Bei Schnupfen rieche ich das Essen kaum, und der Kaffee schmeckt plötzlich langweilig.

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

Start learning German now

Questions & Answers about Bei Schnupfen rieche ich das Essen kaum, und der Kaffee schmeckt plötzlich langweilig.

Why does the sentence start with "Bei Schnupfen" instead of "wenn ich Schnupfen habe" or "mit Schnupfen"?

"Bei Schnupfen" literally means "in case of a cold / when (I have) a cold".

  • bei + Dative is very common to express a general condition:
    • Bei Regen bleibe ich zu Hause. – When it rains / In case of rain, I stay home.
    • Bei Fieber solltest du zum Arzt gehen. – If you have a fever, you should go to the doctor.

You could also say:

  • Wenn ich Schnupfen habe, rieche ich das Essen kaum…

This is perfectly correct and maybe a bit more explicit, but "bei Schnupfen" is shorter and sounds very natural for a general, repeated situation.

"mit Schnupfen" would be understood, but it sounds more like “with a cold” as a description of your state, not as a general condition. For habitual statements, "bei Schnupfen" is more idiomatic.


Why is "Schnupfen" capitalized? Is it a noun here?

Yes. Schnupfen is a noun meaning "a cold" (more specifically the runny-nose type of cold).

German capitalizes all nouns, so you get:

  • der Schnupfen – the cold
  • bei Schnupfen – when (I have) a cold / in case of a cold

It’s not a verb here, even though it looks a bit like one to an English speaker.


What case is "Schnupfen" in, and why?

Schnupfen is in the dative case because of the preposition bei.

  • bei always takes the dative:
    • bei dem Arztbeim Arzt – at the doctor’s
    • bei der Arbeit – at work
    • bei Regen – in (case of) rain
    • bei Schnupfen – in (case of) a cold

So the full form would be "bei dem Schnupfen", but here the article is dropped (see next question), leaving just "bei Schnupfen".


Why is there no article in "bei Schnupfen"? Why not "bei dem Schnupfen"?

German often omits the article in set phrases that talk about typical conditions or states in a general way, especially with bei + noun:

  • bei Regen – when it rains / in rainy weather
  • bei Fieber – when (someone has) a fever
  • bei Schnupfen – when (you) have a cold

If you say "bei dem Schnupfen", it sounds like you’re talking about one specific episode of a cold that has already been mentioned:

  • Bei dem Schnupfen, den ich letzte Woche hatte, habe ich gar nichts geschmeckt.
    With that cold I had last week, I couldn’t taste anything at all.

So:

  • bei Schnupfen → general situation (“whenever I have a cold”)
  • bei dem Schnupfen → a particular cold, more specific, less general.

Why is the word order "Bei Schnupfen rieche ich..." and not "Bei Schnupfen ich rieche..."?

In a main clause, German wants the finite verb in second position (“Verb-second rule”).

In this sentence:

  • Bei Schnupfen = first position (a fronted time/condition phrase)
  • rieche = second position (the verb)
  • ich = third element (the subject)

So the structure is:

[Bei Schnupfen] [rieche] [ich] [das Essen kaum]

You cannot put the subject right after the first element and push the verb later; "Bei Schnupfen ich rieche..." is wrong, because the verb would no longer be in second position.

Compare:

  • Ich rieche das Essen kaum. (subject first, then verb)
  • Bei Schnupfen rieche ich das Essen kaum. (adverbial first, then verb, then subject)

Could I also say "Wenn ich Schnupfen habe, rieche ich das Essen kaum"? Is there a difference?

Yes, that sentence is absolutely correct:

Wenn ich Schnupfen habe, rieche ich das Essen kaum, und der Kaffee schmeckt plötzlich langweilig.

Difference in nuance:

  • "Bei Schnupfen" is very compact and a bit more “label-like” (“In case of cold”).
  • "Wenn ich Schnupfen habe" sounds like more explicit everyday speech and highlights the “I”.

Both are natural; "bei Schnupfen" just sounds a bit more like a general rule or symptom description.


Why is it "rieche ich das Essen" (no preposition) and not "rieche ich an dem Essen" or "rieche ich nach Essen"?

German riechen works in several patterns, with different meanings:

  1. riechen + Akkusativ (direct object)
    – perceiving the smell of something:

    • Ich rieche das Essen kaum. – I can hardly smell the food.
    • Ich rieche den Rauch. – I smell the smoke.
  2. an + Dativ – to sniff at something physically:

    • Ich rieche an dem Essen. – I sniff the food (literally put my nose to it).
  3. nach + Dativ – “to smell like”:

    • Das Essen riecht nach Knoblauch. – The food smells like garlic.

In your sentence, the meaning is “perceive the smell of the food”, so the direct object pattern (riechen + Akkusativ) is correct:
rieche ich das Essen kaum.


What exactly does "kaum" mean here, and why is it placed before the comma?

kaum means “hardly / barely / almost not”.

  • Ich rieche das Essen kaum.
    → I can hardly smell the food. (I do smell something, but very, very little.)

Placement:

  • kaum is an adverb that usually stands in the “middle field” of the sentence, often just before the verb complement or at the end of the clause:
    • Ich rieche das Essen kaum.
    • Ich kann dich kaum hören.

Putting it near the end is normal German word order; you wouldn’t say:

  • Ich kaum rieche das Essen. – wrong / very strange

In "das Essen", is that “the food” (specific) or “food in general”?

"das Essen" can mean both, depending on context:

  1. A specific meal you are eating or have in front of you:

    • Das Essen schmeckt gut. – The (this) meal tastes good.
  2. More general “food” in a given situation:

    • In your sentence, it’s most naturally understood as “the food I’m about to or currently eating” when I have a cold.

German often uses the definite article where English might use no article:

  • Ich mag das Essen hier. – I like the food here.

So "das Essen" in the sentence is not a totally abstract “food in general” in life, but rather “the food I have in front of me when I’m sick”.


Why is it "der Kaffee" with an article, but "Schnupfen" without?

They behave differently because they play different roles:

  • der Kaffee
    → a countable, concrete thing in the situation (the coffee you’re drinking).
    It’s natural to say:

    • Der Kaffee schmeckt langweilig. – The coffee tastes dull.
  • Schnupfen in "bei Schnupfen"
    → used as a general condition / state. In that usage, German usually drops the article:

    • bei Regen, bei Fieber, bei Schnupfen

You can say:

  • Bei einem Schnupfen schmecke ich wenig. – With a (certain) cold, I taste little.

But that sounds more specific, less like a general rule.


Why does the sentence have a comma before "und"? I thought German doesn’t always need that.

The sentence consists of two full main clauses:

  1. (Bei Schnupfen) rieche ich das Essen kaum
  2. der Kaffee schmeckt plötzlich langweilig

They are joined with und.

Current German rules:

  • When und connects two main clauses, the comma is optional.
    Both are correct:
    • … rieche ich das Essen kaum, und der Kaffee schmeckt plötzlich langweilig.
    • … rieche ich das Essen kaum und der Kaffee schmeckt plötzlich langweilig.

Many writers keep the comma because it clearly separates the two ideas and improves readability, especially when each part has its own subject.


Why is the verb order in the second clause "der Kaffee schmeckt plötzlich langweilig" and not "der Kaffee plötzlich schmeckt langweilig"?

In a simple main clause, German word order is roughly:

Subject – Verb – (adverbs / other stuff)

In "der Kaffee schmeckt plötzlich langweilig":

  • der Kaffee = subject
  • schmeckt = verb (2nd position)
  • plötzlich = adverb (“suddenly”)
  • langweilig = predicative adjective (how it tastes)

So the structure is correct.

You cannot move the adverb in between subject and finite verb in a neutral sentence:

  • Der Kaffee plötzlich schmeckt langweilig. – wrong

You can also say:

  • Plötzlich schmeckt der Kaffee langweilig.
    Here "Plötzlich" is moved to the first position for emphasis; the verb is still in second position.

Why is "langweilig" (“boring”) used to describe taste? Isn’t that a word for people or activities?

Yes, langweilig literally means “boring / dull”, but it is also commonly used for taste or flavor in the sense of:

  • not interesting
  • dull
  • bland

So:

  • Der Kaffee schmeckt langweilig.
    → The coffee tastes dull / boring / bland (no interesting aroma, very flat).

Alternative adjectives:

  • fad – bland, insipid
  • eintönig – monotonous, same-y

But langweilig is very normal colloquial German for “this taste is nothing special, kind of boring”.


Could I say "plötzlich ist der Kaffee langweilig" instead of "der Kaffee schmeckt plötzlich langweilig"?

You can say it, but the meaning shifts slightly.

  • Der Kaffee schmeckt plötzlich langweilig.
    Focus on taste: the coffee suddenly *tastes dull* (your perception via taste).

  • Plötzlich ist der Kaffee langweilig.
    Grammatical, but sounds more like the coffee itself is boring as an object or topic, not specifically its flavor. It’s less natural when you’re clearly talking about taste.

For taste, it’s best to keep schmecken + Adjektiv:

  • Der Kaffee schmeckt süß / bitter / komisch / langweilig.

Is the tense here (“rieche… schmeckt…”) talking about now or about a general rule?

The present tense in German is used both for:

  1. Current actions / states:

    • Ich rieche das Essen kaum (gerade jetzt).
  2. General truths / habits:

    • Bei Schnupfen rieche ich das Essen kaum.
      → Whenever I have a cold, that’s what typically happens.

So in this sentence, the present tense expresses a general, repeated pattern: every time you have a cold, your smell and taste are affected in this way.