Learn Hardcore Dutch: Wij moeten morgen korter slapen, omdat we vroeg vertrekken. - We have to sleep less tomorrow because we leave early.

wij = stressed form, used when you want to emphasize the subject.
- Example: Wij moeten morgen korter slapen (…not someone else).
we = unstressed, more neutral, used in normal speech most of the time.
- Example: …omdat we vroeg vertrekken.

In this sentence, starting with Wij can sound slightly more emphatic (e.g. in contrast to others), while we in the second clause is just the normal, unstressed form.

You could also say:

We moeten morgen korter slapen, omdat we vroeg vertrekken.

That would be perfectly natural and common in everyday speech.

Could I leave out Wij and just say Moeten morgen korter slapen?

No, you can’t do that in standard Dutch.

In a normal statement, you must have the subject:

✅ Wij moeten morgen korter slapen.
❌ Moeten morgen korter slapen. (only acceptable in some informal, telegraphic, or note-like contexts)

Dutch doesn’t drop the subject the way Spanish or Italian sometimes do. So you need wij or we.

Why is it moeten slapen and not something like te slapen? In English we say “have to sleep”.

In Dutch, modal verbs (like moeten, kunnen, mogen, willen) are followed directly by a bare infinitive, without te:

moeten slapen – have to sleep
kunnen komen – can come
willen werken – want to work

So:

✅ Wij moeten morgen korter slapen.
❌ Wij moeten morgen korter te slapen.

Te is used with many other verbs, but not after modals.

Why is the verb moeten in the present tense if this is about tomorrow?

Dutch often uses the present tense to talk about future events, especially when the time is made clear with a word like morgen (tomorrow):

Wij moeten morgen korter slapen.
= We have to sleep less tomorrow (future sense is clear from morgen).
We vertrekken morgen vroeg.
= We leave early tomorrow.

You can use zullen to talk about the future, but here it would sound odd or overly complicated:

❌ Wij zullen morgen korter moeten slapen. (grammatically correct, but more about predicting that we will have to, slightly different nuance)

The simple present with a future time word is the most natural choice here.

What exactly does moeten mean here? Is it more like “must” or “have to”?

Moeten can correspond to both must and have to, depending on context. Here it means:

We have to sleep for a shorter time / sleep less.

It expresses necessity/obligation:

Ik moet werken. – I must / have to work.
Wij moeten morgen korter slapen. – We must / have to sleep less tomorrow.

In everyday conversation, it’s usually closer to English have to in tone and strength.

Why is morgen placed between moeten and korter slapen? Can it go somewhere else?

Yes, morgen (tomorrow) can move around somewhat in the sentence, but some positions sound more natural than others.

Current sentence:

Wij moeten morgen korter slapen…

Also natural:

Morgen moeten wij korter slapen, omdat we vroeg vertrekken.
(emphasizes tomorrow; stylistically very natural)
Wij moeten korter slapen morgen, omdat we vroeg vertrekken.
(also acceptable, though morgen later in the sentence sometimes sounds a bit heavier or more casual)

What you can’t do is break up korter slapen in a strange way, like:

❌ Wij moeten korter morgen slapen.

So the safest, neutral options:

Wij moeten morgen korter slapen…
Morgen moeten wij korter slapen…

Why is it korter slapen and not something like minder slapen? What’s the difference?

Both are possible, but they focus on slightly different ideas:

korter slapen
- literally: to sleep more shortly / for a shorter time
- emphasizes the duration being shorter (less time in bed).
minder slapen
- literally: to sleep less
- emphasizes the amount of sleep being less (could be time, but can also feel more general).

In this context:

Wij moeten morgen korter slapen…
Natural, focusing on shorter duration because you have to get up earlier.
Wij moeten morgen minder slapen…
Also correct, and commonly used; sometimes a bit more general (less sleep overall).

Grammatically, korter here is the comparative form of kort (short → shorter) used as an adverb modifying slapen.

Why is it korter and not kortere?

Korter is used here as an adverb, not an attributive adjective.

Adjective before a noun: gets an ending (-e) in many cases
- een korte nacht – a short night
- kortere nachten – shorter nights
Adverb modifying a verb: no -e
- Wij moeten kort slapen. – We have to sleep briefly.
- Wij moeten korter slapen. – We have to sleep for a shorter time.

Since korter is describing how we will sleep (modifying the verb slapen), it stays korter, not kortere.

Why do we need a comma before omdat, and why does the verb go to the end in omdat we vroeg vertrekken?

Omdat is a subordinating conjunction (subordinating conjunctions include omdat = because, als = if/when, dat = that, etc.). They introduce a subordinate clause and cause a change in word order.

Comma
In written Dutch, a comma before a clause introduced by omdat is normal and recommended:
- Wij moeten morgen korter slapen, omdat we vroeg vertrekken.
Verb at the end
In a clause introduced by omdat, the finite verb goes to the end:
- Main clause: We vertrekken vroeg. (verb in 2nd position)
- Subordinate clause: omdat we vroeg vertrekken. (verb at the end)

So the structure is:

[Main clause], omdat [Subject] [Other elements] [Verb].
Wij moeten morgen korter slapen, omdat we vroeg vertrekken.

Can I use want instead of omdat? What changes?

Yes, but the word order changes and the nuance is slightly different.

With omdat (subordinating conjunction):

Wij moeten morgen korter slapen, omdat we vroeg vertrekken.
(subordinate clause, verb at the end)

With want (coordinating conjunction):

Wij moeten morgen korter slapen, want we vertrekken vroeg.
(new main clause, normal main-clause word order)

Nuance:

omdat
- introduces a clear cause/reason, often more neutral and a bit more logical/explanatory.
want
- feels a bit more like spoken “because, you see…”, adding an explanation.

Both are correct here.

Why is it vroeg vertrekken and not vertrekken vroeg?

In Dutch, adverbs of time like vroeg (early) often come before the main verb in verb-final clauses and close to the verb in main clauses too.

Main clause: We vertrekken vroeg. (Subject – Verb – Time)
Subordinate clause: omdat we vroeg vertrekken. (Subject – Time – Verb at end)

While We vertrekken vroeg is normal, We vroeg vertrekken is not.

In general:

Main clause word order: Subject – finite verb – (Time / Manner / Place) – other stuff
Subordinate clause: …omdat Subject – (Time / Manner / Place) – Verb

Is we just the English word we borrowed into Dutch?

No. It looks the same but it’s a native Dutch pronoun.

Dutch has two forms of the 1st person plural:

wij – stressed form
we – unstressed (clitic) form

They are both fully Dutch, not an English borrowing. The similarity to English we is because both languages are Germanic and share older roots.

Why is the verb in omdat we vroeg vertrekken also plural vertrekken and not something else?

Dutch verbs agree with the subject in both number and person. For wij/we (we), the present tense form is typically the infinitive form:

ik vertrek – I leave
jij vertrekt – you leave
hij/zij/het vertrekt – he/she/it leaves
wij / jullie / zij vertrekken – we / you (pl.) / they leave

So with we, you must use vertrekken:

✅ omdat we vroeg vertrekken.
❌ omdat we vroeg vertrekt.

Could this sentence also be Morgen moeten we korter slapen, omdat we vroeg vertrekken? Does that change the meaning?

Yes, that’s perfectly correct:

Morgen moeten we korter slapen, omdat we vroeg vertrekken.

The meaning is the same. The difference is the emphasis and flow:

Wij moeten morgen korter slapen…
Neutral start, slight emphasis on we (especially with wij).
Morgen moeten we korter slapen…
Emphasizes tomorrow. It’s common if you’re talking about your schedule for tomorrow.

Both are natural and standard Dutch.