Learn Hardcore German: Statt Müll in die Natur zu werfen, bringen wir ihn in die Mülltonne. - Instead of throwing trash into nature, we take it to the trash bin.

Statt Müll in die Natur zu werfen, bringen wir ihn in die Mülltonne.

Instead of throwing trash into nature, we take it to the trash bin.

Breakdown of Statt Müll in die Natur zu werfen, bringen wir ihn in die Mülltonne.

Elon.io is an online learning platform

We have an entire course teaching German grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning German now

Questions & Answers about Statt Müll in die Natur zu werfen, bringen wir ihn in die Mülltonne.

How does the part statt Müll in die Natur zu werfen work grammatically? It doesn’t look like a normal clause with a conjugated verb.

This is an infinitive clause introduced by the preposition statt.

statt = instead of
Müll = object (what is being thrown)
in die Natur = destination (where to)
zu werfen = zu
- infinitive of werfen (to throw)

German often uses statt + … + zu + infinitive where English uses instead of + -ing:

statt Müll in die Natur zu werfen
= instead of throwing trash into nature

There is no conjugated verb and no subject in this clause. The subject is understood to be the same as in the main clause (wir). So structurally, you have:

Statt + [object/adverbs] + zu + infinitive, main clause …
Statt Müll in die Natur zu werfen, bringen wir ihn in die Mülltonne.

Is statt here a preposition or a conjunction? And are there other patterns with statt?

Here, statt is functioning as a preposition that governs an infinitive clause:

statt + (noun / noun phrase / infinitive clause)

Common patterns:

With a noun (no verb):
- Statt Kaffee trinke ich Tee.
  Instead of coffee, I drink tea.
With a zu-infinitive (like your sentence):
- Statt fernzusehen, lese ich ein Buch.
  Instead of watching TV, I read a book.
- Statt Müll in die Natur zu werfen, bringen wir ihn in die Mülltonne.
As a conjunction: statt dass
- full clause (more formal/literary):
- Statt dass wir Müll in die Natur werfen, bringen wir ihn in die Mülltonne.
  (Instead of us throwing trash into nature, we take it to the trash can.)

In everyday spoken and written German, the preposition + zu-infinitive version (like in your sentence) is by far the most common.

Why is there no article before Müll? Why not den Müll?

Müll is used here as a mass noun in a general sense, not as specific trash.

Müll (no article) = trash in general, any trash
den Müll = the specific trash (e.g. the trash in this bag / from this party)

So:

Statt Müll in die Natur zu werfen …
= Instead of throwing (any) trash into nature …
Statt den Müll in die Natur zu werfen …
= Instead of throwing *the trash into nature …* (some particular trash you have)

Both are grammatically correct; the version without an article is more generic and fits the moral/general statement of the sentence.

Shouldn’t statt take the genitive? Why is it statt Müll and not statt des Mülls?

Traditionally, statt governs the genitive:

statt des Mülls (genitive) – very formal / written / rarely used in speech

In modern standard German:

With a full noun phrase with article, genitive is preferred in formal writing:
- statt des Essens (rather than statt dem Essen)
With bare nouns without an article (like Müll), the form statt Müll is completely normal and widely accepted. You can’t really see genitive vs dative there.

So:

statt Müll – neutral, very common, completely fine
statt des Mülls – formally correct, but sounds stiff/old-fashioned in everyday language
statt dem Müll – colloquial (dative), common in speech but avoided in careful written German

In your sentence, statt Müll is idiomatic and natural.

Why is it in die Natur and not in der Natur?

The preposition in can take accusative or dative, and the meaning changes:

Accusative (wohin? – where to?) → movement / direction into something
Dative (wo? – where?) → location / position in something

Here we have werfen (to throw), so we are talking about movement into nature:

Müll in die Natur werfen
= to throw trash into nature (wohin? → in die Natur, accusative)

Compare:

Müll liegt in der Natur.
= Trash lies in nature. (wo? → in der Natur, dative)

So in die Natur is correct because it expresses direction.

In bringen wir ihn in die Mülltonne, why is it bringen wir and not wir bringen?

German main clauses follow the verb‑second (V2) rule:

The finite verb (here: bringen) must be in position 2 in the sentence.
Position 1 can be almost anything: subject, object, adverbial phrase, or (as here) an entire infinitive clause.

In your sentence:

Statt Müll in die Natur zu werfen → counts as position 1
bringen → finite verb = position 2
wir → subject follows the verb

So:

Statt Müll in die Natur zu werfen, bringen wir ihn in die Mülltonne.

If you start with the subject instead, the order changes:

Wir bringen ihn in die Mülltonne, statt Müll in die Natur zu werfen.

But in both versions, the finite verb is in second position of the main clause.

Why is the pronoun ihn used for Müll? Why not es?

German object pronouns must match the noun’s:

gender
number
case

Müll is:

grammatical gender: masculine (der Müll)
number: singular
case in the second clause: accusative (direct object of bringen)

So the correct pronoun is:

er (nominative)
ihn (accusative)
ihm (dative)

Here we need the accusative → ihn.

Using es would be wrong if you mean the noun Müll, because es is neuter, and Müll is masculine.

You could only use es if it referred to a whole situation or clause, not specifically to Müll. In your sentence, it clearly refers back to Müll, so ihn is correct.

Why is ihn placed after wir: bringen wir ihn in die Mülltonne? Could it be somewhere else?

Typical word order in the middle field of a German main clause (between the finite verb and the clause-final elements) is:

Subject – object pronouns – other objects/adverbials

In your clause:

bringen → verb (already in position 2)
wir → subject
ihn → object pronoun (accusative)
in die Mülltonne → prepositional phrase (place)

So:

bringen wir ihn in die Mülltonne

Other possibilities:

Wir bringen ihn in die Mülltonne. (neutral, most common if there is no introductory clause)
Wir bringen den Müll in die Mülltonne. (if you repeat the noun instead of a pronoun)

Putting ihn after in die Mülltonne (e.g. bringen wir in die Mülltonne ihn) would sound clearly wrong in modern German.

Why is it again in die Mülltonne and not in der Mülltonne?

The same accusative vs dative rule with in applies here:

in die Mülltonne (accusative, wohin?) → movement into the bin
- Wir bringen ihn in die Mülltonne.
  We take it into the trash can.
in der Mülltonne (dative, wo?) → location in the bin
- Der Müll ist in der Mülltonne.
  The trash is in the trash can.

Because bringen expresses movement towards a destination, we need accusative → in die Mülltonne.

Why use bringen and not werfen again, like werfen wir ihn in die Mülltonne?

You could say:

Statt Müll in die Natur zu werfen, werfen wir ihn in die Mülltonne.

That is grammatically correct and understandable. The choice of verb changes the nuance:

werfen = to throw (a quick throwing motion)
bringen = to take / to bring (more general, includes walking over and placing it there)

By using bringen, the sentence sounds a bit more neutral and responsible: we take the trash to the bin (which could include carrying it, walking to the bin, etc.), not necessarily literally throwing it in from a distance.

Both options are fine; bringen simply sounds a bit calmer and more general.

Can I switch the order of the two parts and say the main clause first?

Yes. You can place the main clause first and the statt‑clause after it:

Wir bringen ihn in die Mülltonne, statt Müll in die Natur zu werfen.

Both versions are correct:

Statt Müll in die Natur zu werfen, bringen wir ihn in die Mülltonne.
Wir bringen ihn in die Mülltonne, statt Müll in die Natur zu werfen.

In both cases:

The main clause respects the verb‑second rule (bringen wir … / Wir bringen …)
The statt + zu‑infinitive part is a subordinate-like infinitive clause expressing what we do not do.

Could I say Statt den Müll in die Natur zu werfen, bringen wir ihn in die Mülltonne? Does that change anything?

Yes, that is also correct:

Statt den Müll in die Natur zu werfen, bringen wir ihn in die Mülltonne.

Differences in nuance:

Statt Müll in die Natur zu werfen …
→ more general: instead of throwing trash (in general)
Statt den Müll in die Natur zu werfen …
→ more specific: instead of throwing *the trash (that we have) into nature*

Grammatically:

den Müll is accusative (object of werfen)
ihn still correctly refers back to den Müll (masculine, singular, accusative)

Both versions are fine; the original is slightly more generic, the version with den Müll slightly more concrete.