Learn Hardcore Croatian: Da sam ranije razumjela koliko je javni prijevoz važan, ne bih svaki dan išla autom na posao. - If I had understood earlier how important public transport is, I would not have gone to work by car every day.

Da sam ranije razumjela… = “If I had understood earlier… (but I didn’t)”
- This expresses a counter‑factual, something that did not actually happen.
Ako is used for real or possible conditions:
- Ako razumijem, pomoći ću ti. = “If I understand, I’ll help you.” (real possibility)
- Ako sam dobro razumjela, sutra je sastanak. = “If I understood correctly, the meeting is tomorrow.” (still a real assumption, not clearly impossible)

So da sam ranije razumjela is the usual way to introduce a “third conditional”–type clause in Croatian.

Why is it razumjela and išla, not razumio and išao?

Croatian past tense participles agree with the gender and number of the subject, even in the 1st person.

Masculine singular:
- ja sam razumio, ja sam išao
Feminine singular:
- ja sam razumjela, ja sam išla

In the sentence, the speaker is assumed to be female, so:

Da sam ranije razumjela… = “If I (female) had understood earlier…”
…ne bih svaki dan išla… = “…I (female) wouldn’t go every day…”

If the speaker were male, it would be:

Da sam ranije razumio koliko je javni prijevoz važan, ne bih svaki dan išao autom na posao.

What’s the function of sam and bih, and why are they placed where they are?

Sam and bih are auxiliary verbs (clitics), and Croatian has a strong rule that such clitics go into the second position in the clause.

sam = 1st person singular of biti (to be), used to form the past tense:
- (ja) sam razumjela = “I understood / I have understood”
bih = 1st person singular conditional of biti, used to form the conditional:
- (ja) bih išla = “I would go”

In the sentence:

Da sam ranije razumjela…
- The first word is Da (a conjunction), so sam must follow it as the clitic in “second position”.
…ne bih svaki dan išla…
- The first element is ne (negation), and clitics tend to follow it, so we get ne bih.
- Then come the other words: ne bih svaki dan išla…

You generally can’t freely move sam or bih around; they are tied to the “second position” rule.

Why is it ne bih išla and not something like ne bi išla or ne bih bi išla?

The conditional auxiliary bih/bi/bismo/biste/bi changes with the person:

bih – 1st person singular (I would)
bi – 2nd and 3rd person singular (you/he/she/it would)
bismo – 1st person plural (we would)
biste – 2nd person plural (you would)
bi – 3rd person plural (they would)

Here the subject is ja (I), so you must use bih:

(ja) bih išla = I would go

Ne bi išla would mean “you (or she) would not go.”

You never double it; ne bih bi išla is incorrect. Only one conditional auxiliary is used.

Why is it ne bih svaki dan išla and not ne bih išla svaki dan? Is the word order important?

Both are grammatically correct; the difference is mostly about rhythm and emphasis.

ne bih svaki dan išla autom na posao
→ slight emphasis on svaki dan (every day) as a block; it sounds very natural.
ne bih išla svaki dan autom na posao
→ also normal; a bit more neutral, with a slight emphasis on išla.

Croatian word order is flexible. You can move adverbials like svaki dan to adjust what you want to stress, as long as you don’t break clitic rules (e.g. you can’t separate ne and bih incorrectly).

Why is ranije used here? Could you also say prije?

Both ranije and prije relate to “earlier / before,” but their usage is a bit different:

ranije = “earlier” in a more general, adverbial sense:
- Da sam ranije razumjela… – “If I had understood earlier…”
prije often needs an object or a reference:
- prije toga – before that
- prije posla – before work
- prije
  - genitive: prije ručka – before lunch

You could say:

Da sam to prije razumjela… – “If I had understood that earlier/before…”

Here, ranije works very well on its own to mean “at an earlier time,” so it’s the natural choice.

In koliko je javni prijevoz važan, why is the word order “koliko je javni prijevoz važan” instead of “koliko je važan javni prijevoz”?

Both word orders are grammatically correct:

koliko je javni prijevoz važan
koliko je važan javni prijevoz

They both mean “how important public transport is.”

The difference is subtle and about focus:

koliko je javni prijevoz važan
→ keeps javni prijevoz (public transport) closer to koliko je; slight focus on “how important public transport is (specifically).”
koliko je važan javni prijevoz
→ slight focus on važan (“how important it is”).

In everyday speech, both are fine, and speakers don’t feel a strong difference here. The version in the sentence flows naturally and is very typical.

Why is važan masculine singular? Does it agree with javni prijevoz?

Yes. In koliko je javni prijevoz važan, the adjective važan (important) agrees with the noun prijevoz (transport):

prijevoz is masculine singular.
The adjective must match: važan (masculine singular form).

So:

javni prijevoz je važan – public transport is important.
If the noun were feminine, you’d see važna; if neuter, važno:
- javna usluga je važna – the public service is important.
- javno zdravstvo je važno – public healthcare is important.

Why is the clause koliko je javni prijevoz važan using je in the middle, and not something like “koliko javni prijevoz važan je”?

Croatian usually keeps the verb fairly early in the clause, especially with the verb biti (to be).

In subordinate clauses introduced by koliko, da, kad, etc., the normal pattern is:

conjunction + subject + je
- complement
  or
conjunction + je
- subject + complement

So:

koliko je javni prijevoz važan
koliko je važan javni prijevoz

Sound natural.

Placing je at the end like koliko javni prijevoz važan je is unusual and marked, sometimes used only for poetic or very special emphasis. In normal speech and writing, you don’t do that.

Why is it išla (from ići) and not otišla or some other verb for going by car?

The choice of išla (imperfective ići) fits because the sentence is about a habitual, repeated action:

ići (imperfective) – to go (in general, repeatedly or as a process)
otići (perfective) – to go away / to leave (a single, completed act)

The sentence says:

ne bih svaki dan išla autom na posao
= “I wouldn’t have gone to work by car every day.”

This describes repeated daily going, so imperfective ići is the natural choice.

Otišla bih autom na posao would sound like a one‑time action: “I would (have) go(ne) / leave by car to work (once).” That’s not what is meant here.

Why is autom used, and in which case is it? Why not just auto?

Autom is the instrumental singular form of auto (short for automobil).

Nominative: auto
Instrumental: autom (full form: automobilom)

The instrumental case is used for means of transport / means of doing something:

ići autom – to go by car
ići autobusom – to go by bus
putovati vlakom – to travel by train
pisati olovkom – to write with a pencil

So išla autom literally means “went by means of a car,” i.e. “went by car.” Using plain auto here would be ungrammatical.

Why is it na posao and not u posao?

The preposition na with the accusative is the usual way to say “to work (as a place)” in Croatian:

ići na posao – to go to work (as in to one’s job / workplace)
biti na poslu – to be at work

U posao literally means “into the work” and is used in different meanings (e.g. into a task, into a project), not for going to your workplace.

So:

išla autom na posao = “went by car to (her) job / to work.”

Why does Croatian use ne bih išla (present conditional) for an unreal past situation? Isn’t there a special “past conditional”?

Croatian technically has a compound conditional (sometimes called a “past conditional”):

ne bih bila išla (fem.) / ne bih bio išao (masc.)
= “I would not have gone”

However:

In everyday language, speakers almost always use the simple (present) conditional in both clauses for these “third conditional” meanings:
- Da sam ranije razumjela, ne bih svaki dan išla autom na posao.

This is absolutely standard and natural.

The longer form (ne bih bila išla) sounds stylistically heavy or overly formal in most contexts, and is much less common in speech. So using ne bih išla to talk about a hypothetical past habit is normal Croatian.

What is the role of da at the beginning? Is it the same da used for “that” in Croatian?

Yes, it is the same conjunction da, but here it introduces a hypothetical / unreal condition.

Da can introduce:

Content clauses (like English “that”):
- Znam da je javni prijevoz važan. – I know that public transport is important.
Unreal conditional clauses (like English “if” in “If I had…”):
- Da sam ranije razumjela… ne bih išla… – If I had understood earlier… I wouldn’t have gone…

In this sentence, da is functioning in the second way: it signals a counter‑factual “if” clause.