Breakdown of We verloren de wedstrijd doordat hij het doelpunt afkeurde.
hij
he / it (referring to a 'de'-word)
de wedstrijd
the match / the game
we
we (unstressed form of wij)
verliezen
to lose
Questions & Answers about We verloren de wedstrijd doordat hij het doelpunt afkeurde.
How would I rewrite this as a past counterfactual ('We would not have lost if he had not disallowed the goal') using the structure from this lesson?
You would use the past perfect in both clauses instead of using zouden. It becomes: We hadden de wedstrijd niet verloren als hij het doelpunt niet had afgekeurd. This structure (hadden + past participle ... had + past participle) is a very common way to express a hypothetical past scenario without needing the word zouden.
Why does this sentence use doordat instead of omdat for 'because'?
Doordat specifically points to a direct, objective cause-and-effect relationship, whereas omdat usually introduces a subjective reason or motivation. The referee disallowing the goal is a strict factual cause that directly resulted in losing the match. While native speakers sometimes mix them up in casual speech, doordat is grammatically the most precise choice here.
Since afkeuren is a separable verb, why is it written as a single word (afkeurde) at the end of the sentence?
Because doordat introduces a subordinate clause, which forces all verbs to the end of the sentence. When the prefix (af) and the conjugated verb (keurde) are pushed together at the end of a subordinate clause, they must be written as a single combined word.
Is the verb afkeuren only used for disallowing goals in sports?