Learn Hardcore Dutch: Na het tentamen bespreken we ons cijfer met de professor en bedanken we hem voor zijn duidelijke uitleg. - After the exam we discuss our grade with the professor and thank him for his clear explanation.

Dutch main clauses follow the verb‑second (V2) rule: the finite verb must be in second position in the sentence.
Here, “Na het tentamen” is placed first for emphasis or context, so the verb comes next: “bespreken”, and the subject “we” comes after it: “Na het tentamen bespreken we …”.
“Na het tentamen we bespreken …” breaks this rule and sounds ungrammatical to native speakers.

Why is it “bespreken we ons cijfer … en bedanken we hem …” and not “bespreken we ons cijfer … en we bedanken hem …”?

Both are actually possible:

Standard, smooth style (as in your sentence):
“Na het tentamen bespreken we ons cijfer met de professor en bedanken we hem …”
This treats both parts as separate main clauses after the shared opening phrase, each with V2 order.
Also grammatical:
“Na het tentamen bespreken we ons cijfer met de professor en we bedanken hem …”
This repeats the subject right after en, which is fine but a bit more informal or heavy.

What you cannot do is drop “we” in the second clause:
✗ “… bespreken we ons cijfer met de professor en bedanken hem …” — the subject is missing there.

Do we really need the second “we” in “en bedanken we hem …”?

Yes, you do. In Dutch, each finite verb in a main clause needs an explicit subject, unless you’re using an imperative.
So after en, bedanken starts a new clause, and it needs its own subject: we.
English can sometimes drop repeated subjects in coordination (“… and thank him …”), but Dutch cannot do that here.

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

Every Dutch noun has grammatical gender and takes either de or het.
The word tentamen is a het‑word, so the correct definite article is het: het tentamen.
You just have to learn the article together with each noun; there’s no transparent rule that lets you predict this one.

What is the difference between “tentamen” and “examen”?

In the Netherlands (broadly speaking):

tentamen: usually a university or college test for one course or part of a course (a midterm, final for a single subject, module test, etc.).
examen: often a larger, more official exam, like school‑leaving exams, driving exams, or a final qualification exam.

In everyday academic contexts, students commonly say they have a tentamen in a particular subject.

Why do we say “ons cijfer” and not “onze cijfer”?

The choice between ons and onze depends on the noun’s article:

ons is used with het‑words in the singular.
onze is used with de‑words (singular) and all plurals.

Since cijfer is a het‑word (het cijfer), the correct form is ons cijfer.
If it were a de‑word, you’d say onze (e.g. onze docent, onze auto’s).

What exactly does “cijfer” mean here?

Literally, cijfer means “digit / number”, but in an educational context it specifically means a grade / mark you receive for a test, assignment, or course.
So ons cijfer here is “the grade/mark that we got”, usually on a numerical scale (like 1–10 in the Netherlands).

Why do we say “met de professor” instead of just “met professor”?

In Dutch, professions and titles are normally used with an article when referring to a person in a neutral way: de dokter, de docent, de professor.
“Met professor” is only natural when “Professor” is used as a title directly before a name, e.g. met professor Jansen.
Without a name, you should say met de professor.

Could we say “over ons cijfer” instead of just “ons cijfer” after “bespreken”?

Not in this structure. In Dutch, bespreken already means “discuss” and takes a direct object:

iets bespreken = “to discuss something”

So you say: ons cijfer bespreken, het plan bespreken, de resultaten bespreken.
If you add over, you’d need a different verb, like praten over or spreken over:
“We praten over ons cijfer”, “We spreken over ons cijfer”, but “We bespreken ons cijfer.”

Why is it “hem” and not “hij” in “bedanken we hem”?

Hij is a subject pronoun (“he”), while hem is an object pronoun (“him”).
In “bedanken we hem”, we is the subject (the ones who thank), and hem is the direct object (the one who is thanked).
So Dutch works just like English here: “we thank him”, not “we thank he”.

Why do we use “voor” after “bedanken” in “bedanken we hem voor zijn duidelijke uitleg”?

The usual pattern in Dutch is:

iemand bedanken voor iets
= “to thank someone for something”

So hem is the person being thanked, and voor zijn duidelijke uitleg tells you what he is being thanked for.
Without voor, the sentence would feel incomplete or unclear to a native speaker.

Why is it “zijn duidelijke uitleg” and not “zijn duidelijk uitleg” or “duidelijke zijn uitleg”?

Dutch adjective and possessive order is:

[possessive] + [adjective] + [noun]

So the normal order is zijn duidelijke uitleg.
The adjective duidelijk takes an ‑e ending (duidelijke) because it comes before a de‑word (de uitleg) with a determiner (zijn).
Therefore:

✓ zijn duidelijke uitleg (correct)
✗ zijn duidelijk uitleg (adjective form is wrong)
✗ duidelijke zijn uitleg (word order is wrong)

Is “uitleg” countable? Why don’t we say “zijn duidelijke uitleggen”?

In this meaning, uitleg (“explanation”) is usually treated as an uncountable noun, similar to English “advice” or “information”.
You generally say goede / duidelijke uitleg without making it plural.
The plural uitleggen does exist, but it’s used much less often and typically when you’re really emphasizing separate, individual explanations; in standard phrasing like this, the singular uitleg is the natural choice.