Na de les blijven we nog even om onze vragen uitgebreider te bespreken.

After the class we stay for a bit to discuss our questions in more detail.

Breakdown of Na de les blijven we nog even om onze vragen uitgebreider te bespreken.

• wij: we
• onze: our
• om: for
• nog: still
• na: after
• blijven: to stay
• bespreken: to discuss
• de vraag: the question
• de les: the lesson
• even: for a bit
• uitgebreider: in more detail

Questions & Answers about Na de les blijven we nog even om onze vragen uitgebreider te bespreken.

Why is it na de les and not simply na les?

In Dutch, time expressions with na (after) usually take a definite noun phrase, often with an article or a possessive:

• na de les – after the class / lesson
• na het werk – after work
• na de vakantie – after the holiday
• na mijn werk – after my work

Using na les without an article is unusual and sounds incomplete or very informal, almost like saying “after class-time” as a general concept. In standard Dutch, you would normally say:

• Na de les… – After the class…
• Na de lessen… – After the classes…

So de is there because we are talking about a specific, identifiable lesson that both speaker and listener know about (today’s lesson, this particular lesson), not about “lessons in general.”

Why is the word order blijven we and not we blijven like in English?

Dutch main clauses follow a strict verb-second (V2) rule: the finite (conjugated) verb must be in second position in the clause.

In this sentence:

• Na de les – 1st position (adverbial phrase / time phrase)
• blijven – 2nd position (finite verb)
• we – 3rd position (subject)
• nog even om onze vragen uitgebreider te bespreken – the rest (other information)

So you get:

• Na de les blijven we…

If you start the sentence with the subject instead of a time phrase, you do get we blijven:

• We blijven na de les nog even om onze vragen uitgebreider te bespreken.

Both are correct. The only rule is: whatever comes first (subject, time phrase, place, etc.), the conjugated verb must be the next element in a main clause.

What exactly does nog even mean here?

Nog even is a very common colloquial expression. Literally:

• nog – still / yet / (in this context) for a bit longer
• even – “for a moment / for a short while” (very common softener in spoken Dutch)

Together, nog even usually means:

• “for a bit longer”
• “for a little while (more)”
• “briefly (but not necessarily very short – it’s also a polite softener)”

So:

• blijven we nog even ≈ “we’ll stay a little longer / we’ll stick around for a bit”

It makes the sentence sound friendlier and less heavy or formal than simply blijven we.

How does om … te bespreken work? Why do we need om and te?

Om … te + infinitive is a standard Dutch way to express purpose, similar to English “(in order) to …”.

Structure:

• om
  • (object/complement) + te
    • infinitive

In the sentence:

• om – introduces the purpose
• onze vragen – object
• uitgebreider – adverb, modifies bespreken
• te bespreken – infinitive phrase (“to discuss”)

So:

• om onze vragen uitgebreider te bespreken
  ≈ “(in order) to discuss our questions in more detail”

You cannot just say:

• ✗ …blijven we nog even onze vragen uitgebreider bespreken.

Without om … te, that would sound like a string of verbs without a clear link of purpose; in standard Dutch, a purpose clause with an infinitive almost always needs om … te.

Why is it uitgebreider and not uitgebreid or meer uitgebreid?

Uitgebreid is an adjective meaning “extensive / detailed”. Its comparative form is uitgebreider (more extensive, more detailed).

Here, uitgebreider is used adverbially, modifying the verb bespreken:

• onze vragen uitgebreider bespreken
  ≈ “to discuss our questions more extensively / in more detail”

You could say:

• meer uitgebreid – literally “more extensively”

That’s grammatically fine, but uitgebreider is more compact and idiomatic here. Using the comparative -er form is very natural:

• uitgebreid → uitgebreider
• similar to duidelijk → duidelijker (clear → clearer)

Uitgebreid (without -er) would mean “extensively / in a detailed way”, without the idea of “more than before”. The sentence clearly suggests a contrast (we want to discuss them more extensively), so the comparative uitgebreider fits best.

Why is it onze vragen and not de vragen?

Both onze vragen and de vragen are possible grammatically, but they differ in meaning:

• onze vragen – our questions (questions that belong to us, the group including the speaker)
• de vragen – the questions (some specific questions already known in context, but not explicitly tied to “us”)

Using onze:

• Emphasizes that these are the students’ questions (the group that is staying).
• Sounds natural in a classroom setting where the students are talking about their own questions.

If the teacher were speaking about the students, they might also say:

• Na de les blijven ze nog even om hun vragen uitgebreider te bespreken.
  (“they stay a little longer to discuss their questions in more detail.”)

So onze here simply makes it explicit that the questions belong to the we in the sentence.

What is the difference between bespreken and something like over onze vragen praten?

Both can talk about discussing questions, but they have different nuances and grammar:

1. Bespreken

• bespreken + direct object
• Example: onze vragen bespreken – “to discuss our questions”
• Often used in more structured or focused contexts: meetings, lessons, reviews, evaluations.
• Slightly more formal/neutral.

2. Praten over

• praten over + object
• Example: over onze vragen praten – “to talk about our questions”
• More general and conversational; can be lighter, more informal.

In this sentence:

• om onze vragen uitgebreider te bespreken
  fits well with the idea of looking at questions carefully and systematically, as in a lesson review.
  Om over onze vragen uitgebreider te praten is grammatically okay, but sounds less “school-like” and a bit more casual.

Could you also say We blijven na de les nog even…? Does that change the meaning?

Yes, you can say:

• We blijven na de les nog even om onze vragen uitgebreider te bespreken.

This is perfectly correct. The basic meaning is the same.

Difference is mainly emphasis and flow:

• Na de les blijven we nog even…
  – Emphasizes “after the lesson” (when). It sets the time frame first.

• We blijven na de les nog even…
  – Starts with “we stay”, focusing first on what “we” do, then adds the time phrase na de les.

In spoken Dutch, both word orders are very natural. You just have to keep blijven in the second position relative to the element you put first.

Is blijven here an auxiliary verb (like “stay to do something”) or just a main verb?

In this sentence, blijven is a main (lexical) verb meaning “to stay / to remain”:

• Na de les blijven we nog even…
  – “After the lesson we stay a bit longer…”

The purpose clause with om … te bespreken is separate and explains why we stay.

Compare:

• We blijven zitten. – We remain seated. (main verb)
• We blijven hier. – We stay here. (main verb)

Blijven can also be used as a kind of auxiliary in combinations like:

• blijven staan / blijven liggen – to remain standing / lying

But in your sentence, it’s clearly just “to stay (a bit longer)”.

Why is the present tense blijven used if this is about something in the future (after the lesson)?

Dutch, like English, often uses the present tense to talk about scheduled or near-future events, especially when the timing is clear from context:

• Morgen ga ik naar Amsterdam. – Tomorrow I’m going to Amsterdam.
• Na de les blijven we nog even. – After the lesson we’ll stay a bit longer.

Using zullen or gaan is also possible:

• Na de les zullen we nog even blijven…
• Na de les gaan we nog even blijven…

These forms sound a bit more formal or a bit more “planned”. The simple present here is perfectly natural and probably the most common choice in casual speech when the future time is given by na de les.