{"id":6665,"date":"2021-02-11T13:11:01","date_gmt":"2021-02-11T13:11:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.transparent.com\/dutch\/?p=6665"},"modified":"2021-04-02T12:35:56","modified_gmt":"2021-04-02T12:35:56","slug":"curious-dutch-words-uitprinten","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.transparent.com\/dutch\/curious-dutch-words-uitprinten\/","title":{"rendered":"Curious Words in Dutch 7: Uitprinten"},"content":{"rendered":"

Have you heard people say “to print out” and thought to yourself, that doesn’t sound right? Imagine the strangeness when “print” isn’t even a word native to your language. Welcome to the curiosity of the Dutch word “uitprinten”.<\/p>\n

Previous posts in this series:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Curious Words In Dutch<\/a><\/p>\n

Uitprinten!\u00a0<\/em>Or…\u00a0Printen<\/em>?<\/strong><\/h1>\n
\"printen<\/a>

Image by Bank Phrom at Unsplash.com<\/p><\/div>\n

A word that is made up of multiple terms is called a\u00a0samentrekking\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>(contraction).\u00a0Uitprinten\u00a0<\/em>is like the English “to print out”, and you hear it quite frequently. However, it’s not a real Dutch word. First, the verb\u00a0printen\u00a0<\/em>is an anglicism from the word “to print”. So is\u00a0uitprinten\u00a0<\/em>an anglicism from “to print out”? It seems not to be the case.<\/p>\n

Like many anglicisms in Dutch, there is a Dutch word with the same meaning. In the case of\u00a0printen<\/em>, it’s\u00a0uitdraaien<\/em>.\u00a0Uitdraaien\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>means as much as “to turn out”.<\/p>\n

In this way,\u00a0uitprinten\u00a0<\/em>actually is something worse than a\u00a0samentrekking\u00a0<\/em>– it’s a\u00a0contaminatie\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>(contamination)! A verb contaminated with the\u00a0voorzetsel <\/em>(preposition) of another verb. And it’s an even weirder creature where it gets married to an anglicism. It’s like we’re back in the 17th century, when the British and Dutch shared a ruler<\/a>!<\/p>\n

Is uitprinten <\/i>that bad? Or is it useful?<\/strong><\/h1>\n
\"print<\/a>

“Zei daar net iemand UITPRINTEN?!?!?!” (Did somebody just say PRINTING OUT?!?!??!) (Image by Ren\u00e9 DeAnda at Unsplash.com)<\/p><\/div>\n

Now, one could say that the case of\u00a0uitprinten\u00a0<\/em>is a bad one. That it besmirches the Dutch language, etcetera. I personally hold the view that we should have a\u00a0laissez-faire\u00a0<\/em>attitude to language evolution, as long as people understand what is meant. As long as this is within limits.1<\/a><\/sup>For example, a legal contract that deals with Onjuist Spatiegebruik (incorrect space usage) can lead to all kinds of confusion, or, worse, actual real-world problems.<\/span><\/p>\n

So with regard to\u00a0uitprinten<\/em> – I don’t mind it. I think it’s a useful addition to the Dutch language. Like Peter-Arno Coppen describes in Trouw<\/a>,\u00a0printen\u00a0<\/em>refers more to the\u00a0werking van de printer<\/strong>\u00a0<\/em>(the function of the printer),\u00a0uitprinten\u00a0<\/em>specifically refers to the process of getting a printed page\u00a0uit de printer<\/em><\/strong> (out of the printer). He therefore does not see it as a\u00a0contaminatie<\/em>. Meneer <\/em>Coppen also makes the useful argument that direction matters with these contaminations, and that this is why they catch on. I think that might also be behind the English “to print out”.<\/p>\n

OnzeTaal subscribes<\/a> our urge to add\u00a0voorzetsels\u00a0<\/em>to verbs to a need for\u00a0expressi<\/em>viteit\u00a0<\/em>(expressivity)<\/strong>. Adding the\u00a0voorzetsel\u00a0<\/em>makes the meaning stronger. Printing something OUT really emphasizes the action of something leaving the printer. OnzeTaal also lists a lot more of these verbs<\/a> that add meaning with their\u00a0voorzetsel\u00a0<\/em>but are sometimes dismissed as\u00a0contaminaties<\/em>. Examples are\u00a0inscannen\u00a0<\/em>(to scan in) and\u00a0uitproberen\u00a0<\/em>(to try out).<\/p>\n

Another interesting point is that printen\u00a0<\/em>and\u00a0uitprinten\u00a0<\/em>work a little differently. Look:<\/p>\n

Ik heb net wat geprint \/ ik heb net wat uitgeprint\u00a0<\/em>(I just printed something \/ I just printed something out)<\/p>\n

But:<\/p>\n

ik kan daar<\/em> printen\u00a0<\/em>(I can print there).<\/p>\n

In this latter case, you don’t have a\u00a0lijdend voorwerp\u00a0<\/em>(object)<\/a>, and in that case, you can’t use\u00a0uitprinten<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Finally, it’s not even really clear whether\u00a0uitprinten\u00a0<\/em>is a contamination with\u00a0uitdraaien<\/em><\/strong>, as the\u00a0voorzetsel\u00a0<\/em>actually makes sense here, as it would with\u00a0uitdraaien<\/em>. So perhaps it was simply added, regardless of the existence of\u00a0uitdraaien\u00a0<\/em>or not. I think there might be some opposition to anglicisation of the Dutch language at the heart of this dismissal of\u00a0uitprinten\u00a0<\/em>and other alleged\u00a0contaminaties<\/em>.<\/p>\n

A Belgian Variant: Afprinten<\/em><\/strong><\/h1>\n
\"Afdrukken<\/a>

Brugge <\/em>(Bruges), Belgium (Image by Erin Summer at Pixabay.com)<\/p><\/div>\n

In Belgium, the\u00a0samentrekking\u00a0<\/em>afprinten\u00a0<\/em>is common, which may come from afdrukken\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>and\u00a0printen<\/em>. While afdrukken <\/em>is an often used synonym in Dutch for uitprinten<\/em>, afprinten <\/em>is really only common in the Belgian taalgebied <\/em>(language region).<\/p>\n

What do you think? Is it problematic, or useful? Do you have other examples in Dutch or in your language? Let me know in the comments below!<\/strong><\/h4>\n