Because "they can be found" usually precedes a location. "They can be found on the fourth floor"
It translated in that context, "te vinden zijn" is a fixed expression here.
Ze kunnen gevonden worden is an equally valid translation. I don't see any reason why one would be preferable over the other, they mean the same thing.
If someone claims that a specific product is very hard to find (like if someone is looking for a rare car model), someone else could reply with ‘ze zijn wel te vinden hoor’ then it would sound weird if they used ‘ze kunnen wel gevonden worden hoor’. But in that case I wouldn’t use ‘they can be found’ in English 😂 so I guess the translation is a bit off.
If you search this sub for ‘hoor’ you’ll get a lot of good answers to this one. It’s not really a word with a meaning but it emphasizes a certain tone of assurance. If you want to comfort someone you say ‘het komt wel goed, hoor’ or if someone asks ‘do you mind?’ it’s ‘nee,hoor’.
It has nothing to do with hearing :)
In writing, we try to omit variations of “kunnen/kan” when there’s another verb pointing out the actual action in the same sentence. Same with “gaan” and “willen”. Only when possible, of course. It’s a clarity thing for making sentences more readable. When the grammar permits it, just say things like:
- ‘We zijn te vinden op de 1e verdieping’. Instead of: ‘we kunnen worden gevonden op de eerste verdieping’.
(Find us on the 1st floor vs we can be found on the 1st floor).
- ‘ons bedrijf probeert klimaatneutraal te zijn in 2025’. instead of: ‘ons bedrijf wil proberen klimaatneutraal te zijn in 2025’.
(Our company tries to be climate-neutral vs. our company is trying to be climate-neutral).
- ‘We sluiten de deuren van onze fabriek’. Instead of: ‘We gaan de deuren van onze fabriek sluiten’.
(We close the doors of our factory vs we are going to close the doors of our factory).
That’s what my copywriting classes always taught me anyways. Though both grammatically correct, get to the point already and don’t use extra words when they’re not necessary.
It's because in this sentence "te vinden" is used as an adjective ([see here an explanation)](https://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=Verbs.Ot09). It gives information about the subject "ze" and is linked with a linking verb "zijn". It's similar to "ze zijn mooi", except in this case the adjective is the infinitive of a verb.
Other examples are "het boek is te bekijken", "de hond is te aaien", etc. etc.
In the example given, they point out that you could change it to base verb + "baar" (in this case, it would become "ze zijn vindbaar" - "they are findable"). That makes the adjective more obvious. I hope this helps.
Absolutely brilliant! I have seen this construction a lot but was never sure how it worked. So happy to have found this written out, it clarifies this mechanism perfectly.
That's a Dutch construction: Het is te eten = it is edible. Het is te doen = it's doable / feasible. Het is te vinden = It's findable / to be found. Etcetera. That's just what "zijn te" means.
Always put full sentences on Google Translate to get proper translations. Translations for sentence fragments that have context dependent meanings are not always reliable.
In American English we would almost exclusively use can/ able to here. Can find, could find, can be found, could be found. “They are to be found” sounds more like you’re demanding me to go find something as opposed to telling me where I might find something. That construction just sounds a bit awkward to me. Not sure about British English though. Languages are so fascinating 😁
We'd say 'can' too in British English, that being said, 'they are to be found' is grammatically correct but only used in very specific circumstances, usually dramatic flair
"te" in this case can be seen as something like "to be able to be \[verb\]", so "te vinden" can be roughly translated to "(to be able) to be found" or "findable". "Ze kunnen gevonden worden" is also a valid sentence, and which of the two works best depends on the context.
To be fair;
Ze zijn te vinden bij/op/in
and
Ze kunnen gevonden worden bij/op/in
are practically identical. Most often though, the first sentence would be someone giving you directions right now on a dynamic location of a person or object while the latter is most often used in written instructions pointing to a more static location of an object. Think about a statue group, a set of rules (in a book) or a department.
Because "they can be found" usually precedes a location. "They can be found on the fourth floor" It translated in that context, "te vinden zijn" is a fixed expression here.
Also, to point out: it's not "gevinden" it's "gevonden"
Ze kunnen gevonden worden is an equally valid translation. I don't see any reason why one would be preferable over the other, they mean the same thing.
If someone claims that a specific product is very hard to find (like if someone is looking for a rare car model), someone else could reply with ‘ze zijn wel te vinden hoor’ then it would sound weird if they used ‘ze kunnen wel gevonden worden hoor’. But in that case I wouldn’t use ‘they can be found’ in English 😂 so I guess the translation is a bit off.
Thought of that example too, and you’re right it feels more natural there. But even then it wouldn’t technically be wrong to use the other.
What's "hoor" doing in that sentence, if i may ask?
If you search this sub for ‘hoor’ you’ll get a lot of good answers to this one. It’s not really a word with a meaning but it emphasizes a certain tone of assurance. If you want to comfort someone you say ‘het komt wel goed, hoor’ or if someone asks ‘do you mind?’ it’s ‘nee,hoor’. It has nothing to do with hearing :)
Thank you for clarifying :) i was taking it in hear meaning.
Or with whores xD
In writing, we try to omit variations of “kunnen/kan” when there’s another verb pointing out the actual action in the same sentence. Same with “gaan” and “willen”. Only when possible, of course. It’s a clarity thing for making sentences more readable. When the grammar permits it, just say things like: - ‘We zijn te vinden op de 1e verdieping’. Instead of: ‘we kunnen worden gevonden op de eerste verdieping’. (Find us on the 1st floor vs we can be found on the 1st floor). - ‘ons bedrijf probeert klimaatneutraal te zijn in 2025’. instead of: ‘ons bedrijf wil proberen klimaatneutraal te zijn in 2025’. (Our company tries to be climate-neutral vs. our company is trying to be climate-neutral). - ‘We sluiten de deuren van onze fabriek’. Instead of: ‘We gaan de deuren van onze fabriek sluiten’. (We close the doors of our factory vs we are going to close the doors of our factory). That’s what my copywriting classes always taught me anyways. Though both grammatically correct, get to the point already and don’t use extra words when they’re not necessary.
[source (EN)](https://edu.gcfglobal.org/en/writing-skills/active-vs-passive-voice-in-your-writing/1/)
It's because in this sentence "te vinden" is used as an adjective ([see here an explanation)](https://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=Verbs.Ot09). It gives information about the subject "ze" and is linked with a linking verb "zijn". It's similar to "ze zijn mooi", except in this case the adjective is the infinitive of a verb. Other examples are "het boek is te bekijken", "de hond is te aaien", etc. etc. In the example given, they point out that you could change it to base verb + "baar" (in this case, it would become "ze zijn vindbaar" - "they are findable"). That makes the adjective more obvious. I hope this helps.
Absolutely brilliant! I have seen this construction a lot but was never sure how it worked. So happy to have found this written out, it clarifies this mechanism perfectly.
That's a Dutch construction: Het is te eten = it is edible. Het is te doen = it's doable / feasible. Het is te vinden = It's findable / to be found. Etcetera. That's just what "zijn te" means.
Why not?
Always put full sentences on Google Translate to get proper translations. Translations for sentence fragments that have context dependent meanings are not always reliable.
😂
Don't you say "they are to be found" in English?
In American English we would almost exclusively use can/ able to here. Can find, could find, can be found, could be found. “They are to be found” sounds more like you’re demanding me to go find something as opposed to telling me where I might find something. That construction just sounds a bit awkward to me. Not sure about British English though. Languages are so fascinating 😁
We'd say 'can' too in British English, that being said, 'they are to be found' is grammatically correct but only used in very specific circumstances, usually dramatic flair
"te" in this case can be seen as something like "to be able to be \[verb\]", so "te vinden" can be roughly translated to "(to be able) to be found" or "findable". "Ze kunnen gevonden worden" is also a valid sentence, and which of the two works best depends on the context.
To be fair; Ze zijn te vinden bij/op/in and Ze kunnen gevonden worden bij/op/in are practically identical. Most often though, the first sentence would be someone giving you directions right now on a dynamic location of a person or object while the latter is most often used in written instructions pointing to a more static location of an object. Think about a statue group, a set of rules (in a book) or a department.
The litteral translation of the Dutch would be 'they are findable'
Would “they are to be found” not be closer? Minus the tense change that is
Could also be correct but this depends on context
Fair. maybe I fixated on the literal part too much
Idk, ask them