Learn Hardcore German: Mit sicherem Klettergurt und stabilem Wanderstock ist die Verletzungsgefahr selbst an einem steilen Abhang gering. - With a secure climbing harness and a sturdy trekking pole the risk of injury is small even on a steep slope.

The preposition mit
- mit always takes the dative case.
The gender of the nouns
- Klettergurt = masculine (der Klettergurt)
- Wanderstock = masculine (der Wanderstock)
Adjective endings in the dative singular, with no article (zero article) and a masculine noun

In this pattern (mit + no article + masculine singular noun), the adjective takes -em:

mit sicherem Klettergurt
mit stabilem Wanderstock
mit gutem Freund
mit neuem Auto

So sicherem and stabilem are the correct dative masculine singular adjective forms with zero article.

Why is there no article (ein/der) before Klettergurt and Wanderstock? Could I say mit einem sicheren Klettergurt?

In German, instruments or tools introduced with mit very often appear without an article when they are meant in a general sense:

mit sicherem Klettergurt
mit stabilem Wanderstock
mit rotem Stift schreiben
mit Bus und Bahn fahren

This sounds natural and generic, like “with (a) secure harness” / “using a secure harness.”

You can say:

mit einem sicheren Klettergurt und einem stabilen Wanderstock

This is also correct, just a bit more specific or concrete (like “with one secure harness and one sturdy hiking stick”).
The meaning difference is small; it’s more about style and slight nuance. The article‑less version sounds a bit more general and smoother.

How do I know that Klettergurt and Wanderstock are in the dative case here?

Three clues:

The preposition:
- mit always requires the dative. So any noun directly governed by mit must be in dative.
The adjective endings:
- sicherem, stabilem → the -em ending is typical for dative masculine or neuter singular when there is no article (or with certain possessives).
The function in the sentence:
- They are “instruments” (with what?) and are introduced by mit, which in German is automatically a dative preposition.

So: mit → dative → sicherem Klettergurt, stabilem Wanderstock.

Why is the verb ist in the second position, right after Mit sicherem Klettergurt und stabilem Wanderstock and before die Verletzungsgefahr?

German main clauses follow the V2 rule: the finite verb (here: ist) must be in second position in the sentence.

Importantly, “position” means logical slot, not necessarily one word. A whole phrase can be in the first position.

Here:

Mit sicherem Klettergurt und stabilem Wanderstock
→ 1st position (a long prepositional phrase)
ist
→ 2nd position (the finite verb, as required)
die Verletzungsgefahr selbst an einem steilen Abhang gering
→ the rest of the sentence (middle field + predicate adjective)

You could also say:

Die Verletzungsgefahr ist mit sicherem Klettergurt und stabilem Wanderstock selbst an einem steilen Abhang gering.

Here the subject Die Verletzungsgefahr is in first position, and ist is still second. Both are grammatical; the original just chooses to front the mit-phrase for emphasis.

What exactly does selbst mean here, and why is it placed before an einem steilen Abhang?

In this sentence, selbst means “even” (not “self”).

selbst an einem steilen Abhang = even on a steep slope

Placing selbst before the prepositional phrase marks that the location is surprising or extreme:

Die Verletzungsgefahr ist gering, selbst an einem steilen Abhang.
→ The risk is low, even in such a challenging place.

If you moved selbst, you’d change what is emphasized:

Selbst die Verletzungsgefahr ist gering an einem steilen Abhang.
→ Even the risk of injury is low on a steep slope. (Now Verletzungsgefahr is the surprising element.)

So in the original, selbst modifies the whole phrase an einem steilen Abhang, expressing “even there.”

Why is it an einem steilen Abhang and not auf einem steilen Abhang? And why einem steilen instead of ein steiler?

an vs. auf

Both an and auf can mean something like “on” in English, but they’re used differently.

auf is usually “on top of a (horizontal) surface”
- auf dem Tisch, auf dem Boden, auf dem Berggipfel
an can be “at,” “against,” or “on the side of” something vertical or sloping
- an der Wand, am Hang, am Ufer

Abhang (slope) is typically thought of as something you are on/by/at the side of, so an einem steilen Abhang sounds very natural. auf einem steilen Abhang would sound less idiomatic, as if you are on top of the slope like on a flat surface.

einem steilen (dative) vs. ein steiler (nominative)

an can take accusative or dative depending on movement or location:
- Wohin? (motion → accusative)
  - an einen steilen Abhang gehen
- Wo? (location → dative)
  - an einem steilen Abhang sein

Here it’s a location (“even on/at a steep slope”), so dative.

Abhang is masculine (der Abhang)
Dative masculine with the indefinite article:
- einem steilen Abhang

So an einem steilen Abhang is:
an (preposition) + einem (dative masculine article) + steilen (dative masculine adjective) + Abhang (noun).

Why is it steilen Abhang but sicherem Klettergurt and stabilem Wanderstock? Why different adjective endings (-en vs -em)?

Because they are in different patterns of article + case:

sicherem Klettergurt / stabilem Wanderstock

governed by mit → dative
masculine singular
no article (zero article)

In this pattern (dative, masculine, no article), the adjective takes -em:

mit sicherem Klettergurt
mit stabilem Wanderstock

steilen Abhang

governed by an with location sense → also dative
masculine singular
with an article: einem

When there is a der-word or ein-word (like einem), the adjective after it in dative masculine takes -en:

an einem steilen Abhang
mit dem steilen Abhang
bei diesem steilen Abhang

So:

dative masc. without article → adjective: -em
dative masc. with article (dem/einem/diesem, etc.) → adjective: -en

What does the compound noun Verletzungsgefahr consist of, and what gender is it?

Verletzungsgefahr is a compound of:

Verletzung = injury
Gefahr = danger

So literally: “injury danger”, i.e. danger of injury, risk of injury.

In German, the last part of a compound noun determines the gender:

Gefahr is feminine (die Gefahr)
Therefore Verletzungsgefahr is also feminine: die Verletzungsgefahr

In the sentence, die Verletzungsgefahr is the subject and is in the nominative case:

Die Verletzungsgefahr ist … gering.
→ The risk of injury is low.

Why is gering used here, and how is it different from klein or niedrig?

gering is an adjective that often collocates with abstract quantities, especially risks, probabilities, amounts, levels:

die Gefahr ist gering
die Wahrscheinlichkeit ist gering
die Kosten sind gering

So die Verletzungsgefahr ist gering is a very natural, idiomatic phrase: “the risk of injury is low.”

Differences:

gering → low in degree/amount, often about risk, likelihood, level
niedrig → literally “low” in height; figuratively also for values/levels (niedrige Preise, niedrige Temperatur, niedrige Löhne)
klein → “small” in size or quantity, but less idiomatic with “Gefahr”; kleine Gefahr is understandable but sounds more like “a small danger” (as an object) rather than low risk level.

For Verletzungsgefahr, gering is the most standard choice.

Could the sentence start with Die Verletzungsgefahr instead of the mit-phrase, and what would change?

Yes, you can say:

Die Verletzungsgefahr ist mit sicherem Klettergurt und stabilem Wanderstock selbst an einem steilen Abhang gering.

Grammar is the same (verb still in second position). What changes is the emphasis:

Original:
Mit sicherem Klettergurt und stabilem Wanderstock ist die Verletzungsgefahr selbst an einem steilen Abhang gering.
→ Focuses first on the conditions / equipment (“With a secure harness and sturdy stick…”), then tells you the result (risk is low).
Alternative:
Die Verletzungsgefahr ist mit sicherem Klettergurt und stabilem Wanderstock selbst an einem steilen Abhang gering.
→ Starts by talking about the risk of injury itself, then adds under what conditions it is low.

Both are correct. The original ordering sounds a bit more like advice or a safety statement: “With this gear, the risk is low, even there.”