Learn Hardcore Dutch: Op het scherm van haar laptop ziet Anna dat ze al vier uur aan het schrijven is. - On her laptop screen Anna sees that she has already been writing for four hours.

The finite verb (here ziet) must be in second position in the sentence.
The first position can be the subject, but it can also be any other chunk (time, place, object, etc.).

In this sentence, the first chunk is:

Op het scherm van haar laptop – “On the screen of her laptop”

Because that whole phrase is in first position, the finite verb ziet must come next (second position), and the subject Anna comes after the verb:

Op het scherm van haar laptop (1st position)
ziet (2nd position = finite verb)
Anna (subject)

If you start with the subject instead, the word order changes accordingly:

Anna ziet op het scherm van haar laptop dat ze al vier uur aan het schrijven is.

Here, Anna is first, so ziet is still second, and the rest follows.

Can you also say Anna ziet op het scherm van haar laptop dat…? Is there a difference in meaning?

Yes, you can absolutely say:

Anna ziet op het scherm van haar laptop dat ze al vier uur aan het schrijven is.

The basic meaning is the same. The difference is in emphasis and information structure:

Op het scherm van haar laptop ziet Anna…
– Emphasises the location/situation (“On her laptop screen, Anna sees that…”).
– This is common if you’re contrasting where she sees it (on her phone? on paper? on her laptop?).
Anna ziet op het scherm van haar laptop…
– Starts with the person. More neutral, like typical English word order.

Both are grammatically correct; Dutch uses word order to shift focus more flexibly than English.

How does aan het schrijven is work? Is it like the English continuous (is writing)?

The structure zijn + aan het + infinitive is a common way in Dutch to express an ongoing action, similar to the English present continuous:

ze is aan het schrijven ≈ “she is writing”
ik ben aan het koken ≈ “I am cooking”
we zijn aan het leren ≈ “we are studying”

In your sentence, because it’s in a subordinate clause after dat, the verb is goes to the end:

…dat ze al vier uur aan het schrijven is.
- ze – subject
- al vier uur – time expression
- aan het schrijven – progressive construction
- is – finite verb, at the end because of the subordinate clause

This construction:

Emphasises that the action is in progress right now or over a stretch of time.
Is mostly used with activities (writing, working, cooking, watching), not with stative verbs like weten (to know), houden van (to love).

Why is is at the very end of dat ze al vier uur aan het schrijven is?

Because dat introduces a subordinate clause in Dutch, and in subordinate clauses the finite verb normally goes to the end.

Structure here:

dat – subordinator
ze – subject
al vier uur – time expression
aan het schrijven – verbal phrase (non‑finite part)
is – finite verb, at the end

Compare:

Hoofdzin (main clause):
Ze is al vier uur aan het schrijven.
→ finite verb is in second position.
Bijzin (subordinate clause) after dat:
…dat ze al vier uur aan het schrijven is.
→ finite verb is moves to the end.

This verb‑final order is standard after subordinating conjunctions like dat, omdat, terwijl, als, toen etc.

What exactly does al add in al vier uur? Can you leave it out?

Al here means “already / for (a whole)”. It emphasizes that the duration feels longer than expected:

ze is al vier uur aan het schrijven
≈ “she has already been writing for four hours / she’s been writing for four whole hours”

If you leave out al:

ze is vier uur aan het schrijven

Grammatically possible, but:

It sounds less natural in this context.
It just states the duration more neutrally (“she is writing for four hours”) and could even be interpreted as a planned duration, not necessarily up to now.

In practice, with durations up to now, Dutch almost always uses al:

Ik wacht al een uur. – I’ve (already) been waiting an hour.
We wonen hier al tien jaar. – We’ve lived here for ten years (already).

Why is it vier uur and not vier uren?

For measure expressions (time, weight, distance, etc.), Dutch usually uses the singular form of the noun:

vier uur – four hours
vijf kilo – five kilos
tien meter – ten metres
drie jaar – three years

The plural uren does exist, but in this kind of neutral time‑measurement, Dutch strongly prefers uur in the singular.

You will see uren in more idiomatic or emphatic uses, like:

urenlang – for hours (on end)
na vele uren – after many hours

But in your sentence, vier uur is the normal form.

Why do you use al vier uur to mean “for four hours”, and not something like voor vier uur?

To express how long something has been going on (duration up to now), Dutch uses:

al + time expression
ze is al vier uur aan het schrijven – she has been writing for four hours (already)

or simply:

time expression + present or perfect tense
ze schrijft al vier uur
ze heeft vier uur geschreven

Voor vier uur means something different:

voor vier uur = “before four o’clock” (a deadline in clock time)
- Je moet dit voor vier uur inleveren. – You must hand this in before four o’clock.

So for “for four hours (already)”, you want al vier uur, not voor vier uur.

Why is ze used instead of zij in dat ze al vier uur aan het schrijven is?

Dutch has unstressed and stressed subject pronouns:

Unstressed: ik, je, hij, ze, we, ze
Stressed: ik, jij, hij, zij, wij, zij (same form for some persons, different for others)

In your sentence, ze refers back to Anna and is not being contrasted or emphasised, so the unstressed form is used:

dat ze al vier uur aan het schrijven is.

You would use zij (stressed) if you want to emphasise or contrast the subject:

Zij is al vier uur aan het schrijven, niet hij.
“She has been writing for four hours, not him.”

But in a neutral statement like your example, ze is the natural choice.

What is dat here? Is it like English “that”, and can you leave it out as in English?

Here, dat is a subordinating conjunction (a complementiser), similar to English “that” in sentences like:

“She sees that she has already been writing for four hours.”

In Dutch, you cannot leave out this dat in this kind of sentence:

✅ Anna ziet dat ze al vier uur aan het schrijven is.
❌ Anna ziet ze al vier uur aan het schrijven is. (ungrammatical)

So:

Function: introduces a content clause (what she sees).
Effect: forces the clause that follows to use subordinate clause word order, with the finite verb at the end.

It is not a relative pronoun here; it does not refer back to a noun. It just introduces the clause: that she has already been writing for four hours.

Why is it op het scherm and not in het scherm?

For things that appear on flat surfaces or displays, Dutch usually uses the preposition op (“on”):

op het scherm – on the screen
op het bord – on the board
op papier – on paper
op tv – on TV

In het scherm would sound odd here; it would suggest inside the physical object in some literal sense, which is not how Dutch conceptualises what you see on a display.

So:

op het scherm van haar laptop – “on the screen of her laptop” is the natural phrasing.

Could you also say op haar laptopscherm instead of op het scherm van haar laptop?

Yes, that’s possible:

Op haar laptopscherm ziet Anna dat ze al vier uur aan het schrijven is.

Dutch frequently combines nouns into compound nouns:

laptopscherm – laptop screen
computermuis – computer mouse
schooltas – school bag

The meaning is the same:

op het scherm van haar laptop
– literally “on the screen of her laptop”
op haar laptopscherm
– literally “on her laptop screen”

The original version with het scherm van haar laptop is a bit more explicit and neutral; the compound laptopscherm is a bit shorter and also very natural.

Could you say …dat ze al vier uur schrijft instead of …dat ze al vier uur aan het schrijven is? Is there a difference?

Yes, you can say both:

…dat ze al vier uur schrijft.
…dat ze al vier uur aan het schrijven is.

Grammatically, both are correct. The difference is nuance:

dat ze al vier uur schrijft
- Simple present tense with a duration expression.
- Often used for repeated or habitual actions (“she writes every day for four hours”), but with al and context it can also mean “she has been writing for four hours (now)”.
- Slightly more neutral or general.
dat ze al vier uur aan het schrijven is
- Explicit progressive form → focuses more clearly on the ongoing, continuous activity.
- Feels closest to English “that she has been writing for four hours” or “that she is in the middle of writing and has already been doing it for four hours”.

In everyday speech, many speakers use both patterns; the aan het + infinitive form just makes the ongoing nature of the action more explicit.

Why does Dutch use is aan het schrijven here instead of a perfect tense like heeft geschreven, when English has “has been writing”?

English says:

“she has been writing for four hours” (present perfect continuous)

Dutch has several options for this idea:

Present progressive (used in your sentence):
- ze is al vier uur aan het schrijven
- Focus: the writing is ongoing right now, and has lasted four hours so far.
Simple present with al + duration:
- ze schrijft al vier uur
- In context, this often also means “she has been writing for four hours”; Dutch present is frequently used where English would use present perfect.
Present perfect:
- ze heeft al vier uur geschreven
- Focus: she has written for four hours (possibly with more focus on the completed amount of time or effort, less on the fact that she’s still in the middle of it at this exact moment).

Your sentence picks option 1, is al vier uur aan het schrijven, to strongly highlight that she is currently in the act of writing and the activity has already lasted four hours.