Sign inSign up

Tom verliest zijn creditcard en wil de boeking annuleren.

Tom verliest zijn creditcard en wil de boeking annuleren.
Tom loses his credit card and wants to cancel the booking.
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Dutch grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Dutch now

Questions & Answers about Tom verliest zijn creditcard en wil de boeking annuleren.

Why does the sentence use the simple present tense (verliest, wil) instead of a past or perfect tense (e.g. heeft verloren)?

Dutch often uses the simple present to describe events as they happen (a “scenic present”). Here, Tom is losing his card right now and immediately wants to cancel. If you wanted to report it as a completed past event, you’d use the perfect:
Tom heeft zijn creditcard verloren en wil de boeking annuleren.

How do you conjugate the verb verliezen in the present tense for Tom?

The infinitive is verliezen. To form the present:
• Remove -en → stem verlies
• Add t for 3rd person singular (hij/zij): hij verliest
So the full paradigm is: ik verlies, jij verliest, hij/zij verliest, wij verliezen, enzovoort.

Why is it zijn creditcard rather than zijns creditcard, and could you use a contraction?

Dutch possessive pronouns have fixed forms:
• mijn (my)
• jouw/je (your)
• zijn (his)
• haar (her)
• ons/onze (our)
• jullie (your, pl.)
• hun (their)
You never add an extra “-s” as in English. In informal speech/writing you often see the contraction z’n creditcard, but in formal writing you’d keep zijn.

Why is creditcard written as one word without a hyphen, and why is it de creditcard?
Most Dutch compounds are closed (one word). Loanwords also follow this: creditcard. As for the article, borrowed nouns default to the common gender (de). So it’s de creditcard, not het creditcard.
Why is annuleren placed at the end of the clause, and why isn’t there a te before it?

Annuleren is the infinitive complement of the modal verb wil. With modals (willen, kunnen, moeten, etc.) you use a bare infinitive (no te) and it goes to the end in Dutch main clauses:
… wil de boeking annuleren.

Why is there no inversion in the second clause after en? Why en wil de boeking annuleren rather than en de boeking annuleren wil?
En is a coordinating conjunction, linking two main clauses. Each clause keeps standard S–V–O order (subject before verb). Subordinate conjunctions (like omdat, terwijl) would push the verb to the end, but en does not.
What’s the difference between boeking and reservering? Could you also say Tom wil de reservering annuleren?

Both mean “reservation/booking.”
• Boeking is common for flights, hotels, events.
• Reservering is slightly more formal or generic (a restaurant, seat, etc.).
In most contexts you can swap them: Tom wil de reservering annuleren is perfectly fine.

I’ve seen cancelen used in Dutch. Could you say Tom wil de boeking cancelen?
Yes, cancelen is an accepted Anglicism (especially in speech or informal writing). In formal or official contexts you’ll often see the more traditional annuleren, but cancelen is very common in everyday Dutch.