1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Dutch
  4. >
  5. "Jij staat, zodat jij niet sl…

"Jij staat, zodat jij niet slaapt."

Translation:You stand so as not to sleep.

July 28, 2014



Zodat = so that. Nice.


It's my new favorite Dutch word XD


standing for the sake of not sleeping is not always effective, i've found.


I feel asleep standing up, while talking to someone at a party....it CAN be done !


I fell asleep....


Can I ask about "slaap"? Is it "sleep" in the sense of "be asleep" and is there a separate verb "to fall asleep" (like German "einschlafen")?


Yes, that's right. In Dutch we use "inslapen", it's precisely the same.


Can we say "zodat jij slaapt niet" ?


No. 'Zodat' is a subordinating conjunction, therefore the clause after 'zodat' has a verb-final word order. There's a nice example in Dutch and German here of 'omdat' which is also a subordinating conjunction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_%28grammar%29 under the header 'Subordinating conjunctions')


Is "zodat" also "therefore"?


Yes, as in "so that"


Any reason I can't say "You stand, so you are not asleep"?


That would be "Jij staat dus jij slaapt niet". "Dus" signifies a conclusion, "zodat" signifies a consequence.


'You stand so that you sleep not' is also possible; rarer and more poetic than the mundane variant given.


Really? I've never heard that before except in an archaic context. It would sound very strange to me if someone said it in conversation.


Not all language is conversational. The grammar and vocabulary used for writing, especially non-fiction and journalism, tends to be more old-fashioned or at least less simplified. In proper context, it would not be exceedingly rare to read such a phrase in even a recently-written novel or article.


Ducky from NCIS speaks like that.


So if I want to put the subordinating clause first the corecct sentence would be "Zodat jij niet slaapt, staat jij", is that correct?

Sorry if this question isn't quite related to the answer but I'm just trying to understand the word order with the subordinate conjuctions.


The sentence sounds a bit silly, but you got the clauses right (detail: it's "zodat jij niet slaapt, sta jij").


Can you explain, why "sta jij", not "staat jij"?


In a question, the verb is before the subject and it doesn't have the extra -t:

  • Do you have?: heb jij?
  • You have: jij hebt
  • Are you standing?: sta jij
  • You are standing: jij staat


I didn't realize it is also true for inversion. Thank you


Could "staat" mean wake up/get up in this context?


I think not. Staat means "state, condition, status, posture" as a noun and "stand/exist [in a condition]" as a verb. In this context it is clear that it means stand, but "get up" would be opstaat. "Wake up" is either wakker, wordt wakker (will awaken) or ontwaakt. There may be a strange colloquial usage, though.


"Jij staat, zodat je niet slaapt" why is this wrong?


Was this a listening exercise for you? If so, you have to listen carefully to what the man says. Je is pronounced differently to "jij".


Why is the clause after zodat is not inverted, like how it was in other sentences?


Indeed it is inverted. To say "You don't sleep" as main clause is "Jij slaapt niet". Here the conjugated verb is at the end ("zodat jij niet slaapt"), although the structure is simple.


Exactly. So shouldn't it be 'Jij staat, zodat jij slaapt niet'?


Not inverted: "Jij slaapt niet" Inverted: "Jij niet slaapt". With the conjugated verb at the end of the sentence. Therefore, as the subclause with "zodat" requires inversion the sentence will be: "Jij staat, zodat jij niet slaapt"


I presume that once you use the emphasized form "jij" once in the sentence you have to use it again in the second clause. Is this correct?


No, in fact it makes more sense to use "je" in the second clause. The listener already knows who you are talking about, so there is no need to emphasise it a second time.


Makes sense, Simius. Thanks!


Sorry. Could i not write: you stand as to not sleep?


No, we are learning "so as", "so that" here. Secondly "to not sleep" is a split infinitive, which should be avoided. "To" should always be followed by the verb, so rearrange what you are going to say in your head before you say or write it, and it will come out better. Except if you are Jim "To boldly go" Kirk, the most famous split infinitive in the English language.


Maar ik ben een paard!


Why can you not use "je" in this sentance? Is it just because that's not what he is saying?


Yes, because that's not what he's saying. Computer says no.


Technically not wrong, just less emphasis. Duolingo usually wants you to differentiate between jij and je though when doing listening exercises


Can any native English speaker explain this part of the sentence ('so as not to')? Please!


"So as not to" is not very elegant English. "You stand in order not to fall asleep" is the proper English rendering of this sentence.I hope you like "in order not to" more!


Thanks man, your option sounds better. I'm still improving my English! :P


I beg to differ. Both "so as not to" and "in order not to" are correct, and although the latter is more common, I would be inclined to consider the former more elegant, in that it has a slightly more formal cachet.


Each to their own, Squonky.


Again we differ - I'd say, "Each to his own," which is the established phrase, in spite of the great increase in the use of "their" as an attributive adjective used for the singular.


You don't know if I'm a boy or a girl, you sexist! 'Each to their own' neatly surmounts the fact that I do not know this of you, dear Squonk.


I do not want to make light of the fact sexism is a very serious issue here in the US. However, the use of "their" (as far as I have read) as a gender neutral singular pronoun is relatively new in English. Additionally, the phrase "To each his own" is a well established idiomatic phrase, as is the use of the masculine gender for unknown/generalized subjects, so I would argue that not only is it not sexist to use "To each his own" in the context in which it was, but it is more grammatically correct as well.


Many people feel that using "his" as the default singular deprecates women. Many even go so far as to use "her" in all situations in an effort to make up for the centuries "his" has been the standard of usage. For me it's a question of how it sounds, and to my ears, "their," in a sentence like "To each their own" simply sounds bad. In fact, I experience a visceral reaction, probably because my father was an English teacher who would get so worked up he would yell at the TV when the ad for Winston cigarettes came on ("Winston tastes good like a cigarette should.") Yes, that was a very long time ago but the effect of his grammatical influence has never left me. I am far from being sexist - just an overly sensitive victim of a very strict grammarian.


Have a lingot in sympathy for your oppressive upbringing! I'm impervious to bad English except when I hear "Can I get a...." in place of "May I have a...". I feel a real shock of adrenaline-like anger when someone says that. But that's a battle lost.


Thanks for the lingot! I didn't really mean to give the impression that my upbringing was oppressive. I wouldn't have had it any other way and my dad was a fantastic guy. But from your mention of your aversion to "Can I get a..." I'm sure you understand that one's education can sometimes cause undue stress. I don't know where you live but the phrase "Can I get a..." is used about a hundred times more than "May I have a..." in NYC.


Just for questioning word order, could you say: zodat jij niet slaapt, staat jij

Learn Dutch in just 5 minutes a day. For free.