Learn Hardcore German: Für lange Touren trage ich immer gute Wanderschuhe und benutze einen leichten Wanderstock. - For long tours I always wear good hiking boots and use a light trekking pole.

The preposition für always takes the accusative case.
So Touren must be in the accusative plural.
Accusative plural without any article (no die, no meine, etc.) uses the strong adjective ending -e:
- nominative plural: lange Touren
- accusative plural: lange Touren (same form here)
If there were a definite article, the ending would change:
- nominative/accusative plural with article: für die langen Touren

So:

no article + plural + accusative → lange Touren (adjective ending -e)
Not langen, because -en would appear with an article or in other cases (e.g. dative: für den Komfort bei langen Touren).

Why does für trigger the accusative case here?

Für is one of the prepositions that always take the accusative case in German, regardless of movement or location. Some others are durch, gegen, ohne, um, and bis (in many uses).

So:

für lange Touren → Touren is accusative plural
If it were singular: für eine lange Tour (accusative singular feminine)

You never use dative after für. It’s simply a rule that must be memorized.

Why is the word order trage ich instead of ich trage after Für lange Touren?

German has the “verb-second” rule in main clauses: the finite verb must be in the second position.

Positions are counted in terms of phrases, not individual words.
In this sentence:

Für lange Touren = 1st position (a prepositional phrase)
trage = 2nd position (the finite verb)
ich = 3rd position (the subject)

So both of these are correct, but they have different emphasis:

Ich trage für lange Touren immer gute Wanderschuhe… (neutral order)
Für lange Touren trage ich immer gute Wanderschuhe… (emphasis on “for long tours”)

The second version front-loads the context Für lange Touren for emphasis, so the verb and subject must invert: trage ich, not ich trage.

Why is it gute Wanderschuhe but einen leichten Wanderstock? Why the different endings -e and -en / -en?

Two different noun phrases, two different patterns:

gute Wanderschuhe
- Wanderschuhe = plural (hiking shoes/boots)
- no article (not die, meine, etc.)
- case: accusative plural (object of trage)
- pattern: accusative plural, no article → strong ending -e
- result: gute Wanderschuhe
einen leichten Wanderstock
- Wanderstock = masculine singular
- article: einen (accusative masculine of ein)
- case: accusative singular masculine (object of benutze)
- with an ein-word in accusative masculine, the adjective gets -en
- result: einen leichten Wanderstock

So:

plural, no article → gute Wanderschuhe (-e)
masculine singular, with einen → einen leichten Wanderstock (-en)

Why is Wanderschuhe plural, but Wanderstock singular? Could I say ein Wanderschuh?

You can say ein Wanderschuh (a hiking shoe), and that’s grammatically correct. But in practice:

Schuhe (shoes) are usually talked about as a pair, so German normally uses the plural:
- Ich trage Wanderschuhe. = I wear hiking shoes/boots.
With Stock (stick), you typically use one, so:
- ein Wanderstock = one hiking stick
- plural: Wanderstöcke = hiking sticks (more than one)

In everyday language:

Wanderschuhe (plural) is the normal way to talk about what you wear on your feet.
Wanderstock (singular) is the normal way to talk about a single hiking pole/stick.

What exactly does Touren mean here? Is it “tours”, “trips”, or “hikes”? How is it different from Reisen or Wanderungen?

Touren is a flexible word; context gives the nuance:

In this sentence, with Wanderschuhe and Wanderstock, Touren clearly means hiking tours / long hikes.
Other uses:
- Radtour = bike tour / cycling trip
- Stadttour = city tour

Differences:

Reise (pl. Reisen) = journey/travel, typically larger or longer trips, often with transport between places.
Wanderung (pl. Wanderungen) = a hike or walking trip specifically.

So here, lange Touren ≈ long hikes / long hiking trips.
You could also say lange Wanderungen, which might sound even more clearly like “hikes”.

What’s the difference between tragen, anziehen, and an·haben? Why is it trage ich here?

All three relate to clothing, but with different focuses:

tragen
- basic meaning: to wear (or “to carry” in other contexts)
- focuses on the state of having something on your body
- Ich trage gute Wanderschuhe. = I wear good hiking boots.
anziehen
- meaning: to put on (clothes)
- focuses on the action of getting dressed
- Ich ziehe meine Wanderschuhe an. = I put on my hiking boots.
an·haben
- separable verb: an·haben
- meaning: to have on / to be wearing
- Ich habe gute Wanderschuhe an. = I am wearing good hiking boots.

In the sentence Für lange Touren trage ich immer gute Wanderschuhe, the idea is about what you wear on such tours (ongoing state), not the act of getting dressed, so tragen is the natural choice.

Why is the verb benutzen used here? Could you also say verwenden or something else?

Benutzen means to use, in a fairly general and common way:

Ich benutze einen Wanderstock. = I use a hiking stick.

Possible alternatives:

verwenden – also to use, a bit more formal or neutral; perfectly fine here:
- …und verwende einen leichten Wanderstock.
gebrauchen – also to use, but sounds more formal, a little old-fashioned in everyday speech.
For sticks or poles in a sporting context, people also simply say mit einem Wanderstock gehen:
- Ich gehe mit einem Wanderstock. = I walk with a hiking stick.

So benutzen is the most straightforward, everyday choice and fits very well.

What is the gender and plural of Wanderstock, and how does that affect einen leichten Wanderstock?

Wanderstock behaves like:

gender: masculine
nominative singular: der Wanderstock
accusative singular: den Wanderstock (or einen Wanderstock with ein)
plural: die Wanderstöcke (note the umlaut)

In the sentence:

it is the direct object of benutze → accusative
masculine, accusative singular with ein → einen
adjective after einen in masc. accusative gets -en: leichten

So:

Ich benutze einen leichten Wanderstock. (accusative object)
Der leichte Wanderstock ist neu. (nominative subject)

Why is immer placed after ich: trage ich immer? Could I put immer somewhere else?

Adverbs like immer (always) are quite flexible in German, but there are preferences.

In your sentence:

Für lange Touren trage ich immer gute Wanderschuhe… is the most natural, neutral order:
- [context] Für lange Touren
- [verb] trage
- [subject] ich
- [frequency adverb] immer
- [object] gute Wanderschuhe

You could say:

Für lange Touren trage ich gute Wanderschuhe immer.
This is possible but sounds marked/odd in everyday speech; immer almost always goes before the object in such a simple sentence.

Typical pattern:
subject / inversion + verb → time/frequency adverb → objects.

So the original word order is the natural one.

Is Wanderschuhe specifically “boots”, or could it also mean just “shoes”? Would Stiefel be better for “boots”?

Wanderschuhe literally means hiking shoes, but in practice it often covers what English calls hiking boots as well. It’s used for sturdy footwear intended for hiking, whether ankle-height or higher.

Schuh / Schuhe = shoe(s), general
Stiefel = boots (typically higher, covering the lower leg)
Wanderschuhe = hiking shoes/boots (generic term for hiking footwear)
Wanderstiefel = specifically hiking boots (emphasizing boot style)

So gute Wanderschuhe is a very natural phrase for what an English speaker might call “good hiking boots” or “good hiking shoes” depending on context.

Why are the adjectives placed before the nouns (gute Wanderschuhe, leichten Wanderstock) and not after them like in some languages?

In German, descriptive adjectives normally come before the noun and take an ending that shows case, number, and gender:

gute Wanderschuhe (good hiking boots)
einen leichten Wanderstock (a light hiking stick)

You can put an adjective after the noun, but then it usually becomes part of a separate clause and stands alone, without ending:

Die Wanderschuhe sind gut. = The hiking boots are good.
Der Wanderstock ist leicht. = The hiking stick is light.

So in noun phrases, German behaves like English (good shoes, light stick), not like languages that put adjectives after the noun (e.g. chaussures bonnes — which would be wrong in French, just to illustrate order).