Na het vergaderen schrijven we een samenvatting, zodat afwezige studenten het ook begrijpen.

In Dutch, an infinitive can be used as a noun if you put het in front of it. That’s what happens in het vergaderen:

• vergaderen = to meet (to hold a meeting)
• het vergaderen = the act of meeting / the process of meeting

So:

• Na het vergaderen = After (the act of) meeting / after we have had our meeting

You could also say:

• Na de vergadering schrijven we een samenvatting.
  = After the meeting we write a summary.

This focuses more on the event de vergadering rather than on the activity.

But *na vergaderen (without het) is not standard. After a preposition like na, the infinitive used as a noun normally needs het:

• na het eten – after eating / after the meal
• voor het slapen – before sleeping
• tijdens het studeren – while studying

So: na het vergaderen and na de vergadering are both correct, but na vergaderen is not.

No, Na het vergaderen is not a clause. It’s just a prepositional phrase:

• Na = preposition “after”
• het vergaderen = a noun phrase (with an infinitive used as a noun)

A subordinate clause would have its own subject and finite verb, like:

• Nadat we vergaderd hebben, schrijven we een samenvatting.

Here we is the subject and hebben is the finite verb, so the verb goes to the end (subordinate clause word order).

In Na het vergaderen schrijven we…, the only finite verb of the whole main clause is schrijven, and because this is a main clause, Dutch uses verb-second word order:

• [Time phrase] Na het vergaderen
• [Finite verb] schrijven
• [Subject] we
• [Object] een samenvatting

Dutch main clauses have V2 word order: the finite verb comes in the second position of the clause.

If the sentence starts with the subject, you get:

• We schrijven een samenvatting. – We write a summary.

If you first move another element (time, place, etc.) to the front, the verb still has to be in second position. So the subject moves after the verb:

• Na het vergaderen schrijven we een samenvatting.
  • 1st position: Na het vergaderen (time)
  • 2nd position: schrijven (finite verb)
  • Then: we (subject), een samenvatting (object)

Both:

• We schrijven na het vergaderen een samenvatting.
• Na het vergaderen schrijven we een samenvatting.

are correct; they just emphasize different parts of the sentence slightly.

Yes, you could say:

• Na het vergaderen schrijven wij een samenvatting.

The difference is mainly stress:

• we = unstressed, the neutral, normal form (most common in speech)
• wij = stressed, used when you want to emphasize “we” as opposed to someone else

For example:

• Na het vergaderen schrijven wij een samenvatting, niet de docent.
  After the meeting we write a summary, not the teacher.

In your original sentence, there is no special contrast, so we is more natural.

zodat is a subordinating conjunction meaning “so that / in order that” (sometimes “so” in the sense of “with the result that”).

1. Comma:
   In standard written Dutch, a comma is normally placed before subordinating conjunctions like zodat, omdat, terwijl, hoewel when they join two clauses:

   • …, zodat afwezige studenten het ook begrijpen.

2. Word order:
   Because zodat introduces a subordinate clause, the finite verb moves to the end:

   • Main clause: Na het vergaderen schrijven we een samenvatting, …
   • Subordinate: … zodat afwezige studenten het ook begrijpen.
     
     • Subject: afwezige studenten
     • Object: het
     • Adverb: ook
     • Finite verb at the end: begrijpen

So zodat both gives the meaning “so that” and triggers verb-at-the-end order in its clause.

Both can express purpose, but they are used in different structures:

1. zodat + clause

   • Has its own subject and finite verb:
   • We schrijven een samenvatting, zodat afwezige studenten het ook begrijpen.
     “We write a summary so that absent students also understand it.”

2. om … te + infinitive

   • Does not introduce a full clause; it uses an infinitive:
   • We schrijven een samenvatting om afwezige studenten het ook te laten begrijpen.
     (more complex: “in order to let absent students understand it too”)

In everyday language, for this sentence, zodat is more natural and simpler.
om … te is often used when the subject of the main verb and the infinitive is the same:

• We schrijven een samenvatting om alles beter te onthouden.
  We write a summary in order to remember everything better.

Here we is the subject of both schrijven and onthouden, so om … te works neatly.

Afwezig is the base adjective/adverb “absent”. When an adjective comes before a noun (attributive position), it usually takes an -e ending:

• afwezig → afwezige

So:

• afwezige studenten = absent students

General rule (simplified):

• Before a plural noun: adjective takes -e:
  • afwezige studenten
• Before a singular “de”-word: also -e:
  • de afwezige student
• Before a singular “het”-word, indefinite: no -e:
  • een afwezig kind

So afwezig studenten would be incorrect; it must be afwezige studenten.

Yes, it’s a subordinate clause with standard Dutch order:

• zodat – subordinating conjunction (“so that”)
• afwezige studenten – subject (plural)
• het – direct object pronoun (“it”)
• ook – adverb (“also / too”)
• begrijpen – finite verb (3rd person plural), sent to the end because of zodat

So the pattern is:

zodat + [subject] + [object] + [adverb] + [finite verb]

Compare a main clause version:

• Afwezige studenten begrijpen het ook. (main clause; verb second)
• …, zodat afwezige studenten het ook begrijpen. (subordinate; verb last)

Yes, afwezige studenten literally means “absent students” and is equivalent in meaning to:

• studenten die afwezig waren – students who were absent

The shorter adjective form is very common in Dutch:

• zieke kinderen – sick children
• geïnteresseerde deelnemers – interested participants
• afwezige studenten – absent students

So here it simply refers to students who did not attend the meeting.

Good question, because it touches on a subtle point.

• samenvatting is indeed a de-word: de samenvatting
• The demonstrative that points to a de-word is die:
  • de samenvatting – die
    Ik lees de samenvatting. Ik lees die nu.

However, het in your sentence doesn’t have to refer literally and grammatically to de samenvatting as a noun. It can refer more generally to:

• “it” = “what was discussed” / “the material” / “the content”

So:

• …, zodat afwezige studenten het ook begrijpen.
  = “…so that absent students also understand it (the material / what we talked about).”

If you really wanted to refer very directly to de samenvatting as an object, a wording like:

• …, zodat afwezige studenten die samenvatting ook begrijpen.

would make that clearer.

But the original sentence is natural Dutch, and het is understood as “the content (of the meeting) / what it’s about”, not “the summary as an object” in a strict grammatical-gender sense.

Ook is an adverb meaning “also / too” and usually appears before the verb in the “middle field” of the clause.

In het ook begrijpen:

• het – direct object pronoun
• ook – adverb
• begrijpen – finite verb (at the end of the subordinate clause)

This is a very natural order: object pronoun → adverb → verb.

Changing the position changes the emphasis slightly:

• het ook begrijpen – they also understand it (normal, neutral)
• ook het begrijpen – emphasises it specifically: “also it (as well as other things) they understand” – this word order is possible but sounds more marked and would usually need a specific contrastive context.

So het ook begrijpen is the standard, neutral choice.

Dutch often uses the present tense where English might use will for the future, especially for general results or routines.

Here, the whole sentence describes a repeated or general practice:

• After we meet, we (always) write a summary, so that absent students (then) understand it too.

So:

• schrijven – present tense (we write / we are writing / we do write)
• begrijpen – present tense (they understand / they do understand)

You could say:

• …, zodat afwezige studenten het ook zullen begrijpen.

That’s grammatically correct but sounds more formal or more strongly “future-ish”. For describing a regular procedure or a general effect, the simple present begrijpen is more natural.