Learn Hardcore Croatian: Psiholog objašnjava da nam mašta pomaže preživjeti težak dan u sadašnjosti. - The psychologist explains that imagination helps us survive a hard day in the present.

mašta pomaže nam = imagination helps us (literally: helps to us)
Compare: mašta pomaže djeci = imagination helps children (djeci is also dative)

So nam is correct because we are the indirect object (the person who benefits), not the direct object.

In the part da nam mašta pomaže, who is the subject of the verb pomaže?

The subject of pomaže is mašta (imagination), not nam.

mašta is in the nominative (subject case).
pomaže is 3rd person singular, so it agrees with mašta (singular).
nam is dative plural; it is not the subject but the person receiving the help.

So the core structure is:

mašta pomaže = imagination helps
mašta pomaže nam = imagination helps us

Why do we need da in objašnjava da nam mašta pomaže? In English we can say “explains imagination helps us…”, can Croatian drop da?

In this kind of sentence, Croatian cannot normally drop da.

Da is a conjunction that introduces a that‑clause:

Psiholog objašnjava da… = The psychologist explains that …

Unlike English, Croatian does not usually omit da here. So:

✅ Psiholog objašnjava da nam mašta pomaže…
❌ Psiholog objašnjava nam mašta pomaže… (wrong without da)

Think of da here as obligatory: whenever you translate “explain that…”, “say that…”, “think that…”, you almost always need da in Croatian.

Why is the word order da nam mašta pomaže and not da mašta nam pomaže?

The position of nam is determined by the Croatian rule about clitics (short unstressed words like mi, ti, mu, se, ga, je, li, etc.).

In Croatian, most clitics normally go in “second position” in the clause, meaning they come right after the first stressed word or phrase. In this clause:

First stressed word: da
So the clitic nam comes immediately after: da nam
Then the rest: mašta pomaže

That’s why we get da nam mašta pomaže, not da mašta nam pomaže in a neutral sentence.

You can sometimes move things around for emphasis, but the standard, neutral order respects the clitic-second rule:

Neutral: da nam mašta pomaže
mašta stays after the clitic; nam cannot normally stand at the very end or far later in the sentence in standard usage.

Why is objašnjava in the present tense? Could we also say Psiholog je objasnio…?

Objašnjava is the present tense of the imperfective verb objašnjavati (to explain / to be explaining).

Psiholog objašnjava… = The psychologist explains / is explaining…

This can describe:

something that is happening right now, or
a general or frequently repeated action (e.g. in an article or book: “The psychologist explains that…”).

You can say Psiholog je objasnio da…:

objasnio is the past tense, perfective (from objasniti = to explain once, to finish explaining).
This means The psychologist (has) explained that… — a completed explanation at some point in the past.

So:

objašnjava (imperfective present) → ongoing / habitual / general explanation.
je objasnio (perfective past) → one specific explanation that is finished.

Why is the verb preživjeti (to survive) in the infinitive after pomaže? Could we also say pomaže da preživimo?

After pomaže (helps), Croatian can use either:

An infinitive:
- pomaže preživjeti težak dan = helps (us) survive a hard day
  This is very natural and direct.
A da + finite verb construction:
- pomaže da preživimo težak dan = helps (us) so that we survive a hard day

Both are grammatically correct; the difference is subtle:

Infinitive (preživjeti) is more neutral and compact, often used for “help (someone) to do X”.
Da + verb (da preživimo) can feel a bit more purposive or outcome‑focused: “helps (us) so that we survive”.

In your sentence, pomaže preživjeti težak dan is a very natural and common way to say “helps (us) survive a difficult day.”

Why is it preživjeti (perfective) and not preživljavati (imperfective)? What’s the nuance?

Croatian verb aspect matters here:

preživjeti = to survive (perfective; focus on the result, getting through the day)
preživljavati = to be surviving / to keep surviving (imperfective; focus on the ongoing process)

In pomaže preživjeti težak dan, the idea is that imagination helps you get through / make it to the end of a hard day. That’s a single completed outcome, so the perfective preživjeti fits well.

If you used preživljavati:

pomaže preživljavati težak dan
This would emphasize the continuous struggling through a hard day, not simply the final survival. It’s possible, but the nuance changes: more “helps with the ongoing process of getting through a hard day” than “helps you make it through the day.”

Why is it težak dan and not teška dan or teško dan?

The adjective težak (difficult, hard) must agree with the noun dan (day) in:

gender
number
case

Here:

dan is masculine, singular, accusative (because it is the object of preživjeti)
The matching form of težak for masculine singular accusative (for an inanimate noun) is težak.

So:

težak dan = a hard day (masculine singular accusative)

Other forms would be:

teška — feminine singular (e.g. teška noć = a hard night)
teško — neuter singular (e.g. teško vrijeme = hard/difficult time)

Because dan is masculine, you must say težak dan.

Why is it u sadašnjosti, not u sadašnjost, and what’s the difference from saying danas or sada?

Sadašnjost (the present) is a feminine noun. With the preposition u, you get different cases:

u
- locative → in/at a place or time (static, “in”)
u
- accusative → into a place (movement, “into”)

Here we have u sadašnjosti:

sadašnjost in the locative: (u) sadašnjosti
Meaning: in the present (as a time period or state)

We are not moving into the present; we are located in it, so locative is used, not accusative.

As for vocabulary:

u sadašnjosti = in the present (more abstract, philosophical or formal)
sada = now (this moment)
danas = today (this day)

Your sentence uses u sadašnjosti to sound a bit more abstract and general: imagination helps us survive a hard day in the present (time), as opposed to, say, in the past or future.

Could we say Psihologinja objašnjava… instead of Psiholog objašnjava…?

Yes, if you specifically want to refer to a female psychologist, you can say:

Psihologinja objašnjava da nam mašta pomaže…

Forms:

psiholog = psychologist (default / typically masculine form)
psihologinja = female psychologist

In many contexts, psiholog can be used generically if the gender is unknown or irrelevant. But if you want to highlight that it’s a woman, psihologinja is the normal feminine form.

Can we use kako instead of da: Psiholog objašnjava kako nam mašta pomaže…? Is there a difference?

Yes, you can also say:

Psiholog objašnjava kako nam mašta pomaže preživjeti težak dan u sadašnjosti.

Both da and kako can introduce this kind of clause, and the difference is subtle:

da is the most neutral way to introduce a “that‑clause” with statements or facts.
kako can sometimes suggest a bit more of an explanatory manner or “the way in which”, especially when combined with verbs like objašnjavati (explain), pokazivati (show), opisivati (describe).

Here:

objašnjava da nam mašta pomaže… = explains that imagination helps us…
objašnjava kako nam mašta pomaže… = explains how imagination helps us…

In practice, they often overlap, and both are acceptable. Da is slightly more neutral; kako can feel a bit more “how / in what way” in tone.