Learn Hardcore German: Ohne Stiefel sind die Wege im Schnee für mich zu kalt und zu rutschig. - Without boots the paths in the snow are too cold and too slippery for me.

German main clauses follow the verb‑second (V2) rule: the conjugated verb must be in the second position. The first position can be many things: the subject, an object, a time expression, or (like here) a prepositional phrase.

Ohne Stiefel = first element
sind = second element (the verb)
die Wege im Schnee für mich zu kalt und zu rutschig = the rest

Starting with Ohne Stiefel emphasizes the condition “without boots”:

Ohne Stiefel sind die Wege im Schnee… → Focus on the condition “without boots”
Die Wege im Schnee sind ohne Stiefel… → Focus more on “the paths in the snow”

Both orders are grammatically correct; the difference is nuance and emphasis.

What case does ohne take, and why is it Ohne Stiefel and not Ohne Stiefeln?

The preposition ohne always takes the accusative case.

So the pattern is:

ohne mich (without me – accusative)
ohne dich (without you)
ohne ihn / sie / es (without him / her / it)
ohne uns, ohne euch, ohne sie (without us / you(pl) / them)

Stiefel is a regular masculine noun whose plural is also Stiefel:

Singular: der Stiefel (the boot)
Plural: die Stiefel (the boots)

In the accusative plural without an article, Stiefel does not get an extra ending:

Ich trage Stiefel. (I’m wearing boots.)
Ohne Stiefel gehe ich nicht raus. (I don’t go out without boots.)

Ohne Stiefeln would be wrong, because that -n ending belongs to dative plural in many nouns, and ohne never takes the dative.

Why is it sind and not ist?

The verb agrees with the subject. The subject here is die Wege (the paths), which is plural, so you need the 3rd person plural form of sein:

Singular: Der Weg im Schnee ist … (The path is …)
Plural: Die Wege im Schnee sind … (The paths are …)

So sind matches die Wege.

What case is die Wege im Schnee, and why is it die and not den?

Die Wege is the subject of the sentence, so it is in the nominative plural.

The definite article die is used for all plural nouns in the nominative and accusative:

Nominative plural: die Wege sind …
Accusative plural: Ich sehe die Wege.

Here, die Wege is clearly the subject (they are “too cold and too slippery”), so it’s nominative.

Im Schnee is separate: it is in + dem (in + the) contracted, and it is in the dative because in with a static location takes the dative:

in dem Schnee → im Schnee (in the snow – dative)

So the structure is:

die Wege → nominative plural subject
im Schnee → dative (location), attached with the preposition in

What exactly is im in im Schnee, and when do you use it instead of in dem?

Im is a contraction of in dem:

in (in) + dem (dative masculine/neuter article) → im

You use im whenever in is followed by dem in normal, flowing speech or writing:

im Schnee = in dem Schnee (in the snow)
im Haus = in dem Haus (in the house)
im Park = in dem Park (in the park)

Both in dem Schnee and im Schnee are grammatically correct. Im Schnee is simply more natural and common.

Why is it für mich and not für mir?

The preposition für always takes the accusative case.

Pronoun forms:

Nominative: ich, du, er, sie, es, wir, ihr, sie
Accusative: mich, dich, ihn, sie, es, uns, euch, sie
Dative: mir, dir, ihm, ihr, ihm, uns, euch, ihnen

Since für requires the accusative, you must choose mich, not mir:

für mich (for me – accusative) ✅
für mir ❌ (would be dative, and für never takes dative)

Other examples:

für dich, für ihn, für uns, für sie (all accusative).

What does zu mean in zu kalt and zu rutschig? Is it like very?

In this context, zu means “too”, not “very”.

zu kalt = too cold (more than is acceptable)
sehr kalt = very cold (intensely cold, but not automatically “too much”)

So:

Die Wege sind zu kalt. → They are too cold (I can’t tolerate it).
Die Wege sind sehr kalt. → They are very cold (just describing the degree).

In the sentence:

… für mich zu kalt und zu rutschig.

It means: for me, they are uncomfortably/overly cold and slippery.

Why don’t kalt and rutschig have endings (like kalte or rutschigen) here?

Adjectives in German only get endings when they directly modify a noun:

kalte Wege (cold paths)
rutschige Wege (slippery paths)

In the sentence, kalt and rutschig are predicate adjectives after the verb sein (to be). Predicate adjectives in German do not take endings:

Die Wege sind kalt. (The paths are cold.)
Die Wege sind rutschig.

So:

… sind die Wege im Schnee für mich zu kalt und zu rutschig.

Here, kalt and rutschig are used like English “cold” and “slippery” after “are”, so they stay in their base form.

What does rutschig mean, and is it used only for snow?

Rutschig means “slippery” – easy to slip on.

It’s not limited to snow. You can use rutschig for many surfaces:

Die Straße ist rutschig. (The road is slippery.)
Der Boden ist rutschig. (The floor is slippery.)
Die Treppe ist rutschig. (The stairs are slippery.)

So in Wege im Schnee … zu rutschig, it means the paths (covered in or surrounded by snow) are slippery to walk on.

Do I have to repeat zu in zu kalt und zu rutschig, or can I say zu kalt und rutschig?

Both are possible:

… zu kalt und zu rutschig.
… zu kalt und rutschig.

Option 1 (repeating zu) is a bit clearer and slightly more emphatic that both adjectives are “too much”:

zu kalt und zu rutschig → too cold and too slippery (both clearly marked as “too”).

Option 2 is also acceptable, and many speakers would say it in fast speech:

zu kalt und rutschig → naturally still understood as “too cold and too slippery” from context, but the emphasis on “too” is strongest on kalt.

In careful or written German, repeating zu (as in the original sentence) is very natural and stylistically clean.

Can I change the word order, for example: Die Wege im Schnee sind für mich ohne Stiefel zu kalt und zu rutschig?

Yes, that word order is grammatically correct:

Die Wege im Schnee sind für mich ohne Stiefel zu kalt und zu rutschig.

The core rules are:

The conjugated verb (sind) must stay in second position in a main clause.
Other elements (die Wege im Schnee, für mich, ohne Stiefel, zu kalt und zu rutschig) can move around more freely.

All of these versions are correct, with slightly different emphasis:

Ohne Stiefel sind die Wege im Schnee für mich zu kalt und zu rutschig.
→ Strong focus on the condition “without boots”.
Die Wege im Schnee sind für mich ohne Stiefel zu kalt und zu rutschig.
→ Focus more on “the paths in the snow”, with the condition “without boots” in the middle.
Für mich sind die Wege im Schnee ohne Stiefel zu kalt und zu rutschig.
→ Focus on “for me” (maybe others don’t find them too cold/slippery).

The meaning stays essentially the same; only the emphasis shifts.