Questions & Answers about De tempel was verwoest en was nu een ruïne.
Why does was verwoest translate to "had been destroyed" instead of using a form of hebben?
In Dutch, the passive voice is built with zijn (to be) or worden (to become), not hebben. To form the past perfect passive (meaning an action "had been" done to the subject), you use the past tense of zijn—which is was or waren—plus the past participle. If you said De tempel had verwoest, it would mean the temple itself had actively destroyed something!
Could was verwoest also just mean "was destroyed"?
Yes, it can! Was verwoest often translates to the state of being "was destroyed" as well as "had been destroyed". If you wanted to describe the actual event of the destruction happening in the past, you would use werd verwoest. Because this sentence emphasizes the aftermath, "had been destroyed" is the most accurate translation for the completed action.
Both halves of the sentence use was. Are they doing the same grammatical job?
No, they have different roles here. The first was is a helping verb (auxiliary) that teams up with verwoest to create the past perfect passive tense. The second was stands alone as the main verb of the second clause, simply linking the temple to its new state (was nu een ruïne).
Why does ruïne have two dots on the letter i?