Zid prema podrumu je debeo, pa se kroz njega ništa ne čuje, čak ni kad djeca glasno pričaju.

Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Croatian grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Croatian now

Questions & Answers about Zid prema podrumu je debeo, pa se kroz njega ništa ne čuje, čak ni kad djeca glasno pričaju.

What does prema podrumu literally mean, and which case is used with prema?

Prema is a preposition that usually means towards / facing / in the direction of.

  • podrum = basement
  • prema podrumu = literally towards the basement or facing the basement

Prema always takes the dative case, so podrum (nominative) becomes podrumu (dative).

In this sentence Zid prema podrumu is like saying the wall (that is) facing/towards the basement.

Why is it debeo and not debela / debelo? How is the form decided?

Adjectives in Croatian agree with the gender, number and case of the noun they describe.

  • zid = wall
    • gender: masculine
    • number: singular
    • case: nominative (subject of the sentence)

So debeo (thick) has to be:

  • masculine
  • singular
  • nominative

Hence: Zid … je debeo.
If the noun were feminine singular (e.g. kuća), you’d say Kuća je debela, and for a neuter noun (e.g. staklo) Staklo je debelo.

What exactly does pa mean here, and how is it different from just using i or zato?

Pa is a very flexible conjunction. In this sentence it roughly means so or and so:

  • …je debeo, pa se kroz njega ništa ne čuje…
    …is thick, so nothing can be heard through it…

Compared to other options:

  • i = and (just adds information, weaker causal feeling)
  • zato / zato što = therefore / because (more explicit cause–effect)
  • pa = often combines “and” + a light sense of consequence

So pa here is like a conversational way of saying: It’s thick, and because of that nothing is heard through it.

What is the role of se in pa se kroz njega ništa ne čuje?

Here se makes the verb čuti (to hear) into an impersonal / passive-like construction:

  • čuti = to hear
  • čuti se = to be heard

So:

  • Ništa se ne čuje. = Nothing is heard. / You can’t hear anything.

There is no explicit person doing the hearing; the focus is on whether sounds can be heard. This is very common in Croatian to talk about general states or possibilities (similar to English “you/one can hear”, “it can be heard”).

Why is it kroz njega and not something like kroz njim or kroz njemu?

The preposition kroz (through) always takes the accusative case.

The pronoun on (he/it – masculine) has these relevant forms:

  • Nominative: on (he / it)
  • Accusative: njega (him / it)
  • Dative/Locative: njemu (to him / on him)
  • Instrumental: njim (with him / by him)

Since kroz needs accusative, we must use njega:

  • kroz njega = through it / through him

kroz njemu or kroz njim would be ungrammatical.

Why do we say ništa ne čuje, with both ništa and ne? Isn’t that a double negative?

Yes, it is a double negative from an English point of view, but in Croatian the double negative is standard and required.

  • ništa = nothing / anything
  • ne = not

In negative sentences with ništa, nitko, nikad, nigdje etc., you must also use ne with the verb:

  • Ništa ne čujem. = I don’t hear anything / I hear nothing.
  • Nitko me ne zove. = Nobody is calling me.

Leaving out ne (Ništa čujem) would be wrong.

What does čak ni mean in čak ni kad djeca glasno pričaju?

čak ni corresponds to English “not even”.

  • čak = even
  • ni = (negative) even / nor

In a negative sentence, čak ni emphasizes that not even in that extreme or special case does something happen:

  • Ništa se ne čuje, čak ni kad djeca glasno pričaju.
    = Nothing can be heard, not even when the children are talking loudly.

It strengthens the idea that the wall blocks sound very well.

What is the difference between kad and kada? Why is kad used here?

Kad and kada have the same meaning: when.

  • kad is shorter and more colloquial / everyday
  • kada sounds a bit more formal or careful, but is also very common

In most cases they are fully interchangeable:

  • Čak ni kad djeca glasno pričaju.
  • Čak ni kada djeca glasno pričaju.

Both are correct; kad is just the more casual, natural choice in spoken-style sentences like this.

Why is the verb pričaju (3rd person plural) used with djeca, when djeca looks like singular?

Djeca (children) is a special noun:

  • grammatically: neuter plural
  • meaning: a group of people (kids)

With djeca, the verb is always in 3rd person plural, even though the word itself doesn’t end in a typical plural ending:

  • Djeca su vani. = The children are outside.
  • Djeca glasno pričaju. = The children are talking loudly.

So djeca pričaju, djeca trče, djeca spavaju, etc. — always plural verb forms.

What is the nuance of pričati in djeca glasno pričaju? Could we use govoriti instead?

Both pričati and govoriti can relate to “speaking”, but their typical uses differ:

  • pričati

    • to talk, chat
    • to tell a story
    • more informal, conversational
      Djeca pričaju. = The children are talking / chatting.
  • govoriti

    • to speak (a language)
    • to talk in a more formal or serious way
      Djeca govore hrvatski. = The children speak Croatian.

In this sentence, pričati is perfect, because it’s about kids talking loudly (chatting, making noise), not about what language they speak or giving a speech. Djeca glasno govore would sound more like “the children are speaking loudly” (slightly more formal or neutral).

Could the word order djeca glasno pričaju be changed, and would it change the meaning?

Yes, Croatian word order is fairly flexible, and you could say:

  • Kad djeca glasno pričaju (neutral)
  • Kad glasno pričaju djeca (slight emphasis on glasno pričaju)

The basic meaning remains the same: when the children talk loudly.

The original order djeca glasno pričaju is the most neutral and most common in this context, but other orders are possible, mainly to shift emphasis or fit a specific rhythm.

Is čuti se always impersonal, or can it also be reflexive (like “hear oneself”)?

Se with čuti is used in two main ways:

  1. Impersonal / passive-like (as in our sentence)

    • Ništa se ne čuje. = Nothing is heard / You can’t hear anything.
  2. Reflexive: hearing oneself is usually expressed more explicitly, e.g.:

    • Čujem se u slušalicama. = I can hear myself in the headphones.

You normally don’t say “čujem se” alone to mean “I hear myself”; you add more context (in what, where, how). In the example sentence, se is clearly the impersonal/passive type: can be heard.

Why is se čuje and not something like može se čuti (“can be heard”)?

Both are possible, but se čuje is shorter and more natural in everyday speech.

  • kroz njega se ništa ne čuje
    → literally: through it nothing is heard
    → functionally: you can’t hear anything through it

If you say:

  • kroz njega se ništa ne može čuti
    nothing can be heard through it

you are slightly more explicit about possibility/ability (can), but the difference in meaning is minimal. The simpler se čuje is very common for general statements like this.