Talk:willen

1. This verb does not have a subjunctive because it is an old optative itself.
2. The proper forms for second person are jij wilt en wil jij in inversion, u wilt en wilt u in inversion. "Jij wil" and "u wil" are very informal and archaic/informal respectively. The latter because "u" is originally a third person.
3. The third person is definitely NOT hij wilt but "hij wil". This is really wrong.
4. The past participle is often supplanted by the infinitive. "Hij had willen zeggen..." - He had wanted to say...
5. The forms wou/wouden are frowned upon by some people for -for me- rather inexplicable reasons. They are quite old (from the old wollen- wolden). They are officially accepted by the Taalunie, so I do not see why they have to be denounced as 'informal'. There is nothing wrong with them.

Jcwf 03:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

1.) The subjunctive "wille" seems attestable. At any rate your reasoning is invalid. It doesn't follow from that it can't have developed a new subjunctive. German "wollen" definitely did.

2.) No. All combinations are possible "jij wil, u wil" and "jij wilt, u wilt". What is true is that the forms in -t are preferred in the contemporary standard language.

3.) It is nonstandard, but hij wilt is heard quite a bit.

4.) That's a general thing, not at all specific to "willen". Also it doesn't happen "often", but under precise circumstances, namely when there is another infinitive (double infinitive construction).

5.) Whether something is informal or not has nothing to do with it being old or new. Usage decides. "Wou" is standard, but avoided in very formal writing. "Wouden" is clearly informal. 92.218.236.121 08:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)