Breakdown of Da smo prije skupljali smeće uz rijeku, danas bi voda bila čišća.
Questions & Answers about Da smo prije skupljali smeće uz rijeku, danas bi voda bila čišća.
In this sentence, “Da smo…” introduces an unreal / counterfactual conditional (something that did not happen in the past).
- “Da smo prije skupljali smeće uz rijeku…”
= If we had collected trash along the river earlier (but we didn’t)…
If you use “Ako smo”, it usually suggests a real condition (something that might be true, or you're not sure):
- Ako smo prije skupljali smeće uz rijeku…
= If we collected trash along the river earlier… (maybe we did, maybe we didn’t – we are checking that condition)
So:
- “Da + past tense” → unreal, hypothetical, contrary to fact (If we had…).
- “Ako + past/present” → real, possible condition (If we…).
“Smo” is the auxiliary verb “to be” in the 1st person plural (we), used to form past tenses in Croatian.
- mi smo skupljali = we collected / we were collecting
- Subject pronoun “mi” (we) is usually dropped:
smo skupljali = (we) collected / were collecting
In this sentence:
- da smo skupljali
literally: that we were collecting → functions like English if we had collected / if we had been collecting.
You need “smo” because Croatian compound past forms (like English “have collected”, “had collected”) cannot be formed with just the participle; they require the auxiliary (biti = “to be”) in the appropriate person and number.
Order of “smo”:
Croatian has strict rules for the position of clitics (short unstressed words like sam, si, je, smo, ste, su, bi…).
“Smo” must come very early in the clause, usually in second position:- da smo skupljali smeće (correct)
- da skupljali smo smeće (sounds wrong)
Why “skupljali” (past participle):
The speaker is talking about past, repeated/ongoing actions that didn’t actually happen:- skupljati (imperfective) → “to collect (regularly, over time)”
- skupljali smo → “we used to collect / we were collecting”
So “da smo skupljali” corresponds to English “if we had (been) collecting”, which fits the idea of a past unreal condition with repeated action.
Using “skupljamo” (present) would break the hypothetical-past meaning:
- Da skupljamo smeće… = If we are collecting trash… (now), which is not what this sentence expresses.
The form “skupljali” is the masculine plural past active participle of skupljati.
In Croatian:
- A mixed or unknown-gender group → masculine plural by default.
- An all-female group → feminine plural.
So:
- Group of men / mixed group: mi smo skupljali smeće
- Group of only women: mi smo skupljale smeće
In your sentence, “skupljali” just assumes the usual default (mixed or unspecified group). You could say “da smo prije skupljale smeće…” if you clearly refer to an all-female group.
“Smeće” means “trash, garbage” and is:
- neuter singular noun
- in accusative case here (direct object of skupljati).
For neuter singular nouns ending in -e, nominative and accusative look the same:
- Nominative: smeće je ovdje – the trash is here
- Accusative: skupljamo smeće – we collect trash
So in “skupljali smeće”, “smeće” is the object (what we were collecting).
The preposition “uz” with the accusative case often means:
- along, alongside (following the line of something)
- right next to, by (in close proximity)
So:
- uz rijeku = along the river / by the riverbank
Alternatives:
- pored rijeke – next to / beside the river (close, but not emphasizing “along the length”)
- kraj rijeke – by the river, at the river’s edge
- na rijeci – literally on the river (on the surface/area of the river – used differently)
In the context of collecting trash along the riverbank, “uz” is very natural because it suggests moving along the river, not just being at one single point near it.
In “da smo prije skupljali smeće uz rijeku…”, “prije” means “earlier / before (that time)” in a general sense.
It can function:
- on its own: prije = earlier, before (then)
- with a complement:
- prije toga – before that
- prije deset godina – ten years ago
- prije rata – before the war
Nothing is “missing” grammatically here. The idea is:
- Da smo prije skupljali smeće…
≈ If we had been collecting trash earlier (in the past, before now)…
If you want to be more specific, you can add something:
- Da smo prije nekoliko godina skupljali smeće uz rijeku…
= If we had collected trash along the river a few years ago…
Breakdown:
- danas – today
- bi – conditional form of “biti” (to be), used for “would”
- voda – water (feminine singular)
- bila – past participle of biti, feminine singular to agree with voda
- čišća – comparative of čist → cleaner
So literally:
- danas bi voda bila čišća
= today would water be cleaner → natural English: the water would be cleaner today.
The “bi + bila” pair acts like “would be”:
- bi (clitic) = “would”
- bila = “be” (in a form that agrees with voda)
You cannot say “danas voda bi bila čišća”; “bi” must come very early (second position):
Danas bi voda bila čišća.
In Croatian:
- The regular comparative of čist is čišći (m.) / čišća (f.) / čišće (n.).
- voda is feminine singular → čišća.
So:
- bila čišća = would be cleaner (correct and natural)
“čistija” is sometimes heard in colloquial speech but is considered less standard than “čišća”, because the comparative is formed with a consonant change (čist → čišć- + -a).
Saying “bi bila čistija” would still be understood as would be cleaner, but “čišća” is the textbook form.
The noun “voda” (water) is feminine singular.
In Croatian, the past participle of “biti” (to be) must agree in gender and number with the subject:
- masculine sg: bio
- feminine sg: bila
- neuter sg: bilo
- masculine pl: bili
- feminine pl: bile
So with voda:
- voda je bila – the water was
- voda bi bila – the water would be
That’s why the sentence has “voda bila”, not “voda bio” or “voda bilo”.
Yes, you can flip the order:
- Da smo prije skupljali smeće uz rijeku, danas bi voda bila čišća.
- Danas bi voda bila čišća, da smo prije skupljali smeće uz rijeku.
Both versions are correct. The meaning doesn’t change; only the emphasis does:
- Starting with “Da smo prije…” focuses on the missed action in the past.
- Starting with “Danas bi voda bila…” focuses on the hypothetical present result.
When you put the “da” clause second, it still keeps the same grammar and word order internally; you just move the whole clause to the end.
A useful mapping is:
Da + past tense (auxiliary + participle)
≈ English “If + had + past participle” (3rd conditional, unreal past)bi + participle/adjective
≈ English “would + be / have / do…”
So:
- Da smo prije skupljali smeće uz rijeku, danas bi voda bila čišća.
≈ If we had collected (been collecting) trash along the river earlier, the water would be cleaner today.
Whenever you see:
- Da + (sam/si/je/smo/ste/su) + participle in the “if-clause”
- and bi + participle/adjective in the result clause,
you’re almost always looking at a counterfactual (“If X had…, Y would…”) structure.