Kirsten Bodart Oct 19, 2011:

I apologise for my misinterpretation although the description you give is one which is esstenially giving a name to a way of writing. you could put it like that, but as i said I have never seen it used in a text other than one for grammar pruposes, like 'stellende trap'. To me, then, it would not be plausible that someone were to write it in a table as that would be quite strange. People would understand it, but would find it at least badly written... That is not to say it isn't possible of course.

Though it does mean what we both think. Not more than 'argumentative', 'indicative' or by way of stating something. That is firm because the person who states believes, but it is not really forceful.

Bryan Crumpler Oct 19, 2011:

Just to clarify... I understood what you were saying, Kirsten, and I agree with it.

Just to clarify: the "twisting" to which I was referring dealt more with the presumption that we were necessarily dealing with "speaking" as opposed to "writing".

Of course, neither can be ruled out, I'm just concerned with its relevance with respect to choosing words, however they be communicated.

Just to paraphrase from the book listed here -> http://is.gd/LhvqE5 <- "het schrijven van rhetorische teksten met een mening en een argument die je proberen over te halen tot een manier van denken of een bepaalde actie, heet 'stellend schrijven' ..."

Would you agree, then, that "stellend" here means "argumentative" (as in "argumentative writing")? It would appear correct, given that in argumentative writing, one would often use indicative (aka assertive) verb forms to get the point across, no?

Just some options to get us all thinking outside the box.

Kirsten Bodart Oct 19, 2011:

I must have missed it completely then in my 29+ years of reading things in that language and the Van Dale must also have completely ignored the value of the word as an adjective. 'Stellende wijs' is a grammatical term and the word 'stellend' is only used in grammar to mean something like indicative or neutral. That is not twisted.

However, I totally agree that 'stellig' is quite impossible and that the word in the table will mean something to do with the word 'stellen' (so weaker than krachtig anyway). If you really want to make it an adjective to go with 'krachtig', then make it an English gerund. That would go well.

It doesn't really matter what kind of word the original one is.

Bryan Crumpler Oct 19, 2011:

On typos & inventions 'e' is nowhere near an 'i', not on azerty, nor on qwerty.

'g' is somewhat near an 'n', HOWEVER, the 'g' is traditionally hit with the left hand index finger as opposed to any finger on the right hand.

To get from "-en" to "-ig" is entirely implausible as a "typo". The writers mind would have had to have been somewhere else completely.

As for "iets stellend zeggen", it takes a bit of twisting to arrive at that interpretation, so let's not get it twisted. It's "woordenkeuze" that is being modified here, not "zeggen". We don't know if there is "speaking" going on, or if it involves "writing"...

Er wordt dikwijls veel gezegd in (de) stellende wijs of op een stellende manier. Eveneens wordt er wel stellend geschreven.

"Stellend schrijven" or "krachtig schrijven" would still involve some choice of words that would thereby deem the writings either "stellend" or "krachtig"

ebell (asker) Oct 19, 2011:

It may well be a typo. There are some other typos in the text.
The other words in this particular table are nearly all adjectives. My impression is that this word should mean something similar to 'krachtig'. 'Stellig' seems to fit the scenario.

Kirsten Bodart Oct 19, 2011:

As a Dutch/Flemish native I find this thing the Asker is translating very strange. Stellig, as Bryan says, is very unlikely as that would be a very very bad typo. 'Stellend' though is not used in this way. You can 'stellen' by way of expressing your opinion or 'argue' in an academic way, but you can't say 'iets stellend zeggen', nor is it very common to use it in the gerund except in grammar terms. Neither can you say 'iets stellig zeggen'. It is even mostly used as 'ze gelooft stellig'. i have never ever heard or seen it used as 'stellig zeggen'.
I believe, in view of the other questions that the aser has asked about this, that it is just a table with words thrown together and they only have meaning and association for the writer. 'Stel eens voor', for example has a word missing, unless the writer is from Suriname (apparently).
My guess is that the writer really means the verb 'stellen', but in combination with an adjective which throws us a little.

Ide Verhelst (X) Oct 19, 2011:

Stellend I think Bryan has got a point. But on the other hand, "stellend" (stating) is so weak that it adds nothing to the meaning. Except if "krachtig" and "stellend" are the two opposites on the same scale.

Bryan Crumpler Oct 19, 2011:

Speaking of typos... A Freudian slip it may be, but I can't imagine this being reduced to a typo of the form being speculated. Typos are minor, such as forgetting to hit the 'd' key. If that was the case, we're left with a more reasonable conclusion that the gerund "stellend" was meant instead of the verb "stellen" in its infinitive form. To go from "stellen" to "stellig", however, is somewhat far reaching.

stellend is weaker in connotation - i.e. declarative or assertive
stellig is bolder - i.e. forcefully insistent or emphatic

Alexander Schleber (X) Oct 19, 2011:

"krachtig of stellig" "krachtig of stellen" (adjective followed by a verb??) does not appear to be correct NL (without further context). I think it should be stellig.