Learn Hardcore German: Am Lagerfeuer zünde ich das erste Streichholz an, als ob ich noch nie Feuer gemacht hätte. - At the campfire I light the first match as if I had never made fire before.

an is a two‑way preposition.
- With dative: location (Where? → wo?)
- With accusative: direction (Where to? → wohin?)
Here it’s a location: you are sitting/standing at the campfire, not moving towards it → dative: an dem Lagerfeuer → am Lagerfeuer.

Other options and why they’re different:

im Lagerfeuer = in dem Lagerfeuer → in the campfire (inside the flames – usually nonsense or a joke).
beim Lagerfeuer = bei dem Lagerfeuer → near the campfire / at the campfire event. Focuses a bit more on the general situation or activity.
am Lagerfeuer focuses on the physical location right by the fire.

Why does anzünden split into zünde … an in this sentence?

anzünden is a separable prefix verb.

Infinitive: anzünden (to light, to ignite).
The prefix an- is separable in main clauses.

In a normal main clause, German wants the conjugated verb in second position, and separable prefixes usually go to the end of the clause:

Ich zünde das Streichholz an.
- zünde = conjugated verb (2nd position)
- an = separable prefix at the end

In other structures, the parts come back together:

Infinitive: Ich will ein Streichholz anzünden.
Perfect: Ich habe ein Streichholz angezündet.
Subordinate clause: …, weil ich ein Streichholz anzünde.

So in your sentence:

zünde → second position (main verb)
an → end of the main clause

Am Lagerfeuer zünde ich das erste Streichholz an, …

Why is it das erste Streichholz and not ein erstes Streichholz?

erste is an ordinal number (first), used here as an adjective.

Ordinals normally behave like adjectives with a definite article when you mean the first one in a known sequence:

das erste Streichholz = the first match (in this situation, the specific “first one” you are lighting)

ein erstes Streichholz is grammatically possible, but it sounds unusual here. It would suggest something like:

a first match (of several attempts / of some series)

It would be more natural in contexts where you contrast different “firsts”, e.g.:

Das war nur ein erster Versuch. – That was only a first attempt.

Here we just want the first match of the scene, so das erste Streichholz is the normal, idiomatic choice.

What case is das erste Streichholz, and how can I recognize it?

das erste Streichholz is in the accusative case as the direct object of zünde … an.

Structure of the main clause:

Subject: ich (nominative)
Verb: zünde … an
Direct object: das erste Streichholz (what I light)

For neuter nouns like Streichholz, the definite article das is the same in nominative and accusative:

Nominative neuter: das Streichholz
Accusative neuter: das Streichholz

So you cannot see nominative vs accusative from das alone.
You must look at the role in the sentence:

Ich is doing the action → subject → nominative.
das erste Streichholz receives the action → object → accusative.

Why does the als ob clause use hätte gemacht and not habe gemacht?

als ob introduces a comparison that is not actually true (an unreal / hypothetical comparison).

The speaker has made fire before.
But he is acting as if he had never done it.

In German, such unreal comparisons are typically expressed with Konjunktiv II (subjunctive II):

…, als ob ich noch nie Feuer gemacht hätte.

This says: as if I had never made fire (but in reality I have).

If you used habe gemacht (indicative):

…, als ob ich noch nie Feuer gemacht habe.

this can sound more like a literal statement (as if it might actually be true) and is often considered less standard in careful written German. In everyday speech, some people do use the indicative here, but the Konjunktiv II (hätte gemacht) is the grammatically “clean” way to mark it as clearly unreal.

What kind of form is hätte gemacht, and how is it built?

hätte gemacht is Konjunktiv II in a past/perfect form (often called Konjunktiv II Vergangenheit).

Formation:

Take the auxiliary haben in Konjunktiv II:
- haben → hätte
Add the past participle of the main verb:
- machen → gemacht
Combine them:
- hätte gemacht

Function:

It expresses an unreal / hypothetical action that is completed before the time you are talking about, similar to English “had done” in an unreal sense.
Here: als ob ich noch nie Feuer gemacht hätte = as if I had never made fire (in my whole life up to now, unreal).

Why is the verb at the end in …, als ob ich noch nie Feuer gemacht hätte?

als ob introduces a subordinate clause (Nebensatz). In German subordinate clauses:

The conjugated verb goes to the end of the clause.

If you have a compound verb form (auxiliary + participle), the usual order at the end is:

Past participle
Auxiliary verb (conjugated)

So:

Subject: ich
Adverb: noch nie
Object: Feuer
Past participle: gemacht
Conjugated auxiliary (Konjunktiv II): hätte

→ …, als ob ich noch nie Feuer gemacht hätte.

Compare with a main clause word order:

Ich habe noch nie Feuer gemacht. (finite verb habe in 2nd position)

But in the als ob clause, it must go to the end.

Why is there no article in Feuer gemacht hätte? Could I say ein Feuer gemacht hätte instead?

Both are possible, but they have slightly different flavours.

Feuer machen (no article) is a very common set expression:
- Feuer machen = to make fire / to make a campfire in general.
- It treats Feuer a bit like an uncountable concept (similar to “fire” in English).
ein Feuer machen treats Feuer more as a countable event:
- to make a (single) fire
- More concrete, like “to make a fire here, now.”

In your sentence:

…, als ob ich noch nie Feuer gemacht hätte.
Feels like “as if I had never made fire before (at all)”, speaking about the general ability/experience.

You could say:

…, als ob ich noch nie ein Feuer gemacht hätte.

That would be understood, and many speakers would accept it, but it often sounds slightly heavier and more concrete (as if I had never made a single fire). The version ohne Artikel matches the idiomatic expression Feuer machen and sounds very natural.

Why is noch nie placed between ich and Feuer? Could it go somewhere else?

noch nie = never before / not yet ever, a frequency / time-like adverb.

In subordinate clauses, a common order of elements is:

Subject
(Time / frequency adverbs)
Objects
Other adverbs
Verb(s) at the end

So:

ich (subject)
noch nie (frequency / time-like)
Feuer (object)
gemacht hätte (verbs)

→ …, als ob ich noch nie Feuer gemacht hätte.

Alternative positions:

…, als ob ich Feuer noch nie gemacht hätte.
Possible, but sounds more marked, with focus on Feuer (“this fire‑making in particular, I’ve never done before”).
…, als ob ich noch nie Feuer gemacht habe.
Same adverb position, different verb form (see earlier answer).

The position directly after the subject is the neutral, standard placement for noch nie here.

Why is there a comma before als ob?

German uses commas much more systematically than English to mark clause boundaries.

Am Lagerfeuer zünde ich das erste Streichholz an
= main clause (Hauptsatz)
als ob ich noch nie Feuer gemacht hätte
= subordinate clause (Nebensatz) introduced by the conjunction als ob

Rule: A subordinate clause introduced by a conjunction like dass, weil, wenn, als ob is separated from the main clause by a comma.

So the comma before als ob is mandatory:

Am Lagerfeuer zünde ich das erste Streichholz an, als ob ich noch nie Feuer gemacht hätte.

Could you also say …, als hätte ich noch nie Feuer gemacht instead of …, als ob ich …? Is there a difference?

Yes, you could say:

Am Lagerfeuer zünde ich das erste Streichholz an, als hätte ich noch nie Feuer gemacht.

This is also correct and idiomatic. Here’s what’s going on:

als ob
- Konjunktiv II is very common:
  …, als ob ich noch nie Feuer gemacht hätte.
Very often, spoken and written German drops the “ob” and uses als
- Konjunktiv II: …, als hätte ich noch nie Feuer gemacht.

Meaning and nuance:

Both versions express the same unreal comparison.
als ob is slightly more explicit and perhaps a bit more formal/neutral.
als + Konjunktiv II without ob often sounds a bit more literary or stylistic, but is perfectly normal.

So you can treat them as near‑equivalents in this context.