There is not much difference between opleveren and opbrengen in the sense of to yield but opbrengen has several other meanings.
opbrengen also means to muster (courage, strength), afford, bring in (for questioning).
opleveren is also used in een gebouw opleveren - to deliver a building.
the point is that one looks for it (and does not find it), because who’s learning Business Dutch is for sure no beginner. Many many thanks
incorporated duaal’s remarks. Thx a lot.
leiden/leiten:
lead; guide; direct; point the direction; preside; command; take the lead; be in command of; order
bedankt!
added your definitions
…just that you know: I added another business dutch course:
Hellloooo @Robert-Alexander,
Hope all is well! I finally finished the Frequent academic course 
and now am on this course.
I have a couple questions and caught a minor typo:
I am slightly confused about te betalen rekeningen (the accounts payable). I feel like a de is missing, or is this just a funny translation?
The words de dividend (de dividend) and het dividend (the dividend) both appear in level 7. dividend Nederlands woordenboek - Woorden.org has het dividend for the translation for the dividend. Was including de dividend intentional?
For teruggeven (to return), is it possible to add [not terugbetalen]? 
(I keep making this mistake!)
For liefdadigheid, there is a missing bracket [ in the translation.
I think I found another minor typo but I will post here as usual if I find it again.
cheers,
richard
Oh, I forgot to add. Business Dutch is a fun course! Thanks for putting it together!
It’s probably the weakest of all courses since I only found material that was teaching Business English for Dutch speakers. It still works quite well, though.
As I understand this, it’s not to pay the bills or pay bills. This would probably translate to rekeningen betalen or de rekeningen betalen. De/the of course added in order to refer to a defined set of bills. I guss this entry is referring to the line in a financial statement. It refers to the sum of money that is waitng to be transferred to your suppliers (cf. Accounts payable - Wikipedia). I always assumed that rekeningen te betalen is either the label on the box where you’d find all those bills or a Dutch “laymen’s term” for the loanword (from Germn) Handelsschuld, cf. Handelsschuld - Wikipedia As I understand this te betalen is a gerundivum in this case (sort of). It’s like saying zu bezahlende Rechnungen in German (not sure whether drawing analogies to German is helpful) or bills (supposed) to be paid.
My error. I deleted de dividend. It’s neuter indeed.
? Hugh? It already says: to give back, return, refund [not terugsturen, terugbetalen] and to repay, refund [not teruggeven] respectively.
Excellent. I added the missing bracket. Thx for telling me this (and thanks for all the other comments you recently made).
Hi @Robert-Alexander,
Right, “accounts payable” is a concept in its own right. What I meant is that “accounts payable” in English is a noun. Is te betalen rekening also a noun (or an adj + n)? Should, for example, de be added in front for consistency? This one is complicated but also the first time that I have come across it in Dutch, so I am unsure about the answer.
Ah, sorry, I did not describe the problem correctly. During a review, teruggeven came up and both refund (+ nothing else) and to repay, refund [not terugbetalen] came up. The correct answer was ambiguous in this case. Of course it is possible that I missed something altogether so I will take a screenshot of it next time if it ever comes up again.
Oh, two minor things. There seem to be definite article mismatches in the following:
Should a fortnight be (the) fortnight in the above? (Alternatively, de can become een.) Likewise, should de be dropped from the second?
cheers
The translations are actually correct. Although the first entry could probabably lose the (de) altogether.
Just a mismatch between these expressions in Dutch and English.
Hi @duaal,
Sorry, there is a tiny misunderstanding. I should have written things better. I am trying to draw attention to two things:
de in Dutch vs a in English. While “a fortnight” is more commonly used in (UK) English than “the fortnight,” an arguably better translation would be to align the articles accordingly, e.g., de → een.
The translation of a def. article+adjective+noun (de laatste tijd) to an adverb (lately) is not totally correct since they are not used in the same manner grammatically in either Dutch or English.
The usage for these in the two language are not totally the same, I agree with you 
, but lately, recently, and fortnight are not expressions (unlike these days) and therefore are less nuanced when it comes to translating.
Found a funny one. For the word in dienst hebben, the English translation is given with the Dutch phrase. 
cheers,
richard
Morning!
Found a small little misspelling in vraagen, which should be spelled vragen (one fewer a), in the word ** vraagen naar**. The proposed correction is:
cheers,
richard
