Hij legt zijn onderbroek en schone sokken klaar voordat hij gaat sporten.

Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Dutch grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Dutch now

Questions & Answers about Hij legt zijn onderbroek en schone sokken klaar voordat hij gaat sporten.

Why is it “legt … klaar” instead of just one verb? What’s going on with klaar here?

Dutch has many separable verbs. One of them is klaarleggen (to lay/put something out ready).

  • Infinitive: klaarleggen
  • Simple present, 3rd person singular: hij legt iets klaar
  • Past: hij legde iets klaar
  • Perfect: hij heeft iets klaargelegd

In main clauses, the finite verb goes in second position, and the separable part (here: klaar) goes to the end of the clause:

  • Hij legt zijn onderbroek en schone sokken klaar.
    = He lays out his underpants and clean socks.

So legt … klaar belongs together as the verb klaarleggen.

Why is the word order “Hij legt zijn onderbroek en schone sokken klaar” and not “Hij legt klaar zijn onderbroek en schone sokken”?

Dutch main clauses normally follow a verb-second pattern:

  1. First position: usually the subject — Hij
  2. Second position: the conjugated verb — legt
  3. Then objects and other elements — zijn onderbroek en schone sokken
  4. Finally, the separable particle — klaar

So the normal order is:

  • Hij (subject)
  • legt (finite verb)
  • zijn onderbroek en schone sokken (objects)
  • klaar (separable particle)

Putting klaar right after legt (Hij legt klaar zijn…) sounds wrong in Dutch.

Why is it just “zijn onderbroek en schone sokken”? Shouldn’t it be “zijn onderbroek en zijn schone sokken”?

You can say both:

  • Hij legt zijn onderbroek en schone sokken klaar.
  • Hij legt zijn onderbroek en zijn schone sokken klaar.

In Dutch, when two (or more) nouns share the same possessor and are joined by en (and), you can often mention the possessive only once, before the first noun:

  • zijn onderbroek en schone sokken
    = his underpants and (his) clean socks

The second zijn is understood and can be left out. Adding it is also correct and can sound slightly more explicit or careful.

Why is it “schone sokken” and not “sokken schone”? Where do adjectives go?

In Dutch, adjectives almost always come before the noun they describe:

  • een schone sok – a clean sock
  • schone sokken – clean socks
  • een grote tas – a big bag
  • grote tassen – big bags

“Sokken schone” is incorrect in standard Dutch. Unlike some other languages, Dutch does not normally place adjectives after the noun (except in fixed expressions or special literary styles, which don’t apply here).

Why is “sokken” plural here? Could it be singular, like “een schone sok”?

You technically could say:

  • Hij legt zijn onderbroek en een schone sok klaar.
    = … and one clean sock.

But in everyday language, socks are almost always talked about in the plural because you normally wear them as a pair:

  • sokken = socks
  • één sok = one sock (used only when you really mean one)

So schone sokken implies “a (pair of) clean socks” without needing to say “a pair of”.

Why is there no article before “schone sokken”? Why not “de schone sokken” or “een paar schone sokken”?

In Dutch, with indefinite plural nouns, you often omit the article:

  • Ik koop appels. – I’m buying apples.
  • Hij draagt schone sokken. – He is wearing clean socks.

So schone sokken here means something like “(some) clean socks”.

You could also say:

  • de schone sokken – the clean socks (specific ones)
  • een paar schone sokken – a pair of clean socks

But the original sentence just talks about clean socks in general, not a specific known pair, so no article is natural.

What’s the difference between “onderbroek” and “ondergoed”?
  • onderbroek = underpants / briefs (one specific item of underwear for the lower body)
  • ondergoed = underwear (general term for undergarments: underpants, undershirt, etc.)

In this sentence, onderbroek is one piece of clothing (like “his underpants”). If you wanted a more general phrase, you could say:

  • Hij legt zijn ondergoed klaar.
    = He lays out his underwear.
Why is it “voordat hij gaat sporten” and not just “voor hij gaat sporten”? Are both correct?

Both are used, but voordat is the full conjunction and is considered more standard:

  • voordat hij gaat sporten – before he goes to exercise
  • voor hij gaat sporten – also understood and used, but a bit less formal / more colloquial in some regions.

In careful written Dutch, voordat is usually preferred. In speech, voor hij… is also very common.

What’s happening with the word order in “voordat hij gaat sporten”? I thought verbs went to the end in subordinate clauses.

In a subordinate clause introduced by voordat, the structure is:

  • conjunction – voordat
  • subject – hij
  • other elements (if any)
  • verb cluster at the endgaat sporten

Here there are two verbs:

  • gaat (finite verb, from gaan)
  • sporten (infinitive)

They form a verb cluster at the end of the clause: gaat sporten. So:

  • voordat hij gaat sporten.

The important point: all verbs are at the end of the clause together. Their internal order (gaat sporten vs. sporten gaat) has some variation rules in Dutch, but “hij gaat sporten” is the normal modern order in both main and subordinate clauses.

Why is it “hij gaat sporten” and not just “hij sport”?

Both are grammatically possible, but they have different nuances:

  • hij gaat sporten
    = he is going to exercise / he is going to work out
    → focuses on intention / near future or a planned action.

  • hij sport
    = he does sports / he works out (habitually)
    → sounds more like a general habit rather than “today, at a specific time”.

In this context, “before he goes to exercise (later)” fits better, so hij gaat sporten is more natural.

Could I say “Hij legt zijn onderbroek en schone sokken neer” instead of “klaar”?

You can, but it changes the meaning slightly:

  • neerleggen = to put something down (somewhere)
    → Hij legt zijn onderbroek en schone sokken neer.
    = He puts his underpants and clean socks down.

  • klaarleggen = to lay something out ready for later use
    → Hij legt zijn onderbroek en schone sokken klaar.
    = He lays out his underpants and clean socks (so they’re ready).

The original sentence emphasizes preparing the clothes for later, so klaarleggen fits better.

How would I say this sentence in the past tense?

Using the simple past of klaarleggen:

  • Hij legde zijn onderbroek en schone sokken klaar voordat hij ging sporten.
    = He laid out his underpants and clean socks before he went to exercise.

Using the present perfect:

  • Hij heeft zijn onderbroek en schone sokken klaargelegd voordat hij ging sporten.
    = He has laid out his underpants and clean socks before he went to exercise.

Notice the change:

  • present: hij legt … klaar
  • past: hij legde … klaar
  • perfect: hij heeft … klaargelegd (inseparable in the past participle).