Hulle slaan môre die tent af.

Because afslaan is a separable verb in Afrikaans.

In a main clause, the verb splits:

• slaan goes to the normal finite-verb position
• af moves to the end

So:

• Hulle slaan môre die tent af.

But in the infinitive, it stays together:

• afslaan

This is very similar to separable verbs in Dutch and a bit like English verb phrases such as take down.

Yes. In this sentence, slaan ... af is the separable verb afslaan.

Here it means to take down / dismantle a tent.

So although slaan on its own often means hit or strike, that is not the literal meaning here. The combination with af creates a different meaning.

Afrikaans main clauses usually follow the verb-second rule.

That means the finite verb normally comes in the second position of the clause.

Here the first element is the subject Hulle, so the verb slaan comes next:

• Hulle
  • slaan
    • ...

If you move another element to the front, the verb still stays second:

• Môre slaan hulle die tent af.

Because môre is a time word, and in a neutral sentence it often comes before the direct object.

So this order is very natural:

• subject + verb + time + object + separable particle

Here that gives:

• Hulle slaan môre die tent af.

You can sometimes move môre for emphasis, for example:

• Môre slaan hulle die tent af.

That puts extra focus on tomorrow.

Afrikaans often uses the present tense for future meaning when the time is clear from context.

Here môre makes the future meaning obvious, so sal is not necessary.

So:

• Hulle slaan môre die tent af. = They are taking the tent down tomorrow / They will take the tent down tomorrow.

You could also say:

• Hulle sal môre die tent afslaan.

That is also correct, but the original sentence is very normal and natural.

Yes, absolutely.

Both are correct:

• Hulle slaan môre die tent af.
• Hulle sal môre die tent afslaan.

The first one is a very common way to talk about a planned future action. The second one makes the future a bit more explicit because of sal.

Notice that with sal, the main verb appears as the infinitive afslaan, written as one word.

Because Afrikaans uses die as the definite article for all nouns.

It does not change for:

• masculine/feminine/neuter
• singular/plural

So:

• die tent = the tent
• die tente = the tents

This is much simpler than in languages that have noun gender.

No, not in the same way.

Afrikaans verbs usually do not change form for different subjects in the present tense.

So you get:

• Ek slaan
• Jy slaan
• Hy slaan
• Ons slaan
• Hulle slaan

That is why slaan stays the same with Hulle.

Here it means tomorrow.

Afrikaans môre can refer to morning or tomorrow, depending on context. In this sentence, the meaning is clearly tomorrow because it is being used as a time expression for when the action will happen.

So the sentence means they will do it tomorrow, not in the morning.

In the past tense, Afrikaans usually uses het plus the past participle.

With a separable verb like afslaan, the participle becomes afgeslaan.

So:

• Hulle het die tent afgeslaan. = They took down the tent.

Notice that in the participle, the verb is joined together again:

• afgeslaan

Yes. Like many verbs, afslaan can have different meanings depending on context.

Possible meanings can include things like:

• take down / dismantle
• reject / turn down
• turn off or branch off in some contexts

But with die tent, the meaning is clearly take the tent down or dismantle the tent.

So context is very important.

Yes: the biggest thing is that English often keeps the phrasal verb together more clearly in the dictionary form, while Afrikaans splits many such verbs in main clauses.

So an English speaker may expect something like one single verb meaning dismantle, but Afrikaans often does this with a separable verb:

• dictionary form: afslaan
• main clause: slaan ... af

That split pattern is one of the most important things to get used to in Afrikaans.