Yep. That’s a very reliable rule. The gender of the last part of composite nouns determines virtually always the gender of the composite noun. (That’s also how German composite nouns’ gender works.)
1 Like
Sure. I corrected the spelling error and moved the answer hints to the correct column. If you mix up klant and klandizie, think in terms of “(individual) client/ customer” vs. clientele/ all your (potential or actual) customers. Just like “individual listener” vs. “audience”… or “(individual) reader” vs. “readership” … well, sort of.
1 Like
Not sure myself. It’s just a bad recording. Can’t even tell whether the pronunciation is really referring to teleurgesteld instead. I removed the file. Added two better mp3s with much better pronunciation. Thanks for telling me. 
1 Like
Hi @Robert-Alexander, it looks like the de dividend vs het dividend issue is still around. The correct article in this case is het
1 Like
No. I’ve corrected this. I deleted “de dividend” from the database. It should be gone for good. I assumed that’s mainly an issue with the app, but it seems like the web version also uses cached version of vocab tests. I usually recommend deleting all downloaded data, logging off from the app, clear cache on your phone, logging back in and re-download offline data. Not sure whether there’s a way to force refreshing the data in the web version (I don’t use the web version). Just wait. I hope it will refresh eventually. I added another audio file and another definition (“money paid to shareholders”). Maybe this will do the trick and brute force a refresh.
Maybe you wanna check out this thread: [Userscript] Attempt to Eliminate Phantom Entries Not sure if this still works or helps though. For contributors only. I’ll run it for you (if it still works).
1 Like
Truer words were never spoken. It’s a mystery how I made my way through this course and never noticed. Within the [brackets], I replaced beëindigen with afwerken. That’s how it was meant to be.
Thanks
PS: It’s this time of the year. Sorry for not answering on a weekly basis like I used to do.
1 Like
Happy holidays and thanks for all the hard work! I have two new requests:
– for gebruikelijk (usual), is it possible to get a new audio file? the current one sounds a little wonky
– for de zetel (the seat), what do you think about extending the translation to, e.g., the seat, e.g., of government, to avoid confusion with something like zitplaats and to also emphasize its formality?
cheers
1 Like
Audio 
Zetel [(added the seat (in parliament, or of an organisation)]
As I recall, it could also be a very comfy (sofa) chair. But this is business dutch and thus it’s most likely referring to either the location of a business or to the chair in a parliament occupied by an MP, congressman, senator or whatever you call that in your country. I’m not getting tired to teach you some German 
In German, the sofa chair is basically the same word like in Dutch: der Sessel. While the seat of an organization or in parliament is basically the same word like in English: der Sitz.
1 Like
I keep telling folks that learning Dutch has been great for my German! 
1 Like
Hi @Robert-Alexander, one quick thing: it looks like in the translation for erkennen there is [not… erkennen]. This should probably be [not… herkennen], right?
1 Like
Sure. Corrected this. I can’t say how thankful I am for your comments.
I’m not getting tired. Did you know that erkennen, used in this sense, is borrowed word from German? Fun fact: In modern German, we don’t use this word very often in this sense [~to acknowledge what went wrong]. We use anerkennen or einsehen (the Dutch equivalent would be inzien) instead.
1 Like
ha! this is fascinating. i did not know about this one. often when i come across a new word, i go onto wiktionary to check the etymology since Dutch is so common to both English and German. occasionally there are insights (related to inzien no doubt!) like this one
1 Like
A few minor things:
– for te laat, the translation to late… should be too late… (to → too)
– for the translations for voorraden and bevoorraden, what do you think of adding [not …]?
– for 10 liter op 100 kilometer, the translation is off by 10x
– for wachten, what do you think of removing the for in wait for …? I think this would help better distinguish from wachten op
cheers
1 Like
- → too. Sure. Have to check my macros …
- There’s no voorraden in this course. AfaIk, there’s no verb vooraden. The verb for to stockpile is always bevoorraden. There’s the noun voorraden though. That’s plural of voorraad (~ the stock, supply, provison). Voorraad is mentioned in this course. Do we really need a “[not …] hint” in this case?
- Is it off? I’m always confused when it comes to mileage. I’m from continental Europe. Here, we always state mileage in terms of per 100 kilometer. Not even sure how that works in the UK or Ireland. Not sure where your’re from, but I tried to emulate the US standard. I should have used “liter” instead of litre to go full US. In the US, they usually talk about “max distance per volume of fuel”. Usually that’s miles per 1 gallon but I really didn’t want to get into unit conversions (
10 l per 100km 
23.52145 mpg 
). Thus, I settled for km per 1 liter/litre. 10 liters/litres per 100 km is equivalent to 10 km per 1 litre, isn’t it? I know, it’s confusing AF. Not sure how to handle this … - Sure. Eliminated for. I also added [not wachten op] and [not wachten], respectively.
1 Like
Hi @Robert-Alexander, thanks for the super fast reply. If you look at the 10 liter thing carefully, it says “10 for 1” and “100 for 10.” The proportions are okay, but 10 and 1 do not translate to 100 and 10 
It took me half a dozen tests before I caught it myself
1 Like
Alright, let’s do this slowly.
The Dutch entry in column one reads: 10 liter op 100 kilometer. Translated to English, that’s almost literally 10 liter per 100 kilometers. Your vehicle needs 10 liters of gas to travel 100 kilometers.
Thus, 1/10 of the fuel (i.e.1 litre) will be enough to power your engine for only 1/10 the distance (i.e. 10 km). Let’s say that differently: 1 liter will be enough gas to travel 10 kilometer. Thus the kpl (kilometers per liter) is 10. Metric kpl is modelled like mpg: the distance covered by “1 fuel unit”.
The entry in the 2nd column says: 10 kilometres to the litre. Ain’t that exactly the same like the result of my calculation? Please say yes 
My 
engineering degree is at stake here
Maybe, I’m totally misinterpreting how you interpret the idiom to the litre. To me that seems to be just another way of saying per litre. Perhaps it’s just a matter of language. This means I can keep my degrees 
. Or is there something else I simply don’t understand?
PS: cf. the conversion table in Fuel economy in automobiles - Wikipedia
If you don’t trust in Wikipedia, trust Google: Let Me Google That
1 Like
Here’s some ideas that might improve this entry:
-
Use
liter/kilometer spelling and use per instead of to the -
Choose different figures:
8 liter op 100 kilometer 
12.5 kilometers per liter
This way the conversion to kpl is much more obvious. US learners will realize that kpl is the metric counterpart to mpg. -
(Get rid of this confusing conversion or) use a more literal translation as the main translation:
8 liter op 100 kilometer 8 liters per 100 kilometer (=12.5 kilometers per liter) -
Add an “mpg-equivalent”:
8 liter op 100 kilometer 8 liters per 100 kilometer (=12.5 kilometers per liter ~29.4 miles per gallon)
Any opinions on that?
1 Like
oh @Robert-Alexander, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say! I am sorry for the confusion. Your math is totally fine. Let me add a screen shot:
I would propose the minor edit of:
– 10 kilometres to the litre → 100 kilometres to the 10 litres
so that “10” and “100” appear in both the Dutch and (UK) English.
I am so sorry for making you question your hard work and math!
1 Like
