Learn Hardcore Croatian: Bicikl parkiram na parkiralištu tek kad je kaciga na stolu i kad ugasim svjetlo na biciklu. - I park the bicycle in the parking lot only when the helmet is on the table and when I turn off the light on the bike.

Parkiram bicikl – neutral word order: I park the bike.
Bicikl parkiram – slightly emphasizes the bike (as opposed to something else), or just sounds more natural in context.

Croatian word order is flexible. Putting bicikl first can highlight it as the topic: As for the bike, I park it… but it isn’t a strong emphasis, just a natural variation.

Where is the word “I”? Why isn’t it ja parkiram?

Croatian is a pro‑drop language: subject pronouns (ja, ti, on, ona…) are usually omitted because the verb ending already shows the person.

(Ja) parkiram = I park
The ‑am ending on parkiram tells you it’s 1st person singular, so ja is not needed unless you want extra emphasis (e.g. Ja parkiram, a ti voziš. – I park, and you ride.).

What case is bicikl in here, and why doesn’t the form change?

In Bicikl parkiram, bicikl is the direct object, so it is in the accusative case.

For masculine inanimate nouns like bicikl, the nominative and accusative singular are the same form:

Nominative: bicikl je nov – The bike is new.
Accusative: parkiram bicikl – I park the bike.

So there’s no visible case ending change, but the function in the sentence is different.

Why is it na parkiralištu and not na parkiralište or u parkiralištu?

Croatian distinguishes location vs movement with case:

na parkiralištu – on/at the parking lot → location, so locative (‑u)
na parkiralište – onto the parking lot → movement towards, so accusative

In this sentence, the focus is on the state where the bike ends up after the conditions are met, so na parkiralištu (locative) is used.

na vs u is largely lexical: you say na parkiralištu (on the parking lot), not u parkiralištu, in standard usage.

What exactly does tek add in tek kad je kaciga na stolu?

tek here means “only” / “not until” and adds a restriction:

kad je kaciga na stolu – when the helmet is on the table
tek kad je kaciga na stolu – only when the helmet is on the table / not until the helmet is on the table

So tek emphasizes that parking the bike happens only after those conditions are fulfilled.

What is the difference between kad and kada?

They mean the same thing: “when”.

kad – shorter, more common in everyday speech.
kada – slightly more formal or careful, used in writing or for emphasis.

In this sentence you could say kad or kada with no change in meaning:
…tek kad (kada) je kaciga na stolu…

Why is parkiram in the present tense when it describes a general habit or rule?

Croatian uses the present tense for:

actions happening now, and
habitual / general actions (like English simple present).

So Bicikl parkiram… means I (generally / as a rule) park the bike…. There is no special “habitual” tense; the plain present covers that function.

Why is it kad ugasim svjetlo, not kad gasim svjetlo?

The difference is aspect:

ugasim – perfective: focuses on the completed action (switching it off)
gasim – imperfective: focuses more on the process or repeated activity (I’m switching / I turn off habitually)

In kad ugasim svjetlo, the point is that the light has been turned off (completed) before or at the same time as parking. That’s why the perfective is preferred.
Kad gasim svjetlo would sound more like while I’m turning off the light or emphasize the process rather than the finished state.

Is ugasim present or future tense? It looks like present but feels future‑like.

Formally, ugasim is the present tense of a perfective verb. However, in Croatian the present of a perfective verb typically refers to a single future event or a completed event in a sequence:

Kad ugasim svjetlo, parkiram bicikl.
– Literally: When I turn off the light, I park the bike.
– Functionally: When I have turned it off, then I park.

So grammatically it’s “present,” but in usage it has a future/afterwards feeling, especially in kad‑clauses.

Why is it je kaciga na stolu and not something like “ima kaciga na stolu”?

Here, kaciga is the subject, and na stolu is a location:

kaciga je na stolu – the helmet is on the table.

The verb je is simply “is” (3rd person singular of biti – to be).
ima kacige / kaciga would be more like “there is a helmet” / “there are helmets”, which is another structure. The sentence here is just stating the position of a specific helmet: the helmet is on the table.

Why is it na stolu and not na stol?

Again, it’s location vs movement:

na stolu – on the table (where it is) → locative case
na stol – onto the table (where it’s being placed) → accusative case

In the sentence, the helmet is already lying there as a condition, so na stolu (locative) is correct.

Why is stolu written with ‑u at the end?

Stol (table) is a masculine noun. In the locative singular, it takes the ending ‑u:

nominative: stol – the table
locative: na stolu – on the table

So stolu is the regular locative form required after na when it expresses location.

Why is it svjetlo na biciklu, and not something like svjetlo bicikla?

Both are possible, but they have slightly different nuances:

svjetlo na biciklu – literally the light on the bike; emphasizes the location of the light (mounted/attached to the bike).
svjetlo bicikla – the bike’s light; uses a genitive possessive construction (light of the bike). Also correct, but a bit less neutral in this collocation.

Svjetlo na biciklu is very natural for “the light that is physically on the bike (front/back light).”

Why is it na biciklu here and not s bicikla?

They mean different things:

na biciklu – on the bike, describes something located on the bicycle (e.g. light, bag, bell).
s bicikla – from the bike, usually indicates movement away from the bike (e.g. sići s bicikla – to get off the bike; skinuti nešto s bicikla – take something off the bike).

In svjetlo na biciklu, we’re just saying where the light is (mounted), so na biciklu is appropriate.

Do we have to repeat kad in i kad ugasim svjetlo, or could it be i ugasim svjetlo?

You can say:

…tek kad je kaciga na stolu i kad ugasim svjetlo… – as in the original, very clear: both are “when”-conditions.
…tek kad je kaciga na stolu i ugasim svjetlo… – also possible, but slightly less natural and a bit more compressed.

Repeating kad makes it explicit that both clauses are separate “when” conditions. It sounds very natural and unambiguous in Croatian.