Learn Hardcore German: Ohne meine Schwimmbrille kann ich im Wasser kaum etwas sehen. - Without my swimming goggles I can hardly see anything in the water.

German main clauses have a verb-second rule: the finite verb (here: kann) comes in second position, but the first position can be almost anything, not just the subject.

So in this sentence:

Ohne meine Schwimmbrille = first element (1st position)
kann = finite verb (must be 2nd)
ich = subject, comes after the verb
im Wasser kaum etwas sehen = rest of the sentence

Word-by-word order (grouped into elements):

Ohne meine Schwimmbrille
kann
ich
im Wasser
kaum etwas
sehen

German often puts time, place or other context (like “without my goggles”) at the beginning for emphasis or to set the scene. It’s perfectly normal and quite common.

You could also say:

Ich kann ohne meine Schwimmbrille im Wasser kaum etwas sehen.

Same meaning, slightly different emphasis (now “I” is in first position).

Why is the verb kann in second position when the subject ich comes later? Isn’t the verb supposed to be after the subject?

In German main clauses, the rule is: the finite verb is in 2nd position, not necessarily after the subject.

So the structure is:

Position 1: some element (subject, object, adverbial, etc.)
Position 2: finite verb
Then: everything else (subject if it wasn’t first, objects, adverbs, etc.)

In our sentence:

Position 1: Ohne meine Schwimmbrille
Position 2: kann
Later: ich

That’s absolutely standard German word order.

Other correct variants that still respect the verb-second rule:

Ich kann ohne meine Schwimmbrille im Wasser kaum etwas sehen.
Im Wasser kann ich ohne meine Schwimmbrille kaum etwas sehen.
Kaum etwas kann ich im Wasser ohne meine Schwimmbrille sehen.

All of these keep the finite verb in 2nd place, even though the subject might not be first.

Why is it meine Schwimmbrille after ohne, and not something like meiner Schwimmbrille?

Because ohne is a preposition that always takes the accusative case.

The noun phrase is meine Schwimmbrille (feminine singular):

Nominative: meine Schwimmbrille (my swimming goggles)
Accusative: meine Schwimmbrille
Dative: meiner Schwimmbrille
Genitive: meiner Schwimmbrille

Since ohne governs the accusative, you must use the accusative form:

ohne meine Schwimmbrille ✅
ohne meiner Schwimmbrille ❌ (wrong case)

Other examples with ohne + accusative:

ohne dich (without you)
ohne meinen Schlüssel (without my key)
ohne ein Ticket (without a ticket)

Why is Schwimmbrille singular in German when in English we say goggles (plural)?

German and English don’t always match in singular vs. plural usage.

In German, die Brille (glasses) and die Schwimmbrille (swimming goggles) are grammatically singular, even though they refer to something with two lenses/eye-cups.

So:

die Schwimmbrille = one pair of swimming goggles
zwei Schwimmbrillen = two pairs of swimming goggles

In English, you normally say:

goggles (plural) for one pair
“two pairs of goggles” for more

But German treats each whole pair as one object and uses the singular noun.

Some examples:

Ich brauche meine Brille. = I need my glasses.
Wo ist meine Sonnenbrille? = Where are my sunglasses?

Both Brille and Sonnenbrille are singular in German, even though “glasses / sunglasses” are plural in English.

What gender is Schwimmbrille, and how can I tell?

Schwimmbrille is feminine: die Schwimmbrille.

You can tell here mainly from:

The base noun Brille is feminine: die Brille.
Compound nouns in German usually take their gender from the last part of the compound.
- Schwimm- (swim) + Brille (glasses) → Schwimmbrille
  So Schwimmbrille inherits the feminine gender from Brille: die Schwimmbrille.
The form meine also matches feminine singular accusative:
- feminine singular accusative: meine
- neuter singular accusative: mein
- masculine singular accusative: meinen

So ohne meine Schwimmbrille tells you that Schwimmbrille is feminine.

Why is it im Wasser and not in dem Wasser?

im is just the contracted form of in dem.

in + dem → im (dative singular, masculine or neuter)

Here:

Wasser is a neuter noun: das Wasser
Static location (“in the water”) takes dative → dem Wasser
So in dem Wasser contracts to im Wasser.

Both forms are grammatically correct, but in normal speech and writing, Germans strongly prefer the contraction im.

Examples of similar contractions:

an dem → am (e.g. am Tisch)
zu dem → zum (e.g. zum Bahnhof)
bei dem → beim (e.g. beim Essen)

Why is Wasser in the dative case here (im Wasser) and not accusative?

The preposition in can take dative or accusative, depending on the meaning:

Dative → location (where something is)
Accusative → movement/direction (where something is going to)

In this sentence, im Wasser describes a location (“in the water” – where I am). There is no movement into the water happening; it’s just where I am when I try to see.

So:

im Wasser = in dem Wasser (dative) → location: where?
If it were movement: ins Wasser = in das Wasser (accusative): into the water

Compare:

Ich bin im Wasser. (I am in the water.) → dative
Ich springe ins Wasser. (I jump into the water.) → accusative

Why is sehen at the very end of the sentence?

Because kann is a modal verb, and in German, when you use a modal verb, the main verb (infinitive) goes to the end of the clause.

The “verb bracket” (Satzklammer) here is:

Left part (finite verb): kann
Right part (infinitive): sehen

The stuff in between (subject, objects, adverbials) gets “framed” by these two parts:

Ohne meine Schwimmbrille (fronted phrase)
kann (modal, finite verb in 2nd position)
ich im Wasser kaum etwas (subject + adverbials + object)
sehen (infinitive at the end)

Other examples:

Ich kann heute nicht kommen.
Wir müssen morgen früh aufstehen.
Er will jetzt nach Hause gehen.

In all of these:
modal verb in 2nd position, main verb at the end.

What exactly does kaum mean here, and how is it different from fast nicht or gar nicht?

kaum means hardly / barely / scarcely.

In kaum etwas sehen:

kaum modifies etwas sehen → “hardly see anything / barely see anything”

Comparison:

kaum = hardly/barely
- Ich kann kaum etwas sehen. → I can hardly see anything.
fast nicht = almost not
- Ich kann fast nichts sehen. → I can almost see nothing. (a bit more negative than kaum)
gar nicht = not at all
- Ich kann gar nichts sehen. → I can’t see anything at all.

So on a “scale of negativity”:

kaum (hardly)
fast nicht (almost not)
gar nicht (not at all)

In everyday conversation, kaum is a natural, slightly softer way to say your ability is very limited but not completely zero.

Why do we say kaum etwas sehen instead of just kaum sehen?

Both are possible, but they focus slightly differently:

kaum sehen = hardly see (in general)
kaum etwas sehen = hardly see anything

By adding etwas, you make it explicit that you hardly perceive any objects / things in the water.

Meaning nuance:

Ich kann im Wasser kaum sehen.
→ I can hardly see in the water. (vision in general is very poor)
Ich kann im Wasser kaum etwas sehen.
→ I can hardly see anything in the water. (I can maybe see vague shapes, but almost no “things” clearly)

Both are correct; the original sentence just chooses the more explicit version with etwas.

What’s the difference between etwas here and was that I often hear in speech?

etwas is a neutral, standard indefinite pronoun meaning “something / anything”.

In colloquial spoken German, many people say was instead of etwas in similar contexts:

Ich kann im Wasser kaum etwas sehen. (standard)
Ich kann im Wasser kaum was sehen. (very common in speech, informal)

Differences:

etwas → more formal/standard, used in writing and careful speech.
was → colloquial, very frequent in spoken German, more casual.

So if you’re aiming for correct, neutral written German, stick with etwas.
If you’re chatting with friends, you’ll hear and can use was a lot:

Ich habe was gesehen. (I saw something.)
Möchtest du was essen? (Do you want something to eat?)