Learn Hardcore Dutch: We hebben gisteren ruzie gehad, maar vandaag zoeken we samen een oplossing. - We had an argument yesterday, but today we are looking for a solution together.

Perfect (hebben/zijn + past participle):
We hebben gisteren ruzie gehad.
Literally: We have had an argument yesterday.
Simple past (imperfect):
We hadden gisteren ruzie.
Literally: We had an argument yesterday.

Both are grammatically correct here. The difference is mostly one of style and feel:

In spoken Dutch, the perfect tense (hebben/zijn + participe) is very common for completed events in the past, especially in the Netherlands.
The simple past (hadden) is used more in written language and in storytelling, or when you’re describing a sequence of past events.

So the sentence uses hebben … gehad because it sounds natural and conversational. You could also say:

We hadden gisteren ruzie, maar vandaag zoeken we samen een oplossing.
This is fine, just a bit more “story-like” or formal in tone.

What exactly does ruzie hebben mean? Is ruzie just “argument”?

Ruzie hebben is a fixed expression meaning “to be in a quarrel / to have a fight / to be on bad terms (temporarily)”.

ruzie by itself is roughly “quarrel, fight, argument”.
ruzie hebben (met iemand) = to be in a quarrel (with someone)
- Ik heb ruzie met mijn broer. – I’m having a fight / I’m not on good terms with my brother.
ruzie maken (met iemand) = to pick/start a fight (with someone)

About countability:

Very common: ruzie hebben (no article)
- We hebben ruzie gehad. – We had a fight.
Also possible, but less neutral: een ruzie hebben
- We hebben een ruzie gehad. – We had an argument (one specific incident).

So ruzie can be countable (een ruzie), but in everyday speech ruzie hebben without an article is extremely common.

Why is gisteren placed between hebben and ruzie gehad? Can I put it somewhere else?

The sentence is:

We hebben gisteren ruzie gehad.

Basic word-order principle in a main clause with an auxiliary:

Finite verb (conjugated verb) goes in second position: hebben
Other verbs (like past participles) go towards the end: gehad
Adverbs like gisteren usually sit in the middle, after the verb or after subject+verb.

Common natural options:

We hebben gisteren ruzie gehad. (most neutral)
Gisteren hebben we ruzie gehad. (focus on yesterday)
We hebben gisteren een flinke ruzie gehad. (gisteren still before the main content)

These sound good. Less natural or wrong:

✗ We gisteren hebben ruzie gehad. (breaks the rule that the finite verb should be in 2nd position)
? We hebben ruzie gisteren gehad. (possible in speech for emphasis, but sounds clumsy as a neutral sentence)

So the position after the finite verb is the most standard place for gisteren here.

Why is ruzie gehad at the end of the first clause? Could it be somewhere else?

In Dutch main clauses with more than one verb:

The finite verb (conjugated) comes in 2nd position.
The other verb(s) (infinitives or participles) go to the right end of the clause.

Here:

Finite verb: hebben (2nd position)
Past participle: gehad (to the right)
Expression: ruzie hebben → in the perfect: ruzie gehad

So we get:

We hebben gisteren ruzie gehad.

You can’t normally move gehad to the middle:

✗ We hebben gehad gisteren ruzie. (ungrammatical)

But you can expand around it while keeping the participle at the end:

We hebben gisteren ruzie gehad over het geld.
We hebben gisteren flink ruzie gehad.

The clump “ruzie gehad” is the verb phrase at the end, with ruzie being strongly tied to the participle gehad.

Why is there a comma before maar, and is maar exactly the same as English “but”?

The full sentence is:

We hebben gisteren ruzie gehad, maar vandaag zoeken we samen een oplossing.

Here maar is a coordinating conjunction meaning “but”. It links two main clauses:

We hebben gisteren ruzie gehad
vandaag zoeken we samen een oplossing

In Dutch, a comma before coordinating conjunctions (zoals maar, en, of) is:

Common and recommended when you join two full clauses.
Less necessary when you just join short phrases.

So the comma here is natural and stylistically good.

Is maar always “but”?
No. It also has other uses, for example:

Softening a command: Kom maar binnen. – Come in (it’s okay).
“Only / just”: Het is maar een grapje. – It’s only a joke.

In this sentence, though, maar is straightforwardly “but”.

Why does the second part say vandaag zoeken we… in the present tense, not something like “will look for” in future tense?

Dutch uses the present tense very often for:

Things happening now
Things happening later today or in the near future, especially if they are plans or scheduled

So:

vandaag zoeken we samen een oplossing
= We’re (going to be) looking for a solution today / Today we’re working together on a solution.

If you wanted to explicitly mark the future, you could say:

Vandaag gaan we samen een oplossing zoeken. – Today we’re going to look for a solution.

But the simple present zoeken is perfectly normal and often preferred. It feels similar to English “Today we’re looking for a solution” (present progressive), which in meaning is also near-future/ongoing.

What does samen do here, and where can I put it in the sentence?

Samen means “together”. It indicates that we are doing the action jointly.

In the sentence:

… maar vandaag zoeken we samen een oplossing.

Here samen modifies zoeken (“we search together”), and it is placed before the direct object (een oplossing).

Other natural positions:

Vandaag zoeken we samen een oplossing. (neutral, as given)
Vandaag zoeken we een oplossing samen. (also possible; samen a bit more at the end, sometimes used for emphasis)
Samen zoeken we vandaag een oplossing. (emphasis on together)

All of these are grammatically fine. The most neutral option is usually subject – verb – samen – object:

We zoeken samen een oplossing.

Why is it een oplossing and not de oplossing?

een oplossing = a solution, some solution, not specified which one.
de oplossing = the solution, a specific one, usually known or expected.

In:

… maar vandaag zoeken we samen een oplossing.

they’re not talking about one specific, already identified solution. They just want some kind of solution that works. So the indefinite article een is correct.

If you said:

Vandaag zoeken we samen de oplossing.

that would imply that there is one specific solution already known or assumed (for example, “the solution” to a puzzle or a specific problem you discussed before).

Could I also say We hadden gisteren ruzie, maar vandaag zoeken we samen naar een oplossing? How does that differ?

Yes, that sentence is perfectly correct:

We hadden gisteren ruzie, maar vandaag zoeken we samen naar een oplossing.

Differences:

Hadden ruzie vs hebben ruzie gehad
- We hadden gisteren ruzie – simple past; slightly more “narrative” or written style.
- We hebben gisteren ruzie gehad – perfect tense; more everyday spoken style (especially in the Netherlands).
  Meaning-wise, both express the same past event.
zoeken een oplossing vs zoeken naar een oplossing
- een oplossing zoeken: transitive, very common and natural.
- naar een oplossing zoeken: also correct; adds a small nuance of “searching towards a solution”, slightly more descriptive.

In most contexts, een oplossing zoeken and naar een oplossing zoeken are interchangeable. The original sentence simply picked the shorter, very common construction without naar.

Why is the auxiliary hebben used in hebben ruzie gehad, and not zijn?

In Dutch, the perfect tense is formed with hebben or zijn:

Many verbs use hebben.
A smaller group (especially verbs of movement or change of state) use zijn:
Hij is gekomen, zij is gevallen, het is gebeurd.

Here, ruzie hebben is an expression where hebben is the main verb in the present:

Present: We hebben ruzie. – We are having a quarrel.
Perfect: We hebben ruzie gehad. – We have had a quarrel.

Since hebben is the main verb in the base expression, the perfect also uses hebben as auxiliary. There is no version with zijn:

✗ We zijn ruzie gehad. – incorrect.

How do you pronounce ruzie, gehad, and oplossing?

Approximate Dutch pronunciation (Netherlands variety):

ruzie – /ˈryzi/
- r: lightly rolled or tapped (can vary by region).
- u (/y/): like French u in tu, or German ü in für (front, rounded vowel).
- zie: like English zee, but shorter: zee.
gehad – /ɣəˈɦɑt/
- g (/ɣ/): a voiced, throaty sound made at the back of the mouth, similar to the g in some Scottish pronunciations of loch, but voiced.
- e (/ə/): a weak uh-sound, like the a in about.
- ha (/ɦɑ/): h is a breathy sound; a like the o in hot (British) or the a in father, but shorter.
- d at the end is devoiced, so it sounds more like t.
oplossing – /ˈɔplɔsɪŋ/
- op: o as in British got, p as in English.
- los: again o as in got, s as in sit.
- sing: like English sing.

A slow, syllable-by-syllable breakdown:

ru-zie → ru (French tu vowel) + zie (like zee)
ge-had → ge (g-uh with guttural g) + had (hut with throaty h and final t sound)
op-los-sing → op
- los
  - sing (as in English sing)