Learn Hardcore Dutch: De redacteur heeft gisteren lang moeten werken, maar hij heeft het stuk op tijd kunnen sturen. - The editor had to work for a long time yesterday, but he was able to send the piece on time.

In Dutch spoken and written narratives, the perfect tense with hebben plus a past participle (or double infinitive if a modal is involved) is more common than the simple past. So instead of Hij moest lang werken, you hear Hij heeft lang moeten werken (“He has had to work for a long time”), which in English we naturally render as “He had to work for a long time.”

What is going on with the two infinitives in lang moeten werken and op tijd kunnen sturen?

When you combine the perfect tense (heeft) with a modal verb (moeten or kunnen), Dutch puts both infinitives at the end of the clause.
Structure:
– heeft (auxiliary)
– time expression (gisteren)
– other adverbs (lang)
– modal infinitive (moeten/kunnen)
– main infinitive (werken/sturen)
So heeft lang moeten werken literally means “has long must work,” i.e. “had to work for a long time.”

Why is gisteren placed early in the clause instead of at the end?

In Dutch, single-word time expressions like gisteren, vandaag, or morgen usually come immediately after the verb (or auxiliary in perfect tense). That’s why you get: De redacteur heeft gisteren… rather than …gisteren de redacteur heeft or putting it at the end.

What does lang modify here—moeten or werken?

Lang (“long/for a long time”) modifies the action werken (“to work”). But because the modal moeten is inseparable from the action, you say lang moeten werken—“to have to work for a long time.”

What exactly does op tijd mean, and why not in tijd or op de tijd?

Op tijd means “on time” or “in time.”
– in tijd would mean “inside time” and isn’t used in this context.
– op de tijd is ungrammatical; op tijd is a fixed expression.
So op tijd kunnen sturen = “to be able to send [it] on time.”

Why does the sentence use het stuk instead of de stuk?

In Dutch, every noun is either de- or het-. Stuk (“piece” or in journalism “article/draft”) belongs to the het-class, so it takes het in the singular: het stuk.

Why are there two separate perfect constructions—heeft lang moeten werken and heeft het stuk op tijd kunnen sturen—instead of condensing them?

They’re actually part of the same sentence linked by maar (“but”). Each clause needs its own perfect construction because there are two distinct actions, each with its own modal:

heeft lang moeten werken (“has had to work for a long time”)
heeft het stuk op tijd kunnen sturen (“has been able to send the piece on time”)
You cannot drop the second heeft without making the sentence ungrammatical in Dutch.