Archaic Dutch declension
The Dutch language in its modern form does not have grammatical cases, and nouns only have singular and plural forms. Many remnants of former case declensions remain in the Dutch language, but few of them are productive. One exception is the genitive case, which is still productive to a certain extent. Although in the spoken language the case system was probably in a state of collapse as early as the 16th century, cases were still prescribed in the written standard up to 1946/1947. This article describes the system in use until then. For a full description of  modern Dutch grammar, see Dutch grammar. See also History of Dutch orthography. Case usage. The four Dutch cases were the nominative, genitive, dative and accusative. They were still alive and in use in Middle Dutch, but they gradually fell out of use in early modern Dutch. Seventeenth-century grammarians and those that came after them attempted to keep the case system alive, and codified a written standard that included them. This standard was prescriptive—an attempt to influence how people wrote and spoke Dutch rather than to reflect how they already spoke naturally. It included not just the crumbling case  system, but also a strict separation between masculine and feminine genders, falling out of use in some dialects as well. Many grammarians of the time attempted to make Dutch more like Latin and Greek, and even included cases such as the ablative and locative which had not existed in any ancestor of Dutch since Proto-Indo-European times. By the 18th century, the everyday spoken language had lost its case system in most dialects, but it remained present in the written standard. Rules for the use of cases were relaxed in the Marchant spelling of 1934, and were finally abolished  in the 1946/1947 spelling reform, along with many other archaic features. After the reform, the use of cases was discouraged, although they were still allowed by the standard. In modern Dutch, they are preserved in certain fixed expressions. They also continue to be used when writers want to make something sound deliberately archaic. Only the nominative case or the accusative case survives in the modern spoken language ("nominativism" and "accusativism" respectively); which case survives depends on the dialect. In dialects with accusativism, the masculine and feminine genders remain distinct; in dialects with nominativism, they are merged. This is because in  the older declension, the nominative was the same for the masculine and feminine gender, but the accusative forms differed: Nominative. In the older standard, the nominative ("nominatief" or "eerste naamval") was used for the following: Genitive. The genitive ("genitief" or "tweede naamval") was used in the following cases: Many of these uses are replaced by the preposition "van" in modern Dutch. A few cases use other prepositions. The (possessive) genitives of the personal pronouns are replaced by the possessive pronouns. The possessive form of the genitive is still productive when used with proper names. This form does not resemble the  old genitive, which was a full case and had distinctive endings on each word in a phrase. Instead, it is a possessive clitic much like in English, and attaches to the last word in the whole phrase. For example, "Jans auto" (John's car) is productive and in common usage. However, in some cases the old form is still productive to evoke a certain style: "de generatie der babyboomers" or to avoid using "van" too often: "de wensen van de meerderheid der Nederlandse bevolking". A partitive genitive form of the adjective is still used after words like "iets", "niets" (something , nothing), e.g. "iets nieuws" (something new). Gerunds can sometimes still be found in the genitive case in expressions involving "tot ... toe": "tot vervelens toe", (until boredom set in) "tot bloedens toe" (until bleeding occurred) Dative. The dative ("datief" or "derde naamval") was used in the following cases: In modern Dutch, the dative case is technically still required after the preposition "te" (to). However, this preposition itself has fallen out of use, and is found only in fixed expressions. These expressions tend to keep the original dative form. For example, "ten slotte" (finally), "te allen tijde". It is also used somewhat  productively in relation to proper place names, without any case marking. For example, "Het Rijksmuseum te Amsterdam" (The National Museum in Amsterdam). Even this is still dated to some degree. Nouns of action on -ing (which are feminine) can still be combined with "ter": ter herdenking (to commemorate) and enjoy a modicum of productivity: "ter wikifiëring" (to be wikified) is certainly acceptable Dutch. Accusative. The accusative ("accusatief" or "vierde naamval") was used in the following cases: The accusative case was left for objects of transitive verbs and objects of all prepositions except for "te". However, as distinctions between the grammatical  cases were only weakly felt among speakers of Dutch, the feminine and neuter declensions were identical in the nominative and accusative, and the masculine declension was identical for the accusative and dative, endless confusion reigned. Articles. Definite article. The forms in brackets are shortened forms that were occasionally used. They were somewhat colloquial. The preposition "te" contracts with a following definite article: "te den" → "ten", "te der" → "ter". Compare this to German "zum", "zur". Indefinite article. Because Dutch had many spelling reforms, some forms had different spellings in the past. The stem was formerly spelled "een-" regardless of  the ending, so "eenen", "eener" etc. The modern spelling, given in the table, are written according to the rules of modern Dutch orthography. The forms in brackets are shortened forms that were occasionally used. As with the shortenings of the definite article, these are colloquial. Nouns. A distinction was made between strong and weak declensions. The weak declension had most cases with the ending "-en" in the singular, while the strong declension had other endings. This distinction wasn't as important in 19th century standard Dutch as it was in earlier Old and Middle Dutch. The two types were much  more distinct in Old and Middle Dutch, but gradually became mixed together. The older strong plural forms disappeared so that all nouns became weak in the plural. In the singular the opposite happened: the weak declension was replaced with the strong declension in most nouns. The difference was then only relevant for the singular, the plural was the same for all nouns. The older standards of Dutch maintained a strict separation between the masculine, feminine and neuter gender. While this is not significant in the modern language without cases, it was important in the older standard because the masculine and  feminine nouns declined rather differently. Masculine and neuter nouns declined the same, and were usually strong, with some nouns retaining the weak declension. Feminine nouns declined differently, and there was no strong-versus-weak distinction for them. Because the difference between masculine and feminine was disappearing or had already disappeared in the spoken language, some nouns tended to mix masculine and feminine endings. One will come across fixed expressions such as "te zijner tijd" (feminine dative singular) alongside "destijds" (masculine genitive singular). This confusion was largely eliminated when cases were abolished, but on the occasion that cases are used in  modern Dutch, this confusion is very frequent in areas where the spoken language has only a single "common" gender. Thus, masculine and feminine case endings, when used nowadays, may be almost interchangeable. Masculine and neuter nouns. The following declension was used for most masculine and neuter nouns. It had also come to be used for female proper names, but normal feminine nouns used a separate declension, seen further below. Strong nouns. Most nouns had "-s" in the genitive singular. This was extended to "-es" when it would have caused an awkward-to-pronounce combination of sounds otherwise ("huis", gen. sg . "huizes"), but it was also used occasionally for nouns that didn't require it. If the noun ended with a long vowel, then an apostrophe was included as in modern usage. The "-e" of the dative singular was frequently dropped. Some masculine and neuter nouns became feminine in the dative singular. See below under "mixed nouns". The plural could end in either "-en" or "-s". A few had plurals in "-eren" ("kind", pl. "kinderen"). This is the same as in modern Dutch, see Dutch grammar for more details. Weak nouns. Some nouns retained a weak genitive in the singular, including  nouns with a nominative sg. in -e and substantivised adjectives. Examples are "mens" (man), "bode" (courier), and "dappere" ("brave one"). Many of the weak nouns were words for people, including "bediende" (servant) "graaf" (count), "heer" (lord), "hertog" (duke), "knaap" (lad), "prins" (prince), "vorst" (prince). "Hart" (heart) belongs to the same group (but see below). Some relics remain of the weak declension in modern Dutch. The cities of 's-Gravenhage (more commonly "Den Haag", The Hague) and 's-Hertogenbosch (Den Bosch) both still show the original weak genitive ending in their names. The Christian expression "dag des Heren" (day of the  Lord) also retains it. Feminine nouns. Feminine nouns had a simpler declension. When separate endings were used, the genitive and dative singular forms would end in "-e". Female proper names did not follow this declension, but were declined as strong masculine/neuter nouns instead. Mixed nouns. Some nouns mixed several types of declension. The most common irregularity was a feminine dative singular replacing the masculine or neuter one. Adjectives. The older standard distinguished between predicative and attributive adjectives, much as the modern standard. It also distinguished definite and indefinite declensions. However, the difference was three-way rather than two-way : This distinction still exists in modern German. In modern Dutch, the mixed and strong declensions have fallen together, becoming the indefinite declension, while the weak declension remains as the definite declension. Adjectives ending in "-en" (e.g. "houten", "koperen") did not receive any endings, like in modern Dutch. Mixed declension. The masculine and feminine endings in "-en" and "-e" of the indefinite article were frequently dropped even in written language. However, the endings in "-en" and "-e" of "een, geen, mijn, uw, zijn, hun," and "haar" were strictly maintained in government and administrative documents until 1946/7. Strong declension. There also was  a special vocative form for the neuter singular: "Lieve kind" (Sweet child). However, this form was not widely accepted, and the nominative was used instead. Pronouns and determiners. Most pronouns and determiners followed the strong adjective declension. Some pronouns (such as "iemand", "iets", "elkaar") declined as nouns and had only "-s" in the genitive but no endings otherwise. Those that were irregular in some way are given here. Personal pronouns. Uniquely, modern Dutch retains the use of cases in the personal pronouns. The older forms were the same as the modern ones, with the modern object form used for both  the dative and accusative, and the subject form for the nominative. For the genitive, the possessive determiners (which were fully inflected, see below) were used, but there were also special pronoun forms which used the genitive form of the possessive (ending "-er"). An exception was the third-person plural. The standard prescribed that "hen" was the accusative form, while "hun" was the dative. Possessive determiners. The possessive determiners declined like strong adjectives. In modern Dutch, they don't decline at all, except for "ons". Like in modern Dutch, a different declension was used when the possessives were used as nouns . This declension resembled the strong declension of nouns in the singular, but with an extra "-e" added in many cases. In the plural, the strong adjective declension was used, but the neuter nominative/accusative had only "-e", not "-en". Demonstratives. The proximal pronoun "deze": The distal pronoun "die": The interrogative pronoun "wie" (who) declined the same way. Historical overview. Dutch, like many other Indo-European languages, has gradually moved its nominal morphology from synthetic to chiefly analytic. It has retained some vestiges of the original case system, more so than English, but to a much lesser extent than German. In  modern Dutch, nouns and articles are no longer inflected for case, although an elaborate case system was used in the written language until the middle of the 20th century. In addition, many surnames, toponyms and set expressions still exhibit fossilised inflected forms of the article and noun. Middle Ages. In Middle Dutch, a productive case system was still in existence, which was very similar to that of modern German. Given below is the so-called "strong" inflection. 16th to 18th centuries. It was already observed in the 15th century that there existed no distinction between the nominative and accusative forms  of nouns and articles in the northern dialects. From the Renaissance onward, the view that the Dutch language should somehow be 'ennobled' with an extensive case system after the model of Latin was widespread. Hendrik Louwerisz. Spieghel, an influential 16th-century grammarian, tried to reform and standardize the Dutch case system in his book on grammar, "Twe-spraack van de Nederduitsche Letterkunst" ["Dialogue on the Low German art of letters"] (1584). In particular, Spieghel wanted to create a distinction in grammatical function between two existing forms of the definite article, "de" and "den", having "de" pertain to subjects and "den  to objects. (In this system, no distinction was made between masculine and feminine nouns, as was later done; des vrouws", "den vrouwe" (f) would stand alongside "des heers", "den here" (m).) Another artificial distinction, still in use today, between the plural personal pronouns "hun" (for the indirect object) and "hen" (for the direct object) was created by Christiaen van Heule, who wrote "De Nederduytsche spraec-konst ofte tael-beschrijvinghe" ["The Low German speech-art or language-description"] (printed in 1633). In the same vein, the distinction between masculine and feminine nouns was rigidly maintained, although this distinction was felt only  vaguely at best in the northern dialects. (In the dialects of the Southern Netherlands, however, the distinction did indeed exist and is still in existence today.) Celebrated poets such as Joost van den Vondel and Pieter Cornelisz. Hooft often disagreed in assigning gender to nouns, which they arbitrarily based on equivalents in Latin, German, or other languages whenever they saw fit. Their choices were adopted by the grammarian David van Hoogstraten in his "Aenmerkingen over de Geslachten der Zelfstandige Naemwoorden" ["Comments on the genders of the independent nouns"] (1700); where Vondel and Hooft disagreed, Van Hoogstraten would assign a gender  to a noun by his own choice. These "gender lists" were steadily extended, especially by professor Adriaan Kluit (1735–1807), who revised Van Hoogstraten's work. Kluit's list formed the basis of later 19th-and early 20th-century practice. 19th and early 20th centuries. This artificial approach to the Dutch language remained the prevailing practice through the 17th and 18th centuries, but attitudes began to change in the 19th century. The rigidity of the written language was satirized in 1865 by Jacob van Lennep in his "De vermakelijke spraakkunst" ["The amusing art of language"], in which he noticed that the  case system was hardly used in spoken language. The practice of approaching Dutch as if it were a classical, inflecting language comparable to Latin and Greek (or German) was gradually abandoned in the 19th century, and it was recognized that word order played a far greater role in defining grammatical relationships. (1857–1942) advocated radical spelling reforms for the whole of the Dutch language, at a time when a rather extensive case system was maintained in the written language by the De Vries–Te Winkel spelling. The table below shows the conventions of the written language in the late 19th and  early 20th centuries. Only the "strong" inflection is shown here. Later 20th century to present. Kollewijn's proposals for a much simplified spelling, which included the effective abandonment of the case system, were adopted by Minister of Education Marchant for use at schools in 1934, which meant that the case endings were no longer taught at school. Kollewijn's spelling was officially implemented by the Belgian and Dutch governments in 1946 and 1947 respectively. Since 1946/1947, only one form is used for all cases, and the only remaining distinction is the one between singular and plural. Numerous remnants of the  old system remain in the language, usually on the level of individual idioms, but there are larger issues. One part of the legacy involved the formation of compounds, like "bijenkorf" (beehive). In modern Dutch the two parts of a compound are typically linked by either -e-, -en- or -s- and historically these linkers descend from the genitive endings of the old case system. Particularly the question when to use -e- or -en- became a source of a plethora of spelling errors, because the system that produced the forms was no longer understood. In 1995 and 2006 spelling changes were adopted  that introduced new rules that abandoned any relationship with the historical development of the word. Sampling. From the Dutch language Wikipedia: