Learn Hardcore German: Statt lange über den Streit zu reden, gehen wir spazieren und entspannen uns im Park. - Instead of talking about the argument for a long time, we go for a walk and relax in the park.

The whole phrase „Statt lange über den Streit zu reden“ is treated as one big element in the first position (the Vorfeld).
That means the verb of the main clause must come next, in second position: „gehen“.
The subject „wir“ then follows the verb:

Statt lange über den Streit zu reden, gehen wir spazieren …
1st position: „Statt … zu reden“
2nd position: „gehen“ (finite verb)
then: „wir spazieren …“

If you started the sentence directly with the subject, you would get:

Wir gehen spazieren und entspannen uns im Park.

Here „wir“ is in first position, so the verb „gehen“ is still in second. Both sentences follow the same rule; the only difference is what stands in first position.

How does the structure „statt … zu reden“ work? Why do we use „zu reden“ and not just „reden“?

„Statt“ (instead of) can be followed by:

a noun (or noun phrase) in the genitive, e.g.
- Statt des Streits – instead of the argument
a „zu“-infinitive construction, e.g.
- statt (lange) zu reden – instead of talking (for a long time)

In your sentence it’s the second type:

Statt lange über den Streit zu reden, …
literally: Instead of long about the argument to talk, …

Rules for „zu“ + infinitive here:

„zu“ comes directly before the infinitive: zu reden
Other elements (like „lange“, „über den Streit“) go before „zu reden“:
- ✅ statt lange über den Streit zu reden
- ❌ statt zu reden lange über den Streit (sounds wrong in standard German)

So „statt … zu reden“ is an infinitive clause functioning like “instead of talking …” in English.

Could I change the word order to „statt über den Streit lange zu reden“ or „statt zu reden über den Streit“?

✅ „Statt über den Streit lange zu reden“ is grammatically correct.
- This order puts more focus on the topic („über den Streit“) before the duration („lange“).
❌ „statt zu reden über den Streit“ is not standard and sounds ungrammatical in written German.

Reason: In subordinate and infinitive clauses, the verb (or infinitive with „zu“) normally comes at the end, and its objects/complements usually come before it.

So natural options include:

Statt lange über den Streit zu reden, … (neutral, very normal)
Statt über den Streit lange zu reden, … (also okay, slightly different emphasis)

But „… zu reden über den Streit“ is generally avoided.

Why is it „über den Streit“ and not „von dem Streit“?

Both „über“ and „von“ can be translated as „about“, but they are used differently.

„über + Akkusativ“ is used when talking about a topic of discussion, argument, conversation – often with verbs like:
- reden über (talk about)
- sprechen über (speak about)
- diskutieren über (discuss)
Example:
- Wir reden über den Streit. – We’re talking about the argument.
„von + Dativ“ is more like “of / from”, or “about” in a looser, more general sense:
- ein Buch von dem Krieg – a book about the war
- eine Geschichte von einem Hund – a story about a dog

In the context of talking/arguing about something, „über“ is the normal preposition:

über den Streit reden = talk about the argument

„von dem Streit reden“ is possible, but it sounds more like “speak of the argument” (slightly more distant), and is less typical than „über den Streit reden“ here.

Why is it „den Streit“ and not „dem Streit“?

Because of case:

„Streit“ is masculine:
- nominative: der Streit
- accusative: den Streit
- dative: dem Streit

The preposition „über“, when it means “about (a topic)”, always takes the accusative:

über den Streit – about the argument
über das Problem – about the problem
über die Situation – about the situation

So „den Streit“ is accusative, required by „über“ in this meaning. „dem Streit“ would be dative and would be wrong here.

What kind of construction is „gehen wir spazieren“? Why is „spazieren“ there, and can I just say „wir spazieren“?

„spazieren gehen“ is a very common verb combination meaning:

„to go for a walk“

In your sentence:

… gehen wir spazieren … = we go for a walk

Grammar:

„gehen“ is the conjugated verb (here: gehen wir)
„spazieren“ is an infinitive that functions almost like an adverb; together they form one idea: spazieren gehen.

Can you say „Wir spazieren“?

Yes, „spazieren“ is a standalone verb:
- Wir spazieren im Park. – We stroll/walk in the park.
But in everyday speech, „spazieren gehen“ is far more common than just „spazieren“, especially for the meaning “go for a walk”.

So:

Wir gehen im Park spazieren. (very natural)
Wir spazieren im Park. (correct, slightly more literary/formal or descriptive)

Why do we say „entspannen uns“? Could we just say „wir entspannen im Park“?

The verb „entspannen“ exists in two main forms:

reflexive: „sich entspannen“ – to relax (oneself)
- Ich entspanne mich. – I relax.
- Wir entspannen uns im Park. – We relax in the park.
non‑reflexive (transitive): „etwas entspannen“ – to relax/loosen something
- Die Musik entspannt mich. – The music relaxes me.
- Die Wärme entspannt die Muskeln. – The warmth relaxes the muscles.

When you talk about people relaxing themselves, Germans almost always use the reflexive form:

Wir entspannen uns im Park.

If you say „Wir entspannen im Park“, it sounds incomplete or odd, as if something is missing:

It could mean “We relax (something) in the park”, but that “something” is not mentioned.

So in your sentence, „entspannen uns“ with the reflexive pronoun „uns“ is the natural and expected form.

Should there be another „wir“ before „entspannen“:
„… gehen wir spazieren und (wir) entspannen uns im Park“?

Both forms are possible, but the version without the second „wir“ is more typical here.

Your sentence:

… gehen wir spazieren und entspannen uns im Park.

is understood as:

… gehen wir spazieren und (wir) entspannen uns im Park.

In German, when two verbs share the same subject in a coordinated structure with „und“, you usually mention the subject only once:

Wir gehen nach Hause und essen.
Er liest ein Buch und hört Musik.

Adding the second „wir“ is not wrong:

… gehen wir spazieren und wir entspannen uns im Park.

but it sounds more emphatic or slightly heavier. The original is smoother and more natural.

Why is there no comma before „und entspannen uns im Park“?

In German, you normally do not put a comma before „und“ when it connects:

two main clauses with the same subject and tense, or
two verbs sharing the same subject.

Your sentence has one subject „wir“ and two coordinated actions:

gehen wir spazieren
(wir) entspannen uns im Park

So:

… gehen wir spazieren und entspannen uns im Park.

No comma is needed before „und“ here.

A comma before „und“ would be used only in more complex cases (e.g. inserting a long parenthesis, or joining completely separate clauses for special emphasis), which is not the case here.

Why is it „im Park“ and not „in den Park“?

The difference is location vs. direction:

„im Park“ = „in dem Park“ (dative) → where something happens (location)
- Wir entspannen uns im Park. – We relax in the park.
„in den Park“ (accusative) → where to, movement into the park (direction)
- Wir gehen in den Park. – We go to the park / into the park.

In your sentence, the relaxing happens within the park, not a movement towards it. That’s why:

… entspannen uns im Park.

If you wanted to express the movement to the park, you might say:

Statt lange über den Streit zu reden, gehen wir in den Park und entspannen uns dort.
Instead of talking about the argument for a long time, we go to the park and relax there.

Is there a difference between „statt“ and „anstatt“ in this kind of sentence?

In this sentence, „statt“ and „anstatt“ are practically interchangeable:

Statt lange über den Streit zu reden, gehen wir spazieren …
Anstatt lange über den Streit zu reden, gehen wir spazieren …

Both mean “instead of”.

Nuances:

„statt“ is shorter and more common in everyday language.
„anstatt“ sounds a bit more formal or emphatic in some contexts, but in most modern usage they’re simply variants.

So you can safely treat „statt“ and „anstatt“ as synonyms here.