Learn Hardcore Croatian: Na kraju dana shvaćamo da svaki brak ima i tugu i ponos, ali da je zajednički trud važniji nego što smo mislili. - At the end of the day we realize that every marriage has both sadness and pride, but that joint effort is more important than we thought.

In Croatian, na kraju dana is used very similarly to English “at the end of the day” in the figurative sense: “when you think about what really matters / ultimately / in the final analysis.”
It can also be used literally (at the physical end of the day), but here it’s clearly figurative, just like in English.

So yes, the idiom matches English very closely in both form and usage.

What’s the nuance of shvaćamo here? Is it the same as razumijemo?

Both shvaćamo and razumijemo can be translated as “we understand”, but their nuance is slightly different:

shvaćamo (from shvatiti, imperfective shvaćati) is more like:
- “we come to realize / we grasp / we come to understand (on a deeper or more reflective level)”
razumijemo (from razumjeti) is often more neutral:
- “we understand (in a straightforward, intellectual sense)”

In the sentence: > Na kraju dana shvaćamo...

the verb shvaćamo suggests:

a realization that comes with experience or reflection,
something like “we come to realize in the end that…” rather than just “we simply understand.”

So shvaćamo is the better choice here for that reflective, emotional insight.

Why is svaki brak in this form? Why not svakog braka or something else?

Svaki brak is in the nominative singular, because it is the subject of the verb ima:

svaki = every (masculine singular nominative)
brak = marriage (masculine singular nominative)

The structure is:

svaki brak (subject) + ima (verb “has”) + i tugu i ponos (objects)

You would use svakog braka (genitive) in other structures, for example:

tuga svakog braka = the sadness of every marriage

But here, since “every marriage” is the thing that has something, it must stay in the nominative: svaki brak ima….

Why are tugu and ponos in different forms: tugu vs ponos?

Both tugu and ponos are in the accusative singular, but they look different because they are different genders and declension types:

tuga (sadness) – feminine noun:
- nominative: tuga
- accusative: tugu
ponos (pride) – masculine inanimate noun:
- nominative: ponos
- accusative: ponos (same form as nominative for inanimate masculine nouns)

So:

ima i tugu i ponos
- ima = “has”
- what does it have? → tugu (sadness) and ponos (pride), both in accusative as direct objects.

They are in the same case, they just look different due to their noun type.

What does the pattern i tugu i ponos express? Is it the same as “both X and Y”?

Yes, the pattern i X i Y corresponds to English “both X and Y”.

Here:

i tugu i ponos = both sadness and pride

General pattern:

i ljudi i životinje = both people and animals
i danas i sutra = both today and tomorrow

So i… i… is a very common way to connect two items and emphasize that both are included.

Why is there a second da: ali da je zajednički trud važniji...? Could we omit it?

There are two da-clauses coordinated by ali:

shvaćamo da svaki brak ima i tugu i ponos
(shvaćamo) da je zajednički trud važniji nego što smo mislili

So in full mental structure:

shvaćamo [da A, ali da B]

The second da is natural and common because we are clearly starting a new clause. Without it, the sentence would be grammatical but would sound less clear and less balanced:

With da: ali da je zajednički trud važniji… (very natural)
Without da: ali je zajednički trud važniji… (more like “but the joint effort is more important…”, a bit less tightly connected to shvaćamo)

The extra da signals that both parts (da svaki brak ima... and da je zajednički trud...) are equally things that we shvaćamo (realize).

What exactly does zajednički trud mean?

Zajednički trud consists of:

zajednički = joint, shared, mutual, common
trud = effort, hard work, exertion

So zajednički trud means:

“joint effort”, “shared effort”, “the effort both partners put in together”

In the context of marriage, it implies:

collaboration,
mutual investment,
working together on the relationship.

Why is važniji used, and what form is it?

Važniji is the comparative form of the adjective važan (important).

važan = important (positive degree)
važniji = more important (comparative degree)

In the sentence:

zajednički trud (joint effort) is being compared to what we thought before.
So we need a comparative: važniji nego što smo mislili = more important than we thought.

Grammatically:

zajednički trud is masculine singular, so:
- nominative masculine singular comparative: važniji.

How does the structure važniji nego što smo mislili work? Why nego and why što?

This is a common Croatian comparative construction:

važniji nego = “more important than”
- Croatian normally uses nego after a comparative (bolji nego, veći nego, važniji nego).
što smo mislili = literally “what we thought”

So:

važniji nego što smo mislili ≈ “more important than (what) we thought”.

Why što?

što here is like a generic relative pronoun, similar to English “what / that which”:
- više nego što sam očekivao = more than I expected
- ljepše nego što izgleda na slikama = nicer than it looks in the pictures

The full idea:

važniji (je) nego (što je važan) u onoj mjeri u kojoj smo mi mislili
→ simplified in natural language to važniji nego što smo mislili.

Why is the verb order smo mislili and not mislili smo?

Both smo mislili and mislili smo are grammatically correct, but Croatian has a preference:

With clitics (short, unstressed forms like sam, si, je, smo, ste, su, se, ga, mu, etc.), they are usually placed early in the clause, typically in the second position.

In što smo mislili:

što is the first element,
smo (clitic auxiliary) naturally comes second,
mislili (main verb) comes after.

So:

što smo mislili (most neutral and typical)
što mislili smo (possible, but sounds marked or unusual in standard prose; might occur in poetry, emphasis, or special contexts)

That’s why smo appears before mislili.

Why are there no explicit subjects like mi (“we”) in shvaćamo and smo mislili?

Croatian is a pro-drop language, meaning it usually omits subject pronouns when the verb ending already shows the person and number.

shvaćamo → 1st person plural (we)
smo mislili → auxiliary smo also shows 1st person plural

Because the forms shvaćamo and smo clearly indicate “we”, there is no need to say mi explicitly.

You would add mi only for emphasis or contrast:

Mi shvaćamo, ali oni ne. = We understand, but they don’t.

Is shvaćamo here present tense? The meaning feels like something we realized over time.

Yes, shvaćamo is present tense of the imperfective verb shvaćati.

However, in Croatian (as in English), the present can be used in a general, reflective sense:

Na kraju dana shvaćamo...
= “In the end, we come to realize / we (generally) realize…”

It doesn’t necessarily mean only right now, at this very moment.
It describes a kind of general truth or typical realization that people arrive at, often after some experience.

Why is there a comma before ali?

In standard Croatian punctuation:

ali (but) introduces a contrastive clause and is usually preceded by a comma.

Here, we have:

first da-clause: da svaki brak ima i tugu i ponos
second da-clause, contrasted by ali: ali da je zajednički trud važniji...

So the comma: > ..., ali da je zajednički trud važniji...

marks the boundary and contrast between:

what every marriage has (sadness and pride)
and what ultimately matters more (joint effort).

Could we say razumijemo instead of shvaćamo and važniji nego što smo mislili prije by adding prije? Would that still sound natural?

Yes, both changes are possible and natural, but they slightly shift the nuance.

shvaćamo → razumijemo
- Na kraju dana razumijemo...
  This would be understood and grammatical. It sounds a bit more neutral, less like “we gradually come to see” and more like “we intellectually understand.” The original shvaćamo feels more emotional and reflective.
Adding prije:
- važniji nego što smo mislili prije = more important than we thought before
  This is also correct and clear. It just makes the “earlier time” more explicit.
  The original sentence implies “before” from context, so prije isn’t necessary, but you can add it if you want to emphasize “compared to our earlier opinion.”