"Er verandert niet veel in Nederland."
Translation:Not much changes in the Netherlands.
i am not native but i think it is because of the er, you see the er means that something is unespecified it means that in this sentence er translates to "nothing" , "there are not many changes in the netherlands" is a good tranlation but i think duo puts it incorrect to show us how er affect the sentence
If I have understood correctly so far, "er" is a sort of "fake" subject, while the "real" subject is "niet veel". And "niet" means "not", while "nothing" is "niets". So if I have to make an attempt to translate your sentence, that would be "niets verandert veel in Nederland", but I'd like to hear some native's opinion.
i didnt scroll all the way down, but how about phrasing the dutch as " niet veel verandert in Nederland"? is it grammatically correct? and does it have the same meaning? if its similar to german, then the sentences should be two ways of expressing the same thing. the german equivalent would be "Es verändert sich nicht viel in Niederland", which is less commonly said.
In both of your sentences, werkwoord placement is wrong and I don't make the rules so don't ask me why. As for "how", the supposedly sub-ordinate "clause" is just a verb and hence, not a clause, thus, incorrect.And the second one also suffers with the same problem of not having a sub-ordinate subject and wrong word order in secondary clause along with missing object in the main.
You basically have tried to convert word-by-word from the English sentences to their corresponding dutch versions.
It doesn't seem to me that I did a word-by-word translation, which is instead what DrBreakalot did:
"There is not much that changes in the Netherlands"
"Er is niet veel dat verandert in Nederland"
They seem identical to me (except for the article before the proper noun in the English one), whereas my two sentences have a different word order, and neither of them is the result of converting word-by-word from dadamn's suggestion.
I don't understand why "dat", which I suppose is a relative pronoun, is not the subject of the subordinate clause. I guess that the rule prescribing to put the verb in the end of a subordinate clause is not so strict as it is in German.
If this is the case, then it means your first sentence is also right as there is as much a difference between those two as the words 'life' and 'family'. This also implies that the admins have not included this similarity strike of doesn't and don't.
On a side note, I would like to comment upon the excessive caring attitude of the people over this sentence and many of the like. We basically should understand that this means that "There are not many changes in anything in the Netherlands" and just leave it be. What we are doing, this is no way to learn a language.