Breakdown of De wetenschapper zei dat recent onderzoek die kritiek zou hebben weerlegd.
hebben
to have
die
that
dat
that
het onderzoek
the research
zouden
would
zeggen
to say
de kritiek
the criticism
de wetenschapper
the scientist
recent
recent
weerleggen
to refute
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Dutch grammar and vocabulary.
Questions & Answers about De wetenschapper zei dat recent onderzoek die kritiek zou hebben weerlegd.
Why is dat used after zei instead of just a comma or omitting it like in English?
In Dutch indirect speech, the conjunction dat is required to introduce the subordinate clause. Unlike English—where “that” can be dropped—Dutch needs dat to link “De wetenschapper zei” to what was said. You also normally don’t add a comma before dat in standard Dutch.
Why are the verbs zou hebben weerlegd all at the end of the sentence, and in that order?
Dutch subordinate clauses use verb-final order. In a conditional perfect tense you place:
- the modal auxiliary (zou)
- the perfect auxiliary (hebben)
- the past participle (weerlegd)
Hence zou hebben weerlegd (“would have refuted”) appears at the very end.
Why is the relative pronoun die used for kritiek instead of dat?
Relative pronouns agree with the gender (common vs. neuter) and number of their antecedent. Kritiek is a de-word (common gender) singular, so you use die. Dat would be correct only for singular het-words.
Why isn’t there an article before kritiek—shouldn’t it be die de kritiek?
When you use a relative pronoun like die, you don’t repeat the definite article. Die itself functions like “that” + “the,” so you simply say die kritiek (“that criticism”), not die de kritiek.
Why is it recent onderzoek and not recentelijk onderzoek?
Recent is the common adjective meaning “recent” and pairs naturally with onderzoek. Recentelijk is an adverb that’s rarely used attributively; recent onderzoek is the standard, idiomatic phrase.
Why does the past participle weerlegd lack a ge- prefix?
Weerleggen is an inseparable verb (its prefix weer- stays attached), so its past participle does not take the usual “ge-” prefix. You form it simply by adding -d to the stem: weerlegd.
What does zou hebben weerlegd translate to in English, and what mood/tense is it?
It translates as “would have refuted.” This is the conditional perfect (or “past conditional”), used to express what someone said would happen or would have happened under certain circumstances.
Could you replace zou hebben weerlegd with heeft weerlegd, and what’s the difference?
Yes. Heeft weerlegd is the perfect tense (“has refuted”) stating a factual outcome. Zou hebben weerlegd is the conditional perfect (“would have refuted”) reporting what someone claimed would happen, or softening the assertion. Use heeft for actual past events, zou hebben for hypothetical or reported situations.