Learn Hardcore Dutch: Naast haar studie heeft Sofie een kleine bijbaan in een café en krijgt daar haar eerste salaris. - Besides her studies Sofie has a small part‑time job in a café and receives her first salary there.

Physical meaning of "naast":
- De lamp staat naast de bank. – The lamp is next to the couch.
Figurative meaning of "naast" (used in this sentence):
- "Naast haar studie" = "In addition to her studies" / "Besides her studies".

So here "naast" is figurative: it means in addition to what she is studying, not physically next to her books or university.

Why is it "haar studie" (singular) when in English we often say "her studies"?

In Dutch, "studie" in the singular can refer to a whole course of study or degree program.

"haar studie" = her degree / her university program
We would often translate that as "her studies" in English, even though Dutch uses the singular.

You can have a plural:

"haar studies" – literally "her studies", but this usually means multiple different study programs or fields she has studied, and sounds different from the English idiomatic "her studies" as a general activity.

So "naast haar studie" is the natural Dutch way to say "besides her studies".

What is the difference between "baan" and "bijbaan"?

baan = job
- Hij heeft een baan bij een bank. – He has a job at a bank.
bijbaan = side job / part-time job on the side, usually:
- done while studying, or
- alongside a main job.

In this sentence, "een kleine bijbaan in een café" suggests:

a small, part-time job,
probably not her main career,
typical of a student working a few hours per week.

Why is it "een kleine bijbaan" and not "een klein bijbaan"?

This is about adjective endings.

"bijbaan" is a de-word: de bijbaan.
With de-words after "een", the adjective gets an -e:
- een kleine bijbaan
- een mooie auto
- een dure jas

Compare with het-words:

het huis → een klein huis (no -e)
het kind → een klein kind

So:

de bijbaan → een kleine bijbaan (with -e)

Why is the verb "heeft" before "Sofie" in "Naast haar studie heeft Sofie..."?

This is standard Dutch main clause word order, where the finite verb must be in second position (Verb-second / V2 rule).

The parts:

Naast haar studie – first element (a fronted phrase)
heeft – finite verb (must be second)
Sofie – subject
een kleine bijbaan in een café – rest of the sentence

If you start the sentence with the subject instead, you get:

Sofie heeft naast haar studie een kleine bijbaan in een café.

Both are correct. The original version puts a bit more emphasis on the contrast: besides studying, she also works.

Why is it "en krijgt daar..." and not "en Sofie krijgt daar..."? Is this word order normal?

After "en" you start another main clause, so verb-second applies again.

The full, non-elliptical version would be:

... en Sofie krijgt daar haar eerste salaris.

Dutch often omits the repeated subject if it’s the same as in the previous clause and the meaning is clear. So:

"... heeft Sofie een kleine bijbaan in een café en krijgt daar haar eerste salaris."

Here:

the subject "Sofie" is implied,
"krijgt" is the finite verb in second position of the new clause.

This is completely normal and very common in Dutch.

What exactly does "bijbaan" imply compared to just saying "een baan"?

"Bijbaan" strongly suggests:

part-time,
not her main occupation,
very often a student job (work done while studying).

"baan" is neutral:

"een baan" could be a full-time, permanent job and might be her main career.

So "een kleine bijbaan" paints the picture of a typical student side job in a café.

Why is Dutch using the simple present ("heeft", "krijgt") here? Could it also mean "is having" or "is getting"?

Dutch uses the simple present tense much more broadly than English:

"heeft een kleine bijbaan"
- literally: has a small side job,
- contextually: "has a part-time job" / "is working a part-time job".
"krijgt daar haar eerste salaris"
- literally: gets her first salary there,
- can describe a current, regular or near-future situation depending on context.

English often prefers the present continuous ("is working", "is getting"), but in Dutch the plain present usually covers both.

The progressive form "is aan het werken" exists, but is used mainly to emphasize an action in progress at this moment, and would sound odd here.

Why is it "in een café" and not something like "bij een café"? How do Dutch prepositions for workplaces work here?

For workplaces:

"in" focuses on being inside a place or working in that environment.
- in een café werken – work in a café (as a waiter, barista, etc.)
"bij" focuses more on "at / for (a company/person)":
- bij een bank werken – work at a bank (for the bank as employer)
- bij Philips werken – work for Philips.

A café is more like a physical place where you stand and serve, so "in een café" is natural.
"Bij een café werken" sounds less idiomatic in this context.

What does "daar" refer to in "krijgt daar haar eerste salaris", and why not "er"?

"daar" here refers back to "een café":

"daar" = there (at that café)

Why "daar" and not "er"?

"daar" points to a specific, identifiable location (that place).
"er" can also be used (en krijgt er haar eerste salaris), but "er" is more neutral and less pointed.

Nuance:

"daar" gives a bit more emphasis on that particular place.
Both are grammatically acceptable; "daar" is slightly more explicit: she gets her first salary there, in that café.

Could you say "haar eerste loon" instead of "haar eerste salaris"? Is there a difference?

Both "loon" and "salaris" mean pay / wages / salary, but there are nuances:

salaris
- often associated with monthly salary,
- slightly more formal, common for white-collar jobs, but used broadly.
loon
- often associated with wages, sometimes hourly,
- can sound a bit more blue-collar or general worker pay.

In this context (a café job):

"haar eerste salaris" – very normal and standard.
"haar eerste loon" – also possible and understandable; in some styles or regions it might even feel a bit more natural for a café job.

So yes, you can say "haar eerste loon", but "salaris" is also perfectly fine.

Why is "haar" repeated in "haar studie" and "haar eerste salaris"? Could you leave it out the second time?

Dutch normally repeats possessive pronouns where English might drop them less.

"haar studie" – her studies
"haar eerste salaris" – her first salary

If you omit the second "haar":

"... en krijgt daar haar eerste salaris." → clear: it's her salary.
"... en krijgt daar eerste salaris." → ungrammatical; you must have a determiner (haar, het, een, etc.) in front of "eerste salaris".

So in this sentence, repeating "haar" is mandatory, not optional.

Could you also say "Sofie heeft naast haar studie..." instead of starting with "Naast haar studie heeft Sofie..."? Does the meaning change?

Yes, you can say both:

Sofie heeft naast haar studie een kleine bijbaan in een café en krijgt daar haar eerste salaris.
Naast haar studie heeft Sofie een kleine bijbaan in een café en krijgt daar haar eerste salaris.

Both mean the same in terms of basic facts. The difference is emphasis:

Sentence 1: neutral; starts with the subject (Sofie).
Sentence 2: puts "naast haar studie" in front, emphasizing the contrast:
- besides studying, she also has a job.

This kind of fronting for emphasis is very common in Dutch as long as the verb remains in second position.

Why is it "een café" and not "het café" or just "café" without any article?

"het café" would mean "the café", a specific café already known to both speaker and listener.
"een café" = "a café", some unspecified café; we don’t care which one exactly.

In the sentence, the exact café doesn’t matter; we’re just saying she works in some café. So "een café" is appropriate.

Dutch normally requires an article (definite or indefinite) with singular countable nouns, so you can’t just say:

✗ ...heeft een kleine bijbaan in café... (incorrect)

You need "in een café" or "in het café", depending on whether it’s specific or not.