Sign inSign up

Goed gedrag wordt beloond; slecht gedrag bespreken we achteraf.

Goed gedrag wordt beloond; slecht gedrag bespreken we achteraf.
Good behavior is rewarded; we discuss bad behavior afterwards.
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Dutch grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Dutch now

Questions & Answers about Goed gedrag wordt beloond; slecht gedrag bespreken we achteraf.

Why is it goed gedrag and not goede gedrag?

Because gedrag is a neuter noun (het-woord). In Dutch, attributive adjectives normally take -e, but there’s one key exception: with an indefinite, singular, neuter noun, the adjective has no -e. Hence:

  • goed gedrag, een goed idee, geen goed plan But you add -e when it’s definite, plural, or a common-gender noun:
  • het goede gedrag, dit goede idee, goede plannen, de goede reden
Why is there no article before gedrag?
Abstract or mass nouns often drop the article in generic statements. Goed gedrag here means behavior in general. If you make it specific/definite, you add an article: het goede gedrag van de klas.
Why is it wordt (with -dt) and not word?

The verb is worden. In the present tense:

  • ik word
  • jij/u wordt
  • hij/zij/het wordt
  • wij/jullie/zij worden Here the subject is singular (goed gedrag), so you need third person singular: wordt. Spelling-wise: stem word-
    • -t ⇒ wordt.
How is the passive formed in wordt beloond, and why does beloond lack ge-?

Dutch forms the eventive passive with worden + past participle. The participle of verbs with inseparable prefixes (be-, ver-, ont-, ge-) does not take the ge- prefix. So:

  • belonen → beloond (not gebeloond)
  • Compare: verwachten → verwacht, ontvangen → ontvangen
Could I say is beloond instead of wordt beloond?

Yes, but it changes the nuance:

  • wordt beloond = process/habit/general rule (“is rewarded” in general).
  • is beloond = result state/completed event (“has been rewarded”). This sentence states a policy, so wordt beloond is the natural choice.
Who is doing the rewarding? Where is the “by” phrase?

It’s an agentless passive—common in rules and policies. You can add an agent if needed:

  • Goed gedrag wordt door ons/door de leraren beloond. Or switch to active:
  • We belonen goed gedrag.
Why is it slecht gedrag bespreken we and not we bespreken slecht gedrag?

Dutch main clauses are verb-second (V2). Whatever you put first takes the first slot; the finite verb must come second. Because slecht gedrag is fronted for emphasis, the finite verb bespreken follows it, and the subject we comes after: Slecht gedrag [1] bespreken [2] we [3]…
The neutral order is also fine: We bespreken slecht gedrag achteraf.

Can I start with Achteraf instead? For example, Achteraf bespreken we slecht gedrag?

Yes. Fronting achteraf emphasizes the time element. Both are correct:

  • Slecht gedrag bespreken we achteraf. (focus on the object)
  • Achteraf bespreken we slecht gedrag. (focus on the timing)
Where does niet go if I want to negate parts of these clauses?
  • To negate the rewarding: Goed gedrag wordt niet beloond.
  • To say you don’t discuss it afterwards (but maybe at another time): Slecht gedrag bespreken we niet achteraf.
  • To say you don’t discuss misbehavior at all: Slecht gedrag bespreken we niet. Placement of niet depends on what you’re negating (the verb phrase as a whole, a specific time adverbial, etc.).
What’s the difference between achteraf, later, nadien, and achteraan?
  • achteraf: “afterwards/after the fact,” often implying “not in the moment” or “in retrospect.”
  • later: neutral “later.”
  • nadien: formal/Belgian-leaning synonym of “afterwards.”
  • achteraan: spatial “at the back/at the end (of a line),” not temporal—don’t use it for time here.
Why use bespreken and not praten over?

bespreken takes a direct object and is slightly more formal/precise: slecht gedrag bespreken.
praten over is less formal and needs a preposition: over slecht gedrag praten. Both are correct; the original has a concise, policy-like tone.

Could I make both halves active or both passive for symmetry?

Yes:

  • Both active: We belonen goed gedrag; slecht gedrag bespreken we achteraf.
  • Both passive: Goed gedrag wordt beloond; slecht gedrag wordt achteraf besproken. The original mixes passive (policy-like) and active (we explicitly discuss), which is a stylistic choice.
Is the semicolon used the same way in Dutch?
Yes. It links two closely related independent clauses. You could also use a period, or a comma with a conjunction, e.g. …, maar … or …, en … depending on the nuance.
Should I use we or wij?
Both are correct. wij is the stressed/emphatic form, often used for contrast or emphasis; we is the default unstressed form. Here we is natural; wij would stress that it’s us (as opposed to someone else) who discuss it.
What happens in the plural?

With a plural subject, the passive uses worden (plural):

  • Goede daden worden beloond. But gedrag itself is a mass noun and stays singular: Goed gedrag wordt beloond.
Is gedrag countable? What about gedraging(en)?
gedrag is typically an uncountable mass noun: general behavior. gedraging (plural gedragingen) is a countable, more formal/legal term meaning “(specific) act(s)/conduct.” In everyday language you’ll mostly use gedrag.