Learn Hardcore Dutch: Het is te lawaaierig om nu te bellen; we spreken morgen verder. - It is too noisy to call now; we will continue talking tomorrow.

It doesn’t refer to any specific noun; it just fills the subject position.
Dutch often uses this impersonal “het” with verbs like is, regent (it’s raining), waait (it’s windy), etc.

So Het is te lawaaierig = It is too noisy, in a general sense.

Why is it te lawaaierig and not something like te lawaaiig? What’s going on with that spelling?

The base noun is het lawaai (noise). To make an adjective, Dutch often adds -ig or -erig:

lawaai → lawaaiig / lawaaierig

In modern usage:

lawaaiig and lawaierig both exist, but lawaaiig is more common in standard Dutch.
In your sentence, lawaai has become lawaai → lawaai
- erig → lawaierig.
Spelling is regular: the ai sound is preserved, then -erig is added.

Meaning-wise, lawaaiig and lawaierig both mean noisy, full of noise. The difference is mostly stylistic/variant, not meaning.

What exactly does te mean in te lawaaierig? Is it the same as “too” in English?

Yes.

te + adjective/adverb = too + adjective/adverb (in a negative/excess sense).
- te klein = too small
- te snel = too fast
- te lawaaierig = too noisy

Don’t confuse this with te meaning to before an infinitive (te bellen = to call). Dutch uses te in both roles, but the grammar is different:

te + adjective → “too” (excess)
om … te + infinitive → “to ... (in order to)”

Why do we say om nu te bellen and not just nu te bellen or nu bellen? What is the role of om here?

Om ... te + infinitive is a very common Dutch construction roughly meaning “(in order) to ...”.

Het is te lawaaierig om nu te bellen
= literally: “It is too noisy in order to call now.”

Key points:

om ... te + infinitive usually expresses purpose or possibility:
- Ik ga naar buiten om te wandelen. = I’m going outside to walk.
- Het is te druk om te praten. = It’s too busy to talk.
In many sentences, om is obligatory in standard Dutch; just te bellen after an adjective often sounds incomplete or too casual.
- Goed om te weten (good to know) sounds natural.
- Goed te weten is possible but more limited or formal/slogan-like.
In your sentence, om is the most natural choice:
- Het is te lawaaierig om nu te bellen. ✅
- Het is te lawaaierig nu te bellen. ❌ sounds off.
- Het is te lawaaierig nu bellen. ❌ ungrammatical.

Why is it te bellen and not te bel?

Dutch uses the infinitive form after te in this construction.

The infinitive of the verb bellen is bellen (to call).
After om ... te, you always use the infinitive:
- om te bellen (to call)
- om te eten (to eat)
- om te slapen (to sleep)

Bel is a finite form (1st person singular present, or imperative), not used after te in this way.

What is the difference between bellen, opbellen, and telefoneren? Could I say om nu op te bellen?

All are related to calling, but usage differs:

bellen = to call (someone) / to phone
- Ik bel je morgen. = I’ll call you tomorrow.
opbellen = also “to call”, but a bit more explicitly “to phone (someone) up”
- Ik bel je op. = I’ll call you (up).
- You normally separate it: Ik bel haar later op.
telefoneren = more formal/literary, also “to telephone”
- Ik zal u morgen telefoneren.

In your sentence, bellen is the most natural and common. You wouldn’t say om nu op te bellen by itself, because opbellen almost always needs an object:

Het is te lawaaierig om je nu op te bellen.
= It’s too noisy to call you now.

Without the object:

om nu te bellen ✅
om nu op te bellen ❌ (feels incomplete)

Why is nu placed before te bellen? Could I say om te bellen nu?

In an om ... te clause, the adverb (nu) usually goes before te + infinitive:

om nu te bellen
om rustig te kunnen werken (to be able to work quietly)

Putting nu at the end (om te bellen nu) is not natural in Dutch.

Possible variations that are natural:

Het is nu te lawaaierig om te bellen.
Het is te lawaaierig om nu te bellen.

Both are correct; you just move nu in the main clause or the infinitive clause.

There is a semicolon: ... te bellen; we spreken morgen verder. Is that normal in Dutch? Could I use a comma or a period instead?

Yes, a semicolon is perfectly fine here and functions much like in English: it connects two closely related independent clauses.

You have several options:

Semicolon (as given)
- Het is te lawaaierig om nu te bellen; we spreken morgen verder.
  → Neutral, slightly written style.
Period
- Het is te lawaaierig om nu te bellen. We spreken morgen verder.
  → Very common in ordinary writing.
Comma
- Het is te lawaaierig om nu te bellen, we spreken morgen verder.
  → This is a comma splice. Native speakers often write it, but in careful/standard writing it’s considered incorrect or sloppy.

So: semicolon or period are best; comma is common but not ideal in formal writing.

In we spreken morgen verder, what does verder add? Why not just we spreken morgen?

verder literally means “further” or “onward”, and in this context it means “we’ll continue (talking) tomorrow”.

we spreken morgen = We’ll speak tomorrow (could be a new or different conversation).
we spreken morgen verder = We’ll continue the conversation tomorrow / we’ll talk more tomorrow.

So verder emphasizes that this is a continuation of something already started.

Why spreken and not praten in we spreken morgen verder? Are they interchangeable?

Both spreken and praten mean “to speak, to talk”, but there are subtle differences:

spreken is slightly more neutral or formal.
praten is more informal/colloquial.

In this sentence you could say:

We spreken morgen verder. ✅
We praten morgen verder. ✅ (a bit more casual)

Both are correct and common. Spreken doesn’t sound very formal here; it’s just a bit more neutral.

How can we spreken morgen verder refer to the future if it’s in the present tense? Why not a future tense like in English?

Dutch uses the present tense very often to talk about the near future, especially when there is a time word like morgen.

We spreken morgen verder.
= We’ll talk further tomorrow.

This is completely natural. You could use a future construction, but it’s less common here:

We zullen morgen verder spreken. (more formal/emphatic)

So: present tense + morgen is the default way to express this future meaning.

Could I change the word order and say Het is nu te lawaaierig om te bellen? Does it change the meaning?

Yes, that sentence is correct, and the meaning stays essentially the same.

Het is te lawaaierig om nu te bellen.
→ Focus more on the calling timing: it’s too noisy to call now.
Het is nu te lawaaierig om te bellen.
→ Focus a bit more on the time now: now it’s too noisy to call.

Both are natural; the difference is only a small nuance of emphasis.

Is there a more literal word-for-word breakdown of the whole sentence?

Yes:

Het = It
is = is
te = too (excess)
lawaaierig = noisy
om = (in order) to
nu = now
te bellen = to call
we = we
spreken = speak / talk
morgen = tomorrow
verder = further / on

So literally:
“It is too noisy to call now; we speak tomorrow further.”
→ Natural English: “It’s too noisy to call now; we’ll continue talking tomorrow.”