Learn Hardcore Dutch: Wij vergaderen kort over de taakverdeling, zodat iedereen weet wat hij of zij moet doen. - We have a short meeting about the division of tasks so that everyone knows what he or she has to do.

wij = stressed form, used when you want to highlight we (as opposed to others).
- Wij vergaderen kort… = We (ourselves) will have a short meeting…
we = unstressed, the neutral, most common spoken form.
- We vergaderen kort… is what many Dutch speakers would naturally say.

So grammatically both are correct here. In written Dutch, “wij” can sound a bit more formal or emphatic; “we” is more neutral and conversational.

What exactly does “vergaderen” mean, and why not say “een vergadering hebben”?

“Vergaderen” is a verb meaning “to hold a meeting / to meet (formally)”.

Wij vergaderen kort… = We are having a short meeting…
Wij hebben een korte vergadering… = also possible, and very close in meaning.

Differences:

vergaderen is shorter and more direct and is very common in office or organizational contexts.
een vergadering hebben literally means “to have a meeting” and is also correct, just slightly more wordy.

So:

Wij vergaderen kort over de taakverdeling
≈ Wij hebben kort een vergadering over de taakverdeling (less natural)
Most native speakers prefer “vergaderen” here.

Why is it “wij vergaderen kort” and not “wij kort vergaderen”?

“Kort” here is an adverb meaning “briefly / for a short time”, and it modifies the verb “vergaderen”.

In a simple main clause, the normal order is: > Subject – finite verb – adverb – rest

So:

Wij vergaderen kort over de taakverdeling. ✅ (natural)
Wij kort vergaderen over de taakverdeling. ❌ (sounds wrong/unnatural)

If you add an auxiliary verb, the pattern changes a bit:

We zullen kort vergaderen.
Subject – zullen (finite) – kort (adverb) – vergaderen (infinitive)

So the rule of thumb:

In a simple present: verb first, then “kort” → vergaderen kort
With an auxiliary: auxiliary – kort – main verb → zullen kort vergaderen

Why is there a comma before “zodat”, and what does “zodat” do to the word order?

“Zodat” is a subordinating conjunction meaning “so that / in order that”. It introduces a subordinate clause expressing purpose or result.

Sentence structure:

Main clause:
Wij vergaderen kort over de taakverdeling,
Subordinate clause introduced by “zodat”:
zodat iedereen weet wat hij of zij moet doen.

The comma separates the main clause from the subordinate clause. In modern Dutch, the comma is not strictly mandatory but is very common and recommended here, because it clearly marks the clause boundary.

In a subordinate clause in Dutch, the finite verb goes to the end of that clause:

Main clause: Iedereen weet het.
Subordinate: …zodat iedereen het weet.

In our sentence, the finite verb of the “zodat”-clause is “weet”, and it stands at the end of its own clause segment: > zodat iedereen weet [wat hij of zij moet doen]

After “weet” comes another embedded clause (“wat hij of zij moet doen”), which is the object of weet. So “weet” is already in its proper “end of the clause” position.

Why is it “over de taakverdeling”? What does “over” mean here, and could we use another preposition?

Here “over” means “about / concerning”.

over de taakverdeling = about the division of tasks / about how tasks are divided

This use of “over” is very common with verbs of talking, meeting, thinking, etc.:

praten over iets – to talk about something
vergaderen over iets – to have a meeting about something
nadenken over iets – to think about something

Other prepositions, like “van” or “met”, would change or break the meaning:

vergaderen van de taakverdeling ❌ (incorrect)
vergaderen met de taakverdeling ❌ (incorrect; sounds like you’re meeting with the task division as a person)

So “over” is the correct preposition here for “about/concerning”.

Why is “taakverdeling” written as one word and not “taak verdeling”?

Dutch very often writes compound nouns as one word.
“Taakverdeling” is a compound of:

taak = task
verdeling = division, distribution

So:

taakverdeling = division of tasks / allocation of tasks

In Dutch spelling, you normally join nouns together when they form a compound with a single concept:

taakverdeling (task division)
werknemer (werk + nemer = employee)
taakbeschrijving (taak + beschrijving = task description)

Writing it as “taak verdeling” suggests they are two separate words in a sentence (like “task distribution” as two unconnected nouns) and is incorrect in standard Dutch spelling in this meaning.

Why is it “de taakverdeling” and not “het taakverdeling”?

The article is determined by the gender of the head noun of the compound.

verdeling is a “de”-word: de verdeling
In the compound taakverdeling, “verdeling” is the head, so the compound is also a “de”-word:
- de taakverdeling

So:

de taak
de verdeling
→ de taakverdeling

“Het taakverdeling” is grammatically wrong.

Why is it “iedereen weet” and not “iedereen weten”?

“Iedereen” means “everyone” and is grammatically singular, just like in English:

English: Everyone *knows what to do.* (not “know”)
Dutch: Iedereen *weet wat hij of zij moet doen.* (not “weten”)

So you always use the 3rd person singular verb form after iedereen:

Iedereen is klaar.
Iedereen heeft het gehoord.
Iedereen weet het.

Why does the sentence say “wat hij of zij moet doen”? Could we say something shorter?

“Hij of zij” literally means “he or she” and is used to be explicitly gender-inclusive when referring to a person whose gender is unknown or not specified.

wat hij of zij moet doen = what he or she has to do

In more natural, less formal modern Dutch, people often avoid “hij of zij” because it sounds a bit heavy. Common alternatives:

Use a plural reference:
- …zodat iedereen weet wat ze moeten doen.
  Here “ze” refers to “alle mensen” (all the people), not to the grammatically singular “iedereen”. This is very common in speech.
Repeat “iedereen” in a different way:
- …zodat iedereen weet wat iedereen moet doen.
  (A bit repetitive but clear.)
Use “die” colloquially:
- …zodat iedereen weet wat die moet doen.
  “Die” is increasingly used as a gender-neutral singular pronoun in informal modern Dutch.

So yes, “wat ze moeten doen” is very idiomatic and widely used:

Wij vergaderen kort over de taakverdeling, zodat iedereen weet wat ze moeten doen. ✅

Why is the word order “wat hij of zij moet doen” and not “wat hij of zij doen moet” or “wat moet hij of zij doen”?

There are two word-order points here.

It’s not a question, so we don’t use question order.

Question: Wat moet hij doen? (finite verb directly after “wat”)
Embedded clause: Ik weet wat hij moet doen (finite verb at the end of the clause)

In our sentence, “wat hij of zij moet doen” is an embedded clause (object of weet), not a direct question, so we use subordinate clause order:

“wat hij of zij moet doen”, not “wat moet hij of zij doen”.

Order of the verbs “moet” and “doen”.

In a subordinate clause with a modal verb (like moeten, kunnen, willen), the usual, modern order is:

modal first, main verb last → moet doen

So:

dat hij het moet doen (standard)
dat hij het doen moet sounds old-fashioned/poetic.

Therefore the normal, neutral form here is:

wat hij of zij moet doen ✅
and not:
wat hij of zij doen moet (very old-fashioned)
wat moet hij of zij doen (question order, wrong in this context).