Translation:However, his parents still live there.
In Dutch, is this still a complete sentence? And do you need a comma after "Maar" when its definition is closer to however than but?
Also, if "maar" is the first word, how come "wonen" isn't required to be the second word in the sentence, since it is the verb?
Maar at the start of the sentence is an exception. Similar as when maar is present after a comma, eg.:
- Ik moet naar huis, maar mijn fiets is kapot - I have to go home, but my bicycle is broken.
It is a complete sentence in Dutch and a comma is not required after maar. You could add a comma, which creates a pause and adds a bit of drama to this particular sentence.
In this sentence, how do you figure out if the 'zijn' is for 'their' or 'his'?
"Zijn" is always "his". The word for "their" is "hun". The other meaning of "zijn" is "are", as in "they are..".
Yes I believe 'ch' is dutch has the same sound as a dutch 'g'. So zich is pronounce as zig.
I just read that the adverbs of time usually are before the adverbs of place... not in this case xD "daar nog steeds" why??? how can we know when it follows that "rule" and when it doesnt'!?
I would like to repeat Simona's question: why are adverbs of place situated before adverbs of time? Does this not negate the Dutch word order rule: time/manner/place?
Because "nog steeds" (and "steeds", "nog" just seems to emphasize "steeds" in the phrase "nog steeds") does not answer the question "when?" (http://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=WordOrder.13) If it's not time/manner/place, it's considered miscellaneous and goes after. (http://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=WordOrder.28)
(I recommend reading http://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=WordOrder.00 in its entirety. It's extremely helpful.)
If I understood it correctly, "nog steeds" means that something is STILL going FOR A LONG TIME. So, there it stresses more than just "nog" (still).
In that case, would it be acceptable to translate as "But his parents live there still"?
Actually, I guess the question is regarding the possibility of putting "still" at the end of a sentence, and which meaning that would convey. And also about the difference between "nog" and "nog steeds", as both are "still".
The translation sounds completely okay to me. The nog and nog steeds are exactly like you say -- nog steeds is a bit more like 'they're still there'. And have been doing so for a long time.
I don't see why you couldn't translate it just as well as "lives there still"; maybe a bit less common colloquially in some parts, but I agree it does a good job of adding that extra shade of emphasis that they've lived there for a long time or possibly that they've remained there against expectations.
Eta: I'm only speaking to the English side of things; I don't know enough dutch to say if there is a good reason you wouldn't use this construction for this sentence, but within my limited knowledge it sounds very reasonable.
Eh, i don't think so. What do you mean by 'its' exactly? If it refers to an object then that wouldn't make sense. I think it would be better if you specify: 'De ouders van de schildpad wonen daar nog steeds' is an example.