Log inSign up

Ik wil vandaag geen afleiding, zodat ik me goed kan concentreren.

Ik wil vandaag geen afleiding, zodat ik me goed kan concentreren.
I don’t want any distraction today, so that I can concentrate well.
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Dutch grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Dutch now

Questions & Answers about Ik wil vandaag geen afleiding, zodat ik me goed kan concentreren.

Why is it geen afleiding and not niet afleiding?

In Dutch, geen and niet are both negations, but they’re used in different contexts:

  • geen = “no / not any” and is used directly with (usually indefinite) nouns.

    • Ik wil vandaag geen afleiding.
      = I don’t want any distraction today / I want no distraction today.
    • Other examples:
      • Ik heb geen tijd. – I don’t have any time.
      • Hij heeft geen auto. – He doesn’t have a car.

  • niet is used to negate:

    • adjectives: niet moe (not tired)
    • adverbs: niet vaak (not often)
    • prepositional phrases: niet op school (not at school)
    • whole clauses, or definite noun phrases: niet de auto (not the car).

So:

  • Ik wil vandaag geen afleiding. ✅
  • Ik wil vandaag niet afleiding. ❌ (incorrect)

You could use niet if the noun phrase is definite, for example:

  • Ik wil vandaag niet die afleiding. – I don’t want that distraction today.
Why is afleiding singular in Dutch when English often says “distractions” in the plural?

In Dutch, afleiding can function like a mass noun, referring to distraction in general, not necessarily to countable individual distractions:

  • Ik wil vandaag geen afleiding.
    Literally: I want today no distraction.
    Meaning: I don’t want any distractions / I want no distraction at all.

If you say:

  • Ik wil vandaag geen afleidingen.

you’re putting more emphasis on individual distracting things (many separate distractions). It’s not wrong, but:

  • geen afleiding = no distraction at all / no distraction as a phenomenon
  • geen afleidingen = no individual distractions (e.g. no calls, no messages, no visitors)

In most general statements like this, Dutch prefers the singular geen afleiding.

Could I also say ..., om me goed te kunnen concentreren instead of ..., zodat ik me goed kan concentreren? What’s the difference?

Both are grammatical, but there is a nuance:

  1. ..., zodat ik me goed kan concentreren.

    • zodat = “so that”, “in order that”.
    • This introduces a subordinate clause with a finite verb (kan).
    • It often suggests a result or intended outcome:
      • I don’t want distractions, so that I can really concentrate.

  2. ..., om me goed te kunnen concentreren.

    • om ... te
      • infinitive expresses purpose more compactly:
        • literally: “in order to be able to concentrate well.”
    • Stylistically, this can sound a bit more planned / deliberate, but in practice the difference is small here.

So:

  • Original: Ik wil vandaag geen afleiding, zodat ik me goed kan concentreren.
  • Alternative: Ik wil vandaag geen afleiding, om me goed te kunnen concentreren.

Both are natural. The zodat version feels slightly more like stating the result you want, while om ... te is more of a pure purpose construction.

Why do we use zodat here and not dus?

zodat and dus both relate to causes and results, but in different ways:

  • zodat = “so that” / “in order that”

    • Introduces a subordinate clause:
      • Ik wil vandaag geen afleiding, zodat ik me goed kan concentreren.
    • Emphasises the goal/result you are aiming for.

  • dus = “so / therefore”

    • A coordinating conjunction, followed by a main clause:
      • Ik wil vandaag geen afleiding, dus ik kan me goed concentreren. = I don’t want any distraction, so I can concentrate well.
    • This sounds more like a conclusion from a fact, not a purpose.

In your sentence, the speaker is saying why they don’t want distraction (their purpose), so zodat is a better fit than dus.

Is the comma before zodat required in Dutch?

In modern Dutch, the comma before conjunctions like omdat, zodat, terwijl, hoewel, etc. is strongly recommended but not absolutely mandatory in every short sentence.

  • Ik wil vandaag geen afleiding, zodat ik me goed kan concentreren. ✅ (standard, clear)
  • Ik wil vandaag geen afleiding zodat ik me goed kan concentreren.
    – You will also see this, especially in less formal writing.

In careful or formal writing, it’s better to keep the comma, because it makes the sentence easier to read and clearly shows where the subordinate clause starts.

Why is it ik me and not ik mij in zodat ik me goed kan concentreren?

Dutch has two forms of the object pronoun:

  • Unstressed (clitic) form: me, je, ze, ’m, etc.
  • Stressed form: mij, jou, haar, hem, etc.

In reflexive verbs like zich concentreren (“to concentrate”), the reflexive pronoun is almost always the unstressed form in normal statements:

  • Ik concentreer me.
  • Jij concentreert je.
  • Hij/Zij concentreert zich.
  • Wij concentreren ons.
  • Jullie concentreren je.
  • Zij concentreren zich.

You would only use the stressed form mij if you are emphasising it:

  • Ik concentreer me, niet jou. – I am concentrating, not you.
  • Het gaat om mij. – It’s about me.

So in your sentence, the natural form is:

  • ..., zodat ik me goed kan concentreren. ✅
  • ..., zodat ik mij goed kan concentreren. – Grammatically possible, but sounds overly stressed unless you’re making a contrast.
Can I leave out me and just say zodat ik goed kan concentreren?

Normally, no. In standard Dutch, concentreren is reflexive:

  • zich concentreren (op iets) – to concentrate (on something)

That means you need the reflexive pronoun:

  • Ik kan me goed concentreren. ✅
  • Ik kan goed concentreren. ❌ (sounds foreign / wrong in standard Dutch)

Even with an object, it stays reflexive:

  • Ik concentreer me op mijn werk. – I concentrate on my work.

So in your sentence, you should keep the me:

  • ..., zodat ik me goed kan concentreren. ✅
How is the word order of ik me goed kan concentreren determined?

This part is a subordinate clause introduced by zodat, and Dutch subordinate clauses have a characteristic word order:

  1. Conjunction: zodat
  2. Subject: ik
  3. Mid-field elements (pronouns, adverbs, objects): me goed
  4. Verb cluster at the end: kan concentreren

So we get:

  • ..., zodat ik me goed kan concentreren.

Key points:

  • In subordinate clauses, the finite verb (here kan) moves to the end of the clause.
  • With a modal + main verb, Dutch usually orders them [modal] [infinitive]:
    • kan concentreren, wil gaan, moet werken, etc.
  • The reflexive pronoun me and the adverb goed appear before the verb cluster.

Compare:

  • Main clause: Ik kan me goed concentreren. (finite verb second)
  • Subordinate: ..., omdat ik me goed kan concentreren. (finite verb near the end)
Could I say ..., zodat ik me kan goed concentreren?

No, that word order is incorrect in Dutch.

The correct order is:

  • ..., zodat ik me goed kan concentreren.

In Dutch, adverbs like goed normally come:

  • before the verb cluster (unless there is a special reason to move them).

Putting goed between the modal verb and the main verb (kan goed concentreren) would be ungrammatical in this subordinate clause.

So:

  • ✅ ik me goed kan concentreren
  • ❌ ik me kan goed concentreren
What does wil mean here, and is it related to English “will”?

In this sentence, wil is the 1st person singular of the verb willen, which means “to want”:

  • ik wil – I want
  • jij wil / wilt – you want
  • hij/zij wil – he/she wants

So:

  • Ik wil vandaag geen afleiding = I don’t want any distraction today.

Important: this is a false friend for English speakers.

  • English “will” is a future auxiliary; the Dutch equivalent is usually zal:
    • Ik zal morgen werken. – I will work tomorrow.

So:

  • Ik wil = I want
  • Ik zal = I will (future)
Why is vandaag placed after wil and before geen afleiding? Can it move?

The main clause obeys the Dutch V2 rule (verb-second):

  1. Subject: Ik
  2. Finite verb: wil (must be in 2nd position)
  3. Rest of the information: vandaag geen afleiding

So:

  • Ik wil vandaag geen afleiding.

The adverb vandaag is quite flexible and can be moved, as long as the finite verb stays in second position:

  • Ik wil vandaag geen afleiding. (neutral)
  • Ik wil geen afleiding vandaag. (slightly more focus on “today”)
  • Vandaag wil ik geen afleiding. (strong emphasis on “today” – as opposed to other days)

Incorrect would be:

  • Ik vandaag wil geen afleiding. ❌ (breaks the V2 rule)

So yes, vandaag can move, but you must always keep the finite verb (wil) in the second slot of the main clause.

What would the sentence look like with an article, and how does geen interact with articles?

The noun afleiding is a de-word:

  • de afleiding – the distraction
  • een afleiding – a distraction

If you make it positive, you could say:

  • Ik wil vandaag een afleiding. – I want a distraction today.
  • Ik wil vandaag de afleiding. – I want the distraction (a specific one).

When you negate an indefinite noun phrase with geen, you do not use een anymore:

  • ✅ Ik wil vandaag geen afleiding. – I don’t want any distraction today.
  • ❌ Ik wil vandaag geen een afleiding.

Here, geen acts as a negative counterpart of “een” (“no / not any”), so it replaces it.

You can combine geen with definites or pronouns for emphasis or specification, though:

  • Ik wil vandaag geen die afleiding. – I don’t want that distraction (sounds a bit clumsy; more natural: niet die afleiding).
  • Normally for definite things you’d use niet:
    • Ik wil vandaag niet die afleiding. – I don’t want that distraction today.

In your sentence, because we’re talking about distraction in general, geen afleiding is the natural choice.