Question 1

Why does the second clause use daarvoor instead of ervoor?

Accepted Answer

This is a strategy to avoid a double er clash. Expressing 'there was no time' requires an existential er (er was geen tijd), and 'for it' requires a prepositional er (ervoor). Because Dutch strictly avoids putting two ers in the same clause, the prepositional er is substituted with daar to make daarvoor ('for that').

Question 2

Where did the existential er ('there') go? Shouldn't it be '...maar daarvoor was er geen tijd'?

Accepted Answer

It got deleted! This is a classic example of 'er-deletie' (er-deletion). When a clause already contains a daar-word like daarvoor (especially at the beginning), the existential er that normally introduces an indefinite subject (like geen tijd) becomes redundant and is typically dropped.

Question 3

Could we have kept ervoor and just deleted one of the ers?

Accepted Answer

Yes, absolutely! If you don't need the extra emphasis of daarvoor ('for that'), you can merge the two ers into a single word. You would split the pronominal adverb around the middle field, resulting in: maar er was geen tijd voor. In this case, that single er does double duty as both the 'there' and the 'for it'.

Question 4

Why is the verb was placed before the subject geen tijd?

Accepted Answer

This is a quick reminder of the inversion rule. The second half of the sentence is a main clause (linked by the coordinating conjunction maar). Because the clause starts with the pronominal adverb daarvoor rather than the subject, the verb (was) and the subject (geen tijd) must swap places.

Wij zochten de uitweg, maar daarvoor was geen tijd.

Breakdown of Wij zochten de uitweg, maar daarvoor was geen tijd.

Questions & Answers about Wij zochten de uitweg, maar daarvoor was geen tijd.

Learn Wij zochten de uitweg, maar daarvoor was geen tijd and more in Dutch