Learn Hardcore Dutch: Omdat de deurbel stuk is, moet je hard kloppen om gehoord te worden. - Because the doorbell is broken, you have to knock loudly to be heard.

In Dutch, subordinate clauses introduced by Omdat (‘because’) use Subject-Object-Verb (SOV) order. That means the finite verb (is) goes to the very end of the clause. Compare: Omdat ik honger heb or Omdat hij vandaag niet komt.

What does the word stuk mean here, and why is there no article before it?

Stuk literally means ‘broken’ or ‘out of order.’ It’s used here as a predicative adjective: “de deurbel is stuk.” In such constructions you don’t need an extra article or noun; stuk directly describes the state of de deurbel.

Why is there a comma after stuk is and before moet je hard kloppen?

Dutch separates a subordinate clause from the main clause with a comma. The structure is:
1) Subordinate clause: Omdat de deurbel stuk is,
2) Main clause: moet je hard kloppen...
That comma marks the boundary between the two clauses.

Why does moet come before je in moet je hard kloppen?

Once the subordinate clause ends, the main clause begins and follows the V2 (verb-second) rule. In this case, the verb moet occupies the first position (right after the comma), and the subject je follows in second position.

What exactly does hard kloppen mean? Could I use luid kloppen instead?

Hard kloppen means ‘to knock hard/firmly.’ You wouldn’t say luid kloppen because luid (‘loudly’) usually describes sounds like shouting or music. When you knock on a door, Dutch speakers use hard to express strength or force, not volume.

How does the phrase om gehoord te worden work grammatically?

Om ... te ... introduces a purpose clause (‘in order to’). Here gehoord te worden is a passive infinitive:
gehoord = past participle of horen (‘to hear’)
te worden = passive marker (‘to be’)
Together, om gehoord te worden means ‘in order to be heard.’

Why choose the passive gehoord te worden instead of an active construction?

The passive focuses on the desired result—being heard—rather than on who is doing the hearing. An active alternative like omdat iemand je hoort (‘so that someone hears you’) is clearer about the actor but less direct about the purpose.

Can I rephrase om gehoord te worden using zodat or another structure?

Yes. You could say:
Omdat de deurbel stuk is, moet je hard kloppen zodat men je hoort.
Here zodat introduces a result clause (‘so that’). It’s slightly longer than the concise om ... te ... construction but equally correct.