Learn Hardcore German: Heute ist die Gefahr im Park gering.

German is a verb-second (V2) language in main clauses. That means the conjugated verb must be in second position in the sentence, no matter what comes first.

In Heute ist die Gefahr im Park gering.

Heute = first element
ist = second element (the finite verb)
the rest of the clause follows after that

So Heute die Gefahr ist im Park gering is wrong, because the verb is in third position.

Possible correct variants:

Heute ist die Gefahr im Park gering.
Die Gefahr im Park ist heute gering.
Im Park ist die Gefahr heute gering.

In all of these, the finite verb (ist) remains in second position in the clause.

Why is it die Gefahr and not der Gefahr or das Gefahr?

Nouns in German have a grammatical gender. Gefahr is a feminine noun:

die Gefahr (nominative singular, feminine)

In this sentence, die Gefahr is the subject, so it is in the nominative case. That’s why you get:

die Gefahr ist … = the danger is …

Other forms of the same noun:

Nominative: die Gefahr – the danger (subject)
Genitive: der Gefahr – of the danger
Dative: der Gefahr – to/for the danger
Accusative: die Gefahr – the danger (object)

Here it is nominative, so die is correct.

Why doesn’t gering have an ending, like geringe or geringer?

Gering is an adjective, but here it’s used as a predicate adjective after the verb sein (ist).

In German:

Attributive adjective (before a noun): takes an ending
- eine geringe Gefahr – a low/small danger
Predicate adjective (after sein, werden, bleiben, etc.): no ending
- Die Gefahr ist gering. – The danger is low.

So in Heute ist die Gefahr im Park gering, gering describes the subject die Gefahr but comes after ist, so it appears in its base form with no ending.

Why is it im Park and not in dem Park?

[ANSWERANSWER]
Im is simply the contracted form of in dem:

in
- dem → im

So:

in dem Park = in the park
im Park = in the park (more common in everyday language)

They are equivalent in meaning; im Park just sounds more natural in most contexts.

Why is Park in the dative case here?

The preposition in can take either dative or accusative, depending on the meaning:

Dative = location, where something is
Accusative = direction, where something is going

In this sentence, we are talking about where the danger is (location, not movement):

im Park = in dem Park → dative singular masculine (der Park → dem Park)

So Park is in the dative because in is used with a static location here.

Can I change the word order? For example: Die Gefahr im Park ist heute gering. Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct. German word order is relatively flexible as long as:

The finite verb is in second position.
The sentence elements stay together in a logical way.

Valid variants include:

Heute ist die Gefahr im Park gering.
Die Gefahr im Park ist heute gering.
Im Park ist die Gefahr heute gering.

These all mean roughly the same, with slight differences in emphasis:

Starting with Heute emphasizes the time.
Starting with Die Gefahr im Park emphasizes the danger itself.
Starting with Im Park emphasizes the location.

What’s the difference between gering, klein, and niedrig? All can mean something like “small” or “low”, right?

They all relate to “small” or “low”, but they are used in slightly different ways:

gering
- Often more formal / written.
- Used for amounts, risks, probabilities, levels of danger, chances.
- Die Gefahr ist gering. – The danger is low.
- Die Chancen sind gering. – The chances are slim.
klein
- General word for small (size).
- Usually physical size or a “small” thing, not abstract risk/level:
- ein kleiner Hund – a small dog
- For danger, klein sounds odd; gering or niedrig is better.
niedrig
- Literally “low” (vertically or in level), often for measurable levels/values:
- niedrige Temperaturen – low temperatures
- niedrige Preise – low prices
- niedriges Risiko – low risk (also possible)

In Die Gefahr ist gering, gering sounds very natural and idiomatic for “danger/risk is low.”

Could I say Heute ist die Gefahr gering im Park instead?

You could say Heute ist die Gefahr gering im Park, and it would be understood, but it sounds a bit less natural.

More natural:

Heute ist die Gefahr im Park gering.
Heute ist die Gefahr im Park nur gering. (adding nur can sound very idiomatic)

German tends to keep prepositional phrases (like im Park) close to what they modify. Since im Park limits Gefahr (it’s specifically the danger in the park), keeping them together feels smoother:

die Gefahr im Park → the danger in the park

Why is it Heute ist die Gefahr … and not Heutzutage ist die Gefahr …?

Heute and heutzutage are different:

heute = today (this specific day)
- Heute ist die Gefahr im Park gering.
  → The danger is low today (maybe it was different yesterday or will be different tomorrow).
heutzutage = nowadays, these days (general period, not just one day)
- Heutzutage ist die Gefahr im Park gering.
  → The danger is generally low in our time / these days, not just today.

So the original sentence refers to one specific day, not a long-term trend.

Why do we say die Gefahr ist gering instead of es gibt wenig Gefahr?

Both are possible, but they sound different:

Die Gefahr ist gering.
- Literally: The danger is low.
- Treats Gefahr as a kind of level that can be high/low.
- Very natural and compact for talking about risk levels.
Es gibt wenig Gefahr im Park.
- Literally: There is little danger in the park.
- Grammatically fine, but in practice sounds a bit less idiomatic and less standard than Die Gefahr ist gering, especially in formal or informational contexts (signs, announcements, reports).

Native speakers strongly prefer Die Gefahr ist gering or Das Risiko ist gering when talking about safety or risk.

Is Gefahr countable? Could I say viele Gefahren im Park?

Yes, Gefahr can be both:

Uncountable / abstract: general concept of danger
- Die Gefahr ist gering. – The danger is low.
- In diesem Gebiet besteht kaum Gefahr. – There is hardly any danger in this area.
Countable (Gefahr → Gefahren): individual dangers
- Im Park lauern viele Gefahren. – Many dangers lurk in the park.
- Welche Gefahren gibt es im Park? – What dangers are there in the park?

In the sentence Heute ist die Gefahr im Park gering, it’s used in the uncountable/abstract sense: the general level of danger.

Why is the tense simple present (ist) and not something like future (wird gering sein)?

German often uses simple present (Präsens) for:

Current situations (what is true now)
Near future, when time is clear from context or an adverb

Here, heute already makes the time clear. So:

Heute ist die Gefahr im Park gering.
= Today, the danger is low. (now / during today)

Using future:

Heute wird die Gefahr im Park gering sein.
= Today, the danger will be low.

This is possible, but it adds a nuance of prediction or assumption. The original sentence sounds more like a statement of fact about today.

How would the sentence change if I wanted to say “The danger in the park was low today”?

You need the simple past of sein: war.

Original:

Heute ist die Gefahr im Park gering.
→ Today the danger in the park is low.

Past:

Heute war die Gefahr im Park gering.
→ Today the danger in the park was low.

If the “today” is clearly over (e.g. spoken late at night or the next day), this past-tense version is appropriate.