Rekla mi je da je umorna, pa neće doći u kino.

Breakdown of Rekla mi je da je umorna, pa neće doći u kino.

biti
to be
ne
not
u
to
mi
me
htjeti
will
doći
to come
da
that
reći
to tell
umoran
tired
pa
so
kino
cinema
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Croatian grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Croatian now

Questions & Answers about Rekla mi je da je umorna, pa neće doći u kino.

Why is the word order Rekla mi je and not Rekla je mi or Mi je rekla?

In Croatian, short unstressed pronouns like mi and the auxiliary je are called clitics, and they have fairly strict positions in the sentence.

In a simple clause like this:

  • Rekla mi jecorrect and natural

The usual pattern is:

  1. First comes the main verb in past participle form (rekla).
  2. Then the clitic pronouns and auxiliary verbs cluster together (mi je).

Rekla je mi is wrong because clitics (je, mi, ga, joj, se, etc.) normally cannot stand at the very end of a clause or be freely moved around.

Mi je rekla can appear in some contexts but has a different emphasis:

  • Mi je rekla. = She told *me (as opposed to someone else). It stresses *mi (“to me”), while Rekla mi je is neutral.
Why is it rekla and not rekao?

Croatian past tense participles agree in gender and number with the subject.

  • rekao – masculine singular past participle of reći (“to say”)
  • rekla – feminine singular
  • rekli – masculine plural / mixed group
  • rekle – feminine plural

Because the implied subject is ona (“she”), you must use the feminine form:

  • (Ona) mi je rekla… = She told me…
Why isn’t the subject pronoun ona (“she”) included?

Croatian is a pro‑drop language, which means that subject pronouns are normally omitted when the verb form already makes the subject clear.

  • Rekla mi je… already tells you it’s:
    • third person singular
    • feminine (from rekla)

So saying Ona mi je rekla… is grammatically correct but usually only used when you want to emphasize “she” (e.g. SHE told me, not someone else).

What does da do in da je umorna, and why isn’t it just rekla mi je je umorna?

In Croatian, da functions here as a subordinating conjunction introducing reported speech / a content clause, similar to that in English:

  • Rekla mi je da je umorna.
    Literally: She told me that she is tired.

You cannot say rekla mi je je umorna. That would be two je in a row without a connector, and there would be no word introducing the subordinate clause. You almost always need da to link the main verb of saying/thinking to what is said/thought:

  • Mislim da je umorna.I think (that) she is tired.
  • Znam da ne može doći.I know (that) she can’t come.
Why is it da je umorna (present) when English says “she told me she was tired” (past)?

Croatian often keeps the verb in the present tense in reported speech when the situation is still true at the time of speaking:

  • Rekla mi je da je umorna.
    = She told me that she is tired (and she’s probably still tired / it’s still valid).

If the tiredness clearly belongs only to the past, Croatians may also use the past:

  • Rekla mi je da je bila umorna.
    = She told me that she was tired (then, at some earlier time).

English tends to backshift (present → past) when reporting past speech; Croatian is more flexible and focuses on whether the statement is still valid.

Why is umorna and not umoran?

Umoran/umorna/umorno is an adjective meaning “tired” that agrees in gender and number with the subject:

  • umoran – masculine singular
  • umorna – feminine singular
  • umorno – neuter singular

Here the (implied) subject of je umorna is ona (“she”), so the adjective must be feminine singular:

  • (Ona) je umorna.She is tired.
  • (On) je umoran.He is tired.
  • (Dijete) je umorno.The child is tired.
What exactly does pa mean here, and how is it different from zato or jer?

In this sentence:

  • Rekla mi je da je umorna, pa neće doći u kino.

pa is a coordinating conjunction that often means something like:

  • “so / and so / and therefore / and then”

It connects two clauses where the second is a consequence or a result of the first, but in a relatively informal, narrative way.

Compare:

  • … umorna, pa neće doći u kino.
    = … she is tired, so she won’t come to the cinema.

  • … umorna, zato neće doći u kino.
    = … she is tired, therefore she won’t come to the cinema.
    (zato is a bit more explicit about “because of that”.)

  • Neće doći u kino, jer je umorna.
    = She won’t come to the cinema, because she is tired.
    (jer introduces the reason clause directly.)

Your original pa is very common in speech and neutral writing.

How is neće doći formed, and why isn’t it just one word like in English “won’t come”?

Future tense in Croatian uses the auxiliary htjeti (“to want”) in a short clitic form plus the infinitive of the main verb:

  • htjetiću, ćeš, će, ćemo, ćete, će
  • doći = to come

Affirmative:

  • Doći će.He/She will come.

Negative:

  • ne + će = neće
  • Neće doći.He/She will not come.

So neće is the negative auxiliary, and doći is the main verb in infinitive:

  • neće doći = “(she) won’t come.”

It’s written as two words, though neće itself is one fused form (ne + će).

Why is it u kino and not u kinu?

With the preposition u (“in/into”), Croatian uses:

  • Accusative for movement into a place (direction)
  • Locative for location in a place (no movement)

Kino (cinema) is neuter singular:

  • Accusative: u kino – into the cinema (going there)
  • Locative: u kinu – in the cinema (already there)

In your sentence, there is movement towards the cinema (coming to it or not coming to it):

  • Neće doći u kino.She won’t come to the cinema.

If you wanted to say “She is already in the cinema”, you’d use:

  • Ona je u kinu.She is in the cinema.
Why does kino look the same in nominative and accusative? How can I tell the case?

Many neuter nouns ending in -o (like kino) have the same form in nominative and accusative singular:

  • Nominative singular: kino
  • Accusative singular: kino

So you know the case by context, especially the preposition:

  • Without a preposition, kino is often nominative:
    • Kino je zatvoreno.The cinema is closed.
  • With u
    • motion, it must be accusative:
      • Idem u kino.I’m going to the cinema.

Even though the form is identical, grammatically in your sentence it’s accusative because of u + verb of movement (doći).

Can I say Rekla je da je umorna, pa neće doći u kino and just drop mi?

Yes, you can say:

  • Rekla je da je umorna, pa neće doći u kino.

But that changes the meaning:

  • Rekla mi je…She told me (I am the person she told).
  • Rekla je…She said… (we don’t specify whom she told; just that she said it).

So mi is the indirect object (“to me”). Dropping it makes the sentence more general and removes that information.

Why is there a comma before pa here?

In standard Croatian punctuation, a comma is normally placed before coordinating conjunctions like a, ali, nego, no, pa when they join two independent clauses:

  • Rekla mi je da je umorna, pa neće doći u kino.

Here you have:

  1. Rekla mi je da je umorna.
  2. Neće doći u kino.

Each could stand alone as a full sentence, so they are independent clauses. Therefore, a comma before pa is used, similar to:

  • Rekla mi je da je umorna, pa sam joj predložio da ostane doma.
    = She told me she’s tired, so I suggested she stay home.