Breakdown of Früher wussten wir nicht, wie man richtig zelten kann, jetzt klappt alles viel besser.
Questions & Answers about Früher wussten wir nicht, wie man richtig zelten kann, jetzt klappt alles viel besser.
German often uses the simple past (Präteritum) with very common verbs of thinking, knowing, being, having, etc., especially in written or more neutral style.
- wussten = simple past of wissen (to know)
- haben gewusst = present perfect of wissen
Both are grammatically possible, but:
- Früher wussten wir nicht ... sounds natural and neutral.
- Früher haben wir nicht gewusst ... is also correct, but in many regions it can sound a bit heavier or more colloquial in writing.
For verbs like sein, haben, wissen, können, müssen, Germans very often prefer the simple past in narration about the past.
Because "wie man richtig zelten kann" is a subordinate clause introduced by wie (how). In German subordinate clauses, the conjugated verb goes to the very end.
Structure:
- wie (subordinating word)
- man (subject)
- richtig (adverb)
- zelten (infinitive verb)
- kann (conjugated modal verb, final position)
This verb-last rule applies to most subordinate clauses introduced by words like dass, weil, wenn, als, obwohl, wie etc.
man in German is an impersonal pronoun meaning “one / people in general / you / we” depending on context. It’s used for general rules or abilities, not just for a specific group.
- wie man richtig zelten kann
= how one can camp properly / how people can camp properly
If the speaker wanted to emphasize just their group, they could say:
- wie wir richtig zelten können – how we can camp properly
That would sound more personal and less general. Using man makes it sound like “how to camp properly in general”, not just how we do it.
Both are grammatically correct but slightly different in focus:
wie man richtig zelten kann
– focuses on ability / possibility (how one is able to camp properly)wie man richtig zeltet
– focuses on the manner / method itself (how one camps properly)
In practice, both can often be used interchangeably here. Using kann adds a nuance of “how to be able to camp properly (what you need to know/do so that you can camp properly).”
This looks strange from an English perspective but is normal in German.
- Main clause: wussten (past) – “we didn’t know”
- Subordinate clause: kann (present) – “how one can camp properly”
kann here expresses a timeless, general truth or rule: how one can camp properly in general, not only at that past time.
If you said:
- Früher wussten wir nicht, wie man richtig zelten konnte.
it would sound more like “we didn’t know how one was able to camp properly at that time,” a bit more narrowly focused on the past situation. The original sentence stresses lack of knowledge about the general “how to” of camping.
In this context, richtig means “correctly / properly / the right way”, not “really”.
- richtig zelten = to camp properly, using the correct techniques, doing it the right way
If you wanted to say “really”, you’d usually use wirklich or sehr, depending on the sentence.
So richtig here is about correctness, not intensity.
Both are possible, but they emphasize different things:
richtig zelten
– to camp properly / correctly, in the right way (following rules, techniques, etc.)gut zelten
– to camp well, with good skill or good results (you’re good at camping)
In this sentence, richtig suggests “we didn’t know the proper way to camp”, not just “we weren’t very good at camping.”
Both can refer to camping, but:
- zelten literally means “to camp in a tent”
- campen is a loanword from English and is used for camping in general (tent, caravan, camper van, etc.)
In everyday speech, both are widely understood and often used interchangeably. zelten is very standard and slightly more specific to tents; campen feels a bit more informal/modern in some regions.
klappen is a very common colloquial verb meaning something like:
- “to work out”
- “to go well”
- “to function smoothly”
So jetzt klappt alles viel besser =
“now everything works out much better / now everything is going much better.”
It’s more informal than funktionieren, but very typical in everyday German.
The sentence consists of two main clauses:
- Früher wussten wir nicht, wie man richtig zelten kann,
- jetzt klappt alles viel besser.
German allows you to join main clauses with just a comma, especially when the link between them is very clear, like “before vs now”.
You could also say:
- ..., aber jetzt klappt alles viel besser. (… but now everything goes much better.)
Adding aber makes the contrast explicit. Leaving it out is still grammatical because the time words Früher / jetzt already show the contrast.
In German, when you compare with -er (besser, größer, schneller), you use viel to strengthen it, not sehr or mehr.
- viel besser = much better
- sehr gut = very good (no comparison form here)
- mehr besser is incorrect
- sehr besser is also incorrect
So:
- gut → besser → viel besser
- gut → sehr gut (but nicht: sehr besser)
Früher means “in the past / earlier / before” in a general sense (not a specific date).
Putting it at the start:
- Früher wussten wir nicht, ...
does two things:
- It sets the time frame right away (“In the past, we didn’t know…”).
- It uses the standard pattern [time] – [verb] – [subject] which is very natural in German:
- Früher (time)
- wussten (verb)
- wir (subject)
You could also say:
- Wir wussten früher nicht, wie ...
This is also correct, but the emphasis moves more onto wir (we) instead of früher (back then).
The normal, natural order is:
- jetzt – time adverbial
- klappt – verb in 2nd position
- alles – subject
- viel besser – adverbial phrase (how it goes)
So: Jetzt klappt alles viel besser.
In German, the finite verb must be in 2nd position in a main clause, and the subject normally comes early, before manner/degree adverbs like viel besser.
- Jetzt klappt viel besser alles is grammatically odd and very unnatural. It disrupts the usual flow of information and sounds wrong in standard German.