07
Log inSign up

Ohne Isomatte ist der Boden im Zelt zu hart für die Kleinen.

Ohne Isomatte ist der Boden im Zelt zu hart für die Kleinen.
Without a sleeping mat the ground in the tent is too hard for the little ones.
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching German grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning German now

Questions & Answers about Ohne Isomatte ist der Boden im Zelt zu hart für die Kleinen.

Why does the sentence start with Ohne Isomatte and then have ist right after it? Shouldn't the verb come after the subject der Boden?

In German main clauses, the finite verb must be in second position (the V2 rule), but “second” means second element, not second word.

The elements are:

  1. Ohne Isomatte – a prepositional phrase (counted as one element)
  2. ist – the finite verb
  3. der Boden im Zelt – the subject (and a prepositional phrase inside it)
  4. zu hart für die Kleinen – the rest of the predicate

So the structure is:

  • [1] Ohne Isomatte [2] ist [3] der Boden im Zelt [4] zu hart für die Kleinen.

If you begin the sentence with the subject instead, you get:

  • Der Boden im Zelt ist ohne Isomatte zu hart für die Kleinen.

Both are correct. Starting with Ohne Isomatte just puts emphasis on the lack of a mat as the condition.

Why is it der Boden and not den Boden?

Der Boden is the subject of the sentence, and the subject in German takes the nominative case.

The verb ist (from sein) is a linking verb: it links the subject (der Boden) with a description (zu hart für die Kleinen). With sein, the subject stays in the nominative:

  • Der Boden ist zu hart. – The ground is too hard.

If Boden were a direct object, it would be accusative (den Boden), but here it’s not an object of any verb; it’s the thing being described. So:

  • Nominative (subject): der Boden ist hart.
  • Accusative (object): Ich putze den Boden. – I clean the floor.

In this sentence we need nominative → der Boden.

Why is there no article before Isomatte? Why not ohne eine Isomatte?

Both are possible, but they sound slightly different:

  • Ohne Isomatte ist der Boden im Zelt zu hart …
  • Ohne eine Isomatte ist der Boden im Zelt zu hart …

Ohne Isomatte (no article):

  • More general/typical statement: “without a sleeping mat (in general) the ground is too hard”.
  • This is common in German with ohne and mit when you talk about something in a generic, non-specific way:
    • Ohne Jacke ist es zu kalt. – Without a jacket it’s too cold.
    • Mit Jacke ist es okay. – With a jacket it’s okay.

Ohne eine Isomatte (with indefinite article):

  • Focuses more on a single, countable item: without one sleeping mat.
  • Grammatically perfectly correct; it just feels a bit more concrete or specific.

So the sentence uses the more natural, generic form ohne Isomatte.
(For grammar: ohne always takes the accusative, so if you used an article it would be ohne eine Isomatte.)

What does im Zelt mean exactly, and what case is used here?

Im is a contraction of in dem:

  • in = in
  • dem = dative singular article for masculine or neuter nouns
  • Zelt is neuter (das Zelt in nominative)
  • So: in dem Zelt → im Zelt

The case is dative. Why?

The preposition in can take dative or accusative:

  • Dative = location (where something is)
  • Accusative = direction/movement (where something is going)

Here we’re talking about where the ground is: in the tent → a location. So:

  • im Zelt = in dem Zelt → dative singular neuter.
Why is it zu hart and not just hart or sehr hart?

These have different meanings:

  • hart = hard
  • sehr hart = very hard (intensely hard, but not necessarily a problem)
  • zu hart = too hard (excessively hard, more than is acceptable)

In the sentence:

  • … ist der Boden im Zelt zu hart für die Kleinen.

Zu hart expresses that the hardness is problematic, not just a neutral description. It means too hard (for them to sleep comfortably), not just “very hard.”

What does für die Kleinen mean grammatically, and which case is it?

Für is a preposition that always takes the accusative case.

  • für
    • accusative → für die Kleinen

Here:

  • die = accusative plural article (same form as nominative plural)
  • Kleinen = an adjective (klein) turned into a noun (see next question)

So:

  • für die Kleinen literally: for the small ones
  • Case: accusative plural, because für always requires accusative:
    • für den Mann (m. sg.)
    • für die Frau (f. sg.)
    • für das Kind (n. sg.)
    • für die Kinder / für die Kleinen (plural)

In context, die Kleinen usually means “the little ones”, typically children.

Why is Kleinen capitalized, and why is it Kleinen and not Kleine?

Kleinen is an adjective used as a noun (a “nominalized adjective”).

  1. Capitalization
    In German, when an adjective is used as a noun, it’s capitalized:
    • die Kleinen – the little ones
    • die Alten – the elderly
    • der Gute – the good one (male)
    • das Gute – the good (thing)

So Kleinen is capitalized to show it functions as a noun.

  1. Ending -en instead of -e
    The form Kleinen follows adjective declension rules for:
    • plural
    • after a definite article (die)
    • in the accusative case

Adjective endings after definite article die in plural:

  • die kleinen Kinder (nom./acc. pl.)
  • If we drop Kinder, the adjective keeps the ending:
    • die Kleinen (nom./acc. pl.)

So die Kleinen = short for die kleinen Kinder (or similar), and it correctly takes -en.

Is the word order … zu hart für die Kleinen fixed, or could I say … für die Kleinen zu hart?

Both orders are grammatically possible:

  1. … ist der Boden im Zelt zu hart für die Kleinen.
  2. … ist der Boden im Zelt für die Kleinen zu hart.

Meaning: essentially the same.

Subtle points:

  • German word order in the Mittelfeld (middle field, between verb and clause-final elements) is relatively flexible.
  • A common tendency: shorter, more tightly bound elements come earlier.
    • zu hart is very closely linked to the verb ist (it’s the core predicate).
    • für die Kleinen is an additional prepositional phrase giving perspective.

So zu hart für die Kleinen is slightly more natural here, but für die Kleinen zu hart is also used, especially if you want to emphasize for the children.

Can I also say Der Boden im Zelt ist ohne Isomatte zu hart für die Kleinen? Does that change the meaning?

Yes, that sentence is perfectly correct:

  • Der Boden im Zelt ist ohne Isomatte zu hart für die Kleinen.

Meaning: the same situation is described.

Difference is mainly in focus/emphasis:

  • Ohne Isomatte ist der Boden im Zelt zu hart …

    • Puts “without a sleeping mat” in the topic/contrast position at the very start.
    • Sounds like you’re contrasting:
      • Ohne Isomatte it’s too hard, mit Isomatte it’s okay.

  • Der Boden im Zelt ist ohne Isomatte zu hart …

    • Starts with “the ground in the tent” as the topic.
    • Adds ohne Isomatte later as just one condition.

Both are idiomatic; speakers choose depending on what they want to highlight first.

What case does ohne take, and how would the sentence look with an article there?

Ohne always takes the accusative case.

In the given sentence, there is no article:

  • Ohne Isomatte – without a sleeping mat

If you add an article, you must use accusative:

  • Feminine noun (die Isomatte):
    • Nominative: die Isomatte
    • Accusative: die Isomatte
    • With ohne: ohne die Isomatte (without the sleeping mat)
    • With indefinite article: ohne eine Isomatte (without a sleeping mat)

So:

  • Correct: ohne die Isomatte, ohne eine Isomatte
  • Incorrect: ohne der Isomatte, ohne einer Isomatte

In the original sentence the case is still accusative, just not visible because there’s no article.