A mysterious green blob in outer space is named “Hanny’s Voorwerp.” What does that mean, and why is the blob there?

Did you catch the story about a giant green blob discovered in a remote section of the universe? An intergalactic blob in and of itself isn’t an appropriate topic for a dictionary website, even if the blob has been shown to move and change color. The reason you are reading about this on Dictionary.com is the mouthful of a name: Hanny’s Voorwerp. The second word is pronounced “FOR-verp.”

While the astronomical enigma’s name and nature scream science fictional nonsense, linguistic logic lies just below the surface. Voorwerp is the Dutch word for “object” — a word commonly applied to cosmic phenomena that defy easy explanation. Hanny van Arkel is the schoolteacher from Holland who originally identified the glowing ball of gas in 2007 through the Galaxy Zoo project. So the unusual name actually has a sweet and simple meaning: “Hanny’s object.”

(We’ve tackled the intersection of the cosmos and language previously, when we explained why a remarkable discovery was dubbed the “Goldilocks Planet.” Get the story, here.)

Hanny’s Voorwerp is associated with some of the most delightful words in astrophysics: The blob is largely made of a hydrogen cloud or nebula, lit from within by a quasar. Quasars — or quasi-stellar radio sources — are not stars but the energetic center of supermassive black holes, the brightest objects in the sky.

Astronomers are calling the blob a star nursery: Within the nebula, new stars are being born from dust and gas. In terrestrial terms, given a delivery time of millions of years, star “birth” is more like an extended incubation period.

Another unique element of Hanny’s Voorwerp is its location. Star-producing nebulae are often the remnants of supernovas or other previously-exploded stars. The blob is located in a remote part of the universe 650 million light years from Earth in a region where galaxy and star formation are less common.

Hanny van Arkel says she sees the shape of a frog in the Hubble image of the voorwerp, which follows a long tradition of humans finding patterns in the sky.

Just in case you were wondering, blob was originally a verb, meaning “to make or mark with blobs” (from the 15th century), perhaps related to bubble.

Marie Osmond cancels Las Vegas shows for the week go to site marie osmond wedding

AP Worldstream March 18, 2010 Donny and Marie Osmond are canceling their shows this week at the Flamingo Las Vegas hotel while she copes with the death of her son.

Marie Osmond’s publicist Alan Nierob said Wednesday that it’s been a difficult time for the Osmonds, and the performer felt like she needed to spend more with her family. web site marie osmond wedding

The Osmonds returned to the stage March 9 after funeral services for 18-year-old Michael Bryan.

Los Angeles police have said Bryan died Feb. 26 of an apparent suicide after jumping from the eighth floor of an apartment building. Autopsy and toxicology results are pending.

Nierob says the Osmonds will miss five shows before the Donny & Marie show resumes performances March 23. The show is dark Sundays and Mondays.


  1. Lovin' Diversity -  February 25, 2011 - 3:21 pm

    I know this is a late comment for this thread, but I am just now finding it and laughing so wonderfully! Thank you all for brightening my day!

    Especially you, John adoms.

    Lovin’ it!!!

  2. Thomas -  February 25, 2011 - 11:27 am

    As an American, I would pronounce the “o” in “for” and “store” the same as the double “o” in “door” and “floor.”

  3. Ralf -  January 21, 2011 - 3:11 pm

    About the pronunciation: the ‘v’ is pronounced as a ‘v’, not an ‘f’. And the ‘w’ is pronounced simply as a ‘w’, not a ‘v’. So that makes /vohrwerp/, just as it’s written.

    The blog’s /for-verp/ is probably derived from the common American misconception that Dutch is like a German dialect. I guess Germans would actually pronounce it /for-verp/. But the Dutch do NOT.

    Another thing: ‘-werp’ means ‘throw’, just as ‘-ject(t)’ means ‘throw’. Also, there’s this Dutch word ‘onderwerp’ which means ‘subject’. ‘Onder-’ means ‘sub’. Just to show how related Dutch and English really are etymologically.

  4. John adoms -  January 18, 2011 - 6:30 am

    Spaaaaaaace frooooooooog!¡

  5. Bill Keel -  January 16, 2011 - 2:17 pm

    As one of the Hubble Voorwerp team members – the origin of the name was a bit tangled, since we didn’t originally figure out how interesting this would be. An Anglophone volunteer in the Galaxy Zoo project simply checked “object” in an English/Dutch dictionary, pulled out Voorwerp, started using it on the project forum, and the name stuck. We knew it was official when the NASA Extragalactic Database could pull up its data buy that name. Re pronunciation – two years working at Leiden Observatory, and I never did master the Dutch W. The starting sound ranges, in my observation, from matching English F to V depending on which Dutch people are saying it. We’ve now started using the diminutive form voorwerpjes for smaller related objects being turned up in Galaxy Zoo.

  6. Kitti -  January 13, 2011 - 7:18 pm

    @Wildman: Ah, well, so much for syncronicity (sp? My internet spell-check is yelling at me but it also insists that my fairly common, non-blog-commenting, real-life name is spelled wrong, so I tend not to put too much faith in my internet spell-check). :)

  7. livivication -  January 13, 2011 - 11:39 am

    @Bryan H. Allen
    First of all, you’ve remembered a lot of Dutch orthography then :O
    Second, though the official pronunciation of the v is /v/, there is virtually no-one who pronounces it like that anymore. /f/ has become the sound for it. Do with the information whatever you please ;)
    Thirdly, voorwerp here means ‘object’, you knew that?
    It’s etymology is a bit obscure (as far as I know, which is little when it comes to this subject) the word does however apear in old teksts as ‘voorworp’ and ‘voirworp’ so it’s original etymology may be far complicated than ‘voor’ and ‘werp’ (see http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/voorwerp which is in Dutch)
    Kindest regards,

  8. Wildman -  January 13, 2011 - 10:56 am

    Kitti, actually, I’m not a regular blogger. This is the first I’ve posted in years. When the subject is science, however, I do have some knowledge and I could not resist commenting.

  9. Xiang -  January 13, 2011 - 9:45 am

    This is cool! I looked at ‘voorwerp’ and my girlfriend and I guessed at the pronunciations from it. I was close and she hit sharply the center of the target, once the IPA soundings were posted. Wow! Not bad for a couple of school students in long faraway Taipei! We love this site so much; it helps to give us the good English in ways that are fun!

  10. Saf -  January 13, 2011 - 9:21 am

    @ Rich Durst

    I believe that Mr. Perry [sic] was half-joking, indicating that when the acronym “Quasar” is examined etymologically (as if it were an inveterate, evolved word with ostensible proto-linguistic origins), the meaning would be only tenuously appropriate at best.

    I think his notion that there should be some kind of rating system for the linguistic (and semiotic) aptness of acronyms, et cetera, was partially in jest — but it sounds like it would be a fun endeavor.


  11. David -  January 13, 2011 - 8:32 am

    Apparently I had my backward hat on… yep… earlier on the west coast than the east… duh… I knew 9:00 a.m. is too early to be at work, but does anyone listen…? Some days, I just don’t know…

  12. weight loss -  January 12, 2011 - 11:19 pm

    “The most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched, they must be felt with the heart.” ~ Helen Keller

  13. Kitti -  January 12, 2011 - 10:58 pm

    Off-topic, but I’m curious.

    @Wildman: You wouldn’t happen to frequent a blog called Slacktivist, would you? Because I love that blog and there’s a regular commenter on there with the same name.

  14. Misanthrope -  January 12, 2011 - 5:57 pm

    Oh, the debate going on in the comments section of this article over the word ‘voorwerp’ is what is referred to as being a logomachy, by the way. That was just for anyone who wanted to know how to classify arguments like the one here.


  15. Wildman -  January 12, 2011 - 4:58 pm

    I certainly cannot dispute the Dutch readers about proper pronunciation of their language, but some of the science in this article is off. Not surprising for a linguistic website, I suppose. To clarify, a black hole gets its name from the fact that no light can escape its intense gravity. So that would make them the LEAST bright objects in the universe. Smoothius is right in that what falls into the black hole emits extremely intense x-rays, but that’s not the black hole itself. In the same vein, a quasar obviously cannot be at the center of a black hole because we wouldn’t see it. Besides, quasars are much larger (volume) than black holes. While green is generally indicative of oxygen, smoothius, there must be hydrogen there, too, or you wouldn’t be forming new stars. I’m with Kitti regarding quasars. They are still too mysterious to make definitive statements about them. Lastly, Lavanya, don’t get too upset… the sun will last about another 5 BILLION years, not million, and the Earth will still be inhabitable for another billion or so.

  16. Bryan H. Allen -  January 12, 2011 - 4:30 pm

    Please shoot me as proofreader!  How could Dummy I miss my own errors?  Corrected herewith:

    ˡvʊːʀʋɛʀp | ˡvʊːʁʋɛʁp | ˡvʊːʀʋɛʀp | ˡvʊːʁʋɛəʁp | ˡvʊːrʋɛrp | ˡvʊːrʋɛərp

  17. aaa -  January 12, 2011 - 4:19 pm

    How do we see the light from quasars if they are in the center of black holes? I thought that humans still don’t know what quasars are.

  18. Bryan H. Allen -  January 12, 2011 - 4:07 pm

    OOPS! Mea culpa! I see now that I erred in inserting the character ‌ (zero-width optional break) into the URIs. Dictionary.com’s posting program hyperlinked the URIs WITH the break characters, and no such URIs exist!

    If you wish to access the websites shown, you must manually edit the weird-looking vertical characters in the browser’s address window.

    Yes, I learned multiple things today, about Dutch and about not trying to hard to make it LOOK good on the screen! Sorry!

    BHA in L.A., CA, USA

  19. Bryan H. Allen -  January 12, 2011 - 3:58 pm

    “Len” seems to be the previous commenter hitting the target most closely. Some 38+ years have passed since I cursorily studied Dutch orthography. Nevertheless, I persist in recalling a few items:

    • The Dutch “v” is constantly pronounced much like the English “v”. /German/ is the language in which „v” is pronounced like the English “f”! (As stated in http://En.WikiPedia.org/‌wiki/‌German_orthography: “The letter v occurs only in a few native words. In these native words, it represents /f/.”) The Dutch gentleman I met one day in high school explained that to me when I inquired, before I initiated reading about the orthography.

    • In general, in Dutch, doubled vowel letters represent /vowel prolongation/ (in German too, but not as constantly as in Dutch). Though the following letter “r” might influence the pronunciation, generally, the double “o” represents a prolonged, nondiphthongal “o”, id est, oː (in IPA). I just checked WikiPedia (http://En.WikiPedia.org/‌wiki/‌Dutch_orthography), and it affirmed “When mid-closed long vowels appear in front of an ‘r’, they are raised to near-closed vowels. The (normally short) vowels /i/, /y/ and /u/ are lengthened before r, or [they] may be dip[h]thongized with an epenthetic /ə/.” Thus, the syllable “Voor” is pronounced /vʊːr/ instead of /voːr/. I cannot discern whether the last three letters of the second syllable (werp) are pronounced /ɛərp/ or /ɛrp/ or whether both are accepted variants amongst different Dutch speakers.

    • The native Dutch letter “w” is /never/ pronounced [w] or [v]! It is a labio-dental continuant—an approximant, pronounced very gently with the lower lip placed near but not on the upper teeth. The International Phonetic Association’s symbol is [ʋ]. Note that it is /not/ symmetrical, unlike the symbol /ʊ/ or non-standard /ɷ/, which instead symbolize a vowel like the one in English “look”. (It is not well suited to handwriting—or hypothetical orthography, I opine. Check http://WWW.LangSci.UCL.ac.UK/‌ipa/‌IPA_chart_(C)2005.pdf to view a chart of its symbology.) Essentially the same sound is found in Hindustânî (Hindî), which has neither the sound [w] nor [v]. (Can you imagine a /Bhâratîya/ pronouncing an accented “well”? Ahem, that’s a person from India, /Bhârat/, broader than Hindustân.)

    English and Dutch “v” are a lenis fricative consonant, pronounced moderately vigorously with the lower lip placed firmly on the upper teeth. The semi-vowel consonant [w] (lost entirely from modern German) is a stronger form of the vowel [u], pronounced without the teeth but with the lips rounded—pursed together—while the back (dorsum) of the tongue approximates the soft back of the roof of the mouth (vellum).

    Lacking expertise in /Nederlands/, I surmise that one or more of these is a correct IPA transcription of the subject “voorwerp”:

    ˡvoːʀʋɛʀp | ˡvoːʁʋɛʁp | ˡvoːʀʋɛʀp | ˡvoːʁʋɛəʁp | ˡvoːrʋɛrp | ˡvoːrʋɛərp

    Can anyone tell us its etymology? Is it a compound of “voor” (“at, by, for, in front of, of, to”) plus “werp” (“werpen” means to throw or cast)? Why was not one of the Dutch words “ding”, “tegenwerpen” or “voorwerpen” used instead of “voorwerp”? Was the choice arbitrary or (I dunno) or a Dutch astronomical convention?

    And Rob, Mexican is pronounced ˡmɛksɪkən, but Mexicano (like Mejicano) is pronounced mexiˡkano, free from aspirated plosives, diphthongs and roller-coaster accentuation. As for “who cares how you pronounce” it, the answer is /everyone who cares about respect for benign differences between people and between peoples/. Hispanic culture is one which emphasizes the necessity of respect, a reason for stably creating the word «Usted» from «vuestra merced», now distinct from the predecessors «tu» and «vos». People who expect respect in glass houses should not throw bricks of disrespect, estimado señor mío.

    Quietjack, I accept your remonstrance. Of how much else was I oblivious? Ginger and John (also from high school), how many goofs of mine did you detect?

  20. Misanthrope -  January 12, 2011 - 3:57 pm

    @Quietjack: I hate to rain on your parade, but I actually noticed that error right away when I had first seen that the writers of Dictionary.com had posted a new Hotword Blog (this one); which just so happened to be around the time I had finished posting a comment on a previous, yet recent article. I figured that a lot of people would end up pointing it out since, after all, like you said, it was OBVIOUS. Unfortunately, this was not to be. I do suppose that I gave the audience of this weblog too much credit. My mistake, won’t happen again.

    As far as the content of this article is concerned, I didn’t find it very helpful, or even, for the most part, interesting. I guess that’s to be expected every so often though.


  21. Bella -  January 12, 2011 - 3:53 pm

    Wow. Galactic green blob. I’m sure everyone will believe that.Not that I don’t, just seems a little hard to believe for you logic people out there.

  22. Dicky -  January 12, 2011 - 3:18 pm

    In the USA we pronounce Voorwerp as vooor-wirp because that is how we read it. We only pronounce Spanish and French words as is done in their native tongue. Dutch, German, Polish, Chinese, whatever… words are pronounced the way we read them, but say LaJolla or armoir the way you read it and you get dirty looks. I wonder why that is.

  23. Pebbles -  January 12, 2011 - 3:13 pm

    Very educating; I entered your site to look for another totally different word, and ended up entertained by this interesting lecture of Dutch, sounds, vowels, and tips. All comments are real illustrating except Rob’s, who probably does not understand how he can leave his illiteracy status, and negativism.

  24. leigh -  January 12, 2011 - 2:07 pm

    @ David and
    @ Jen

    I believe Dictionary.com is based in Oakland, California, accounting for the 3 hour time difference.

  25. FrodoSam -  January 12, 2011 - 1:56 pm

    It does kinda look like a frog.

  26. Rich Durst -  January 12, 2011 - 1:22 pm

    Mr. Perry, Quasar is an abbreviation for “QUASi-stellAR object.” I’m not sure where you got “one big” from, but your source is mistaken.

  27. LuckyBrett -  January 12, 2011 - 1:13 pm

    @-Kirstin, as Doc Holiday in Tombstone said, ”No, no. By all means, MOVE”. :))))))

  28. hksche2000 -  January 12, 2011 - 1:00 pm

    Hi David, your “funny time stamp” is 6:09 Pacific (not Islandic) Time for 9:09 Eastern Time. And, yes, the green (not blue this time) frog blob supposedly represents O2 spectrographically, not H2, if we believe the Hubble astronomer experts.

  29. Dman -  January 12, 2011 - 12:38 pm

    was the double “when” that QuietJack was pointing to corrected, because I could not find shizness

  30. Maddie -  January 12, 2011 - 12:34 pm

    Why are there arguments going on here? Why don’t we just learn something from it with a positive attitude? :) Arguing won’t do any good.

  31. Lavanya -  January 12, 2011 - 12:28 pm

    what interesting stuff to know—-how on Earth do people come up with these names? I love space;it is so awesome.
    Apparently, i heard that the sun is going to die in a few million years because it is only a star and stars disappear…

  32. Mr. Raymond Kenneth Petry -  January 12, 2011 - 12:15 pm

    We should also have a discussion on good-vs-bad abbreviations, acronyms, jargon, etc…. In this case, QUA+SAR, means something etymological like ONE+BIG, so it gets a B+ or A-….

  33. THE BLAH GUY -  January 12, 2011 - 11:58 am


  34. mikee -  January 12, 2011 - 11:54 am

    cool word isn’t it.. FOR-verp, like BURP… hehehehe

  35. hailey -  January 12, 2011 - 11:48 am

    like OML

  36. Mr. D [A.K.A] Elysian -  January 12, 2011 - 11:25 am

    @Quietjack, maybe nobody noticed it because were not all here to criticiez Dictionary.com.

  37. edge -  January 12, 2011 - 10:07 am

    i hope the pix can be made bigger :)

  38. jen -  January 12, 2011 - 9:46 am

    @ David- If it is 9:07 your time, and 6:07 Hot Word time, wouldn’t that make them behind, not ahead, of CST? That would mean that you experience 6am before (ahead of) Hot Word, putting them somewhere in the West Coast region. Am I right? I’m in the midwest, my family is in CA, and it is always two hours earlier there than it is here…

  39. Cupofjoseph -  January 12, 2011 - 9:46 am

    Great article. Thank you

  40. Kirstin -  January 12, 2011 - 9:44 am

    Oh my Gosh! What if this thing is the thing that has been making stars since…well forever!? And we caught a glimpse of it! Coolness. Hopefully it doesn’t go all scifi on us!

  41. Meg -  January 12, 2011 - 9:22 am

    QuietJack! That’s great! I just read down practically a whole list of people arguing how to pronounce Voorwerp, which actually isn’t that hard to say, even for an Irish person like me, but I completely didn’t notice that it said “when” twice. Way to pay attention to the small print!:)

  42. Carl Noeding -  January 12, 2011 - 9:16 am

    Black hole, influenced by gas, turns quasar causing inonized tital tail as the result of a near miss interaction with another galaxy. Gas streaming out from the cone tital tail causes star formations which can be seen at the upper elongated end of the blob.

  43. jen -  January 12, 2011 - 9:13 am

    as always, good fun. i love learning new stuff!

  44. adnan -  January 12, 2011 - 8:31 am


  45. Quietjack -  January 12, 2011 - 8:21 am

    And in all the bickering over how to say this word, nobody notices the obvious typo…

    “(We’ve tackled the intersection of the cosmos and language previously, when *when* we explained why a remarkable discovery was dubbed the “Goldilocks Planet.” Get the story, here.)”

    Two whens. You guys bicker too much, and end up missing the obvious :P

  46. livivication -  January 12, 2011 - 8:01 am

    @Rob, people care because the article pays attention to it, with a huge mistake in it. I think that whoever supplied us with new information on the pronounciation just wanted to be of help.

    @Rickedy Rick, that ain’t Dutch for cake. Kook is a form of koken (to cook)
    And, no I didn’t know they say that, but they can go on saying so if they want. We know otherwise ;)

  47. Not emo.....not gothic.....just different. -  January 12, 2011 - 7:35 am

    This blog is very cool….i would like to know more on the green blob.

  48. Mike -  January 12, 2011 - 7:06 am

    Noo way!

  49. Rickedy Rick -  January 12, 2011 - 7:03 am

    The dutch word for cake is “kook” and the dutch word for butter is “boter”. Didn’t realize you all wanted to speak dutch so badly. Oh well. You know what they say: “If you’re Dutch, u ain’t much.”

    _I_ think they should have named that space thing “The green globule”!!!!1

  50. GMa Butterfly -  January 12, 2011 - 6:50 am

    On a lighter note: here is the trailer from the 1950′s movie “The Blob” with Steve McQueen. Let us know if it starts heading to Earth…


  51. Rob -  January 12, 2011 - 6:48 am

    Im MEXICAN, pronounced MEXICANO, who cares how you pronounce the damn thing ??!!!!!!!!!!

  52. Len -  January 12, 2011 - 6:29 am

    Voorwerp is pronounced as /ˈfʊərvɛərp/ (but this Wikipedia entry is wrong).
    To make it even more precise: vʊrwɛərp.
    The v sounds like the v in have. ʊr sound like oor in door. The ɛə part in wɛərp sounds like the a in trap or ban. Making you say: voorwerp.

    I’m from the Netherlands, and with the use of IPA for English this couldn’t be more right.

    About the green blob, it is somewhat scary that it looks a lot like a skull. Of course my brain wants me to see something like that.

  53. David -  January 12, 2011 - 6:11 am

    Not that it matters a lot, but has anyone noticed the funny time stamp on these posts? I’m in the eastern Time zone of the U.S. and I’m pretty sure it’s a few minutes after 9:00 a.m. (9:07 on my watch), but I’m guessing the time stamp will be like 6:00 something. Three hours ahead of EST… somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic? Iceland? A ship at sea? Weather satelite? Weird…

  54. LMAO!!! -  January 12, 2011 - 6:10 am

    Hmm, I think I prefer:

    “Hanny van Arkel says she sees the shape of a frog in the Hubble image of the voorwerp, which follows a long tradition of PAREIDOLIA, i.e. humans finding patterns in the sky.”

  55. David -  January 12, 2011 - 6:05 am

    I haven’t kept up on my astrophysics, but aren’t black holes… well… black? I thought they were so dense light couldn’t even escape the pull. And I thought quasars weren’t necessarily visibly bright, just realy active in the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum – but as I say it’s been a few years since I’ve paid attention…

  56. smoothius -  January 12, 2011 - 5:45 am

    oh and i hate to nitpick but supermassive black holes are not the brightest objects in the sky, that is unless you can see x-rays. also the green in the nebular formation is indicitive of oxygen not hydrogen. still- love ya, mean it:)

  57. LuckyBrett -  January 12, 2011 - 5:40 am

    as with ‘I could care less’, which is never what is meant, you state ‘substitue the W with a V’. Imagine then ‘substituting your teacher with (you can hear how this doesn’t work already) a substitute’?
    Simply, you REPLACE the W with it’s substitute V. (as you would REPLACE your absent teacher with their SUBSTITUTE…

  58. smoothius -  January 12, 2011 - 5:25 am

    ‘hanny’s voorwerp’ is cool but if you want to see something really interesting, google ‘hoag’s object’. the universe is just full of incredible and unexplained things. happy stargazing!

  59. Tokyo sky -  January 12, 2011 - 5:07 am

    Has anyone see a moon a couple nights ago by the way? That was an exquisite view. A perfect crescent with its arch facing down. It might be my eyes that blurred but it looked like a lunar eclipse. The part of the crescent was very clear color of yellow and the blur circle in the shape of the moon. I looked really hard and never knew it was me or moon that brought such beauty into the sky.

  60. Bradley -  January 12, 2011 - 4:24 am

    to be honest it looks like a tree during the night

  61. Kitti -  January 12, 2011 - 3:31 am

    Forgive my small nitpick, but I was under the impression that quasars were actually quite mysterious and only one hypothesis was that they were the result of black holes throwing out radiation…? I could be mistaken, though.

  62. Joseph Okello -  January 12, 2011 - 3:28 am

    Hmm, after what I’ve learned on Dictionary.com so far, I think I prefer:

    “Hanny van Arkel says she sees the shape of a frog in the Hubble image of the voorwerp, which follows a long tradition of PAREIDOLIA, i.e. humans finding patterns in the sky.”

    I’m learning. Thank you once again Hotword!

  63. Nik -  January 12, 2011 - 1:49 am

    Your pronunciation is of course in error. “voorwerp” is pronounced “foor-verp,” with an elogation on the double “o.” I explain:
    In “voor,” the first part of the word “voorwerp” substitute the “v” for an “f” and in “werp,” the second part of the word “voorwerp” substitute the “w” with a “v.” This way you can easily pronounce this word “voorwerp” as “foorverp.” Don’t forget the elongation in pronounciation of the double “o” on the first part of the word “voorwerp.” It is not pronounced “for,” as in “forverp,” instead elongate the double “o” and you get “foor.”
    Thus it is pronounce foorverp.
    As for Blob, it is a noun meaning a “globule of air, hydrogen, etc…” as well as a “swollen object.” It only becomes a verb when the Blob does something, like “project outwards.”

  64. ms.karma -  January 12, 2011 - 1:48 am

    wow. this voorwerp sounds interesting though i’m not sure how it sounds like.

    forwerp? forwarp? haha.
    i want to learn a little Dutch for me to understand this voorwerp. :P

  65. livivication -  January 12, 2011 - 12:26 am

    You pronounce voorwerp as fore /weərp/. it does not at all rhyme with floor lamp.
    Yours sincerely,
    me from the Netherlands.

  66. Alex -  January 11, 2011 - 11:54 pm

    I’m Dutch, and no way is ‘voorwerp’ pronounced as ‘FOR-vamp’ – that is to say, the FOR part is correct, but the vamp certainly is not.

    Basically it sounds like ‘warp’ but instead of the a-sound you use a short e-sound, like in the word ‘check’.


Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked (required):

Related articles

Back to Top