Wir nehmen einen Kompass mit, weil alles, was wir auf dem Wanderweg brauchen, gut vorbereitet sein soll.

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

Start learning German now

Questions & Answers about Wir nehmen einen Kompass mit, weil alles, was wir auf dem Wanderweg brauchen, gut vorbereitet sein soll.

Why is it einen Kompass and not ein Kompass?

Because Kompass is masculine and is the direct object of the verb.

  • The base form is der Kompass (masculine).
  • In the accusative case (used for direct objects), masculine der changes to den, and ein changes to einen.

So:

  • Nominative (subject): ein Kompass ist wichtig.
  • Accusative (object): Wir nehmen einen Kompass mit.

Here, Kompass is what we are taking, so it must be accusative: einen Kompass.

Why is mit at the end of the clause: Wir nehmen einen Kompass mit?

Because mitnehmen is a separable verb.

  • The infinitive is mitnehmen = to take along / to take with you.
  • In the present tense main clause, the prefix mit moves to the end of the clause:
    • Wir nehmen einen Kompass mit.
    • Ich nehme dich mit.
    • Nimm ihn mit!

If you use it in a non‑finite form or at the end of a subordinate clause, it stays together:

  • Wir wollen einen Kompass mitnehmen.
  • …, weil wir einen Kompass mitnehmen wollen.
What exactly does weil do to the word order in ..., weil alles ... gut vorbereitet sein soll.?

Weil introduces a subordinate clause (a dependent clause giving a reason: because …).

In German subordinate clauses:

  • The finite (conjugated) verb goes to the very end.

So:

  • Main clause: Wir nehmen einen Kompass mit.
  • Subordinate clause: …, weil alles gut vorbereitet sein soll.

If there are two verbs (here sein and soll), they form a verb cluster at the end, with the finite verb last:

  • gut vorbereitet sein soll
    • soll = finite verb (3rd person singular), goes last
    • sein = infinitive, just before it

Compare:

  • Main clause: Alles soll gut vorbereitet sein.
  • With weil: …, weil alles gut vorbereitet sein soll.
Why is there a comma after alles in ..., weil alles, was wir auf dem Wanderweg brauchen, gut vorbereitet sein soll.?

The comma marks the beginning of a relative clause.

  • alles = everything / all (the things)
  • was wir auf dem Wanderweg brauchen = (that) we need on the hiking trail

The pattern is:

  • alles, was …, = everything (that) …

In German, relative clauses are always set off by commas:

  • alles, was wir brauchen, …
  • das Buch, das ich lese, …
  • die Leute, die hier wohnen, …
Why is it alles, was and not alles, das or alles, den?

With indefinite pronouns like alles, nichts, etwas, vieles, wenig, German normally uses the relative pronoun was, not der/die/das.

So you say:

  • alles, was ich habe – everything (that) I have
  • nichts, was du sagst – nothing (that) you say
  • etwas, was wir brauchen – something (that) we need

Using das instead of was here (alles, das wir brauchen) sounds wrong to native speakers.

So alles, was wir auf dem Wanderweg brauchen is the natural, correct form.

How is the relative clause was wir auf dem Wanderweg brauchen structured?

Inside the relative clause was wir auf dem Wanderweg brauchen:

  • was = relative pronoun (stands for alles)
  • wir = subject
  • auf dem Wanderweg = prepositional phrase (where we need it)
  • brauchen = verb, at the end (because this is a subordinate clause)

So the structure is:

was (relative pronoun) + wir (subject) + auf dem Wanderweg (adverbial) + brauchen (verb)

Word‑for‑word:

  • was wir auf dem Wanderweg brauchen
    = literally: what we on the hiking trail need
    = what we need on the hiking trail
Why is it auf dem Wanderweg (dative) and not auf den Wanderweg (accusative)?

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

  • Dative = location (where?)
  • Accusative = direction / movement (to where?)

Here, it’s about where we need the things (location), not about moving onto the trail. So we use dative:

  • auf dem Wanderweg – on the hiking trail (location, dative)
    • der Wanderweg → dative singular: dem Wanderweg

Examples:

  • Ich bin auf dem Weg. (Where? Dative)
  • Ich gehe auf den Weg. (To where? Accusative)
What does Wanderweg literally mean?

Wanderweg is a compound noun:

  • wandern = to hike / to go walking
  • der Weg = the path, way

So der Wanderweg literally means “hiking path” or “trail”.

In English you’d usually translate it as hiking trail, trail, or footpath, depending on context.

What is the function of gut vorbereitet in gut vorbereitet sein soll?

Gut vorbereitet functions as a predicative adjective / participle describing the state of alles.

  • vorbereitet is the past participle of vorbereiten (to prepare).
  • With sein, participles like this often describe a state/result, not an action.

So:

  • Alles ist gut vorbereitet.
    = Everything is well prepared / everything is ready.

In the sentence:

  • …, weil alles, was wir auf dem Wanderweg brauchen, gut vorbereitet sein soll.
    = … because everything we need on the trail should be well prepared / ready.
Why do we use soll here, and not ist or wird?

Sollen expresses an intention, plan, rule, or expectation – roughly “should” in English.

Compare:

  • Alles ist gut vorbereitet.
    = Everything is well prepared (a fact right now).
  • Alles wird gut vorbereitet sein.
    = Everything will be well prepared (future statement).
  • Alles soll gut vorbereitet sein.
    = Everything is supposed to be / should be well prepared (plan/requirement).

In the sentence, they’re talking about how things should be arranged for the hike, not stating a current fact, so soll is appropriate.

Why is the order gut vorbereitet sein soll and not … soll gut vorbereitet sein at the end?

Because in a subordinate clause with more than one verb, all verbs go to the end, and the finite verb (the conjugated one) comes last.

Here we have:

  • soll (finite, conjugated modal verb)
  • sein (infinitive)
  • vorbereitet (participle used like an adjective between them)

Main clause version:

  • Alles soll gut vorbereitet sein.

Subordinate clause with weil:

  • …, weil alles gut vorbereitet sein soll.

So the verb cluster is:

  • … vorbereitet sein soll.
    • sein (infinitive) before
    • soll (finite verb) last
Could we also say …, weil alles, was wir auf dem Wanderweg brauchen, gut vorbereitet sein muss.? What would change?

Yes, that’s grammatically correct, but the meaning changes slightly:

  • soll = should, is supposed to → expectation / plan / recommendation
  • muss = must, has to → stronger necessity / obligation

So:

  • …, weil alles … gut vorbereitet sein soll.
    = because everything … should be well prepared.
  • …, weil alles … gut vorbereitet sein muss.
    = because everything … must be well prepared (it’s necessary).

Both are valid; the choice depends on how strong you want the requirement to sound.

Why is the German in the present tense if we’re talking about a future hike?

German often uses the present tense to talk about the near future, especially when the context makes the time clear.

  • Wir gehen morgen wandern. = We’re going hiking tomorrow.
  • Wir nehmen einen Kompass mit. = We’re taking a compass (with us) [for that hike].

Similarly:

  • …, weil alles … gut vorbereitet sein soll.
    = because everything … should be well prepared (for the upcoming hike).

English often prefers a future or progressive form here, but German is comfortable using the simple present.