Ich stolpere fast, weil der Boden nass ist.

I almost trip because the floor is wet.

Breakdown of Ich stolpere fast, weil der Boden nass ist.

• sein: to be
• ich: I
• weil: because
• nass: wet
• der Boden: the floor
• fast: almost
• stolpern: to trip

Questions & Answers about Ich stolpere fast, weil der Boden nass ist.

Why is stolpere in second position in Ich stolpere fast, but ist goes to the end in weil der Boden nass ist?

German has different word order rules for main clauses and subordinate clauses:

• In a main clause (like Ich stolpere fast), the conjugated verb is always in second position:

  • Ich (1st element) stolpere (2nd element) fast (everything else).

• In a subordinate clause introduced by a subordinating conjunction like weil, the conjugated verb goes to the end:

  • weil der Boden nass ist
    
    • weil = conjunction
    • der Boden = subject
    • nass = predicative adjective
    • ist = conjugated verb, moved to the end of the clause.

So: main clause = verb in 2nd position; weil-clause = verb at the end.

What exactly does stolpern mean, and how is it different from fallen?

• stolpern = to trip, to stumble
  You lose your balance because your foot hits something, but you don’t necessarily end up on the ground.

• fallen = to fall
  You actually go down, e.g. to the ground.

In the sentence Ich stolpere fast, weil der Boden nass ist, the idea is “I almost trip,” not “I fall.” Some examples:

• Ich stolpere über den Stein. – I trip over the stone.
• Ich falle hin. – I fall down.
• Ich stolpere, falle aber nicht. – I stumble but don’t fall.

How do you conjugate stolpern? Is it a regular verb?

Yes, stolpern is a regular (weak) verb.

Present tense:

• ich stolpere
• du stolperst
• er/sie/es stolpert
• wir stolpern
• ihr stolpert
• sie/Sie stolpern

Perfect tense (with auxiliary sein):

• ich bin gestolpert
• du bist gestolpert
• er/sie/es ist gestolpert, etc.

Example:

• Ich bin fast gestolpert, weil der Boden nass war.
  I almost tripped because the floor was wet.

Why is it der Boden and not den Boden here?

Der Boden is the subject of the subordinate clause weil der Boden nass ist. Subjects in German are in the nominative case.

• der Boden = nominative masculine singular (subject)
• den Boden would be accusative masculine singular (direct object), which is not correct here.

Compare:

• Der Boden ist nass. – nominative subject
• Ich putze den Boden. – accusative object

In your sentence, Boden is “the thing that is wet,” so it must be der, not den.

How do I know that Boden is masculine? Is there a rule?

Unfortunately, German noun gender is largely arbitrary and has to be learned with each noun:

• der Boden – masculine
• die Decke – feminine
• das Fenster – neuter

There are some patterns (e.g. many male persons/animals are masculine, many nouns ending in -ung are feminine, etc.), but Boden doesn’t follow a clear, beginner-friendly rule. The safest approach is to always learn the noun with its article:

• der Boden – the floor / ground

Why is it just nass and not nasse or nasser in der Boden nass ist?

Because nass is used predicatively, not attributively.

• Predicative adjective: after sein, werden, bleiben etc., describing the subject:

  • Der Boden ist nass.
    nass stays in its basic form, no ending.

• Attributive adjective: directly in front of a noun, inside the noun phrase:

  • der nasse Boden – the wet floor
  • Here you need an ending (-e, -er, -en, etc.) depending on gender, case, and article.

Your sentence uses a predicative structure:
der Boden nass ist = “the floor is wet” → nass has no ending.

Can I say weil der nasse Boden ist instead of weil der Boden nass ist?

No, weil der nasse Boden ist is ungrammatical.

You have two valid patterns:

1. Der Boden ist nass. (predicative)
2. Der nasse Boden (attributive phrase, usually part of a bigger structure, like Der nasse Boden ist gefährlich.)

You cannot mix them into Der nasse Boden ist without something following ist, and you can’t just stick the adjective in front of the noun and still treat it like “is wet”.

So in the clause introduced by weil, you must say:

• weil der Boden nass ist – because the floor is wet.

Is the comma before weil optional, like in English?

No. In standard German, the comma before a subordinating conjunction like weil is mandatory:

• Ich stolpere fast, weil der Boden nass ist. ✔
• Ich stolpere fast weil der Boden nass ist. ✘ (incorrect in formal written German)

The reason: weil introduces a separate clause with its own verb at the end, and German spelling rules require a comma to separate such clauses.

Can I start a sentence with weil, like Weil der Boden nass ist, stolpere ich fast?

Yes, that’s perfectly correct and very common:

• Weil der Boden nass ist, stolpere ich fast.

Word order rules still apply:

• In the weil-clause, the verb goes to the end: … Boden nass ist.
• After the comma, you start a main clause, and the verb must be in second position:
  
  • stolpere is second:
    
    • stolpere (2nd) comes right after the first element ich (or here, the entire weil-clause counts as the first element).

So:

• Weil der Boden nass ist, stolpere ich fast. ✔
• Weil der Boden nass ist, ich stolpere fast. ✘ (verb not in second position)

What’s the difference between weil, denn, and da? Could I use them here instead of weil?

All three can express a reason, but they differ in grammar and nuance:

1. weil – “because”

   • Introduces a subordinate clause with verb at the end:
   • Ich stolpere fast, weil der Boden nass ist.

2. denn – also “because”, but works like and/but

   • Introduces a main clause; the verb stays in normal 2nd position:
   • Ich stolpere fast, denn der Boden ist nass.
   • Feels a bit more formal or written.

3. da – “since / because” (often more formal or explanatory)

   • Works like weil: verb to the end.
   • Ich stolpere fast, da der Boden nass ist.

In everyday spoken German, weil is by far the most common in this sort of sentence.

Can fast go in a different position, like Ich fast stolpere or Ich stolpere, weil der Boden fast nass ist?

Ich fast stolpere is not idiomatic; fast normally sits just before the verb or phrase it modifies or after the verb:

1. In your sentence, fast modifies stolpere (“almost trip”), so these are natural:

   • Ich stolpere fast, weil der Boden nass ist. ✔
   • Ich fast stolpere, weil der Boden nass ist. sounds wrong/very unusual.

2. If you change the meaning and want to say the floor is almost wet (e.g. it’s damp, but not fully wet), you can move fast into that clause:

   • Ich stolpere, weil der Boden fast nass ist.
     → “I trip because the floor is almost wet.”

So word order of fast is flexible, but it must be close to what it modifies, and some positions are just not used by native speakers.

Is the tense here really present? Can it also talk about something that just happened?

Yes, ist and stolpere are present tense. The sentence is about something happening right now or generally:

• Ich stolpere fast, weil der Boden nass ist.
  I (am) almost tripping because the floor (is) wet.

If you want to talk about a completed situation in the past, you would normally change both verbs:

• Ich bin fast gestolpert, weil der Boden nass war.
  I almost tripped because the floor was wet.

Present vs. past:

• stolpere / ist → present
• bin gestolpert / war → past

How do you pronounce stolpere and Boden correctly?

Approximate IPA:

• stolpere → [ˈʃtɔlpəʁə]

  • st at the beginning of a syllable is pronounced like “sht”: sch
    • t → ʃt.
  • o like in British “off” (short, not like “go”).
  • -e at the end is a short, weak sound (schwa), like the e in “the” when unstressed.

• Boden → [ˈboːdn̩]

  • Bo- with a long o sound, like in “boat” but without the glide.
  • The last -en is often very reduced; the n can be syllabic (you don’t clearly say a full “en”).

Slowly:

• stol–pe–re → SHTOL-pe-re
• Bo–den → BOH-den (with long BOH)