'), a solemn verb echoing scripture ('His will was done'). The narrative past drives this whole funereal passage.
> Presentative 'er' with the perfect: er fills the subject slot to introduce something new: 'er is ... gestorven' = 'there has died ...'. The real subject 'een goed mensch' follows, and the participle gestorven closes the clause.
> Period spelling: y for ij: 1860 print writes the ij-sound as a plain y: Zyn = zijn ('his'), myn = mijn ('my'). Expect this throughout Multatuli's page.

Doch andermaal zal de voorbyganger stilstaan voor een huis, en vragen, "wat is dit, dat de gamlang zwygt, en het gezang der meisjes?" En wederom zal men zeggen: er is een man gestorven."  
But another time the passerby will halt before a house, and ask, "what is this, that the gamlang is silent, and the singing of the girls?" And again they will say: "there a man has died."
> Separable verb stilstaan: stilstaan ('to halt, stand still') is separable, but here the future zal keeps the infinitive whole at the end: 'zal ... stilstaan'. In a finite main clause the prefix stil would instead split off to the end.
> Archaic register markers: doch ('but, yet'), andermaal ('another time'), and wederom ('again') are solemn, literary words chosen to lend the speech a scriptural tone. Modern Dutch would say maar, nog een keer, opnieuw.
> Relative dat for a neuter idea: 'dit, dat ...' uses the relative pronoun dat to expand on the neuter 'dit': 'what is this, that the gamelan falls silent'. Subordinate dat sends its verb zwygt toward the end.

En wie rondreist in de dorpen, zal 's avends zitten by zyn gastheer, en om hem heen de zonen en dochteren van het huis, en de kinderen van wie het dorp bewonen, en hy zal zeggen:  
And whoever travels round the villages will sit of an evening with his host, and around him the sons and daughters of the house, and the children of those who inhabit the village, and he will say:
> Free relative subject + V2 inversion: The headless relative 'wie rondreist in de dorpen' is the whole subject; because it occupies first position the future 'zal' inverts before the infinitive zitten. rondreist itself is a separable verb (rond + reizen) here kept together in its subordinate clause.
> Frozen genitive 's avends: 's avends (modern 's avonds) is a fossilized genitive of de avond meaning 'of an evening, in the evenings'. The 's is a worn-down des, a relic of the old case system.
> Headless relative 'wie' = 'those who': wie without an antecedent means 'those who': 'de kinderen van wie het dorp bewonen' = the children of those who inhabit the village. The verb bewonen sits at the end of its relative clause.

"Daar stierf een man die beloofde rechtvaardig te zyn, en hy verkocht het recht aan wie hem geld gaf.  
"There died a man who promised to be just, and he sold justice to whoever gave him money.
> te + infinitive after beloven: beloven ('to promise') governs a following infinitive with te: 'beloofde ... te zyn' = promised to be. The te-infinitive closes the clause.
> Strong past verkocht / gaf: Both verbs are simple past: verkocht (from verkopen) and gaf (from geven), a strong verb that changes its vowel e>a. The narrative past carries this villainous portrait.

Hy mestte zyn akker met het zweet van den arbeider dien hy had afgeroepen van den akker des arbeids.  
He manured his field with the sweat of the laborer whom he had called away from the field of labor.
> Relative dien (accusative): dien is the old accusative of the relative die, used because 'the labourer' is the object of had afgeroepen: 'the labourer whom he had called away'. Modern Dutch keeps only die. afroepen is separable, here in the pluperfect.
> Genitive des: des arbeids is a masculine/neuter genitive ('of labour'), with both des and the noun's -s ending inflected. It is a deliberately archaic, biblical-sounding 'field of labour'.
> mesten = 'to manure': mesten literally means to dung or fatten land; 'hy mestte zyn akker met het zweet van den arbeider' is a savage image — he fertilized his field with the worker's sweat.

Hy onthield den werkman zyn loon, en voedde zich met het voedsel van den arme.  
He withheld the workman's wages, and fed himself with the food of the poor.
> Dative den werkman: onthouden ('to withhold from') takes a dative object: den werkman ('from the workman'), marked with the old -n, while zyn loon is the thing withheld. A double-object construction frozen in period case.
> Reflexive zich voeden: zich voeden ('to feed oneself') again uses the reflexive zich; van den arme keeps the -n of the substantivized adjective 'the poor man'.

Hy is ryk geworden van de armoede der anderen.  
He grew rich from the poverty of others.
> Perfect with zijn: worden: Verbs of change of state form the perfect with zijn, not hebben: 'is ... geworden' = has become. ryk geworden = 'grown rich'. The participle geworden is strong.
> Genitive der anderen: der anderen marks the plural genitive 'of the others' — an inflected form modern Dutch replaces with van de anderen. It heightens the formal register.

Hy had veel gouds en zilvers en edele steenen in menigte, doch de landbouwer die in de nabuurschap woont, wist den honger niet te stillen van zyn kind.  
He had much gold and silver and precious stones in abundance, yet the husbandman who dwells in the neighborhood could not still the hunger of his child.
> Partitive genitive: gouds, zilvers: After veel ('much'), the old partitive genitive adds -s to the noun: veel gouds = 'much (of) gold', veel zilvers = 'much silver'. This inflection survives now only in fixed phrases like iets lekkers.
> wisten te + infinitive: weten te + infinitive means 'to manage / be able to': 'wist ... niet te stillen' = could not still. The te-infinitive te stillen closes the clause, with the object den honger fronted before it.
> Relative die for a de-word: die introduces a relative clause modifying de landbouwer (a de-word/common gender), and the verb woont moves to the end of that subordinate clause.

Hy glimlachte als een gelukkig mensch, maar men hoorde gekners tusschen de tanden van den klager die recht zocht.  
He smiled like a happy man, but one heard the grinding of teeth from the complainant who sought justice.
> Imperfect hoorde + relative clause: hoorde is the weak simple past of horen (stem + de). 'den klager die recht zocht' has the relative die opening a clause whose verb zocht (strong past of zoeken) lands at the end.
> gekners = 'gnashing': gekners is the grinding or gnashing of teeth; the ge-...-s pattern (a verbal noun of knersen) names a repeated sound. tusschen is the period spelling of tussen.

Er was tevredenheid op zyn gelaat, maar geen zog in de borsten der moeders die zoogden."  
There was contentment on his face, but no milk in the breasts of the mothers who suckled."
> Existential er was: er + a form of zijn states existence: 'Er was tevredenheid' = 'There was contentment'. The dummy er holds the front field so the real subject can follow.
> geen negates an indefinite noun: geen ('no, not any') is required to negate the indefinite zog ('milk'): 'geen zog' = no milk. der moeders is again a genitive plural, and the relative die zoogden ends in its verb.
> zog / zogen = breast-milk / to suckle: zog is mother's milk and zogen (here past zoogden) is to suckle; the bitter contrast is the tyrant's full face against nursing mothers who have run dry.

Dan zullen de bewoners der dorpen zeggen: "Allah is groot ... wy vloeken niemand!"  
Then the people of the villages will say: "Allah is great ... we curse no one!"
> Future zullen with fronted 'Dan': The opening adverb Dan forces inversion, so plural zullen stands second before its subject; the infinitive zeggen waits at the end. der dorpen is once more a genitive plural.
> Negative word niemand: niemand ('no one') is a single inherent negative; Dutch allows only one negative per clause, so no extra niet appears. 'wy vloeken niemand' = we curse no one.

Hoofden van Lebak, eens sterven wy allen!  
Chiefs of Lebak, one day we shall all die!
> Fronted adverb 'eens' triggers inversion: With the time-adverb eens ('one day, once') in first position, the verb sterven precedes the subject wy — verb-second inversion. eens here means 'someday', not 'once upon a time'.

Wat zal er gezegd worden in de dorpen waar wy gezag hadden?  
What will be said in the villages where we held authority?
> worden-passive in the future: 'zal ... gezegd worden' is the process passive (worden + past participle) set in the future with zullen: 'what will be said'. The impersonal er fills the subject slot since there is no agent.
> Relative adverb waar: waar ('where') introduces a relative clause about a place; the verb hadden moves to the end. 'de dorpen waar wy gezag hadden' = the villages where we held authority.

En wàt door de voorbygangers die de begrafenis aanschouwen?  
And what by the passers-by who watch the burial?
> Separable aanschouwen in a relative clause: aanschouwen ('to behold') is separable, but in the verb-final relative clause it stays whole at the end: 'die de begrafenis aanschouwen' = who watch the burial.
> Elliptical 'wàt' with grave accent: The grave accent on wàt marks contrastive stress — 'and WHAT (will be said) by the passers-by'. The verb 'zal gezegd worden' is gapped from the previous sentence.

En wat zullen wy antwoorden, als er na onzen dood een stem spreekt tot onze ziel, en vraagt: "waarom is er geween in de velden, en waarom verbergen zich de jongelingen?  
And what shall we answer when, after our death, a voice speaks to our soul and asks: "Why is there weeping in the fields, and why do the young men hide themselves?
> Subordinator als sends the verb back: als ('when, if') opens a subordinate clause, so the verb spreekt would normally close it; here the presentative er and the time-phrase na onzen dood precede the late-standing real subject een stem. onzen keeps the old accusative -n.
> Reflexive verbergen zich: zich verbergen = 'to hide oneself'; the question word waarom triggers inversion so the verb verbergen stands before the subject de jongelingen, with reflexive zich close behind.
> Existential er with geween: 'is er geween' uses er to assert existence: 'is there weeping'. geween is a ge-...-noun naming the act of weeping.

Wie nam den oogst uit de schuren, en uit de stallen den buffel die het veld ploegen zou?  
Who took the harvest from the barns, and from the stalls the buffalo that was to plough the field?
> Strong past nam: nam is the strong simple past of nemen (e>a). 'Wie nam ...' = 'Who took ...'. den oogst carries the old accusative -n.
> Conditional/future zou at the end: 'die het veld ploegen zou' = 'that was to plough the field'. In this relative clause the finite zou (past of zullen) follows its infinitive ploegen, both stacked at the verb-final position.

Wat hebt gy gedaan met den broeder dien ik u gaf te bewaken?  
What have you done with the brother whom I gave you to watch over?
> Archaic pronoun gy: gy (also ge) is the literary/biblical 'you' of 1860, used for solemn address; modern Dutch uses jij/u. 'Wat hebt gy gedaan' = 'What have you done', in the present perfect.
> Accusative relative dien + te-infinitive: dien is the old accusative of die ('whom'), the object of gaf; 'te bewaken' is a te-infinitive of purpose, 'to watch over'. Together: 'the brother whom I gave you to guard'.

Waarom is de arme treurig en vloekt de vruchtbaarheid zyner vrouw?"  
Why is the poor man sorrowful, and why does he curse the fruitfulness of his wife?"
> Question-word inversion across a conjunction: waarom fronts the question and inverts both verbs: 'is de arme treurig' and (waarom) 'vloekt de vruchtbaarheid'. The single waarom governs both coordinated clauses.
> Genitive possessive zyner: zyner is an inflected genitive of zijn ('his'): 'de vruchtbaarheid zyner vrouw' = the fruitfulness of his wife. This declined possessive is purely literary/archaic.

Hier hield Havelaar weder op, en na eenig zwygen ging hy op de eenvoudigsten toon van de wereld, en als had er volstrekt niets dat indruk maken moest, voort:  
Here Havelaar broke off once more, and after some silence he went on, in the plainest tone in the world, and as though nothing at all in it were meant to make an impression:
> Separable verb ophouden splits: ophouden ('to stop, break off') splits in a finite main clause: the stem hield goes second (after fronted Hier) and the prefix op lands later — 'Hier hield Havelaar weder op'.
> Separable voortgaan around a clause: voortgaan ('to continue') wraps the whole sentence: finite ging stands early, and its prefix voort waits all the way at the end after several intervening phrases. A vivid example of the separable-verb bracket.
> Superlative eenvoudigste(n): eenvoudigsten is the superlative of eenvoudig ('simplest, plainest'), here with an old inflectional -n. The construction 'de ...ste van de wereld' = 'the ...est in the world'.
> Counterfactual 'als had' (subjunctive-style inversion): 'als had er ...' inverts the verb to express 'as if there had been ...', a literary counterfactual with als-of suppressed. The modal moest sends maken to the end.

--Ik wenschte gaarne in goede verstandhouding met u te leven, en daarom verzoek ik u my te beschouwen als een vriend.  
--I should gladly live on good terms with you, and so I ask you to regard me as a friend.
> Conditional-softening imperfect + te-infinitive: wenschte ('should wish/would like') is a past form used to soften a wish, and te leven is the governed te-infinitive: 'I should gladly live'. gaarne is the archaic word for 'gladly'.
> verzoeken + object + te-infinitive: verzoeken ('to request') takes an object u and a te-infinitive (te beschouwen): 'I ask you to regard me ...'. The fronted daarom triggers inversion (verzoek ik).

Wie gedwaald mocht hebben kan op een zacht oordeel van myn kant staat-maken, want daar ik zelf zo menig keer dwaal, zal ik niet streng zyn ... niet althans in de gewone dienstvergrypen of nalatigheden.  
Whoever may have erred can count on a gentle judgment from me, for since I myself stray so many a time, I shall not be harsh ... not, at least, in the ordinary failings or neglects of duty.
> Modal in the perfect: mocht hebben: 'gedwaald mocht hebben' stacks a participle, the past modal mocht, and the infinitive hebben — 'may have erred'. The whole free relative is subject of the main verb kan.
> Causal daar = 'since/because': daar here is a subordinating conjunction meaning 'since/because', sending its verb dwaal to the end; the following main clause then inverts (zal ik). want before it is a coordinating 'for'.
> Compound 'dienstvergrypen': dienstvergrypen glues dienst ('service, duty') + vergrijpen ('offences') = breaches of duty; nalatigheden are 'negligences'. Both are the small lapses Havelaar promises to judge mildly.

Alleen waar nalatigheid zou worden tot gewoonte, zal ik die tegengaan.  
Only where neglect would become a habit shall I move against it.
> Conditional zou + worden-passive sense: 'zou worden tot gewoonte' = 'would become a habit', with conditional zou and the becoming-verb worden. The relative pronoun die (= nalatigheid) then heads the main clause object, and separable tegengaan stays whole after the future zal.

Over misslagen van groveren aard ... over knevelary en onderdrukking, spreek ik niet.  
Of offences of a grosser kind ... of extortion and oppression, I do not speak.
> Fronted PP forces inversion: The whole prepositional phrase 'Over misslagen van groveren aard ... over knevelary en onderdrukking' fills first position, so the verb spreek inverts before ik. niet negates the verb.
> Comparative grover + old -en: groveren is the comparative of grof ('coarser, grosser') with an archaic inflectional ending: 'of a grosser kind'. Today this would simply be van grovere aard.
> knevelary = extortion: knevelarij is the abuse of power to extort money or labour — the very crime the novel exposes. Multatuli pairs it with onderdrukking ('oppression') as the grave offences he pointedly will not name aloud.

Zoo-iets zal niet voorkomen niet waar, m'nheer de Adhipatti?  
Such a thing will not occur, will it, sir Regent?
> Separable voorkomen in the future: voorkomen ('to occur') is separable, but the future zal keeps the infinitive whole at the end: 'zal niet voorkomen' = will not occur. The tag 'niet waar?' invites agreement.

--O neen, mynheer de adsistent-resident, zoo-iets zal niet voorkomen in Lebak.  
--Oh no, sir Assistant-Resident, such a thing will not occur in Lebak.
> Assistant-Resident: The adsistent-resident was the Dutch colonial officer in charge of a regency, ranking below the Resident — Havelaar's (and Multatuli's own) post in Lebak. The spelling adsistent is period.

--Welnu dan, myne heeren Hoofden van Bantan-Kidoel, laat ons verheugd zyn dat onze Afdeeling zoo verachterd en zoo arm is.  
--Well then, my lords, Chiefs of Bantan-Kidoel, let us rejoice that our District is so backward and so poor.
> Hortative laten ('let us'): laat ons + infinitive forms the first-person plural exhortation 'let us ...'. Here 'laat ons verheugd zyn' = 'let us rejoice/be glad'.
> dat-clause sends 'is' to the end: The complementizer dat opens a subordinate clause whose finite verb is moves to the very end, after the predicate adjectives verachterd and arm.
> Bantan-Kidoel: Bantan-Kidoel ('South Bantam') is the division of Lebak Havelaar administers; the chiefs gathered are its district heads. myne heeren is the formal 'my lords/gentlemen'.

Wy hebben iets schoons te doen.  
We have something fine to do.
> hebben ... te + infinitive (obligation): hebben te + infinitive expresses 'to have to / be set to': 'we have something fine to do'. iets schoons keeps the partitive -s after iets ('something').

Als Allah ons in 't leven spaart, zullen wy zorg dragen dat er welvaart kome.  
If Allah spares us our lives, we shall see to it that prosperity comes.
> Conditional als + main-clause inversion: The als-clause ('If Allah spares us') sends its verb spaart to the end; the main clause then inverts (zullen wy). It is a clear V2-after-subordinate-clause pattern.
> Subjunctive 'kome' in a dat-clause: kome (rather than komt) is an archaic/optative subjunctive, 'that prosperity may come'. The presentative er introduces the new subject welvaart, and the verb stands clause-final.

De grond is vruchtbaar genoeg, en de bevolking gewillig. Als ieder in 't genot wordt gelaten van de vruchten zyner inspanning, lydt het geen twyfel dat binnen weinig tyds de bevolking zal toenemen, zoo in zielental als in bezittingen en beschaving, want dit gaat veelal hand-aan-hand.  
The soil is fertile enough, and the people willing. If each is left to enjoy the fruits of his own labour, there can be no doubt that within a short time the population will increase, in number of souls as well as in possessions and civilization, for these for the most part go hand in hand.
> worden-passive: wordt gelaten: 'wordt gelaten' is the process passive (worden + participle): 'is left'. The als-clause sends the verb cluster to the end, and zyner inspanning is an archaic genitive 'of his effort'.
> Impersonal het + geen + separable toenemen: 'het lydt geen twyfel dat ...' = 'it admits of no doubt that ...', with impersonal het as subject and geen negating twyfel. In the dat-clause the future zal holds the separable infinitive toenemen whole at the end.
> Coordinating want: want ('for, because') is a coordinating conjunction: it gives a reason but, unlike omdat, does NOT send its verb to the end — gaat stays in second position.

Ik verzoek u nogmaals my te beschouwen als een vriend die u helpen zal waar hy kan, vooral waar onrecht moet worden te-keer gegaan.  
Once again I ask you to regard me as a friend who will help you wherever he can, above all wherever injustice must be opposed.
> Future zal in a relative clause: In the relative clause 'die u helpen zal' the finite zal joins its infinitive helpen at the end (verb-final), giving 'a friend who will help you'. waar hy kan = 'wherever he can'.
> Modal + worden-passive of separable tegengaan: 'moet worden te-keer gegaan' stacks modal moet, passive worden, and the participle of separable tegengaan: 'must be opposed'. A dense verb cluster at the clause end.

En hiermede beveel ik my zeer aan in uwe medewerking.  
And with that I commend myself warmly to your cooperation.
> Pronominal adverb hiermede + separable aanbevelen: hiermede ('with this', archaic for hiermee) is a pronominal adverb fusing met + this; it fronts the clause and inverts the verb (beveel ik). The separable aanbevelen splits, its prefix aan landing late with reflexive my.

Ik zal u de ontvangen berichten over Landbouw, Veeteelt, Politie en justitie met myn beschikkingen doen teruggeworden.  
I shall send back to you the reports I have received on Agriculture, Livestock, Police, and Justice, together with my rulings.
> Causative doen + infinitive: doen + infinitive is a causative ('to cause to ...'): 'doen teruggeworden' = 'cause to be returned, send back'. It parallels laten, both letting one verb govern another bare infinitive.
> Colonial administrative departments: These were the standard reporting categories of Indies district government: Landbouw (Agriculture), Veeteelt (Livestock), Politie and Justitie. myn beschikkingen are the Resident's formal rulings on them.

Hoofden van Bantan-Kidoel!  
Chiefs of Bantan-Kidoel!

Ik heb gezegd.  
I have spoken.
> Present perfect 'I have spoken': 'heb gezegd' is the present perfect (hebben + participle gezegd). As a formula closing an oration it deliberately echoes a ritual, prophetic ending.

Ge kunt terugkeeren, ieder naar zyne woning.  
You may return, each to his own dwelling.
> Modal kunnen + bare infinitive: kunt is the modal kunnen ('can/may'); it takes the bare infinitive terugkeeren with no te. Subject Ge is the archaic 'you'. ieder naar zyne woning = 'each to his own dwelling'.

Ik groet u allen zeer!  
I greet you all warmly!

Hy boog, bood den ouden Regent den arm, en geleidde hem over het erf naar 't woonhuis, waar Tine hem stond te wachten in de voorgalery.  
He bowed, offered the old Regent his arm, and led him across the yard to the residence, where Tine stood waiting for him on the front veranda.
> Chain of imperfects (strong + weak): boog (strong, from buigen) and bood (strong, from bieden) change their vowel, while geleidde is weak (stem + de). The simple past drives this brisk sequence of actions. den ouden Regent / den arm carry the old accusative -n.
> staan te + infinitive (durative): staan te + infinitive expresses an ongoing action: 'stond te wachten' = 'stood waiting'. The relative waar opens a clause whose verbs stack at the end.

--Kom, Verbrugge, ga nog niet naar huis!  
--Come, Verbrugge, don't go home yet!
> Imperative with separable verb: ga is the imperative of gaan; naar huis gaan ('to go home') is an idiom. 'ga nog niet naar huis' = 'don't go home yet', a command softened by Kom.

Kom ... een glas Madera?  
Come ... a glass of Madeira?

En ... ja, dit moet ik weten, Radhen Djaksa, hoor eens!  
And ... yes, this I must know, Radhen Djaksa, listen here!
> Imperative + flavouring eens: hoor is the imperative of horen; the particle eens ('just') softens it into 'listen here, just listen'. dit moet ik weten inverts because dit is fronted (moet ik).

Havelaar riep dit, toen alle Hoofden na veel buigingen zich gereed maakten naar hun woningen terug te keeren.  
Havelaar called this out just as all the Chiefs, after many bows, were making ready to return to their dwellings.
> toen + reflexive zich gereed maken: toen ('when', past) opens a subordinate clause and sends maakten to the end; 'zich gereed maken' = 'to make oneself ready, get ready', with reflexive zich.
> te-infinitive of separable terugkeren: 'gereed maken ... terug te keeren' uses a te-infinitive; with the separable verb terugkeren the te slots between prefix and verb: terug te keeren = 'to return'.

Ook Verbrugge stond op 't punt het erf te verlaten, doch keerde met den Djaksa terug.  
Verbrugge too was on the point of leaving the yard, but turned back with the Djaksa.
> op het punt staan te + infinitive: 'op 't punt staan te ...' is the idiom 'to be on the point of ...'; te verlaten is the governed te-infinitive. doch ('but') then introduces the contrasting clause keerde ... terug.

--Tine, ik wil madera drinken, Verbrugge ook.  
--Tine, I want to drink Madeira, and Verbrugge too.

Djaksa, laat hooren, wat hebt ge toch aan den Kliwon over myn kleinen jongen gezegd?  
Djaksa, let us hear it, what did you say to the Kliwon about my little boy?
> Perfect with archaic ge + particle toch: 'hebt ge ... gezegd' is the present perfect with the literary pronoun ge; the modal particle toch adds insistence ('whatever did you say'). The participle gezegd stands at the end.
> Adjective inflection + old accusative -n: kleinen is klein + the attributive -e, here further carrying the archaic accusative -n because 'my little boy' is governed by the preposition over: 'about my little boy'.

--Mintah ampong mynheer de adsistent-resident, ik bezag zyn hoofd omdat mynheer gesproken had.  
--Mintah ampong, sir Assistant-Resident, I looked at his head because your honour had spoken.
> omdat sends the cluster to the end: omdat ('because') is a subordinating conjunction; its clause is verb-final, so the pluperfect cluster gesproken had lands at the very end: 'because the gentleman had spoken'.

--Wat drommel heeft zyn hoofd daarmee te maken.  
--What the devil has his head to do with it?
> Pronominal adverb daarmee: daarmee ('with that') fuses met + the previous topic; the idiom 'iets te maken hebben met' = 'to have to do with'. 'Wat heeft zyn hoofd daarmee te maken' = 'What has his head to do with it?'

Ik weet zelf al niet meer wat ik gezegd heb.  
I no longer know myself what I said.
> Embedded question is verb-final: The indirect question 'wat ik gezegd heb' puts the perfect cluster gezegd heb at the end. niet ... meer = 'no longer', and zelf reinforces the subject ('I myself').

--Mynheer, ik zeide tot den Kliwon ...  
--Sir, I said to the Kliwon ...

Tine schoof by: er werd over kleinen Max gesproken.  
Tine drew nearer: little Max was being spoken of.
> Impersonal worden-passive: 'er werd ... gesproken' is a subjectless passive — 'there was talk of', literally 'it was spoken about'. Dutch builds such agentless passives freely with er + worden + participle.
> Separable verb bijschuiven: bijschuiven ('to draw nearer, scoot over') splits in the past main clause: stem schoof second, prefix by at the end. by is the period spelling of bij.

--Mynheer, ik zeide tot den Kliwon dat de Sienjo een koningskind was.  
--Sir, I said to the Kliwon that the Sienjo was a king's child.
> Reported dat-clause, verb to the end: After zeide ('said', archaic past of zeggen), the dat-clause is verb-final, so was moves to the end: 'that the Sienjo was a king's child'. koningskind is a right-headed compound (koning + kind).

Dàt deed Tine goed: zy vond het ook!  
That pleased Tine: she thought so too!
> Stressed subject Dàt in V2: The stressed Dàt (grave accent for emphasis) is the subject in first position; the finite verb deed follows it in normal V2 position: 'deed Tine goed' = 'pleased Tine'. The idiom iemand goed doen = 'to do someone good, please' — here Tine is the dative object, not the subject.

De Adhipatti bezag 't hoofd van den kleine, en inderdaad, ook hy zag op de kruin den dubbelen haarwervel die, naar 't bygeloof op Java, bestemd is een kroon te dragen.  
The Regent looked at the little one's head, and indeed, he too saw on the crown the double whorl of hair which, according to the Javanese superstition, is destined to wear a crown.
> zijn-passive 'bestemd is' + te-infinitive: 'bestemd is ... te dragen' = 'is destined to wear', a state passive (zijn + participle) plus a purpose te-infinitive. The relative die opens a long clause, verb-final.
> haarwervel = hair-whorl: A haarwervel is the spiral crown where hair grows from a point; kruin is the crown of the head. A double whorl (dubbele haarwervel) was read as an omen of future royalty.

Daar de etikette niet toeliet den Djaksa een plaats aantebieden in tegenwoordigheid van den Regent, nam hy afscheid, en men was eenigen tyd by-een zonder iets aanteroeren dat betrekking had op den "dienst." Maar op-eenmaal--en dus in stryd met den zoo uitermate hoffelyken volksaard --vroeg de Regent of zekere gelden die de belasting-kollekteur te-goed had, niet konden worden uitbetaald?  
Since etiquette did not permit a seat to be offered to the Djaksa in the presence of the Regent, he took his leave, and for some time they sat together without touching on anything bearing on "the service." But all at once--and thus against the so exceedingly courteous temper of the people--the Regent asked whether certain monies that were owing to the tax-collector might not be paid out?
> Causal daar + te-infinitive of separable aanbieden: daar ('since') sends toeliet toward the end; aantebieden writes the te inside the separable aanbieden ('to offer'), an 1860 joined spelling for aan te bieden. den Djaksa carries the old dative -n.
> zonder + te-infinitive: zonder governs a te-infinitive of result/manner: 'zonder iets aanteroeren' (= aan te roeren) means 'without touching on anything'. The relative dat betrekking had is verb-final.
> Indirect yes/no question with of + modal passive: of ('whether') opens an embedded question, verb-final; 'konden worden uitbetaald' stacks modal konden, passive worden, and participle uitbetaald — 'might not be paid out'.

--Wel neen, riep Verbrugge, mynheer de Adhipatti weet dat dit niet geschieden mag voor zyn verantwoording afgeloopen is.  
--Why no, cried Verbrugge, sir the Regent knows that this may not be done before his accounts have been settled.
> voor(dat) clause, verb-final: voor here = 'before' (voordat), a subordinator: 'voor zyn verantwoording afgeloopen is' sends the zijn-passive afgeloopen is to the end. The main clause keeps modal mag with infinitive geschieden at its own end.

Havelaar speelde met Max.  
Havelaar played with Max.

Maar er bleek dat dit hem niet belette op 't gelaat van den Regent te lezen dat Verbrugge's antwoord hem niet aanstond.  
But it became plain that this did not keep him from reading in the Regent's face that Verbrugge's answer did not please him.
> Impersonal er bleek + dat-clause: 'er bleek dat ...' = 'it became plain that ...', with presentative er and a verb-final dat-clause. beletten te + infinitive ('to prevent from') governs te lezen, stacked at the end.
> Separable aanstaan, verb-final: aanstaan ('to please, suit') is separable; in this dat-clause it stays whole at the end (aanstond). 'hem niet aanstond' = 'did not please him'.

--Kom, Verbrugge, laat ons niet lastig wezen, zeide hy. En hy liet een klerk van 't kantoor roepen.  
--Come, Verbrugge, let us not be difficult, he said. And he had a clerk summoned from the office.
> Hortative laten ons: laat ons + infinitive = 'let us ...'; 'laat ons niet lastig wezen' = 'let us not be difficult'. wezen is an archaic infinitive of zijn.
> Causative laten: laten + bare infinitive = 'to have something done': 'hy liet een klerk roepen' = 'he had a clerk summoned'. The agent who does the calling is left unnamed.

We zullen dat maar uitbetalen ... die verantwoording zal wel goedgekeurd worden.  
We shall simply pay it out ... that accounting will surely be approved.
> Future worden-passive: 'zal ... goedgekeurd worden' is a future passive (zullen + worden + participle): 'will be approved'. The particle wel softens it to 'surely, no doubt'.

Nadat de Adhipatti vertrokken was, zei Verbrugge, die veel hield van de staatsbladen:  
After the Regent had departed, Verbrugge, who set great store by the official regulations, said:
> nadat + pluperfect: nadat ('after') opens a verb-final clause with the pluperfect vertrokken was ('had departed'), sequencing it before the main verb zei. vertrekken forms its perfect with zijn (motion).
> Relative die for de-word Verbrugge: die opens a relative clause about Verbrugge; the idiom houden van ('to be fond of') splits across the clause, with hield second and the verb-final order otherwise typical of relatives.
> Staatsblad: The Staatsblad was the official gazette in which colonial laws and regulations were published; Verbrugge, a stickler, sets great store by them. A right-headed compound: staat + blad.

--Maar, m'nheer Havelaar, dat mag niet!  
--But, sir Havelaar, that is not allowed!
> Modal mag for permission: mogen ('may, to be allowed') in 'dat mag niet' = 'that is not allowed'. With the main verb (doen) understood, the modal stands alone.

De verantwoording van den kollekteur is nog altyd te Serang in onderzoek ... als nu eens daaraan iets ontbreekt?  
The collector's accounts are still under examination at Serang ... what if something should be found wanting in them?
> zijn-passive sense 'in onderzoek': 'is ... in onderzoek' states a resulting state ('is under examination'). te Serang uses te for 'at/in' a place, an older preposition usage for towns.
> Conditional als + pronominal adverb daaraan: 'als nu eens ... iets ontbreekt' floats a hypothetical ('what if something is wanting'); daaraan ('to/in it') is a pronominal adverb (aan + that). The verb ontbreekt closes the clause.

--Dan leg ik 't er by, zei Havelaar.  
--Then I will make up the difference, said Havelaar.
> Pronominal adverb erbij split: erbij ('to it, in addition') splits in the finite clause: er fronts the middle field, by lands at the end — 'Dan leg ik 't er by' = 'Then I'll make up the difference / add it'. The fronted Dan also inverts (leg ik).

Verbrugge begreep maar niet waaruit deze groote inschikkelykheid voor den belasting-kollekteur geboren werd.  
Verbrugge simply could not grasp where this great indulgence toward the tax-collector was born from.
> Embedded waaruit-question + worden-passive: waaruit ('from what') heads a verb-final indirect question; 'geboren werd' is a worden-passive ('was born/sprang'). begreep maar niet = 'simply could not grasp'.
> inschikkelijkheid = accommodating indulgence: inschikkelijkheid is willingness to oblige, complaisance — here Havelaar's unexpected leniency toward the tax-collector that puzzles Verbrugge. The -heid suffix turns the adjective into an abstract noun.

De klerk kwam weldra met eenig geschryf terug. Havelaar teekende, en zei dat men spoed moest maken met die uitbetaling.  
The clerk soon came back with some papers. Havelaar signed, and said that the payment must be made with all speed.
> Simple-past narration: kwam (strong, komen), teekende (weak, tekenen), and zei (irregular, zeggen) are all imperfects driving the action. terugkomen is separable: kwam ... terug.
> dat-clause with modal cluster: In the dat-clause the modal moest plus infinitive maken close the clause: 'that one had to make haste'. spoed maken = idiom 'to hurry'.

--Verbrugge, ik zal je zeggen waarom ik dit doe!  
--Verbrugge, I will tell you why I do this!
> Future + embedded waarom-clause: 'zal ... zeggen' is the future; the embedded question waarom ik dit doe is verb-final (doe at the end). je is the familiar 'you', a shift from the formal speech earlier.

De Regent heeft geen duit in huis: zyn schryver heeft het my gezegd, en bovendien ... dat brusque vragen!  
The Regent hasn't a penny in the house: his secretary told me so, and besides ... that abrupt asking!
> geen with an indefinite object: geen negates the indefinite duit: 'heeft geen duit in huis' = 'hasn't a penny in the house'. A duit was a tiny copper coin, so geen duit is 'not a red cent'.
> brusque (French loan): brusque ('abrupt, blunt') is a French borrowing colouring the cultured Indies Dutch of the officials. 'dat brusque vragen' = 'that abrupt asking', the Regent's tactless request.

De zaak is duidelyk. Hyzelf heeft dat geld noodig, en de kollekteur wil 't hem voorschieten.  
The matter is plain. He himself needs that money, and the collector wants to advance it to him.
> Modal wil + separable voorschieten: wil (willen, 'wants') sends the separable infinitive voorschieten ('to advance money') whole to the end. The clitics 't (it) and hem (him) sit in the middle field.

Ik overtreed liever op eigen verantwoordelykheid een vorm, dan dat ik een man van zyn rang en jaren in verlegenheid laten zou.  
I would rather, on my own responsibility, breach a formality than put a man of his rank and years in an awkward position.
> Comparative liever ... dan: liever ('rather') is the comparative of graag; 'liever X dan dat Y' = 'rather X than that Y'. In the dan-dat clause the conditional laten zou stacks at the end.
> Idiom: op eigen verantwoordelijkheid: 'op eigen verantwoordelijkheid' = 'on one's own responsibility'. Havelaar will personally answer for breaching a formality — a key trait of his character.

Bovendien, Verbrugge, er wordt in Lebak gruwelyk misbruik gemaakt van gezag. Dit moet je weten.  
Besides, Verbrugge, there is appalling abuse of authority going on in Lebak. This you must know.
> Impersonal worden-passive of an idiom: misbruik maken van ('to abuse') is passivized impersonally: 'er wordt ... misbruik gemaakt van gezag' = 'authority is being abused'. The dummy er supplies the empty subject.

Weet je 't?  
Do you know it?
> Inversion drops the -t of weet je: Before the subject je, the verb loses its -t ending: not 'weet jij het', but the inverted 'weet je 't'. A small but constant feature of Dutch present-tense inversion.

Verbrugge zweeg. Hy wist het.  
Verbrugge was silent. He knew it.
> Strong past zweeg, irregular wist: zweeg is the strong past of zwijgen ('to be silent', ij>ee), and wist the irregular past of weten. These curt imperfects punctuate the interrogation throughout the scene.

--Ik weet het, ging Havelaar voort, ik weet het!  
--I know it, Havelaar went on, I know it!
> Separable voortgaan as a quotative: voortgaan ('to go on') splits: ging early, voort at the end — 'ging Havelaar voort' = 'Havelaar went on'. It works like an inserted 'he continued'.

Is niet m'nheer Slotering gestorven in November?  
Did not sir Slotering die in November?
> Yes/no question by inversion + perfect: A yes/no question fronts the finite verb: 'Is ... gestorven?' = 'Did ... die?'. sterven forms its perfect with zijn (a verb of change of state), so is, not heeft.

Welnu, den dag na zyn dood heeft de regent volk opgeroepen om zyn Sawahs te bewerken ... zonder betaling!  
Well, the day after his death the Regent called up people to work his sawahs ... without pay!
> Fronted time-phrase + perfect inversion: The time-phrase 'den dag na zyn dood' fills first position, inverting the auxiliary heeft before the subject; the participle opgeroepen (separable oproepen) closes the clause.
> Purpose clause om ... te: om ... te frames purpose ('in order to'): 'om zyn Sawahs te bewerken' = 'to work his sawahs'. The te-infinitive te bewerken closes the clause.

Ge hadt dit moeten weten, Verbrugge. Wist je 't?  
You should have known this, Verbrugge. Did you know it?
> Modal in the pluperfect: hadt moeten weten: 'hadt ... moeten weten' = 'should have known': pluperfect hadt + the bare-infinitive modal moeten + main infinitive weten (the 'infinitivus pro participio' construction). hadt is the old 2nd-person form with archaic ge.

Dit wist Verbrugge niet. Als kontroleur hadt je 't moeten weten!  
This Verbrugge did not know. As controller you ought to have known it!
> Fronted object Dit + inversion: The object Dit ('this') is fronted for emphasis, so the verb wist inverts before the subject Verbrugge: 'This Verbrugge did not know'. A very common Dutch topicalization.

Ik weet het, ging Havelaar voort.  
I know it, Havelaar went on.

Dáár liggen de maandstaten van de distrikten--en hy toonde 't pak geschryf dat hy ontvangen had in de vergadering--zie, ik heb niets geopend. Daarin zyn, onder andere zaken, de opgaven van op de hoofdplaats geleverde arbeiders tot heeredienst.  
There lie the monthly returns of the districts--and he pointed to the bundle of papers he had received at the assembly--look, I have opened nothing. Among other matters, they contain the figures for the labourers furnished at the chief town for statute-labour.
> Fronted locative Dáár + inversion: The stressed adverb Dáár ('there') fronts and inverts the verb: 'Dáár liggen de maandstaten' = 'There lie the monthly returns'. The acute-accented á marks the deictic emphasis (distinct from grave-accented forms like Dàt).
> Pronominal adverb daarin + participial modifier: daarin ('in them') is a pronominal adverb fronting the clause and inverting zyn. 'geleverde arbeiders' uses the past participle geleverd as an attributive adjective ('furnished labourers').

Welnu, zyn die opgaven juist? --Ik heb ze nog niet gezien ...  
Well, are those figures correct? --I have not yet seen them ...
> Yes/no question by inversion: A polar question fronts the verb: 'zyn die opgaven juist?' = 'are those figures correct?'. juist here means 'accurate, correct'.

--Ik ook niet! Maar toch vraag ik je of ze juist zyn?  
--Neither have I! But even so I ask you whether they are correct?
> Adverbial toch fronted + of-question: The fronted 'Maar toch' inverts vraag ik; the embedded of-question 'of ze juist zyn' is verb-final (zyn at the end). of = 'whether'.

Waren de opgaven van de vorige maand juist?  
Were the figures for the previous month correct?

Verbrugge zweeg. --Ik zal 't je zeggen: ze waren valsch!  
Verbrugge was silent. --I will tell you: they were false!

Want er was driemaal meer volk opgeroepen om voor den Regent te werken dan de bepalingen op de heerediensten toelaten, en dit durfde men natuurlyk in de staten niet opgeven. Is 't waar, wat ik zeg?  
For three times as many people had been called up to work for the Regent as the regulations on statute-labour permit, and this, of course, one dared not enter in the returns. Is it true, what I say?
> Comparative meer ... dan: 'driemaal meer ... dan' = 'three times more ... than'; dan introduces the standard of comparison, and the comparison clause 'dan de bepalingen toelaten' is verb-final. opgeroepen is a pluperfect-passive participle.
> durven + bare infinitive, fronted object: Fronted dit inverts durfde; durven ('to dare') takes the bare infinitive opgeven, which (separable) lands at the end. 'one dared not enter this in the returns'.

Verbrugge zweeg. --Ook de staten die ik vandaag ontving, zyn valsch, ging Havelaar voort.  
Verbrugge was silent. --The returns I received today are false as well, Havelaar went on.

De Regent is arm. De Regenten van Bogor (Buitenzorg) en Tjiandjoer zyn leden van 't geslacht waarvan hy 't hoofd is.  
The Regent is poor. The Regents of Bogor (Buitenzorg) and Tjiandjoer are members of the family of which he is the head.
> Pronominal relative adverb waarvan: waarvan ('of which') is a relative pronominal adverb replacing van + a thing: 'het geslacht waarvan hy 't hoofd is' = 'the family of which he is the head'. The verb is closes the relative clause.

Die laatste heeft slechts rang van Tommongong, onze Regent is Adhipatti, en toch laten zyn inkomsten, omdat Lebak niet geschikt is voor koffi en hem dus geen emolumenten opbrengt, niet toe in praal en luister te wedyveren met een eenvoudigen Dhemang in de Preanger, die den stygbeugel houden zou als zyn neven te-paard stygen. Is dit waar?  
The latter holds only the rank of Tommongong, our Regent is Adhipatti, and yet his income, because Lebak is unsuited to coffee and so yields him no emoluments, does not allow him to vie in pomp and splendour with a plain Dhemang in the Preanger, who would hold the stirrup as his cousins mounted their horses. Is this true?
> Separable toelaten wrapping a long clause + te-infinitive: toelaten ('to permit') splits across the whole sentence: laten near the front, toe far at the end, governing te wedyveren ('to vie'). A textbook separable-verb bracket with an embedded reason-clause.
> Conditional zou + als-clause: 'houden zou' is the conditional ('would hold'); the als-clause 'als zyn neven te-paard stygen' is verb-final (stygen at the end). The vivid image: a lesser Demang holding the stirrup for his mounting cousins.

--Ja, dit is zoo.  
--Yes, that is so.

--Hy heeft niets dan zyn traktement, en hierop is een korting ter afbetaling van een voorschot dat de Regeering hem gegeven heeft, toen hy ... weet je 't?  
--He has nothing but his salary, and from this a deduction is made toward repayment of an advance the Government granted him, when he ... do you know it?
> Negative niets + dan ('nothing but'): niets ('nothing') is the inherent negative; 'niets dan' = 'nothing but'. 'Hy heeft niets dan zyn traktement' = 'He has nothing but his salary'.
> Relative dat (het-word) + perfect: voorschot is a het-word, so the relative pronoun is dat; the clause is verb-final, the perfect cluster gegeven heeft at the end. 'an advance the Government gave him'.

--Ja, ik weet het.  
--Yes, I know it.

--Toen hy een nieuwe medsjid wilde laten bouwen, waartoe veel geld noodig was.  
--When he wanted to have a new mosque built, which required a great deal of money.
> toen + modal + causative laten: toen ('when') opens a verb-final clause stacking modal wilde, causative laten, and bouwen: 'wanted to have a mosque built'. Three verbs at the end — modal, causative auxiliary, main infinitive.
> Relative pronominal adverb waartoe: waartoe ('for which') is a relative pronominal adverb (tot + which): 'waartoe veel geld noodig was' = 'for which a great deal of money was needed'. The verb was closes the clause.

Bovendien, veel leden zyner familie ... weet je 't?  
Besides, many members of his family ... do you know it?

--Ja, dat weet ik.  
--Yes, that I know.

--Veel leden van zyn familie--die eigenlyk niet in 't Lebaksche te-huis behoort, en daarom ook by 't volk niet gezien is--scharen zich als een plunderbende om hem heen, en persen hem geld af.  
--Many members of his family--who properly speaking do not belong in Lebak, and for that reason are not well regarded by the people either--gather round him like a band of plunderers and squeeze money out of him.
> Relative die + 'niet ... behoort': The relative die opens a non-restrictive clause, verb-final (behoort at the end); 't Lebaksche is the substantivized neuter 'the Lebak region'. te-huis behooren = 'to belong, be at home'.
> Reflexive scharen zich + separable afpersen: zich scharen om ... heen = 'to gather around', reflexive with the circumposition om ... heen. afpersen ('to extort') is separable: persen ... af. plunderbende is a compound (plunder + bende, 'plundering gang').

Is dit waar?  
Is this true?

--'t Is de waarheid, zei Verbrugge. --En als zyn kas ledig is, wat dikwyls gebeurt, nemen zy in zyn naam de bevolking af, wat hun aanstaat.  
--It is the truth, said Verbrugge. --And when his coffers are empty, which often happens, they take from the people in his name whatever suits them.
> Fronted als-clause + main inversion: The conditional als-clause ('when his coffers are empty') fills first position, so the main clause inverts: nemen zy. afnemen ('to take from') is separable, its af landing at the end. ledig is the archaic word for leeg ('empty').

Is dit zoo?  
Is this so?

--Ja, het is zoo. --Ik ben dus goed onderricht, doch daarover nader.  
--Yes, it is so. --So I am well informed, but more of that later.
> zijn-passive onderricht + conjunction doch: 'ben ... onderricht' is a state passive ('am informed'); doch ('but', archaic) signals contrast, and 'daarover nader' = 'more on that later' with the pronominal adverb daarover (over + that).

De Regent, die in jaren klimmende den dood vreest, wordt beheerscht door de zucht zich verdienstelyk te maken door giften aan geestelyken. Hy geeft veel geld uit voorreiskosten van pelgrims naar Mekka, die hem allerlei vodden van relieken, talismans en djimats terugbrengen.  
The Regent, who as the years mount fears death, is ruled by the craving to make himself deserving through gifts to holy men. He spends a great deal of money on the travel costs of pilgrims to Mecca, who bring him back all manner of rubbishy relics, talismans, and djimats.
> worden-passive with door-agent + present participle: 'wordt beheerscht door ...' is the process passive naming the agent with door: 'is ruled by the craving'. 'in jaren klimmende' uses the present participle klimmende ('climbing in years') as an adverbial.
> Reflexive zich + te-infinitive: 'zich verdienstelyk maken' ('to make oneself deserving') is reflexive, and te maken is governed by the noun zucht. The reflexive zich sits before the te-infinitive at the clause end.

Is 't niet zoo?  
Is it not so?

--Ja, dat is waar.  
--Yes, that is true.

--Welnu, door dit alles is hy zoo arm.  
--Well, through all of this he is so poor.

De Dhemang van Parang-Koedjang, is zyn schoonzoon.  
The Dhemang of Parang-Koedjang is his son-in-law.

Waar de Regent zelf uit schaamte voor zyn rang niet durft nemen, is het die--Dhemang,--maar hy is 't niet alléén--die aan den Adhipatti zyn hof maakt door 't afpersen van geld en goed aan de arme bevolking, en door de lieden wegtehalen van hun eigen rystvelden om ze heentedryven naar de sawahs van den Regent.  
Where the Regent himself, out of shame for his rank, does not dare to take, it is that--Dhemang--but he is not the only one--who courts the Adhipatti's favour by wringing money and goods from the poor people, and by carrying the men off from their own rice-fields to drive them to the Regent's sawahs.
> Fronted waar-clause + cleft 'is het die': The locative waar-clause is fronted (verb durft ... nemen at its end), inverting the main clause to a cleft: 'is het die Dhemang ... die ...' = 'it is that Demang who ...'. The first die is the demonstrative head, the second the relative.
> Nominal te-infinitive + om ... te purpose: 'door ... wegtehalen' (= weg te halen) is a te-infinitive used substantivally after door; 'om ze heentedryven' (= heen te drijven) is a purpose om ... te clause. Both are 1860 joined spellings of separable verbs with te.

En deze ... zie, ik wil gelooven dat hy gaarne anders wilde, maar de nood dwingt hem gebruik te maken van zulke middelen.  
And this man ... look, I am willing to believe that he would gladly act otherwise, but need compels him to make use of such means.
> Counterfactual imperfect wilde: wilde here is an imperfect used counterfactually ('would gladly act otherwise'), the verb-final close of the dat-clause. gaarne is archaic 'gladly'.
> dwingen + object + te-infinitive: dwingen ('to compel') takes an object hem and a te-infinitive: 'dwingt hem ... te maken' = 'compels him to make'. gebruik maken van = idiom 'to make use of'.

Is dit alles niet waar, Verbrugge?  
Is all this not true, Verbrugge?

--Ja, 't is waar, zei Verbrugge, die hoe langer hoe meer begon intezien dat Havelaars blik scherp was.  
--Yes, it is true, said Verbrugge, who was beginning more and more to see that Havelaar's eye was sharp.
> Correlative 'hoe ... hoe ...' + te-infinitive: 'hoe langer hoe meer' = 'more and more' (literally 'the longer the more'), a correlative comparison. intezien (= in te zien) is the te-infinitive of separable inzien ('to come to see').
> Genitive -s + verb-final dat-clause: Havelaars uses the modern possessive -s ('Havelaar's'); the dat-clause is verb-final, with was at the end: 'that Havelaar's eye was sharp'.

--Ik wist, vervolgde deze, dat hy geen geld in huis had, toen hy zoo-even over de afrekening met den onderkollekteur begon te spreken.  
--I knew, the latter went on, that he had no money in the house, when just now he began to speak about the settlement with the under-collector.
> Demonstrative deze as a pronoun: deze ('this one, the latter') stands in for Havelaar as subject of the quotative vervolgde ('continued'). Demonstratives like deze/die routinely substitute for full nouns in narrative.
> toen-clause + beginnen te + infinitive: toen ('when') opens a verb-final clause; beginnen te + infinitive ('begin to') closes it with te spreken. 'when just now he began to speak'.

Ge hebt heden morgen gehoord dat het myn voornemen is, myn plicht te doen.  
This morning you heard that it is my purpose to do my duty.
> Perfect + dat-clause with impersonal het: 'hebt ... gehoord' is the perfect; the dat-clause 'dat het myn voornemen is' uses anticipatory het pointing forward to 'myn plicht te doen' ('to do my duty'). heden morgen = 'this morning' (archaic heden).

Onrecht duld ik niet, by God, dat duld ik niet!  
Injustice I will not tolerate, by God, that I will not tolerate!
> Fronted object for emphasis (twice): Both Onrecht ('injustice') and dat are fronted objects, inverting the verb duld before ik. The doubling — object first, then resumptive dat — is a passionate spoken emphasis.

En hy sprong op, en er was in zyn toon geheel iets anders dan den vorigen dag by zyn officieelen eed.  
And he sprang up, and there was in his tone something altogether different from the day before at his official oath.
> Existential er + comparison 'anders dan': 'er was ... iets anders dan ...' = 'there was something different from ...', with existential er and the comparative anders dan. den vorigen dag keeps the old accusative -n in the time-phrase 'the day before'.
> officieele eed = official oath: Havelaar's officieele eed was the formal oath of office he had sworn the previous day; the narrator contrasts its stiff tone with the fire now in his voice. officieelen carries adjectival -e plus the old -n.

--Maar, ging hy voort, ik wil myn plicht doen met zachtheid.  
--But, he went on, I want to do my duty with gentleness.
> Separable voortgaan as quotative: Again 'ging hy voort' = 'he went on', the separable voortgaan splitting around the inserted subject. A recurring narrative tag in this dialogue.

Ik wil niet te nauwkeurig weten wat geschied is.  
I do not want to know too precisely what has happened.
> Modal wil + bare infinitive + embedded clause: wil ('want') takes the bare infinitive weten; the embedded 'wat geschied is' is verb-final, with the zijn-perfect geschied is at the end. te nauwkeurig = 'too precisely'.

Doch wat van heden af geschiedt, is ter myner verantwoording, daarvoor zal ik zorg dragen!  
But whatever happens from this day on is on my own responsibility, and for that I shall take care!
> Free relative subject + genitive 'ter myner': The headless 'wat van heden af geschiedt' ('whatever happens from today') is the subject; ter myner verantwoording is a frozen dative-genitive ('to/on my responsibility'). van heden af = 'from this day on'.
> Pronominal adverb daarvoor + future: daarvoor ('for that') fronts and inverts the clause (zal ik); zorg dragen voor = idiom 'to take care of'. The future zal holds the infinitive dragen at the end.

Ik hoop lang hier te blyven.  
I hope to stay here a long time.
> hopen te + infinitive: hopen ('to hope') governs a te-infinitive: 'hoop ... te blyven' = 'hope to stay'. The adverbs lang hier fill the middle field before te blyven.

Weet je wel, Verbrugge dat onze roeping heerlyk schoon is? Maar weet je ook wel dat ik alles wat ik je zoo-even zei, eigenlyk van u had moeten hooren?  
Do you know, Verbrugge, that our calling is gloriously fine? But do you also know that everything I told you just now I really ought to have heard from you?
> dat-clause sends 'is' to the end: After 'Weet je wel' the dat-clause 'dat onze roeping heerlyk schoon is' is verb-final, with is closing after the predicate. heerlyk schoon = 'gloriously fine'.
> Modal in the pluperfect: had moeten hooren: 'had moeten hooren' = 'ought to have heard': pluperfect had + bare-infinitive modal moeten + main infinitive hooren. Note the pointed switch from familiar je to formal u within one sentence — Havelaar's reproach turns ceremonious.

Ik ken u even goed als ik weet wie er garem glap maken aan de zuidkust.  
I know you as well as I know who makes garem glap on the south coast.
> Existential 'er' before a relative subject: Here 'er' fills the existential slot ('who there make...'), a flavour of the versatile little word that signals presence or indefinite subjects. Modern Dutch would say 'wie garem glap maakt'.

Je bent een braaf mensch ... ook dit weet ik.  
You are an honest man ... this too I know.
> braaf = honest, decent (not 'brave'): A classic false friend: Dutch 'braaf' means upright or well-behaved, never 'brave'. Note the period spelling 'mensch' with the silent -ch.

Maar waarom heb je my niet gezegd dat hier zooveel verkeerds was?  
But why did you not tell me that there was so much wrong here?
> Present perfect with the participle at the end: 'heb ... gezegd' frames a present perfect: the auxiliary hebben stands second after the question word, and the past participle 'gezegd' is held to the very end.
> dat-clause sends its verb to the end: The subordinating conjunction 'dat' opens a subclause and pushes the finite verb 'was' to the final position. 'zooveel verkeerds' shows period spelling (doubled oo) and the partitive -s on 'verkeerd' after a quantity word.
> Period spelling: my for mij: 1860 prose writes the pronoun 'mij' as 'my', using y for the ij digraph throughout the text (myn, zyn, byzonder).

Gedurende twee maanden ben je waarnemend adsistent-resident geweest, en bovendien reeds lang hier als kontroleur ... je moest het dus weten, niet waar?  
For two months you served as acting Assistant-Resident, and besides that you had been here a long time already as controller ... so you must have known it, mustn't you?
> Perfect of zijn uses zijn as auxiliary: 'ben je ... geweest' is the present perfect of 'zijn' itself: zijn takes zijn (not hebben) as its auxiliary, with the participle 'geweest' at the end.
> Modal moeten sends the verb to the end: The modal 'moest' (past of moeten) governs the bare infinitive 'weten', which closes the clause — the standard modal-plus-infinitive frame.

--M'nheer Havelaar, ik heb nooit gediend onder iemand als u.  
--Sir Havelaar, I have never served under anyone like you.
> One negative per clause: nooit: 'nooit' (never) carries the whole negation — Dutch allows only one negative word per clause, so no extra 'niet' appears.
> M'nheer = mijnheer (Sir / Mr.): A contracted spelling of 'mijnheer', the polite term of address. The apostrophe marks the dropped 'ij'.

Ge hebt iets zeer byzonders, neem het me niet kwalyk.  
You have something very singular about you, do not take it amiss.
> The literary pronoun ge/gij: 'Ge' (unstressed) and 'gij' are the 19th-century literary 'you', here used by Verbrugge respectfully. Modern Dutch would use 'je' or 'u'.
> Imperative with a fixed idiom: 'neem' is the bare-stem imperative of nemen; 'iets kwalijk nemen' is the set phrase 'to take something amiss'. 'kwalyk' shows the y-spelling for 'kwalijk'.
> byzonders = bijzonders (something singular): 'bijzonder' means special or singular; the partitive -s ('iets bijzonders') is required after 'iets'. Period spelling drops to 'byzonders'.

--Volstrekt niet!  
--Not at all!

Ik weet wel dat ik niet ben als alle menschen, maar wat doet dit tot de zaak?  
I know well enough that I am not like other men, but what has that to do with the matter?
> Idiomatic 'doen tot de zaak' (to bear on the matter): 'iets tot de zaak doen' is a fixed period expression, 'to have to do with the matter'. Verbrugge's reply 'Dat doet er dit toe' (s234) answers it with the pronominal adverb 'er ... toe'.

--Dat doet er dit toe, dat u iemand begrippen en denkbeelden meedeelt, die vroeger niet bestonden. --Neen!  
--It has this to do with it, that you impart to a man notions and ideas that did not exist before. --No!
> Split pronominal adverb 'er ... toe': The preposition 'tot' fuses with a placeholder into 'er ... toe', which splits around the middle field. It answers s233's 'wat doet dit tot de zaak?'
> Relative 'die' for a plural antecedent: 'die' relativises the plural de-word phrase 'begrippen en denkbeelden'; the subclause sends its verb 'bestonden' (strong imperfect of bestaan) to the end.

Die ingesluimerd waren door den vervloekten officieelen slender die zyn styl zoekt in "ik heb de eer" en de rust van zyn geweten in "de hooge tevredenheid van de Regeering." Neen, Verbrugge! laster jezelf niet!  
Notions that had been lulled to sleep by the accursed official routine that seeks its style in "I have the honour" and the peace of its conscience in "the high satisfaction of the Government." No, Verbrugge! do not slander yourself!
> Case remnant: dative 'den' after door: 'door den ... slender' shows the frozen masculine dative/accusative ending -en on the article and adjective, still alive in 1860 prose. Modern Dutch writes 'door de'.
> Passive/stative with zijn + participle: 'ingesluimerd waren' (were lulled asleep) pairs 'waren' with the participle of the separable verb 'insluimeren' — the resulting-state reading. The prefix 'in-' reattaches in the participle.
> Imperative + reflexive jezelf: 'laster' is the bare-stem imperative of lasteren (to slander); 'jezelf' is the emphatic reflexive for the 2nd person, the je-series counterpart to 3rd-person 'zich'.

Je behoeft van my niets te leeren. Heb ik je by-voorbeeld heden morgen in de Sebah iets nieuws verteld?  
You have no need to learn anything from me. Did I, for instance, tell you anything new this morning at the Sebah?
> behoeven + te-infinitive (need to): 'behoeven' governs a 'te'-infinitive ('niets te leeren', nothing to learn). The single negative is carried by 'niets'.
> Inverted perfect in a yes/no question: A yes/no question inverts to verb-first: auxiliary 'Heb' leads, the participle 'verteld' closes. 'iets nieuws' again takes the partitive -s.

--Neen, nieuws niet, maar u sprak anders dan anderen.  
--No, nothing new, but you spoke differently from others.
> 'dan' for 'than' in comparison: 'anders dan anderen' uses 'dan' to mark the standard of comparison ('differently than others'). 'sprak' is the strong imperfect of spreken.

--Ja, dat komt ... omdat myn opvoeding wat verwaarloosd is: ik spreek te-hooi en te-gras.  
--Yes, that comes ... because my upbringing was somewhat neglected: I speak at random.
> omdat-clause + stative passive: 'omdat' is a subordinating conjunction sending 'is' to the end; 'verwaarloosd is' is the zijn-passive naming the resulting state ('was neglected'). 'myn' is period spelling for 'mijn'.
> Idiom: te hooi en te gras: Literally 'at hay and at grass', this fixed expression means 'haphazardly, at random, now and then'. Havelaar uses it self-deprecatingly of his unpolished way of speaking.

Maar je zoudt me zeggen waarom je tot-nog-toe zoo berust hebt in alles wat er verkeerds was in Lebak. --Ik heb nooit zoo den indruk gehad van een initiatief.  
But you were going to tell me why up to now you acquiesced so in everything that was wrong in Lebak. --I never quite had the impression that there was room for initiative.
> Conditional 'zou(dt)' as past intention: 'zoudt' is the 2nd-person form of 'zou' (conditional of zullen). Here it reads as 'you were going to / would tell me'. The archaic -t ending pairs with gij/je in older Dutch.
> Relative 'wat' after 'alles' + existential er: After 'alles' the relative is 'wat', not 'dat'; 'er ... was' adds the existential particle and 'verkeerds' takes the partitive -s.

Bovendien, dat alles is altyd zoo geweest in deze streken.  
Besides, all of that has always been so in these parts.
> Perfect of zijn + demonstrative 'deze': 'is ... geweest' is the present perfect of zijn. 'deze streken' uses the near demonstrative 'deze' for a plural de-word ('these parts').

--Ja, ja, dat weet ik wel!  
--Yes, yes, that I know well enough!

Ieder kan geen profeet of apostel wezen ... hm, 't hout zou duur worden van 't kruisigen!  
Not everyone can be a prophet or an apostle ... hm, the wood would grow dear, what with all the crucifying!
> Modal kunnen + bare infinitive 'wezen': 'kan ... wezen' is modal kunnen with the bare infinitive 'wezen', an older synonym of 'zijn'. The subject 'ieder' (everyone) is treated as singular.
> Conditional zou + worden (process): 'zou ... worden' combines the conditional with 'worden' to express a hypothetical becoming ('would grow dear'). The nominalised infinitive 't kruisigen' = 'the crucifying'.

Maar je wilt me toch wel helpen alles te-recht te brengen? je wilt toch wel je plicht doen? --Zeker!  
But surely you are willing to help me set everything to rights? Surely you are willing to do your duty? --Certainly!
> willen + helpen stack with te-infinitive: Modal 'wilt' takes the bare infinitive 'helpen', which in turn governs the te-infinitive 'te-recht te brengen' (to set right). 'toch wel' softens it into a coaxing question.

Vooral by u.  
Especially under you.
> by = bij (preposition 'under/with'): 'by u' is period spelling for 'bij u'; here 'bij' means 'under / in the service of'. Verbrugge uses respectful 'u'.

Maar niet ieder zou dit zoo streng vorderen of zelfs goed opvatten, en dan komt men zoo ligt in de pozitie van iemand die windmolens bestrydt.  
But not everyone would demand it so strictly, or even take it in good part, and then one easily falls into the position of a man tilting at windmills.
> Conditional zou + infinitive (hypothetical): 'zou ... vorderen' states what would (not) happen — the conditional with the infinitive held to the end of the clause.
> V2 inversion after fronted 'dan' + impersonal 'men': Fronting 'dan' forces verb-second, so 'komt' precedes the subject 'men' (the generic 'one'). 'ligt' is period spelling for 'licht' (easily).

--Neen!  
--No!

Dan zeggen zy die 't onrecht liefhebben omdat ze daarvan leven, dat er geen onrecht was, om 't vermaak te hebben u en my uittemaken voor Don Quichotten, en te-gelyker-tyd hun windmolens draaiende te houden.  
Then those who love injustice because they live by it will say that there was no injustice at all, for the pleasure of branding you and me as Don Quixotes, and at the same time keeping their windmills turning.
> Headless relative 'zy die' + pronominal 'daarvan': 'zy die...' = 'those who...'; the omdat-clause sends 'leven' to the end, and 'daarvan' fuses 'van' + a thing ('live by it'). 'liefhebben' is a separable verb here written together.
> Purpose clause om ... te: 'om ... te hebben' frames a purpose ('in order to have the pleasure'). 'uittemaken' (= uit te maken) is the separable verb 'uitmaken voor' (to brand someone as), written in the joined 1860 style.

Doch, Verbrugge, je hadt niet op my hoeven te wachten om je plicht te doen!  
And yet, Verbrugge, you need not have waited for me to do your duty!
> Pluperfect of hoeven (need not have): 'hadt ... hoeven te wachten' is a pluperfect with hoeven; in the perfect, hoeven appears as a bare infinitive (the 'infinitivus pro participio'), then governs 'te wachten'. 'hadt' is the archaic -t form with je/gij.
> doch = but / yet (literary): 'doch' is an archaic, literary conjunction meaning 'but, and yet', heavier and more formal than 'maar'. It belongs to the solemn register of 1860 prose.

M'nheer Slotering was een bekwaam en eerlyk man: hy wist wat er omging, hy keurde het af en verzette zich er tegen ... ziehier!  
Mr. Slotering was a capable and honest man: he knew what was going on, he disapproved of it and set himself against it ... look here!
> Separable 'omgaan' + existential er: 'wat er omging' = 'what was going on'; 'omging' is the imperfect of the separable verb 'omgaan', with the existential 'er'. 'wist' is the strong imperfect of weten.
> Reflexive 'zich verzetten' + split 'er ... tegen': 'zich verzetten tegen' (to oppose) is a reflexive verb; here the prepositional object becomes the pronominal adverb 'er ... tegen' ('against it'), split around the verb.

Havelaar nam uit een portefeuille twee vellen papier, en deze aan Verbrugge tonende, vroeg hy:  
Havelaar took two sheets of paper from a portfolio, and showing them to Verbrugge, he asked:
> Present participle as a -ende adverbial: 'tonende' is the present participle of tonen, used adverbially ('showing them...'), a literary construction. The main clause then inverts to V2: 'vroeg hy'.
> Strong imperfect 'nam': 'nam' is the strong (vowel-changing) imperfect of 'nemen' — the narrative past tense that carries the story forward.

--Wiens hand is dit?  
--Whose hand is this?
> Genitive interrogative 'wiens': 'wiens' is the inflected genitive of 'wie' ('whose'), a case remnant kept alive in formal and period Dutch.

--Dat is de hand van m'nheer Slotering.  
--That is Mr. Slotering's hand.

--Juist!  
--Just so!

Welnu, dit zyn kladnotaas, bevattende blykbaar onderwerpen waarover hy met den resident spreken wilde.  
Well now, these are rough notes, plainly setting out the matters he meant to discuss with the resident.
> Pronominal relative 'waarover' + modal at the end: 'waarover' (= 'over which') is the relative pronominal adverb for a thing; the subclause ends with the verb cluster 'spreken wilde' (modal + bare infinitive, verb-final).
> Case remnant: dative 'den' after met: 'met den resident' keeps the old masculine dative -en on the article. Modern Dutch writes 'met de resident'.

Daar lees ik ... zie: 1°Over den rijstbouw.  
Here I read ... look: 1st. On rice-growing.

2° Over de woningen der dorpshoofden.  
2nd. On the dwellings of the village chiefs.
> Genitive plural 'der' (of the): 'der dorpshoofden' is the inflected genitive plural, 'of the village chiefs' — a frozen case form for modern 'van de dorpshoofden'. 'dorpshoofden' is a right-headed compound (dorp + hoofd).

3°Over het innen der landrenten, enz.  
3rd. On the collection of the land-rents, etc.
> Nominalised infinitive + genitive 'der': 'het innen' is an infinitive used as a neuter noun ('the collecting'); 'der landrenten' is the genitive plural complement. 'landrenten' is a compound (land + rente).

Daar achter staan twee uitroepingsteekens.  
Behind that stand two exclamation marks.
> Fronted adverbial forces V2 'staan': Fronting 'Daar achter' (behind that) triggers verb-second, so plural 'staan' precedes its subject 'twee uitroepingsteekens'. The subject is a compound: uitroeping + teeken.

Wat bedoelde m'nheer Slotering daarmee?  
What did Mr. Slotering mean by that?
> Pronominal adverb 'daarmee' (by that): 'daarmee' fuses 'met' + a thing into one adverb ('by that, with that') — Dutch avoids 'met dat' for inanimate things. 'bedoelde' is a weak imperfect.

--Hoe kan ik dat weten? riep Verbrugge.  
--How should I know? cried Verbrugge.
> Modal kunnen + bare infinitive in a question: 'kan ... weten' is modal kunnen governing the bare infinitive 'weten', inverted after the question word 'hoe' for verb-second.

--Ik wel!  
--I do!

Dit beduidt dat er veel meer landrenten worden opgebracht, dan er in 'slands kas vloeien.  
It means that far more land-rents are levied than ever flow into the state's coffers.
> Worden-passive + separable 'opbrengen' + er: 'worden opgebracht' is the process passive ('are levied'); the participle of separable 'opbrengen' reattaches its prefix, and existential 'er' opens the clause.
> Genitive 'slands' (of the land) + comparative 'dan': ''slands kas' contracts 'des lands' (the state's coffers), a genitive case remnant. 'dan' marks the standard after the comparative 'meer'.

Doch ik zal je dan iets tonen dat wy beiden weten, omdat het in letters en niet in teekens geschreven is.  
But I will show you something that we both understand, because it is written in letters and not in signs.
> Future with zullen: 'zal ... tonen' is the explicit future: zullen second, the infinitive 'tonen' held to the end ('I will show you').
> omdat-clause + zijn-passive: 'omdat' sends the verb cluster to the end; 'geschreven is' is the resulting-state passive of schrijven ('is written').

Ziehier:  
Look here:

"12°Over het misbruik dat door de regenten en mindere hoofden van de bevolking wordt gemaakt. (Over het houden van verschillende woningen ten-koste der bevolking, enz.)"  
"12th. On the abuse practised upon the population by the regents and the lesser chiefs. (On the keeping of various dwellings at the expense of the population, etc.)"
> Relative 'dat' for a het-word + worden-passive: 'dat' relativises the neuter 'misbruik'; the clause ends with the worden-passive 'wordt gemaakt' ('is practised'). The idiom is 'misbruik maken van'.
> Genitive 'der' after the fixed phrase ten koste: 'ten koste der bevolking' = 'at the expense of the population', with the genitive 'der' governed by the frozen dative phrase 'ten koste'.

Is dit duidelyk? Ge ziet dat de heer Slotering wèl iemand was, die een initiatief wist te nemen, je had je dus by hem kunnen aansluiten.  
Is this plain enough? You see that Mr. Slotering was indeed a man who knew how to take an initiative; you might therefore have joined yourself to him.
> Relative 'die' + weten te (knew how to): 'die' relativises 'iemand'; 'wist te nemen' is 'weten te' + infinitive, the idiom 'to know how to do', verb-final in the subclause.
> Pluperfect modal + reflexive 'zich aansluiten': 'had ... kunnen aansluiten' is a pluperfect of the modal kunnen (again infinitivus pro participio); 'je ... je' is the reflexive of 'zich aansluiten bij' (to join). Note the verb cluster at the end.

Luister verder:  
Listen further:
> Bare-stem imperative: 'Luister' is the imperative (bare stem of luisteren) — a direct command, 'Listen on'.

"15° Dat vele personen van de familien en bedienden der inlandsche hoofden op de uitbetalingstaten voorkomen, die inderdaad geen deel nemen in de kultuur, zoodat de voordeelen hiervan hun ten-deel vallen, ten préjudice van de werkelijke deelhebbers.  
"15th. That many persons among the families and servants of the native chiefs appear on the payment rolls who in fact take no part in the cultivation, so that the profits of it fall to their share, to the prejudice of the actual contributors.
> Relative 'die' + negation with geen: 'die' relativises 'vele personen'; 'geen' negates the indefinite noun 'deel' ('take no part'). The subclause is verb-final on 'nemen'.
> Separable 'voorkomen' (to appear): 'voorkomen' (to occur/appear) is here separable in sense though shown verb-final in the subclause. 'uitbetalingstaten' is a long compound: uitbetaling + staten.

Ook worden zij gesteld in het onrechtmatig, bezit van sawah-velden, terwijl die alleen toekomen aan degenen, die aandeel hebben in de kultuur." Hier heb ik een andere nota, en wel in potlood.  
They are also put in unlawful possession of sawah-fields, while these belong only to those who have a share in the cultivation." Here I have another note, and this one in pencil.
> Worden-passive with inverted subject: 'Ook worden zij gesteld' fronts 'Ook', forcing V2, so 'worden' precedes 'zij'; 'gesteld' is the participle of the worden-passive ('are put').
> terwijl-clause + headless 'degenen die': 'terwijl' (while) subordinates and pushes 'toekomen' to the end; 'degenen die' = 'those who'. 'toekomen aan' is the separable verb 'to belong to / be due to'.

Zie eens, ook dáárop staat iets zeer duidelyks:  
Look now, there too stands something very plain:
> Pronominal adverb 'daarop' + V2 + partitive -s: 'dáárop' (= 'on that') fronts the clause, forcing V2 'staat'; 'iets ... duidelyks' takes the partitive -s after 'iets'.

"De verloop van volk te Parang-Koedjang is alleen toeteschryven aan het VERREGAAND misbruik, dat van de bevolking wordt gemaakt."  
"The depopulation of Parang-Koedjang is to be ascribed solely to the FAR-REACHING abuse practised upon the population."
> Passive-of-obligation 'is toe te schrijven': 'is toe te schrijven aan' (= 'is to be ascribed to') is the 'zijn + te + infinitive' construction expressing possibility/necessity. 'toeteschryven' joins the separable 'toeschrijven' in period spelling.
> Relative 'dat' + worden-passive (verb-final): 'dat' relativises 'misbruik'; the subclause closes on the worden-passive cluster 'wordt gemaakt' ('is practised'), the same idiom as s265.

Wat zegje dáárvan?  
What do you say to that?
> Inverted 'zeg je' + pronominal 'daarvan': 'zegje' joins 'zeg je' (the bare stem after inversion); 'dáárvan' = 'van dat' ('of that'), the pronominal adverb required for inanimate things.

Ziet ge wel dat ik niet zoo excentriek ben als 't schynt, wanneer ik werk maak van recht?  
Do you see now that I am not so eccentric as it seems, when I make a serious matter of justice?
> gij/ge + dat-clause + niet negation: 'Ziet ge' uses the literary pronoun 'ge' with its -t verb; 'dat ... ben' is verb-final, and 'niet' negates the predicate adjective. 'wanneer ik werk maak van recht' adds a wanneer-subclause.

Zie je nu dat ook anderen dit deden?  
Do you see now that others did this too?
> Irregular imperfect 'deden' in a dat-clause: 'deden' is the (irregular) past of doen, sent to the end by 'dat'. The sentence presses Verbrugge to admit others acted as Havelaar does.

--Het is waar, zei Verbrugge, de heer Slotering heeft den resident dikwyls over dat alles gesproken.  
--It is true, said Verbrugge, Mr. Slotering spoke to the resident about all this many times.
> Perfect + dative case remnant 'den resident': 'heeft ... gesproken' is the present perfect; 'den resident' keeps the masculine dative -en (object of 'spreken over'). 'dikwyls' = 'dikwijls' (often), y-spelled.

--En wat volgde daarop?  
--And what came of it?
> Imperfect 'volgde' + pronominal 'daarop': 'volgde' is the weak imperfect of volgen; 'daarop' = 'op dat' ('upon that, from that'), the pronominal adverb for an inanimate referent.

--Dan werd de Regent geroepen: er werd geaboucheerd ...  
--Then the Regent would be sent for: there was a private conference ...
> Worden-passive in the past (werd) after fronted 'Dan': 'werd ... geroepen' is the past process passive ('was sent for'); fronting 'Dan' triggers V2, so 'werd' precedes the subject. 'er werd geaboucheerd' is an impersonal passive — no real subject, just 'er'.
> aboucheren — to confer privately: A Gallicism from French 's'aboucher', meaning to have a private, confidential talk. The bureaucratic borrowing underlines that complaints were quietly buried rather than acted on.

--Juist! En verder?  
--Just so! And then?

--De Regent ontkende gewoonlyk alles.  
--The Regent usually denied everything.
> Weak imperfect 'ontkende' (habitual past): 'ontkende' is the weak imperfect of ontkennen, here narrating a habitual past action ('usually denied'). 'gewoonlyk' = 'gewoonlijk', y-spelled.

Dan moesten er getuigen komen ... niemand durfde tegen den Regent getuigen ...--och, m'nheer Havelaar, die zaken zyn zoo moeielyk!  
Then witnesses had to be produced ... no one dared bear witness against the Regent ... oh, Mr. Havelaar, these matters are so difficult!
> Modal moeten (past) + existential er + bare infinitive: 'moesten ... komen' is the past modal with the bare infinitive at the end; 'er getuigen' uses 'er' for an indefinite plural subject ('witnesses had to come'). Fronted 'Dan' forces V2.
> Single negative 'niemand' + dative 'den': 'niemand' carries the clause's one negation; 'durfde ... getuigen' is durven + bare infinitive. 'den Regent' shows the dative case remnant after 'tegen'.

De lezer zal, vóór hy myn boek heeft uitgelezen, even goed als Verbrugge weten waarom die zaken zoo byzonder moeielyk waren.  
The reader, before he has finished my book, will know just as well as Verbrugge why these matters were so peculiarly difficult.
> vóór-clause + perfect of separable 'uitlezen': 'vóór' (before) subordinates, sending the verb cluster to the end; 'heeft uitgelezen' is the perfect of separable 'uitlezen' (to finish reading), prefix reattached in the participle.
> Indirect question is verb-final: An indirect question with 'waarom' behaves like a subclause: the verb 'waren' goes to the end. 'byzonder' and 'moeielyk' show period spelling (bijzonder, moeilijk).

--Mynheer Slotering had er veel ergernis over, vervolgde de kontroleur, hy schreef scherpe brieven aan de Hoofden ...  
--Mr. Slotering took it much to heart, the controller went on, he wrote sharp letters to the Chiefs ...
> Strong imperfect 'schreef' + adjective -e: 'schreef' is the strong (vowel-changing) imperfect of schrijven; 'scherpe brieven' shows the attributive adjective taking -e before a plural noun.
> ergernis over iets hebben (idiom): 'er ... over' is the split pronominal adverb 'about it'; 'ergernis hebben over' means to be vexed or distressed about something. 'Mynheer' (full form here) = mijnheer.

--Ik heb ze gelezen ... heden nacht, zei Havelaar.  
--I have read them ... last night, said Havelaar.
> Perfect with object pronoun 'ze': 'heb ... gelezen' is the present perfect; the object pronoun 'ze' (them, the letters) sits in the middle field before the final participle.

--En ik heb hem dikwyls hooren zeggen dat hy, als er geen verandering kwam, en als de resident niet doortastte zich rechtstreeks zou wenden tot den Gouverneur-generaal.  
--And I have often heard him say that, if no change came, and if the resident did not act with vigour, he would turn directly to the Governor-General.
> Perception verb + double bare infinitive: 'heb ... hooren zeggen' = 'have heard say': the perfect of the perception verb 'horen' appears as a bare infinitive (not 'gehoord'), and stacks with 'zeggen' — the infinitivus pro participio.
> Conditional 'als'-clauses + main-clause 'zou': Two 'als' (if) subclauses, each verb-final ('kwam', 'doortastte'), set the condition for the main conditional 'zou ... wenden' ('would turn to'). 'zich wenden tot' is reflexive.

Dit heeft hy ook aan de Hoofden zelf gezegd op den laatsten Sebah dien hy heeft voorgezeten.  
He said this to the Chiefs themselves, too, at the last Sebah over which he presided.
> Case remnant 'dien' as relative pronoun: 'dien' is the old accusative form of 'die' (here relativising the masculine 'Sebah'), with matching dative/accusative -en on 'den laatsten'. 'heeft voorgezeten' is the perfect of separable 'voorzitten' (to preside).

--Daaraan zou hy zeer verkeerd hebben gedaan. De resident was zyn chef dien hy in geen geval mocht voorbygaan.  
--In that he would have done very wrong. The resident was his superior, whom on no account was he to pass over.
> Conditional perfect 'zou hebben gedaan': 'zou ... hebben gedaan' is the conditional perfect ('would have done'); fronted pronominal 'Daaraan' (= 'in that') forces V2 'zou'.
> Relative 'dien' + modal mocht + geen: 'dien' is the old accusative relative ('whom'); 'mocht ... voorbygaan' is past modal mogen + the bare infinitive of separable 'voorbijgaan'. 'in geen geval' = 'on no account', the single negation.

En waarom zou hy dat ook? Het is toch niet te veronderstellen dat de resident van Bantam onrecht en willekeur zou goedkeuren?  
And why should he, after all? Surely it is not to be supposed that the resident of Bantam would approve injustice and arbitrary rule?
> Impersonal 'het is ... te veronderstellen': Dummy 'het' subjects the construction 'is ... te veronderstellen' (= 'is to be supposed'), the 'zijn + te + infinitive' of possibility; 'dat ... zou goedkeuren' is the verb-final conditional subclause.
> Conditional zou in a rhetorical question: 'zou hy dat ook?' is an elliptical conditional ('why would he, after all?'), the infinitive understood from context. V2 places 'zou' second after 'waarom'.

--Goedkeuren ... neen! Maar men klaagt niet gaarne by de Regeering een Hoofd aan.  
--Approve ... no! But one does not gladly lodge a complaint against a Chief with the Government.
> Separable 'aanklagen' splits to the end: 'aanklagen' (to lodge a charge against) splits: the stem 'klaagt' stands in V2, while the prefix 'aan' drops to the clause's end. 'men' is generic 'one', 'gaarne' = gladly.
> gaarne = gladly, willingly (literary): 'gaarne' is the older, literary form of modern 'graag' (gladly). It belongs to the formal register and recurs through Havelaar's speech.

--Ik klaag niet gaarne iemand aan, wien ook, maar als 't moet, een Hoofd zoo goed als een ander.  
--I do not gladly bring a charge against anyone, whoever he may be, but when it must be done, a Chief as readily as another man.
> Dative relative/interrogative 'wien': 'wien' is the inflected dative/accusative of 'wie' ('whom'), here in 'wien ook' = 'whoever it may be' — a case remnant of formal Dutch.

Doch van aanklagen is nu hier, goddank, nog geen spraak!  
But of bringing charges there is, thank God, no question here as yet!
> Fronted PP + V2 + negation with geen: Fronting 'van aanklagen' forces V2 'is'; 'geen spraak' negates the indefinite noun ('no question of it'). 'van aanklagen zijn' nominalises the separable infinitive.

Morgen ga ik den Regent bezoeken.  
Tomorrow I shall go and call on the Regent.
> Fronted 'Morgen' + V2; present for future: Fronting the time adverb 'Morgen' triggers V2 'ga ik'; the present tense expresses near-future intent ('Tomorrow I shall go'). 'den Regent' is the dative case remnant.

Ik zal hem 't verkeerde van onwettige gezagsoefening onder 't oog brengen, vooral waar 't om de bezitting van arme menschen te doen is.  
I shall put before him the wrongness of unlawful exercise of authority, above all where the property of poor people is concerned.
> Future zullen + idiom 'onder het oog brengen': 'zal ... brengen' is the future; 'iemand iets onder het oog brengen' is the idiom 'to bring something home to someone'. The infinitive 'brengen' closes the clause.
> Idiom: het is iemand om iets te doen: 'het is om ... te doen' means 'what is at stake / what it is about is...' — here, 'where it concerns the property of poor people'. A common but easily misread period idiom.

Maar in afwachting dat alles te-recht komt, zal ik hem in zyn netelige omstandigheden helpen zooveel ik kan.  
But while waiting for everything to come right, I shall help him in his difficult circumstances as much as I can.
> Separable 'terechtkomen' + present for future: 'te-recht komt' is the separable verb 'terechtkomen' (to come right), here verb-final after 'dat'. The whole phrase 'in afwachting dat...' = 'while waiting for...'.
> Future zullen + helpen + correlative 'zooveel ... als': 'zal ... helpen' is the future; 'zooveel ik kan' = 'as much as I can'. Fronting the long 'Maar in afwachting...' clause forces V2 'zal ik'.

Je begrypt nu immers waarom ik dat geld aan den kollekteur dadelyk heb laten uitbetalen, niet waar?  
You understand now, surely, why I had that money paid out to the collector at once, do you not?
> Causative laten + bare infinitive (in the perfect): 'heb laten uitbetalen' = 'had paid out': causative 'laten' + bare infinitive 'uitbetalen', with 'laten' appearing as a bare infinitive in the perfect (infinitivus pro participio). 'den kollekteur' is the dative remnant.

Ook ben ik van voornemen aan de Regeering te verzoeken, den Regent zyn voorschot kwytteschelden.  
I also intend to ask the Government to remit the Regent's advance.
> van voornemen zijn + te-infinitive: 'van voornemen zijn te' = 'to intend to'; it governs the te-infinitive 'te verzoeken'. Fronting 'Ook' forces V2 'ben ik'.
> kwijtschelden — to remit / forgive a debt: 'kwijtschelden' (here 'kwytteschelden', joined period spelling of 'kwijt te schelden') means to cancel a debt or obligation. Havelaar means to have the Regent's cash advance forgiven.

En u, Verbrugge, stel ik voor, gezamenlyk stipt onzen plicht te doen. Zoolang 't kàn, met zachtheid, maar als 't moet, zonder vrees!  
And to you, Verbrugge, I propose that together we do our duty punctually. So long as it can be, with gentleness, but when it must be, without fear!
> Separable 'voorstellen' + te-infinitive: 'stel ... voor' is the separable verb 'voorstellen' (to propose), split in V2; it governs the te-infinitive 'te doen'. 'onzen plicht' keeps the old accusative -en. Fronting 'En u, Verbrugge' forces V2.
> Conditional subclauses zoolang / als with dummy 't: 'Zoolang' (as long as) and 'als' (when/if) each open a verb-final subclause; the impersonal subject ''t' (= het) stands in for the situation. Modals 'kàn' and 'moet' carry an implied infinitive.

Je bent een eerlyk man, dit weet ik, maar je bent beschroomd.  
You are an honest man, this I know, but you are timid.
> beschroomd = timid, bashful: 'beschroomd' means shy, diffident, hesitant to act — the flaw Havelaar gently names in Verbrugge. 'eerlyk' = 'eerlijk' (honest), y-spelled.

Zeg voortaan flink uit waar 't op staat, advienne que pourra! Werp die halfheid van je, beste kerel ... en nu, blyf by ons eten: we hebben hollandsche bloemkool in blik ... maar alles is zeer eenvoudig, want ik moet heel zuinig zyn ... ik ben erg ten-achter in geldzaken: de reis naar Europa, weetje?  
From now on, say plainly how matters stand, advienne que pourra! Cast off that half-heartedness of yours, my good fellow ... and now, stay and dine with us: we have tinned Dutch cauliflower ... but everything is very simple, for I must be very thrifty ... I am badly behind in money matters: the voyage to Europe, you know?
> Imperative of separable 'uitzeggen' + idiom: 'Zeg ... uit' is the imperative of separable 'uitzeggen', prefix at the end; 'waar 't op staat' = 'how matters stand' (pronominal 'waar ... op'). A direct command to speak plainly.
> Imperative + demonstrative 'die' + 'van je': 'Werp' is the bare-stem imperative of werpen (to throw off); 'die halfheid' uses the far demonstrative for a de-word, and 'van je' = 'of yours'. 'blyf by ons eten' chains another imperative.

Kom, Max ... sakkerloot, jongen, wat word je zwaar! En, met Max te-paard op zyn schouder, trad hy, gevolgd door Verbrugge, de binnengalery in, waar Tine hen wachtte aan den gedekten disch die, zooals Havelaar gezegd had, wel zeer eenvoudig was!  
Come, Max ... by Jove, my boy, how heavy you are growing! And, with Max astride his shoulder, he stepped, followed by Verbrugge, into the inner gallery, where Tine awaited them at the laid table which, as Havelaar had said, was indeed very simple!
> Exclamative with V2 inversion: 'wat word je zwaar!' fronts the degree word 'wat', forcing V2 'word je' ('how heavy you are growing!'). Present tense expresses ongoing change.
> Fronted phrase + V2 'trad' + separable 'intreden': The long fronted phrase forces V2 'trad' (strong imperfect of treden); the separable prefix 'in' of 'intreden' lands at the very end ('stepped into the inner gallery').
> Relative 'waar' and 'die' + dative 'den': 'waar' relativises the place; 'die ... was' relativises 'disch' (a de-word) and is verb-final. 'den gedekten disch' shows the dative case remnant on article and adjective.
---

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.