Eerst bespreken wij de taakverdeling en daarna schrijven wij een samenvatting.

Because Dutch main clauses usually follow the V2 rule: the finite verb must be in the second position.

So when Eerst is placed first, it takes the first slot, and the verb must come next:

• Eerst bespreken wij de taakverdeling.
• Daarna schrijven wij een samenvatting.

If the subject comes first, then the order is:

• Wij bespreken eerst de taakverdeling.

But Eerst wij bespreken is not correct in a normal main clause.

Yes, absolutely. That is also correct.

Both versions are grammatical:

• Eerst bespreken wij de taakverdeling en daarna schrijven wij een samenvatting.
• Wij bespreken eerst de taakverdeling en daarna schrijven wij een samenvatting.

The difference is mainly about focus:

• Starting with Eerst puts more emphasis on the sequence.
• Starting with Wij is a more neutral subject-first order.

Both wij and we mean we.

The difference is mostly about style and stress:

• we = the usual unstressed form in everyday speech
• wij = the fuller form, often a bit more formal or emphatic

So these are both fine:

• Eerst bespreken wij de taakverdeling...
• Eerst bespreken we de taakverdeling...

In ordinary spoken Dutch, we is usually more common.

This is the present tense:

• bespreken = discuss
• schrijven = write

Dutch often uses the present tense for:

• planned actions
• schedules
• instructions
• sequences of steps

So even if the actions are about the near future, the present tense is completely natural.

English does something similar in some contexts too, such as First we discuss..., then we write...

They are adverbs of sequence/time.

• eerst = first / first of all
• daarna = after that / afterwards / then

They help organize the order of actions.

In this sentence:

• Eerst introduces the first step
• daarna introduces the next step

They are very common in instructions, plans, and explanations.

Yes, often it can.

Possible alternatives:

• dan = then
• vervolgens = subsequently / next

For example:

• Eerst bespreken wij de taakverdeling en dan schrijven wij een samenvatting.
• Eerst bespreken wij de taakverdeling en vervolgens schrijven wij een samenvatting.

Nuance:

• dan is very common and often a bit more conversational
• daarna is clear and neutral
• vervolgens sounds a bit more formal or organized

Because Dutch normally writes compound nouns as one word.

So:

• taak = task
• verdeling = division / distribution
• taakverdeling = division of tasks / allocation of responsibilities

This is very normal in Dutch. English often uses separate words where Dutch uses one compound word.

Other examples:

• huiswerk = homework
• treinstation = train station
• tafelblad = tabletop

Because taakverdeling is a de-word.

In Dutch, nouns usually take either:

• de
• het

For compounds, the article is usually determined by the last part of the compound, which is the main noun.

Here the main part is verdeling, and de verdeling is a de-word, so:

• de taakverdeling

Unfortunately, whether a noun is a de-word or het-word often just has to be learned.

This is about definiteness.

• de taakverdeling suggests a specific task division, probably one that is already known or understood in the situation
• een samenvatting means a summary, not necessarily a previously identified one

So the sentence presents:

1. first, discussing the task distribution
2. then, writing a summary

If the summary were already specific and known, you could also say:

• de samenvatting

But in the original sentence, een samenvatting sounds natural because it introduces the summary as the result of the task.

Yes, often you can, but the structure changes a little.

A natural version would be:

• Wij bespreken eerst de taakverdeling en schrijven daarna een samenvatting.

Here, wij is shared by both verbs.

But in the original sentence, the writer has made two clearly parallel main clauses:

• Eerst bespreken wij ...
• daarna schrijven wij ...

Repeating wij makes the structure very clear and balanced.

What you cannot normally do is remove wij while keeping the second clause shaped exactly the same way if there is no subject available in that clause.

Because in Dutch, a comma before en is usually not needed when two closely connected clauses are joined.

So this is normal:

• Eerst bespreken wij de taakverdeling en daarna schrijven wij een samenvatting.

A comma might appear if:

• the sentence is very long
• the writer wants extra clarity
• there is a parenthetical interruption

But in a sentence like this, no comma is the standard choice.

It sounds neutral to slightly formal.

Why?

• wij instead of we sounds a bit more formal or written
• the repeated structure Eerst ..., daarna ... sounds organized and clear

A more everyday spoken version would often be:

• Eerst bespreken we de taakverdeling en daarna schrijven we een samenvatting.

So the original is perfectly natural, especially in written instructions, meeting language, or school/work contexts.

A few useful points:

• wij contains the Dutch ij sound, which is often somewhat like the vowel in English eye
• schrijven starts with schr-, which can be tricky for English speakers

Rough pronunciation help:

• wij ≈ vye or wye, depending on accent and how precisely you imitate Dutch
• schrijven ≈ something like SKHRIY-vuhn

A few details:

• w in Dutch is not exactly English w; it is often closer to a soft v/w sound
• sch is not like English sh here; it is more like s
  • a throaty ch
• ij in schrijven is the same vowel sound as in wij

You do not need perfect pronunciation immediately; the most important thing is recognizing that ij is a very common Dutch spelling and sound pattern.