Learn Hardcore Croatian: Za odbojku nam treba visoka mreža i mekša lopta, pa često igramo na pijesku iza igrališta. - For volleyball we need a high net and a softer ball, so we often play on the sand behind the field.

Za odbojku nam treba visoka mreža i mekša lopta, pa često igramo na pijesku iza igrališta.

For volleyball we need a high net and a softer ball, so we often play on the sand behind the field.

Breakdown of Za odbojku nam treba visoka mreža i mekša lopta, pa često igramo na pijesku iza igrališta.

Elon.io is an online learning platform

We have an entire course teaching Croatian grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Croatian now

Questions & Answers about Za odbojku nam treba visoka mreža i mekša lopta, pa često igramo na pijesku iza igrališta.

In za odbojku, why is odbojku in that form, and what exactly does za express here?

Za is a preposition that normally takes the accusative case and often expresses purpose, goal, or “for whom/for what” something is intended.

Nominative: odbojka (volleyball)
Accusative: odbojku

So za odbojku literally means “for volleyball / for playing volleyball”, and odbojku has to be in the accusative because of za.

The phrase za odbojku is just giving context: “For volleyball, we need a high net and a softer ball …”
You could also move it to the end:

Nam treba visoka mreža i mekša lopta za odbojku.
(We need a high net and a softer ball for volleyball.)

The meaning is the same; putting za odbojku at the beginning just sets the topic right away (“As for volleyball…”).

What does nam mean in za odbojku nam treba and why does it come in that position?

Nam means “to us / for us”. It is the dative form of mi (we), in its short/clitic version.

Full (stressed) form: nama = to us / for us
Clitic (unstressed) form: nam

Croatian has a “second position” rule for clitics: they tend to go right after the first stressed word or phrase in the clause. In this sentence, the first stressed phrase is za odbojku, so the clitic nam goes right after it:

Za odbojku nam treba …

If you remove za odbojku, you get:

Treba nam visoka mreža i mekša lopta.
(We need a high net and a softer ball.)

You would not normally start the sentence with Nam:

✗ Nam treba visoka mreža… (sounds unnatural in neutral speech)
✓ Nama treba visoka mreža… (possible if you want to strongly stress us: “We (of all people) need a high net…”)

Why is the verb treba used here instead of trebamo (“we need”)?

Croatian verb trebati (“to need / to be necessary”) has two common patterns:

Personal use (subject = the person):
- Trebamo visoku mrežu i mekšu loptu.
  We need a high net and a softer ball.
  Here mi (we) is the subject, so the verb is trebamo (1st person plural), and the thing needed is in accusative (visoku mrežu, mekšu loptu).
Impersonal use (subject = the thing needed; the person is in dative):
- (Za odbojku) nam treba visoka mreža i mekša lopta.
  Literally: For volleyball to us is-needed a high net and a softer ball.
Here:
- nam (to us) is dative,
- visoka mreža i mekša lopta is the grammatical subject,
- the verb is in 3rd person singular: treba.

Both patterns are correct and common. The impersonal treba + dative (as in the given sentence) sounds very natural and is extremely frequent in everyday speech.

You could also hear or read:

Za odbojku trebamo visoku mrežu i mekšu loptu. (personal)
Za odbojku nam treba visoka mreža i mekša lopta. (impersonal, as in the sentence)

If visoka mreža i mekša lopta are two things, shouldn’t it be trebaju, not treba?

Logically, yes: since visoka mreža i mekša lopta is a plural subject, standard agreement would be:

Za odbojku nam trebaju visoka mreža i mekša lopta.

In practice, however, in the impersonal construction with trebati, many native speakers almost always use the singular form treba, even when the subject is plural:

Treba mi dvije karte. (instead of trebaju mi dvije karte)
Treba nam visoka mreža i mekša lopta.

So:

Trebaju … is more strictly grammatical and more likely in careful/formal writing.
Treba … with plural subjects is extremely common in everyday speech and widely accepted.

As a learner, using trebaju with clearly plural subjects will always be safe, but you should expect to hear treba very often.

Why are visoka mreža and mekša lopta in the nominative, not in some object case?

Because in this impersonal pattern with trebati, the thing that is needed behaves like the subject of the sentence and is put in the nominative case:

Treba mi knjiga. → I need a book.
(knjiga is nominative, even though in English it looks like an object.)

In your sentence:

visoka mreža i mekša lopta = what is needed → subject → nominative
nam = to us → dative

Compare with the personal pattern:

Trebamo visoku mrežu i mekšu loptu.
Here we is the subject and visoku mrežu i mekšu loptu are objects in the accusative.

So the case changes depending on which pattern of trebati you choose.

How do the adjectives visoka and mekša agree with mreža and lopta?

In Croatian, adjectives must agree with the noun in gender, number, and case.

mreža (net) – feminine singular
lopta (ball) – feminine singular

Since they are both feminine singular nominative, their adjectives are also feminine singular nominative:

visoka mreža – high net
mekša lopta – softer ball

If the case changed, the adjectives would change too. For example, in the accusative (personal pattern Trebamo…):

Trebamo visoku mrežu i mekšu loptu.

You can see:

nominative: visoka mreža, mekša lopta
accusative: visoku mrežu, mekšu loptu

Same gender and number, but different endings because of the case.

What exactly is mekša—is it a comparative form, and how is it formed?

Yes, mekša is the comparative form of the adjective mek / mekan (soft).

Base adjective (one common pair of forms):

masculine: mek / mekan
feminine: meka / mekana
neuter: meko / mekano

Comparative stem: mekš-

Comparative forms:

masculine: mekši (softer)
feminine: mekša (softer)
neuter: mekše (softer)

In the sentence, lopta is feminine singular nominative, so we get mekša lopta = a softer ball (softer than some understood reference, e.g. a normal volleyball).

What does the conjunction pa add here? Could we just use i or zato instead?

Pa is a very common, flexible conjunction. Here it links two clauses and has a light “and so / and then” meaning:

Za odbojku nam treba visoka mreža i mekša lopta, pa često igramo na pijesku…
≈ We need a high net and a softer ball for volleyball, so we often play on the sand…

Rough comparison:

i = and (just adds information)
- …, i često igramo na pijesku. – …, and we often play on the sand. (no clear cause-effect)
pa = and so / and then, often implying a mild consequence or result
- …, pa često igramo na pijesku. – suggests we play on the sand as a result of needing that kind of gear.
zato / zato (usually zato or zato in combinations like zato / zato)
- Zato često igramo na pijesku. – That’s why we often play on the sand.
  This is a stronger, more explicit cause-effect.

So pa is a natural, conversational way to say “and so” or “so” here.

Could the word order around često igramo be different, for example Često igramo, Igramo često, or Mi često igramo?

Yes, Croatian word order is quite flexible, especially with adverbs like često (often). All of these are possible:

Pa često igramo na pijesku…
Neutral: adverb before the verb; very common.
Pa igramo često na pijesku…
Grammatically fine. The adverb after the verb can sound slightly more emphatic or stylistically marked, but it’s used.
Pa mi često igramo na pijesku…
Emphasises mi (“we”), often in contrast: “We often play on the sand (even if others don’t).”
Često igramo na pijesku iza igrališta.
Starting with često puts extra focus on frequency: “We often play on the sand behind the playground.”

The original pa često igramo is a very natural, neutral order: conjunction pa + adverb često + verb igramo.

In na pijesku, what case is pijesku, and why do we use that form after na?

Pijesku is in the locative case.

The preposition na can take either locative or accusative, depending on meaning:

Locative – where something is (location, “on / in”):
- na pijesku – on the sand
- na stolu – on the table
- na plaži – on the beach
Accusative – movement to a place (“onto / to”):
- na pijesak – onto the sand
- na stol – onto the table
- na plažu – to the beach

In your sentence, we are talking about where they often play, not movement to that place, so locative is used:

Nominative: pijesak (sand)
Locative: (na) pijesku → on the sand

In iza igrališta, what case is igrališta and how does iza work?

Iza (“behind”) is a preposition that always takes the genitive case.

iza kuće – behind the house
iza škole – behind the school
iza igrališta – behind the playground / playing field

The noun:

Nominative: igralište (neuter, “playground / playing field”)
Genitive singular: igrališta

So:

iza igrališta literally = behind (of) the playground → behind the playground.

Is the order na pijesku iza igrališta fixed, or could we say iza igrališta na pijesku?

Both orders are grammatically correct, but the nuance is slightly different.

na pijesku iza igrališta
Focuses first on the surface they play on (on the sand), then adds where that sand is (behind the playground).
→ on the sand that is behind the playground.
iza igrališta na pijesku
Focuses first on the area behind the playground, then adds that in that area they are on the sand.
→ behind the playground, on the sand.

In normal speech, both would be understood the same, and the difference is tiny. Speakers tend to put the more important or more “background-setting” information earlier, so the original na pijesku iza igrališta nicely emphasises playing on sand as the main point, and behind the playground as an extra detail.

Why is there a comma before pa in this sentence?

The sentence actually consists of two clauses:

Za odbojku nam treba visoka mreža i mekša lopta,
pa često igramo na pijesku iza igrališta.

The conjunction pa is joining two independent clauses (each has its own verb: treba / igramo), so in standard Croatian a comma is placed before pa in this role.

If pa were just linking shorter phrases or verbs inside one clause, you might not have a comma, but when it connects full clauses with their own finite verbs (as here), the comma is normal and expected.