Ik bind mij nauwelijks in, laat staan dat ik veilig zeker.

Zich inbinden is a reflexive separable verb. In this kind of sentence, it usually means to restrain oneself, to hold oneself back, or to curb oneself.

So Ik bind mij nauwelijks in means that the speaker hardly restrains themself at all.

It is not usually understood literally as physically tying yourself up. In everyday Dutch, it is more about behavior, emotions, speech, or impulses.

Because inbinden is a separable verb.

In a main clause, the conjugated verb goes in second position, and the prefix moves to the end:

• Ik bind mij in.

But in a clause where the verb goes to the end, the parts stay together:

• ... omdat ik mij inbind.

So in your sentence, bind ... in is exactly what you would expect in a main clause.

Yes. Both mij and me are possible here.

• Ik bind mij nauwelijks in = more formal, careful, or slightly emphatic
• Ik bind me nauwelijks in = more common in everyday speech

For many learners, it helps to think of it this way:

• me = common unstressed form
• mij = stressed or more formal form

So the version with mij is grammatical, but many native speakers would naturally say me in conversation.

Because zich inbinden normally takes a regular reflexive pronoun, not the stronger form by default.

So the neutral pattern is:

• ik bind me/mij in
• jij bindt je in
• hij bindt zich in

You can use mezelf/mijzelf for extra emphasis, but that changes the tone:

• Ik bind mezelf nauwelijks in = I hardly restrain myself at all

That sounds more contrastive or emphatic. The plain reflexive mij/me is the normal choice.

Nauwelijks means hardly, barely, or scarcely.

It often gives the sentence a near-negative meaning:

• Ik bind mij nauwelijks in = I hardly restrain myself

So the idea is not that the speaker restrains themself a little in a neutral way, but that they do so to an extremely small extent.

English speakers should be careful not to over-translate it as a full negative like not at all. It usually means almost not rather than completely not.

Laat staan dat is a fixed expression meaning something like:

• let alone that
• much less that

It introduces something that is even less likely, even more extreme, or even more out of the question than the first part.

Example:

• Ik heb niet eens tijd om te eten, laat staan dat ik ga koken. = I do not even have time to eat, let alone cook.

So in your sentence, the speaker first says one thing is already hardly true, and then adds something else that is even further away.

Yes. After dat, Dutch normally uses subordinate-clause word order, which means the finite verb typically goes later, often at the end.

For example:

• ..., laat staan dat ik mij veilig voel.

That is structurally normal because after dat, you expect a full clause.

So a learner is right to notice that dat ik veilig zeker does not look like a normal Dutch subordinate clause.

As written, veilig zeker does not sound like a complete or standard clause.

The main problem is that after dat ik ..., you normally need a proper predicate, usually including a verb. But here you get:

• dat ik veilig zeker

That feels incomplete. Veilig and zeker can both be adjectives or adverbs, but together in this position they do not form a normal clause.

So the sentence is very likely:

• incorrect as written
• incomplete
• or missing words

Depending on the intended meaning, it might need something like:

• ..., laat staan dat ik mij veilig voel.
• ..., laat staan dat ik zeker weet dat ik veilig ben.

Without changing it, a Dutch learner should understand that the second half is not idiomatic standard Dutch.

Exactly.

• Ik bind mij nauwelijks in = grammatical and understandable
• laat staan dat ik veilig zeker = not standard as written

That is probably the most important takeaway for a learner. If you were studying this sentence, you should not assume the whole thing is a good model of normal Dutch syntax.

Often yes. A native speaker would very likely say:

• Ik bind me nauwelijks in.

That is the most natural everyday version of the first clause.

If the second clause were repaired, a full natural sentence might look like:

• Ik bind me nauwelijks in, laat staan dat ik me veilig voel.

The exact correction depends on the intended meaning, but me instead of mij would be very common in speech.

Not really.

A word-for-word approach causes problems here because:

• inbinden is an idiomatic separable verb
• zich inbinden is reflexive
• laat staan dat is a fixed expression
• the second half is not well formed as written

So this is a sentence where grammar and idiom matter much more than literal word matching. For a learner, it is better to recognize the chunks:

• zich inbinden
• nauwelijks
• laat staan dat

rather than trying to map each word directly into English.