1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Dutch
  4. >
  5. "We would have met them here."

"We would have met them here."

Translation:We zouden hen hier hebben ontmoet.

November 10, 2014



Why is it "ontmoet" instead of "ontmoeten"? I thought the unconjugated verb was "ontmoeten." Even if it was conjugated for "wij", it would be "ontmoeten", right?


You don't need the unconjugated form here but the voltooid deelwoord which is used when an action has been completed. For "ontmoeten" the voltooid deelwoord is "ontmoet". You can recognize the voltooid deelwoord form of most verbs by the "ge" prefix though.

For example: I have seen the movie - ik heb de film gezien.


Oooooooo, I failed to remember it was a past participle, but also one that does not recieve the "ge". Thanks.


Is anyone able to explain this to me in English without using the grammar-speak, please? I don't understand it.


In English you say I would have met... not I would have (to) meet.

It's similar in Dutch you say ik zou hebben ontmoet not ik zou hebben ontmoeten.


I thought 'hen' and 'hun' were virtually interchangeable, but that 'hen' was more likely to be used for an indirect object rather than direct object.


If it were "we should have met them here", would it be "we zouden hen here moeten hebben ontmoeten"? I mean, should I use the infinitive form of 'ontmoeten'? Because in the sentence "I should not have paid" people are saying it should be "Ik zou niet moeten hebben betalen" and not "Ik zou niet moeten hebben betaald" as duolingo show as translation.


Yes, you're right


can i say "wij zouden hier hen hebben ontmoet"? Thx!


As a native Dutch speaker. I do understand you :-) but 'Wij zouden hen hier hebben ontmoet' sounds a little bit better.


No, "hier" en "daar" is always after the indirect object


how do you say "We should have met them here"?


We hadden hen daar moeten ontmoeten.

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