Learn Hardcore Dutch: Tom heeft per ongeluk op de pauzeknop gedrukt en is daarna koffie gaan halen. - Tom accidentally pressed the pause button and then went to get coffee.

Dutch normally prefers the present perfect (auxiliary hebben or zijn + past participle) when talking about completed past actions in everyday speech and writing.

Tom heeft … gedrukt = “Tom has pressed / Tom pressed.”
Tom drukte … is also correct, but the simple past (drukte) is used:
- more in written narratives (stories, novels, reports),
- less in casual spoken language.

Word order in the perfect tense:

Tom (subject)
heeft (auxiliary verb)
per ongeluk op de pauzeknop (middle field: adverbs, objects, prepositional phrases)
gedrukt (past participle at the end of the clause)

So heeft … gedrukt is the most natural everyday choice here.

Why is the verb at the end: heeft … gedrukt instead of heeft gedrukt …?

In a main clause with a compound verb in Dutch:

The finite verb (the part that changes for person/tense) comes in second position.
All other verb forms (infinitives, past participles) go to the end of the clause.

So:

Tom (1st position: subject)
heeft (2nd position: finite verb)
per ongeluk op de pauzeknop (rest of the sentence)
gedrukt (past participle at the end)

This “verb-second, rest, verb-at-the-end” pattern is a core word-order rule in Dutch main clauses with more than one verb.

Why do you say op de pauzeknop gedrukt and not just de pauzeknop gedrukt?

With drukken in the sense of “to press (a button)”, Dutch normally uses the preposition op:

op de pauzeknop drukken = to press the pause button
literally “to press on the pause button”

So the standard pattern is:

op
- article
  - button word
    - op de pauzeknop drukken
    - op de bel drukken (to ring the doorbell)
    - op de knop drukken

Leaving out op here would sound wrong: ✗ de pauzeknop gedrukt is ungrammatical in this meaning.

Why is it per ongeluk and where can it go in the sentence?

Per ongeluk means “by accident / accidentally.”
Grammatically it’s an adverbial phrase, and Dutch is fairly flexible about where such adverbs go.

Common neutral positions:

Between the subject and the rest:
- Tom heeft per ongeluk op de pauzeknop gedrukt.
After the finite verb:
- Tom heeft per ongeluk op de pauzeknop gedrukt. (same as above)
At the beginning for emphasis:
- Per ongeluk heeft Tom op de pauzeknop gedrukt. (emphasizes by accident)

What you usually don’t do is split per and ongeluk, or put it after the participle in this kind of sentence:

✗ Tom heeft op de pauzeknop gedrukt per ongeluk. (sounds off in Dutch)

Why is there no second Tom in … en is daarna koffie gaan halen?

The subject Tom is shared by both parts of the coordinated verb phrase:

Tom heeft per ongeluk op de pauzeknop gedrukt
[Tom] is daarna koffie gaan halen

In Dutch, when you join two verb groups with en and the subject is the same, you don’t need to repeat the subject:

Tom heeft een film gekeken en is daarna gaan slapen.
Wij hebben gegeten en zijn daarna gaan wandelen.

But you cannot drop the subject in a completely separate sentence:

Tom heeft op de pauzeknop gedrukt. Daarna is hij koffie gaan halen.
Here you must say hij, because it’s a new sentence.

Why is it is … gaan halen and not heeft … gaan halen?

In constructions with gaan + infinitive (like gaan halen, gaan kopen, gaan werken) to express “going to do something,” Dutch generally uses zijn as the auxiliary in the perfect tense:

Tom is koffie gaan halen.
Ik ben boodschappen gaan doen.
We zijn iets gaan drinken.

This follows the pattern of movement verbs (gaan, komen, lopen, etc.) that typically use zijn in the perfect tense in Dutch.

Using heeft … gaan halen here sounds wrong in standard Dutch.

Why do we say koffie gaan halen instead of just koffie halen?

Both are possible, but they have slightly different nuances:

koffie halen = to get coffee (neutral simple action)
koffie gaan halen = to go (somewhere) to get coffee

In the sentence:

… en is daarna koffie gaan halen.

the speaker highlights the movement / leaving what he was doing to get coffee, which is very natural in this context (he leaves after pressing pause).

You could also say:

… en heeft daarna koffie gehaald.
This focuses more on the result (he got coffee) and less on “going off to get it.”

Why is daarna placed after is: … en is daarna koffie gaan halen?

Daarna is an adverb meaning “after that / afterwards.”
In main clauses, this kind of adverb often appears right after the finite verb:

Tom is daarna koffie gaan halen.
We hebben daarna nog wat gepraat.
Hij gaat daarna naar huis.

Other possible positions:

At the beginning (with inversion of subject and verb):
- Daarna is Tom koffie gaan halen.
Between subject and verb (less common; often more spoken/emphatic):
- Tom daarna is koffie gaan halen. (sounds odd; normally avoided)

So finite verb (is) + adverb (daarna) is the most natural standard pattern.

Could I say … en daarna ging hij koffie halen instead? What is the difference?

Yes:

Tom heeft per ongeluk op de pauzeknop gedrukt en daarna ging hij koffie halen.

is grammatically correct.

Differences:

is daarna koffie gaan halen
- Perfect tense for the second action, linked more tightly to the first.
- Feels like one compact description of a sequence of actions.
daarna ging hij koffie halen
- Switches to the simple past for the second action.
- Slightly more narrative/story-like, especially in written text.
- More explicit repetition of the subject (hij).

In everyday spoken Dutch, the original version with is … gaan halen is very natural and fluent.

How is the past participle gedrukt formed from drukken?

The infinitive is drukken.

To make the past participle of regular verbs:

Remove -en → druk-
Decide between -t or -d using the “’t kofschip / ’t fokschaap” rule:
If the stem ends in k, f, s, ch, p, t, you take -t.
- druk ends in k → take -t.
Add ge- at the front and -t at the end:
- ge
  - druk
    - t → gedrukt

So drukken → heeft gedrukt (perfect with hebben).