In Dutch we have two words we can use in a sentence, to explain something, or give a reason. Two words that both mean ‘because’.
These two words are not synonyms, they are both used in different cases. The best way to explain this, is by giving a few small examples.
Okay, a really simple sentence:
Hij werd nat omdat het regende – He got wet because it rained.
Hij werd ziek doordat hij te veel had gegeten – He got sick because he ate too much.
So, in the first sentence I use the word ‘omdat’ and in the second sentence I use the word ‘doordat’. Can you see the difference between the two sentences? It’s very subtle and most likely the two sentences seem the same to you, because you don’t know what to look for.
Okay, ‘omdat’ is used in a sentence to explain a reason and the word ‘doordat’ is used in a sentence to explain a cause, like in cause and reaction.
You see, in the first sentence, we use ‘omdat’ because there’s a reason the ‘He’ person got wet, the reason is rain. Now, there’s probably also a cause, rain doesn’t come from nowhere, but the cause isn’t mentioned in the sentence… so, ‘omdat’.
In the second sentence, there’s a clear cause for the ‘He’ persons illness, he ate too much… since the ‘cause’ is explained in the sentence, we use ‘doordat’.
Just a few more examples to show the difference… if you have any questions, don’t hesitate to ask J
Er kwam een overstroming doordat de dijken doorbraken – There was a flood because the dykes broke through.
Ze verknoeide haar haren doordat ze de verf er te lang in liet zitten – She messed up her hair because she left in the dye too long.
Hij komt niet omdat hij ziek is – He’s not coming because he’s sick
Ze wil niet eten omdat ze overstuur is – She won’t eat because she’s upset.
Comments:
Peter Simon:
Sorry, but I can’t make any difference between the two types of reasons you’ve mentioned in explanation for the difference between omdat and doordat. All those sentences tell us about the causes of the consequences. “cause” and “reason” are synonyms except when cause means a principle, which is not the case in any of those examples. “cause and reaction” means the same as reason and consequence in these cases too. I’d be very glad if you could show me any difference between the usage of omdat and doordat. Thanks from an English teacher from Hungary.
Bill:
Enjoyed reading about Omdat and Doordat. Seems pretty difficult to understand the difference, but I think I kind of get it.
If you translated my english to dutch…would these be correct?…
1) He had a big cut on his arm DOORDAT he was in a knife fight.
2) He arrived late DOORDAT his car broke down.
3) I enjoy this class OMDAT it’s fun.
Also, Is omdat usually more general than doordat?
Thanks for your help!
Mathieu:
Yeah, the explanation makes this more confusing that what it needs to be. The way I keep them straight in my brain:
omdat = the actual cause is either irrelevant/tangential or not mentioned.
doordat = there is a specific link between A and B.
You can also look at it this way: “doordat” is more akin to “therefore” than “because”…
If you use the examples he gives and try to flip the sentence to use “therefore” in both cases, you can see one makes sense and the other reads a bit oddly, even if they both work OK with “because”:
Hij werd nat omdat het regende – It rained, therefore he got wet.
Hij werd ziek doordat hij te veel had gegeten – He ate too much, therefore he got sick.
Still not crystal clear … but IMHO, this is a point for mastery and not a real barrier to expression. Of all the various bits of “feedback” I’ve received, I’ve never had anyone correct me on omdat/doordat before, even though I probably use omdat way more than I should.
vernon:
I think I see the difference. Use doordat if the cause is man-made e.g. he ate too much, and use omdat if the cause is God-made e.g. it rained, or there an earthquake or a tsunami or something like that, but they are all reasons and cuases, depending on how you look at it.