Question 1

Why are moeten and kunnen in their infinitive forms instead of past participles?

Accepted Answer

This is the Infinitive for Participle (IPP) rule. When a modal verb like moeten or kunnen is used in the perfect tense alongside another verb, it stays as an infinitive. So instead of using a past participle like gemoeten, it becomes had moeten doorzetten.

Question 2

How does Dutch form 'should have' and 'could have' here?

Accepted Answer

Dutch expresses 'should have' as had moeten plus an infinitive, which literally translates to 'had must do'. 'Could have' is had kunnen plus an infinitive, meaning 'had can do'. This is the standard pattern to talk about things you were supposed to do or were able to do in the past, but didn't.

Question 3

Why does the second part say dan had je instead of dan je had?

Accepted Answer

The second clause starts with the word dan (then). Because a word other than the subject is in the first position of the clause, the subject and the conjugated verb swap places. This grammar rule is called inversion.

Question 4

Both doorzetten and afronden are separable verbs. Why aren't they split up?

Accepted Answer

Separable verbs only split when they are the active, conjugated verb in a main clause. Here, had is the conjugated verb, so doorzetten and afronden are pushed to the end of their clauses and stay completely attached as full infinitives.

Question 5

Why is the word order moeten doorzetten and not doorzetten moeten?

Accepted Answer

When you have a cluster of infinitives at the end of a sentence, the modal verb (like moeten or kunnen) almost always comes directly before the main action verb (like doorzetten or afronden).

Je had moeten doorzetten, dan had je de opleiding kunnen afronden.

Breakdown of Je had moeten doorzetten, dan had je de opleiding kunnen afronden.

Questions & Answers about Je had moeten doorzetten, dan had je de opleiding kunnen afronden.

Learn Je had moeten doorzetten, dan had je de opleiding kunnen afronden and more in Dutch