De broeikas lekt weliswaar, maar de oogst is goed.

Both broeikas and oogst take de: de broeikas, de oogst.

In Dutch, nouns are either de words or het words. For these two nouns, you simply have to learn the article with the noun. There is no especially helpful rule here that would let you predict de with certainty.

Lekt is the third-person singular present tense of lekken, meaning to leak.

So:

• ik lek = I leak
• jij lekt = you leak
• de broeikas lekt = the greenhouse leaks / is leaking

In English, this Dutch present tense can often be translated either as a simple present or a present progressive, depending on context.

Weliswaar is a concessive word. In this sentence it means something like:

• admittedly
• it is true that
• granted

It signals: yes, this first thing is true, but the second thing is the important contrast.

So the structure is roughly:

The greenhouse does leak, admittedly, but the harvest is good.

Yes, very often.

The pattern weliswaar ..., maar ... is a common Dutch way to express:

admittedly ..., but ...

So in this sentence:

• weliswaar introduces the concession
• maar introduces the contrast

You can think of them as a pair, even though weliswaar can sometimes appear without maar in other contexts.

Because weliswaar is not a subordinating conjunction. It is an adverb inside a main clause.

That means the first part keeps normal main-clause word order:

De broeikas lekt weliswaar ...

If you used hoewel instead, then you would have a subordinate clause:

Hoewel de broeikas al weken lekt, is de oogst goed.

So weliswaar does not trigger subordinate-clause word order the way hoewel does.

They are very similar in meaning, but not exactly the same in feel.

• weliswaar ... maar ... = admittedly ..., but ...
• hoewel = although

Weliswaar ... maar often feels a bit more formal or rhetorical, because it explicitly sets up a concession and then a counterpoint.

Compare:

• De broeikas lekt weliswaar, maar de oogst is goed.
• Hoewel de broeikas lekt, is de oogst goed.

Both are correct. The second version is a little more straightforward.

Oogst means harvest or yield.

In this sentence, de oogst is goed means that the result of growing the plants has been good. It is not just talking about the plants themselves, but about the amount or quality produced.

So it is closer to:

• the harvest is good
• the yield is good

Because goed is being used as a predicate adjective after is.

In Dutch, adjectives after verbs like zijn usually do not take the -e ending:

• de oogst is goed
• het weer is mooi
• de planten zijn groot

You use goede when the adjective comes before a noun:

• de goede oogst
• het goede resultaat

So:

• de oogst is goed = correct
• de goede oogst = also correct, but different structure

Yes. Weliswaar sounds a bit formal or written.

More everyday alternatives would be:

• De broeikas lekt, maar de oogst is toch goed.
• Hoewel de broeikas lekt, is de oogst goed.

The original sentence is perfectly correct, but it has a slightly more formal tone than casual speech.

Yes, it can.

For example:

Weliswaar lekt de broeikas, maar de oogst is goed.

When weliswaar comes first, Dutch keeps its usual verb-second pattern, so the finite verb lekt comes before the subject de broeikas.

That version is correct, but it sounds even a bit more formal or literary than the original.