Log inSign up

Zij strijkt morgen haar blouse, en ik strijk mijn broek.

Zij strijkt morgen haar blouse, en ik strijk mijn broek.
She will iron her blouse tomorrow, and I will iron my trousers.

Breakdown of Zij strijkt morgen haar blouse, en ik strijk mijn broek.

ik
I
zij
she
morgen
tomorrow
en
and
mijn
my
haar
her
de blouse
the blouse
de broek
the trousers
strijken
to iron
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Dutch grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Dutch now

Questions & Answers about Zij strijkt morgen haar blouse, en ik strijk mijn broek.

Why is the present tense used to talk about something in the future?

Dutch often uses the present tense with a time word to talk about the future. The time adverb makes the time clear, so a future tense isn’t required.

  • Zij strijkt morgen haar blouse. = She will iron her blouse tomorrow.
  • You can also use zal or gaan: Zij zal morgen haar blouse strijken. / Zij gaat morgen haar blouse strijken. (see below for nuance).
Where can the time word morgen go? Does moving it change the word order?

Main-clause Dutch is verb-second. You can place morgen:

  • After the verb (neutral): Zij strijkt morgen haar blouse.
  • At the start (emphasis on time; verb still second): Morgen strijkt zij haar blouse.
  • After the object (possible but less neutral in writing): Zij strijkt haar blouse morgen. Rule of thumb for adverbials: Time tends to come early (Time–Manner–Place).
Why is it strijkt in the first clause but strijk in the second?

Present-tense endings: 1st person singular has no -t, 2nd/3rd person singular take -t, and plurals take -en.

  • ik strijk
  • jij/je strijkt (but: strijk jij …? when the verb comes before jij)
  • hij/zij/ze strijkt
  • wij/jullie/zij strijken
How do I know zij means she here and not they?

The verb ending tells you. Strijkt = 3rd person singular (she). Strijken = 3rd person plural (they).

  • Zij strijkt morgen haar blouse. = She irons …
  • Zij strijken morgen hun broeken. = They iron …
What’s the difference between zij and ze?

Both mean “she” (or “they”), but zij is the stressed/emphatic form, and ze is the unstressed form. Starting with Zij can contrast with ik:

  • Zij strijkt morgen haar blouse, en ik strijk mijn broek. In neutral speech you’ll often hear Ze strijkt …
Why use possessives (haar blouse, mijn broek) instead of articles (de/het)?

Dutch commonly uses possessive pronouns with body parts and clothing to make the owner explicit:

  • Ze strijkt haar blouse. Using the article is possible when context makes the owner obvious, but it’s less explicit and not the default:
  • Ze strijkt de blouse. (likely her blouse, but could be someone else’s)
Does haar mean her or hair here?

Here it’s the possessive haar = “her.” The noun “hair” is also haar, but typically appears as het haar.

  • Ze strijkt haar blouse. = She irons her blouse.
  • Ze kamt haar haar. = She combs her hair. (Both words are “haar”; context disambiguates.)
Why is broek singular when English pants is plural?

In Dutch many garments are singular:

  • de broek = pants/trousers
  • Plural: broeken (two pairs of pants). Compare: de schoenen = shoes (plural).
Is the comma before en required or correct?
Usually no comma is used before en when it connects two main clauses: Zij strijkt morgen haar blouse en ik strijk mijn broek. A comma can be added for a deliberate pause, but many style guides prefer omitting it.
Do I have to repeat the verb in the second clause?

No, you can “gap” it if it’s the same verb, especially in speech or informal writing:

  • Zij strijkt morgen haar blouse, en ik mijn broek. But you must keep the subject; you cannot say: ✗ … en strijk mijn broek.
Can I say zal strijken or ga strijken instead of the present?

Yes, with nuance:

  • zal strijken: neutral future/prediction or a decision just made. Zij zal morgen haar blouse strijken.
  • gaat strijken: near-future plan/intention. Zij gaat morgen haar blouse strijken.
  • Plain present + time word (strijkt morgen) is the most neutral and common.
How would this look in a subordinate clause?

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

  • omdat zij morgen haar blouse strijkt en ik mijn broek strijk.
  • dat zij morgen haar blouse strijkt, en dat ik mijn broek strijk.
Any quick pronunciation tips for tricky parts?
  • ij (in zij, strijkt) sounds like the vowel in English “eye.”
  • oe (in broek) like English “oo” in “boot.”
  • aa (in haar) like a long “ah” (as in “father”).
  • j (in strijk-) is like English “y.”
  • blouse in NL Dutch is roughly “BLOO-zuh”; in Belgium bloes sounds like “blooss.”
Is it blouse or bloes?
Both exist. blouse is common in the Netherlands; bloes is very common in Belgium. Both are accepted.
What’s the usual order for time, manner, place and objects?

A common guideline is Time–Manner–Place for adverbials, with the finite verb in second position in main clauses. Objects usually come before longer adverbials. Your sentence follows a natural pattern:

  • Zij [V] strijkt [Time] morgen [Object] haar blouse.