Breakdown of Omdat het papier nat is, wil ik het niet weggooien.
ik
I
zijn
to be
niet
not
het
it
willen
to want
het papier
the paper
omdat
because
weggooien
to throw away
nat
wet
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Dutch grammar and vocabulary.
Questions & Answers about Omdat het papier nat is, wil ik het niet weggooien.
Why does the finite verb “is” come at the end in the clause “Omdat het papier nat is”?
In Dutch, any subordinate clause introduced by omdat (and other subordinating conjunctions) pushes its finite verb to the very end. So you get: omdat + subject (het papier) + adjective (nat) + finite verb (is).
Why do we say “wil ik” instead of “ik wil” in “wil ik het niet weggooien”?
When a subordinate clause like “Omdat …” comes first, it occupies the first position. In the following main clause the finite verb must still be in second position, so you invert subject and verb: wil (1st) + ik (2nd) + rest.
Why isn’t the separable verb split into “gooi … weg”?
“Weggooien” is a separable verb (gooi … weg) in a simple present tense main clause: ik gooi het weg. But after a modal verb like wil, it remains an infinitive and stays together as one word: weggooien.
Why are there two instances of “het” in the sentence?
The first het is the neuter definite article for papier. The second het is a personal pronoun replacing “the paper” as the object of “weggooien.”
Why is “niet” placed before “weggooien”?
In a modal construction (subject + modal + object + infinitive), niet negates the action and comes directly before the infinitive: ik wil het niet weggooien.
Can I replace “omdat” with “want”? What’s the difference?
Yes, but with want you create two coordinate main clauses. Want does not send the verb to the end or trigger inversion.
Example: Ik wil het niet weggooien, want het papier is nat.
With omdat you form a subordinate clause and change both word orders.
Is the comma after the subordinate clause mandatory?
It’s strongly recommended in Dutch to separate a fronted subordinate clause from the main clause with a comma for clarity:
Omdat het papier nat is, wil ik het niet weggooien.
Omitting it is informal and can lead to parsing hiccups.
Why is it “het papier” and not “de papier”?
Papier is a neuter noun in Dutch, so it takes the article het. Masculine/feminine nouns take de.
Could I start with the main clause instead, like “Ik wil het niet weggooien omdat het papier nat is”?
Absolutely. When the main clause comes first, both verbs stay in second position in their clauses, and the comma is optional:
Ik wil het niet weggooien omdat het papier nat is.