"Verft Rembrandt altijd met verf?"
Translation:Does Rembrandt always paint with paint?
I agree, you could use the present tense in English when refering to the past in this context. So if I say Rembrandt always paints with paint, it could refer to the famous dead Rembrandt (although that phrasing sounds rather posh to my ears). But I don't think it would be wrong to translate it with the past tense if it was refering to him. Could that be a legitamate alternative translation?
I'm not too sure, you can use the past tense in Dutch as well. In Dutch it probably depends how you look at it. If you look at it as a fact, a habit, something that just is like that (even in a question, like the exercise, even when it happened a long time ago) then use present tense. If you look at it as something that happened in the past, then use past tense. Both sound normal in Dutch. Normally I would think present tense in Dutch > present tense in English. Past tense in Dutch > past tense in English (that was also how I learned it at school). But if using present tense sounds posh…well I don't know, maybe you could change the tense when translating.
Do you mean in this specific example, or at all? In this example, it's a question. English does not really support turning a statement into a question simply by putting a question mark after it. Occasionally, it works, but mostly it sounds weird, and you need to change the structure: "Does he do [the thing]?"