Learn Hardcore German: Ich bin froh, dir meinen Vorwurf heute freundlich erklären zu können, statt einfach wütend zu sein. - I am happy to be able to explain my reproach to you kindly today instead of simply being angry.

Vorwurf is masculine (der Vorwurf). In the sentence it is the direct object of erklären, so it must be in the accusative singular:

nominative: der Vorwurf
accusative: den Vorwurf

With mein- as a possessive determiner, you get:

nominative: mein Vorwurf
accusative: meinen Vorwurf

So meinen Vorwurf = my accusation (as object).

Why do we say … erklären zu können instead of something like … erklären kann?

After many adjectives expressing feelings, possibilities, or evaluations (like froh, glücklich, schwer, wichtig), German often uses an infinitive clause with zu rather than a full dass-clause.

Pattern:

Ich bin froh, … zu können. – I’m glad (to be able) to …

The subject of the main clause (ich) is automatically also the subject of können, so we don’t say ich again.

You could rephrase it with a dass-clause:

Ich bin froh, dass ich dir meinen Vorwurf heute freundlich erklären kann.

Both are correct; the … zu können version is more compact and very common in this structure.

What exactly is the function of zu in erklären zu können and wütend zu sein?

Zu here is part of the infinitive construction:

erklären → zu erklären
können → zu können
sein → zu sein

This is similar to English “to explain”, “to be able to”, “to be”.

In German:

after certain adjectives: froh, glücklich, bereit, stolz, traurig, schwer, leicht, wichtig, etc.
→ Ich bin froh, dir helfen zu können.
after some nouns: die Möglichkeit, die Zeit, das Ziel, der Wunsch, die Angst, etc.
→ Ich habe die Möglichkeit, dir zu helfen.
in some verb constructions: versuchen, anfangen, aufhören, planen, etc.
→ Ich versuche, dir zu helfen.

So zu just marks the infinitive phrase; it doesn’t translate 1:1 but corresponds roughly to English “to” before a verb.

Why is there a comma before dir meinen Vorwurf … erklären zu können?

Because dir meinen Vorwurf heute freundlich erklären zu können is a subordinate infinitive clause that depends on Ich bin froh.

Rules:

An infinitive group that depends on a preceding noun or adjective, and starts with a word like um, ohne, statt, anstatt, außer, als, or is “expanded” (has its own subject, object, etc.), is usually separated by a comma.

Here:

Main clause: Ich bin froh
Infinitive clause (with its own objects/adverbs): dir meinen Vorwurf heute freundlich erklären zu können

So the comma is mandatory:
Ich bin froh, dir meinen Vorwurf heute freundlich erklären zu können …

Why does freundlich look like an adjective but work like an adverb here?

In German, most adjectives and adverbs have the same form. The difference is shown by their position and function, not by their ending.

As an adjective (before a noun) it takes an ending:
ein freundlicher Ton, eine freundliche Erklärung
As an adverb (describing how something is done) it stays in base form:
freundlich erklären – to explain in a friendly way

In the sentence, freundlich modifies the verb erklären (how the explaining is done), so it’s an adverb:

… meinen Vorwurf heute freundlich erklären …
= explain my accusation in a friendly way today

Why is it statt einfach wütend zu sein and not something like statt ich einfach wütend bin?

After statt (and anstatt), when you want to contrast actions or states, German very often uses an infinitive with zu, not a full clause:

statt zu schlafen – instead of sleeping
statt zu gehen – instead of going
statt wütend zu sein – instead of being angry

The subject is understood to be the same as in the main clause (ich), so you do not repeat ich.

A full clause is possible but sounds heavier:

statt dass ich einfach wütend bin

The infinitive version statt einfach wütend zu sein is more natural here.

What is the grammar of wütend zu sein?

Wütend zu sein is:

wütend – predicate adjective “angry”
sein – infinitive of to be
zu – infinitive marker

Together, it’s an infinitive phrase functioning like a noun phrase: “being angry”.

Examples:

Statt wütend zu sein, solltest du ruhig bleiben.
Wütend zu sein bringt nichts. – Being angry doesn’t help.

Could we also say anstatt instead of statt here? Is there a difference?

Yes, you could say:

…, anstatt einfach wütend zu sein.

Statt and anstatt are very close in meaning:

Both can be followed by:
- a noun (often genitive): statt des Vorwurfs, anstatt des Vorwurfs
- an infinitive with zu: statt zu schreien, anstatt zu schreien
- a dass-clause (more formal/rare): statt dass er hilft …

In everyday speech, statt is a bit shorter and more common; anstatt can sound slightly more formal or emphatic, but in most contexts they’re interchangeable.

Is there a special rule for the position of heute and freundlich in dir meinen Vorwurf heute freundlich erklären?

Yes, this follows typical German adverb and object order.

Inside a verb phrase, the usual pattern is:

Pronouns (especially dative)
Noun objects
Time (wann?)
Manner (wie?)
Place (wo?)

So:

dir – pronoun, dative (to you)
meinen Vorwurf – noun object, accusative (my accusation)
heute – time (today)
freundlich – manner (in a friendly way)

dir meinen Vorwurf heute freundlich erklären is therefore very natural word order.

What is the difference between Ich bin froh, … and Ich freue mich, … in a sentence like this?

Both are possible and both express a positive feeling, but there is a nuance:

Ich bin froh, …
= I am glad / relieved / happy that something is (the case).
Often describes a state: being glad about a fact or a possibility.
Ich freue mich, …
= I’m happy / I look forward to …
Focuses more on the emotional reaction or anticipation.

In this context:

Ich bin froh, dir meinen Vorwurf … erklären zu können …
Emphasizes the state of relief or satisfaction that I can explain it calmly.

You could also say:

Ich freue mich, dir meinen Vorwurf heute freundlich erklären zu können …

That would highlight more your personal joy about doing it, but in many everyday contexts they overlap and both are acceptable.