1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Dutch
  4. >
  5. "Nadat wij hebben gegeten, re…

"Nadat wij hebben gegeten, rennen wij."

Translation:After we have eaten, we run.

August 29, 2014



What's the difference between na and nadat?


Can someone please answer this?


The best answer that I could find is that "na" is used with event-nouns as a preposition ("we slapen na een feesje."), while "nadat" is used with a subjunctive clause ("we slapen nadat we gaan naar een feestje.")


Thank you for this answer. Do you mean subordinate rather than subjunctive?


That's right. 'Nadat', 'voordat', 'omdat', 'doordat' are all subordinating conjunctions, which introduce subordinate clauses.


Why no inverse here? Why not "Nadat hebben wij...."


I have this same doubt =\


Just because. Really. :-) In Dutch, nadat is one of those conjunctions that doesn't require (or even allow) inversion, just like voordat, omdat, doordat, and aangezien, just to name a few.


But when those conjunctions form the subordinate clause, then do the verbs go to the end?


Let's look at a sentence with a direct object as well as an indirect object:

  • We hebben een cadeau gekocht voor hem.

alternative word orders:

  • We hebben een cadeau voor hem gekocht.
  • We hebben voor hem een cadeau gekocht.

Now, if you turn it into a subordinate clause, it becomes:

  • Nadat we een cadeau voor hem hebben gekocht, gaan we eten.
  • Nadat we voor hem een cadeau hebben gekocht, gaan we eten.

Also acceptable (I think), but definitely less formal:

  • Nadat we een cadeau hebben gekocht voor hem, gaan we eten.


  • Nadat we voor hem hebben gekocht een cadeau, gaan we eten.

So: yes, it's useful to remember as a rule that
if a clause begins with such subordinating conjunctions, the verbs should be at the end of the clause. :-)


Thank you very much for your answers!! :D

[deactivated user]

    Eating after running is not smart. A good path to get sick for sure.


    Hi guys. What's wrong with "after we ate, we ran"? Thanks


    '...wij hebben gegeten...' is present perfect, 'after we ate' is simple past, so it's a different tense.


    sure, very stupid comment of mine, was made late in the night(


    Well, I don't see a 1 to 1 correlation between the present perfect in English and the one in Dutch, but in this particular exercise, you know it translates to the English present perfect rather than simple past thanks to "rennen wij" being present tense.

    Though now I am curious about how your sentence would be translated. "Nadat wij aten, renden wij". Does this work? Would "Nadat wij hebben gegeten, renden wij" also be ok, or is it too much? :)


    I'm not sure why it should be marked wrong if you say after we ate we ran. Previous questions allowed as an alternative translation with the past tense verb form instead of the perfect tense. Is there a subtle meaning here?


    This is not the perfect tense. It is simply the present.


    To amplify Sowrd299's answer, "after we ate" is fine in its ow , but you have to say "we run" rather than "we ran", because "rennen" is present tense.

    Taken together, "after we ate, we run" is not proper English, because it shifts from (simple) past to (simple) present in the middle of a sentence. When you instead say "After we have eaten, we run", you are using present perfect and simple present, which work together.


    This shouldn't be marked wrong. I get it that "after we ate we run" sounds weird, but so does "after we have eaten we run." It's a translate.


    I thought that the stressed form ("wij" in this case) could only be used once per sentence. Am I wrong or this and exception?


    Is it required to double up on marked pronouns in a sentence in which pronouns are repeated?

    So could I write the following?

    “Nadat we hebben gegeten, rennen wij.”

    If only one were marked, it seems like the meaning would be slightly changed.

    Would it put more emphasis on the verb “running”?

    Or perhaps the writer is addressing a group that is about to eat, but only the writer and a friend or two plan to run.


    Is GEËTEN possible (instead of "gegeten") ?


    No, apparently it used to be that, but not anymore.


    I actually answered it: "After we've eaten, we'll run" It was marked as correct. I realize, now, that I put it in future tense. Is this still okay?


    Why is it "Rennen wij" and not "Wij rennen" ?


    Because the [first] verb is always the second component of the main sentence. The clause "nadat wij hebben gegeten" is the first component, so the verb ("rennen") has to come next. Subordinate clauses, such as the one beginning with "nadat", invert word order such that the verb(s) come last.


    Nadat sounds really similar to "Now that". What is "now that" in Dutch, "nu dat"?


    That doesn't sound very wise...


    Oh, that's a great idea. My sons' cross country coach has a goal to make one kid puke each season. This will help that along.


    I think in another example we said (nadat ik naar bed hegaan ben, slaap ik)

    So why here don't we say (nadat wij gegeten hebben, rennen wij)?

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