"It is quiet, so he says something."
Translation:Het is rustig, dus hij zegt iets.
"Het is rustig, dus hij iets zegt" was not accepted. Is the second part of the sentence not a subordinate clause where the verb must go on the end?
'dus' is a co-ordinating conjunction, so the second part of the sentence is subject-verb-object, not subject-object-verb.
zodat is subordinating, but it wasn't accepted: Het is rustig, zodat hij iets zegt. Why?
Zodat means more as "so that", which is followed by a desired situation afterwards. Using it would change the meaning of the sentence.
Dus means "thus / so" and that fits the sentence.
In the English sentence, so is used as a coordinating conjunction connecting two main clauses. There are plenty of Dutch words that can be used for the same function, but zo is not one of them. In Dutch you would use dus (compare English thus) or alzo.
The lack of extraneous sound -- stil
Emphasising peace and quiet -- rustig
Rustig rarely has a negative connotation, whereas stil can. (see below)
Ze is een rustig iemand. -- "She is a quiet person."
Waarom ben je zo stil? -- "Why are you being so quiet?"
Wees stil. -- "Be quiet."
Otherwise they are pretty much interchangeable in many contexts.
I wrote "Omdat het zo stil is zegt hij wat" but it was marked as incorrect.
Still sounds like a correct loose translation to me - if it is proper idiomatic Dutch. (It would be proper idiomatic German to say it that way.)
Maybe it shouldn't, but Duolingo often accepts relatively loose translations even though a better strict translation is possible.
What if I say ",zodat hij zegt iets." ? What's the different usage of "zodat" and "dus"
The main difference is word order. Dus (compare English thus) is a coordinating conjunction, i.e. the word order of the second part of the sentence is that of a main clause:
- Het is rustig, dus hij zegt iets.
Zodat (compare English so that), like all these little words ending in dat, introduces a subordinate clause. Subordinate clauses in Dutch have a different word order which is essentially the original Germanic one - SOV, i.e. the verb comes last:
- Het is rustig, zodat hij iets zegt.
In English this difference has been (almost?) completely lost because nowadays the normal word order for subordinate clauses is the same as for main clauses.
It did not accept "...dus he zegt iets" and said it should have been "hij" instead. In this context I should be able to use he/hij interchangeably or am I wrong? I already reported this but maybe I am making a mistake.
The problem is that he simply isn't a variant of hij at all. Jij is very often simplified to je, and a bit less often(?) zij is simplified to ze, but there is no general rule that this can be done with every pronoun that ends in -ij.
This is probably because je and ze do not exist as separate Dutch words, but he (or rather hè) does: hè! = hey! Or maybe it has something to do with German influence or otherwise with other dialectal variants of the pronouns: German for zij is sie, and colloquial German also has the form se corresponding to ze. But German for hij is actually er, which has no such form. Or maybe it has to do with Old or Middle Dutch: In Old Dutch, the regularity of various pronouns ending the same way didn't exist yet. Jij was gī, zij was sia, siu, and hij was hē (later hie). Therefore the various -ij endings are probably not exactly equivalent in terms of how people handle them, even today.
thank you for the detailed explanation, but I still did not understand the difference between he and hij. If he and hij has a different relationship than let's say zij and ze, what is the relationship there? Where should I use he and where should I use hij?
Just forget about he. It is not a Dutch word at all. (The Dutch word hè! doesn't mean he in English. It means hey! or what!: "Hey! He is here!" = "Hè! Hij is hier.")
- jij can be simplified to je when it is not emphasised
- zij can be simplified to ze when it is not emphasised
- hij can never be simplified to he; there is no he in Dutch.
The rest was just an explanation for the irregularity.