Learn Hardcore Dutch: Wij zetten de stoelen opzij zodat de kinderen kunnen spelen. - We move the chairs aside so that the children can play.

wij is the stressed form, used for emphasis or contrast:
- Wij zetten de stoelen opzij, niet zij.
  (We move the chairs aside, not them.)
we is the normal, unstressed form in everyday speech and writing.

So in most neutral sentences you will actually hear:
We zetten de stoelen opzij zodat de kinderen kunnen spelen.

Why is zetten used here instead of leggen or plaatsen?

Dutch has several verbs for “put”:

zetten – to put/set something upright / standing, or more generally “put”
- e.g. een stoel neerzetten (to put a chair down)
leggen – to lay something flat
- e.g. een boek neerleggen (to lay a book down)
plaatsen – more formal/neutral “to place” (often written, less colloquial)

Chairs are thought of as things that stand on their legs, so zetten is the natural choice:

Wij zetten de stoelen opzij… = We move/put the chairs aside.

You would not normally say Wij leggen de stoelen opzij for chairs; that sounds wrong or at least odd.

Is opzij zetten one verb? How do separable verbs like this work?

Yes, opzijzetten is a separable verb.

Dictionary form: opzijzetten
In a normal main clause, the prefix moves to the end:
- Wij zetten de stoelen opzij.
- Ik zet de stoel opzij.
- We zetten ze opzij. (ze = them)

Important:

You normally put the object between the verb and opzij:
- ✔ We zetten de stoelen opzij.
- ✘ We zetten opzij de stoelen. (feels wrong in standard Dutch)

So you can think of it as one meaning (“to put aside”), but in main clauses the pieces split: zetten … opzij.

How do I use opzijzetten in other tenses?

Some common forms:

Present
- Wij zetten de stoelen opzij. – We put the chairs aside.
Simple past
- Ik zette de stoel opzij. – I put the chair aside.
- Wij zetten de stoelen opzij. – We put the chairs aside.
Perfect (present perfect)
- Ik heb de stoel opzijgezet.
- Wij hebben de stoelen opzijgezet.
  (Participle: opzijgezet, written as one word.)
With a modal verb
- Wij moeten de stoelen opzijzetten. – We have to put the chairs aside.
- Wij willen de stoelen opzijzetten. – We want to put the chairs aside.

Notice that with a modal + infinitive, the verb parts come back together at the end: opzijzetten.

How can I tell if zetten here is present tense or past tense?

For wij (and other plural forms), zetten is the same in the present and past:

Present: wij zetten – we put / we are putting
Past: wij zetten – we put (yesterday, last week, etc.)

You know the tense from context and from the other verbs:

Present:
Wij zetten de stoelen opzij zodat de kinderen kunnen spelen.
(kunnen = present → everything is present.)
Past:
Wij zetten de stoelen opzij zodat de kinderen konden spelen.
(konden = past → “we put the chairs aside so the children could play.”)

Should there be a comma before zodat?

Both are seen:

Wij zetten de stoelen opzij, zodat de kinderen kunnen spelen.
Wij zetten de stoelen opzij zodat de kinderen kunnen spelen.

In more careful or formal writing, a comma before zodat is common and recommended, because zodat introduces a new clause with its own verb.

In everyday, shorter sentences, many people leave the comma out, and that’s widely accepted. So you don’t have to worry too much; just be consistent.

What does zodat do to the word order in “zodat de kinderen kunnen spelen”?

Zodat is a subordinating conjunction (“so that”), so it introduces a subordinate clause. In such clauses:

The finite verb no longer goes in position 2; it moves to the end (verb cluster).

Compare:

Main clause:
De kinderen kunnen spelen.
(Subject De kinderen, verb kunnen in 2nd position.)
After zodat:
… zodat de kinderen kunnen spelen.
Now zodat de kinderen is the start of the clause, and kunnen spelen sits together at the end.

Wrong would be:
✘ … zodat kunnen de kinderen spelen.

Why is it “kunnen spelen” and not just “spelen”?

Kunnen means “can / are able to”.
The sentence says:

We move the chairs aside so that the children can play (there is space / possibility).

If you say:

… zodat de kinderen spelen.

you are stating that as a result, the children actually do play (as a fact), not just that they have the opportunity.

In most contexts like this, zodat de kinderen kunnen spelen is the natural, idiomatic way to express the idea “so that the children can play (if they want to)”.

Could I use mogen instead of kunnen here?

You can, but the meaning changes:

kunnen = can, to be able to / have the possibility
- … zodat de kinderen kunnen spelen.
  → there is space / opportunity to play.
mogen = may, to be allowed to
- … zodat de kinderen mogen spelen.
  → they are allowed to play.

So use:

kunnen if you’re focusing on practical possibility (room, time, conditions).
mogen if you’re focusing on permission (rules, authority).

Why is it “de stoelen” and “de kinderen”? When do I use de and when no article at all?

In this sentence:

de stoelen = the chairs
de kinderen = the children

Here, the article de is used because we are talking about specific, known chairs and children (the chairs in this room, the children we have in mind).

Grammar points:

All plural nouns take de:
- de stoelen, de kinderen, de tafels.
You can drop the article (just stoelen, kinderen) only in more general or generic statements:
- Stoelen zetten we opzij zodat kinderen kunnen spelen.
  → a more general description of what you (always) do; sounds less natural if you mean this one concrete situation.

In the concrete situation described, de stoelen and de kinderen is the normal choice.

Can I express the same idea with “om … te” instead of zodat?

Yes, but the structure changes a bit because the subject of “spelen” is different (de kinderen, not wij).

With zodat (result / purpose clause):

Wij zetten de stoelen opzij zodat de kinderen kunnen spelen.

With om … te you need laten (“let”) to introduce the children as the ones who play:

Wij zetten de stoelen opzij om de kinderen te laten spelen.
= We move the chairs aside in order to let the children play.

Differences:

zodat + clause
- emphasises the result (“so that … happens / can happen”).
om … te + infinitive
- emphasises purpose / intention (“in order to …”), and normally shares the same subject as the main clause – unless you add a verb like laten or helpen to introduce a different subject.

Both versions are grammatically correct; the original with zodat is very natural and common.