Sign inSign up

Zonder bril kan Anna de kleine letters niet zien.

Zonder bril kan Anna de kleine letters niet zien.
Without glasses Anna cannot see the small letters.
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Dutch grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Dutch now

Questions & Answers about Zonder bril kan Anna de kleine letters niet zien.

Why is there no article after “zonder” in “zonder bril”?

Dutch often drops the article after zonder with clothing/gear/body-worn items:

  • zonder jas (without a coat), zonder schoenen (without shoes), zonder bril (without glasses)

You can say zonder een bril, but it adds a slight nuance: it sounds more like “without a (single) pair of glasses (available)” or is used for contrast. The idiomatic default here is simply zonder bril. Note that with “met” you usually keep the article: met een bril (with glasses).

Why does the verb come before the subject: “kan Anna” instead of “Anna kan”?

Dutch main clauses follow the “verb-second” rule. The finite verb must be in second position. Since Zonder bril is placed first (for emphasis/topic), the verb kan must come second, and the subject Anna follows it.

  • Subject-first variant is equally correct: Anna kan zonder bril de kleine letters niet zien.
Where does “niet” go, and why is it before “zien”?

In neutral sentences with a modal + infinitive, niet typically comes just before the infinitive (the non-finite verb):

  • … kan … niet zien. If you’re negating something more specific, niet can move:
  • Negating an adverb: Anna kan de kleine letters niet goed zien.
  • Focused/object negation (contrast): see below under focused negation.
Why “niet” and not “geen”?

Use:

  • geen to negate a noun that would otherwise be indefinite or bare:
    • Ze heeft geen bril. (She doesn’t have glasses.)
    • Anna kan geen kleine letters zien. (She can’t see any small letters.)
  • niet to negate verbs, adjectives, adverbs, or definite NPs:
    • Anna kan de kleine letters niet zien. (“de” makes it definite, so use niet.)
Could I drop the article and say “kan Anna kleine letters niet zien”?

It’s grammatical but unusual here. Without the article, it tends to sound generic or contrastive (“small letters in general”), and many speakers would prefer either:

  • … de kleine letters niet zien (referring to a known or contextually understood set/class), or
  • … geen kleine letters zien (any small letters at all). As a subject, a bare plural is fine: Kleine letters zijn lastig.
Does “kleine letters” mean “lowercase letters” or just “small letters (fine print)”?

It can mean either, depending on context.

  • Typography: kleine letters = lowercase; hoofdletters = uppercase.
  • Everyday reading: it can mean “small letters” (small print). The set phrase for “the fine print” is de kleine lettertjes.
Why is it “kleine” and not “klein” letters?

Attributive adjectives take an -e in these cases:

  • All plurals: kleine letters
  • De-words (singular): de kleine letter
  • Het-words with a definite article: het kleine huis Only singular, indefinite het-words drop the -e: een klein huis.
Is “bril” singular even though English says “glasses”?
Yes. Dutch uses singular de/een bril for a pair of glasses. The plural brillen refers to multiple pairs. Hence zonder bril = “without glasses.”
How do I say “without her glasses”?
  • zonder haar bril
  • More explicitly about not wearing them: zonder haar bril op (literally “without her glasses on”). Both are common; the “op” version highlights the wearing aspect.
Can I move “zonder bril” elsewhere in the sentence?

Yes, word order is flexible for emphasis:

  • Zonder bril kan Anna de kleine letters niet zien. (fronted circumstance)
  • Anna kan zonder bril de kleine letters niet zien. (neutral/default feel)
  • Anna kan de kleine letters zonder bril niet zien. (also fine; puts “zonder bril” near what it modifies) All are grammatical; choose based on what you want to highlight.
How would this look in a subordinate clause?

In subordinate clauses, the finite verb goes to the end:

  • Omdat Anna zonder bril de kleine letters niet kan zien. (“omdat” = because.)
    Another example: Ik weet dat Anna zonder bril de kleine letters niet kan zien.
How do I make a yes/no question?

Invert subject and finite verb:

  • Kan Anna zonder bril de kleine letters zien? If you include niet, it often implies an expectation:
  • Kan Anna zonder bril de kleine letters niet zien? (“Is it true she can’t…?”)
What are the past and perfect forms?
  • Simple past (imperfect): Zonder bril kon Anna de kleine letters niet zien. (kon = past of kan)
  • Perfect: Zonder bril heeft Anna de kleine letters niet kunnen zien.
    Note the structure: auxiliary heeft
    • kunnen
      • zien, with niet before kunnen.
Can I use “lezen” instead of “zien”?
  • zien = to see (perception).
  • lezen = to read (decoding text). Choose based on meaning:
  • … niet zien (can’t visually make them out)
  • … niet lezen (can’t read them, perhaps because they’re too small)
Can I say “niet de kleine letters” for focus?

Yes, but it’s contrastive and marked:

  • Anna kan niet de kleine letters zien, maar wel de grote letters. Default, neutral negation keeps niet before the infinitive:
  • Anna kan de kleine letters niet zien.
Any quick pronunciation tips for the words?
  • Zonder: initial z as in “zoo”; o like “o” in “gone” (short), roughly “ZON-der.”
  • bril: short i (as in “bit”), “bril.”
  • kan: short a (like “a” in “father” but shorter), “kahn.”
  • Anna: “AH-na.”
  • de: reduced “duh.”
  • kleine: “KLYE-nuh” (the ei is like English “eye”).
  • letters: “LET-ers.”
  • niet: “neet.”
  • zien: “zeen.”
Why “kan”? What’s the conjugation of “kunnen”?

kunnen (to be able to/can) conjugates:

  • ik kan
  • jij/je kan or kunt (both used)
  • hij/zij/Anna kan
  • wij/jullie/zij kunnen Past: ik/hij kon, wij/jullie/zij konden.