Setting boundaries for remote video meetings | Learn Dutch in English

Sentence explanations

1. Ik wil onnodige videovergaderingen waar mogelijk beperken.

   I want to reduce unnecessary video meetings where possible.

   Ik wil

   I want to

   onnodige

   unnecessary

   videovergaderingen

   video meetings

   waar mogelijk

   where possible

   beperken

   reduce; limit

   More detail

   Ik wil is a reusable way to express a present desire or intention: “I want to …”. wil is the first-person singular present form of willen (“to want”). After wil, the other verb normally stays in the infinitive and comes later in the clause. For example: Ik wil vertrekken. — “I want to leave.” onnodige means “unnecessary” here. It is the attributive form of onnodig, which is built with on- (“not-/un-”) and nodig (“necessary” or “needed”). The -e form appears before this plural noun: onnodige vergaderingen. In a different context, the form can be onnodig, for example Dat is onnodig. — “That is unnecessary.” videovergaderingen is the plural of videovergadering, “video meeting.” Dutch commonly joins nouns into compounds: video specifies the type of vergadering (“meeting”). The plural ending is -en: videovergadering → videovergaderingen. Example: We hebben twee videovergaderingen. — “We have two video meetings.” waar mogelijk is a compact phrase meaning “where possible” or “whenever possible.” waar means “where” in this expression, while mogelijk means “possible.” It limits the intended reduction: the speaker wants to reduce the meetings in cases where doing so can be done. beperken means “to reduce” or “to limit.” It is the infinitive selected by wil; the subject is understood as ik from Ik wil. A useful contrast is uitbreiden (“to expand”): We willen de planning beperken. — “We want to limit the schedule.” Together, Ik wil introduces the speaker’s intention, onnodige videovergaderingen identifies the meetings considered unnecessary, beperken states the intended action, and waar mogelijk qualifies when that action can be taken. The complete meaning is: “I want to reduce unnecessary video meetings where possible.”

2. Ik begrijp het, hoewel sommige gesprekken baat hebben bij zichtbare reacties.

   I understand, though some discussions benefit from visible reactions.

   begrijp

   understand

   het

   it

   hoewel

   although; though

   sommige

   some

   gesprekken

   discussions; conversations

   baat hebben bij

   benefit from

   zichtbare

   visible

   reacties

   reactions

   More detail

   begrijp is the present-tense first-person singular form of begrijpen (“to understand”). With the subject ik, the form is ik begrijp; the ending marks the present form used with this subject. Example: Ik begrijp de vraag. — “I understand the question.” het is the standalone object pronoun “it” here. Its specific referent is not identified by the supplied sentence, but the fixed translation confirms this pronoun reading. Do not confuse this use with het as a definite article before a noun. hoewel means “although” or “though” and introduces a dependent contrast clause. The clause after it presents a circumstance that contrasts with the main statement. Example: Hoewel het regent, ga ik. — “Although it is raining, I am going.” sommige means “some” and occurs here with the plural noun gesprekken. It indicates an unspecified part of a larger group, not a stated exact number. Example: Sommige vragen zijn moeilijk. — “Some questions are difficult.” gesprekken is the plural of gesprek, meaning “conversation” or “discussion.” The plural form refers to more than one conversation or discussion; in this sentence, “discussions” matches the fixed translation. Example: De gesprekken duren lang. — “The discussions last a long time.” baat hebben bij is a reusable construction meaning “to benefit from” or “to gain from.” The noun baat belongs to the construction, while hebben is the present-tense plural form of hebben (“to have”), agreeing here with plural gesprekken. The thing after bij is what provides the benefit. Example: Studenten hebben baat bij duidelijke uitleg. — “Students benefit from clear explanations.” zichtbare is the form of the adjective zichtbaar (“visible”) used before the plural noun reacties. Dutch attributive adjectives commonly take -e in this environment: zichtbaar becomes zichtbare. Example: We gebruiken zichtbare signalen. — “We use visible signals.” reacties is the plural of reactie, meaning “reaction” or “response.” Here it refers to visible reactions in general, without stating a specific number. Example: De reacties waren positief. — “The reactions were positive.” Together, Ik begrijp het means “I understand it.” hoewel then introduces the contrasting clause sommige gesprekken baat hebben bij zichtbare reacties: some discussions benefit from visible reactions. The complete utterance therefore means “I understand, though some discussions benefit from visible reactions.”

3. Complexe beslissingen verdienen een livebespreking, maar updates vaak niet.

   Complex decisions deserve live discussion, but updates often do not.

   Complexe

   complex

   beslissingen

   decisions

   verdienen

   deserve

   livebespreking

   live discussion

   maar

   but

   updates

   updates

   vaak niet

   often not

   More detail

   Complexe means “complex” here and describes the plural noun beslissingen. The adjective takes the form complexe before this noun; the uninflected form is complex, as in een complex probleem (“a complex problem”). beslissingen means “decisions.” It is the plural of beslissing; the singular/plural contrast is een beslissing / beslissingen. The word is the subject of the first clause, so it is the decisions that are presented as deserving something. verdienen means “deserve.” This is the present-tense form used with a plural subject such as beslissingen; the infinitive is also verdienen. For example: Deze plannen verdienen aandacht. — “These plans deserve attention.” livebespreking means “live discussion.” It is a compound noun referring to discussing something in real time, rather than merely sharing information asynchronously. The noun is singular here, even though the subject beslissingen is plural: beslissingen verdienen een livebespreking means “decisions deserve a live discussion.” maar means “but.” It links the contrasting second clause to the first. In Dutch, maar can connect two complete clauses as it does here. updates means “updates.” This is the plural of the loanword update; the singular/plural pair is een update / updates. Here it is the subject of the contrasting clause, not the object of livebespreking. vaak niet means “often not.” vaak means “often,” while niet supplies negation. In the second clause, the predicate from the first clause is omitted after niet: maar updates vaak niet is understood as “but updates often do not [deserve a live discussion].” This is an example of avoiding repetition; the omitted verb and complement are recovered from the first clause. Together, the utterance says: “Complex decisions deserve a live discussion, but updates often do not.” The first clause presents a recommendation about the treatment of complex decisions; maar introduces a contrast, and the elliptical second clause says that updates often do not deserve that same treatment. The wording is concise and suitable for distinguishing decision-focused discussion from routine information sharing.

4. Dan moeten we vergaderingen over beslissingen scheiden van het delen van informatie.

   Then we should separate decision meetings from information sharing.

   Dan

   then

   moeten we

   we should

   vergaderingen

   meetings

   beslissingen

   decisions

   scheiden

   separate

   delen

   sharing

   informatie

   information

   More detail

   Dan means “then” here: it connects this recommendation with what has just been established. It can also refer to a time or condition in other sentences, but this occurrence has the sequencing meaning. moeten we expresses the recommendation “we should.” moeten is the present-tense modal verb moeten, whose basic sense is “must/need to”; the fixed translation selects the softer “should” sense here. we is the first-person plural subject, so the recommendation includes the speaker and at least one other person. A common pattern is we moeten + infinitive, for example: We moeten vertrekken. — “We have to leave.” vergaderingen is the plural of vergadering, “meeting.” The ending -en marks the plural in this noun. In this sentence it refers to meetings as a type of activity, not to one specific meeting. beslissingen is the plural of beslissing, “decision.” The phrase vergaderingen over beslissingen means “meetings about decisions”: over introduces the topic of the meetings. The noun beslissingen is plural because the sentence discusses decisions generally. scheiden is the infinitive “to separate.” With the modal verb, Dutch uses the infinitive: we moeten ... scheiden. The reusable construction is X scheiden van Y, “separate X from Y.” For example: Scheid feiten van meningen. — “Separate facts from opinions.” delen is the infinitive “sharing” in the noun-like expression het delen van informatie. Dutch can use an infinitive with het as a nominalized activity; the full expression means “the sharing of information.” The form delen itself is also the infinitive “to share,” as in We willen delen. — “We want to share.” informatie means “information.” It is a mass noun here, so it does not assert a particular number of items. In het delen van informatie, van informatie identifies what is being shared. Together, vergaderingen over beslissingen is the first thing to be separated, and het delen van informatie is the second. The pattern X scheiden van Y therefore gives: “separate decision meetings from information sharing.” With Dan moeten we, the complete utterance means: “Then we should separate decision meetings from information sharing.”

5. Schriftelijke updates zouden mensen zorgvuldiger laten reageren.

   Written updates would let people respond more thoughtfully.

   Schriftelijke

   written

   updates

   updates

   zouden

   would

   mensen

   people

   laten

   let

   zorgvuldiger

   more thoughtfully

   reageren

   respond

   More detail

   Schriftelijke means “written” here and describes updates. Its base form is schriftelijk; before a noun, the attributive adjective has -e in this form: schriftelijke updates. The adjective agrees with the noun phrase in the way required here; it is not the noun’s plural ending. Example: schriftelijke instructies — “written instructions.” updates is the plural of the borrowed noun update, meaning an update or piece of new information. The plural ending is -s, as in other nouns that take this plural pattern. Example: Ik lees de updates. — “I read the updates.” zouden is the plural form of zullen used here for a hypothetical or conditional “would.” It combines with an infinitive later in the clause: zouden ... reageren — “would respond.” In a different context, forms of zullen can also express expectation or a future-related meaning, but this sentence uses the conditional reading supported by the translation. mensen is the plural of mens, “person.” It refers to people as the participants who will respond; the form itself does not specify exactly which people. Example: Mensen reageren verschillend. — “People respond differently.” laten means “let” here and introduces a causative or permissive pattern: iemand laten + infinitive, meaning to let or cause someone to do something. The following infinitive is reageren; laten is not absorbing that verb into its own meaning. Example: De training laat mensen oefenen. — “The training lets people practise.” zorgvuldiger is the comparative of zorgvuldig, “careful” or “thoughtful” in this context. The comparison is carried by this adjective itself: zorgvuldig → zorgvuldiger — “careful/thoughtful” → “more careful/thoughtful.” Here it describes the manner of responding, so “more thoughtfully” is the natural translation. Example: Lees de tekst zorgvuldiger. — “Read the text more carefully.” reageren is the infinitive “to respond” or “to react.” It follows laten and is also the verb selected by zouden: zouden ... laten ... reageren. The infinitive has no person ending here; the people are expressed separately by mensen. Together, Schriftelijke updates is the subject, zouden marks the hypothetical result, and mensen laten reageren expresses letting people respond. Zorgvuldiger says that their responding would be more thoughtful than some comparison point understood from the situation. The complete meaning is: “Written updates would let people respond more thoughtfully.”

6. Ze zorgen ook voor vastleggingen, wat later nuttig is.

   They also create records, which is useful later.

   Ze

   they

   zorgen … voor

   create; provide

   ook

   also

   vastleggingen

   records

   wat

   which

   later

   later

   nuttig

   useful

   is

   is

   More detail

   Ze is the subject pronoun meaning “they” here, as confirmed by the fixed translation. It is a third-person plural form. Dutch also has ze as an unstressed form of “she” in some contexts, but that is not the intended reading here. zorgen voor is a reusable verb construction. In this sentence, zorgen is the present-tense plural form of zorgen, and voor belongs to the construction: together they mean “create” or “provide” something. The construction can have other context-dependent meanings, such as taking care of something, so learn its meaning from what follows. Pattern: subject + zorgt/zorgen voor + thing. ook means “also” and adds this action to something already under discussion. Its position after the subject is common in this short main clause. It does not mean that the records themselves are “also” in some other sense; it marks the action as an additional one. vastleggingen is the plural of vastlegging, a record, written record, or piece of documentation. The plural ending -en shows that more than one record is meant. The word is the object of voor: zorgen voor vastleggingen means creating or providing records here. wat introduces the following relative clause. After a comma, Dutch wat can refer to the whole preceding statement rather than to one specifically named noun. Here the fixed translation supports the reading “which” = the fact that they create records. This is why wat is not translated as a question word. later means “later” or “at a later time.” It places the usefulness in a later time, without specifying exactly when. nuttig is an adjective meaning “useful.” Here it is used as a predicate after is: iets is nuttig means “something is useful.” A related contrasting adjective is onnuttig, “useless,” though that contrast is not asserted by the sentence. is is the singular present form of zijn, “to be.” In wat ... is, the relative clause treats the preceding fact as one situation, so the verb is singular. The form chain is zijn (base form) → is (singular present). Putting the parts together: Ze zorgen ook voor vastleggingen means “They also create records.” The comma and wat then add a comment about that whole fact: wat later nuttig is, “which is useful later.” The complete meaning is: “They also create records, which is useful later.”

7. Zouden we die aanpak kunnen uitproberen bij een terugkerende vergadering?

   Could we pilot that approach with a recurring meeting?

   Zouden we

   Could we

   die

   that

   aanpak

   approach

   kunnen

   can; be able to

   uitproberen

   try out; pilot

   bij

   with; at

   terugkerende

   recurring

   vergadering

   meeting

   More detail

   Zouden we combines zouden, the plural form of zullen, with we (“we”). Here zouden places the question in a tentative or polite frame: “Could we…?” The form is not the simple present zullen we, which can sound more like “shall we…?” or refer to a future expectation. We is the subject form used for “we”; its unstressed variant we is especially common in ordinary speech. die means “that” here and points to the approach identified in the fixed translation. As a demonstrative, die is used with a singular common-gender noun or with plural nouns. Dutch also has dit and dat for other demonstrative patterns; the choice is not determined by English “that” alone. aanpak is a noun meaning “approach” or “method”. It is a de-word: de aanpak. A useful related contrast is methode, which also means “method”, but is a separate noun rather than another form of aanpak. kunnen is the infinitive of the modal verb meaning “can” or “be able to”. In this question, zouden ... kunnen expresses a possible or proposed action: “could ...”. The modal is followed by the other verb in the infinitive. For example: We kunnen beginnen. — “We can start.” uitproberen means “to try out” or “to pilot” something. It is a separable verb: in a finite main clause, the parts can separate, as in We proberen de aanpak uit. — “We are trying out the approach.” After a modal such as kunnen, the infinitive remains together: We kunnen de aanpak uitproberen. — “We can try out the approach.” bij means “with” in this context, introducing the setting or application in which the approach would be tried. Its exact meaning depends on the relation being expressed; here it is not the word that means the action of trying. terugkerende describes something that recurs or comes back regularly. It is the attributive form of terugkerend, related to the verb terugkeren (“to return” or “recur”). Before the de-word vergadering, it has the -e ending: een terugkerende vergadering. This adjective describes the meeting, not the approach. vergadering means “meeting”. It is a singular de-word: de vergadering; with the indefinite article, een vergadering means “a meeting” without itself asserting a numerical count beyond the singular noun form required by Dutch grammar. Together, die aanpak means “that approach”, and kunnen uitproberen means “could try out/pilot”. The chunk bij een terugkerende vergadering places that trial in connection with a recurring meeting. The complete question is therefore: “Could we pilot that approach with a recurring meeting?”

8. We kunnen het testen en de kwaliteit van de resultaten vergelijken.

   We can test it and compare the quality of outcomes.

   We kunnen

   we can

   het

   it

   testen

   test

   kwaliteit

   quality

   resultaten

   results

   vergelijken

   compare

   More detail

   We kunnen means “we can.” we is the first-person plural subject, and kunnen is the present-tense form of kunnen used with this subject; the same word is also the infinitive. After a modal such as kunnen, the following action is expressed with an infinitive. Example: We kunnen wachten. — “We can wait.” het is the neuter singular pronoun meaning “it” here. The fixed translation identifies it as the thing to be tested, but does not specify that thing further. Dutch het can also function as a neuter singular definite article in other contexts; here it is a pronoun because it stands for the object of testen. testen means “to test.” It is the infinitive after kunnen; its form does not show the subject or tense in this construction. The related noun is test, meaning “test,” but testen is the verb. kwaliteit means “quality.” It is a singular noun. In de kwaliteit van ..., it names the property being compared, while van introduces what that quality belongs to or is associated with. Example: De kwaliteit is goed. — “The quality is good.” resultaten means “results” or, in this translation, “outcomes.” It is the plural of resultaat. The plural ending is -en: resultaat → resultaten. In de resultaten, de is the definite article used with this plural noun. vergelijken means “to compare.” It is another infinitive under the scope of kunnen. The conjunction en links the two actions: testen and vergelijken; Dutch does not need to repeat kunnen before the second infinitive. Together, We kunnen het testen en de kwaliteit van de resultaten vergelijken says that the speaker and others can carry out two coordinated actions: test it, and compare the quality of the results. The modal kunnen applies to both actions, and van de resultaten specifies whose quality is being compared.