Learn Hardcore Croatian: Da imam veću plaću, priuštio bih si putovanje metrom kroz sve dijelove grada. - If I had a higher salary, I would treat myself to a trip by metro through all parts of the city.

Da imam veću plaću, priuštio bih si putovanje metrom kroz sve dijelove grada.

If I had a higher salary, I would treat myself to a trip by metro through all parts of the city.

Breakdown of Da imam veću plaću, priuštio bih si putovanje metrom kroz sve dijelove grada.

Elon.io is an online learning platform

We have an entire course teaching Croatian grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Croatian now

Questions & Answers about Da imam veću plaću, priuštio bih si putovanje metrom kroz sve dijelove grada.

In this sentence, what does da mean, and why is it used instead of ako (if)?

Here da introduces an unreal / hypothetical condition and can be translated as “if”:

Da imam veću plaću… ≈ If I had a higher salary…

This da + present tense pattern is very common in Croatian for hypothetical, unreal situations (things that are not true at the moment).

Compare:

Da imam više vremena, putovao bih više.
If I had more time, I would travel more. (but I don’t)

versus

Ako imam vremena, putujem.
If I have time, I travel. (a real, general condition)

Using ako imam veću plaću would sound like you’re talking about a real, repeating situation (whenever I have a higher salary…), which doesn’t fit here.
So da in this structure is closer to English “if (I hypothetically had)” than to “that”.

Why is it imam (present tense) in da imam veću plaću, and not bih imao?

In the da + present construction, Croatian formally uses the present tense, but the whole structure expresses a hypothetical / unreal situation about the present.

So:

Da imam veću plaću…
literally: That I have a higher salary…
meaning: If I had a higher salary (but I don’t)…

You could also express a very similar idea with a “normal” conditional:

Kad bih imao veću plaću, priuštio bih si…
If I had a higher salary, I would…

Both are natural, but:

Da imam… is shorter, very common in speech and informal writing.
Kad bih imao… is a bit more “textbook conditional”.

Da bih imao veću plaću… is grammatically possible, but in practice da + bih is used more for purpose clauses (učim da bih položio ispit – “I’m studying so that I would pass the exam”), not so much for this kind of simple condition. For this sentence, da imam is the natural choice.

What tense is priuštio bih and how is it formed?

Priuštio bih is the conditional in Croatian (often called kondicional II).

Formation:

Take the L‑participle (the same form you use to make the past tense):
- infinitive: priuštiti
- L‑participle (masc. sg.): priuštio
Add the conditional form of biti (to be):
- bih – I would
- bi – you (sg.) / he / she / it would
- bismo – we would
- biste – you (pl.) would
- bi – they would

So:

priuštio bih – I would treat myself / I would afford
priuštila bih – I (female speaker) would treat myself / would afford
priuštili bismo – we would…

In this sentence:

priuštio bih si… = I would treat myself to…

What exactly does si do in priuštio bih si, and how is that different from leaving it out?

Si is a short dative reflexive pronoun meaning “to myself” (for 1st person), equivalent to “to yourself / to himself / to herself” with other persons.

priuštiti si nešto = to treat oneself to something / to afford something for oneself

So:

Priuštio bih si putovanje…
I would treat myself to a trip… (there’s a clear idea of doing something nice for myself)

If you drop si:

Priuštio bih putovanje…

This is grammatically possible, but it sounds more like “I would afford the trip” in a neutral, financial sense, without the nuance that it’s a little luxury for me. Native speakers strongly prefer priuštiti si in this “treat myself” meaning.

A non‑reflexive version would be:

Priuštio bih mu putovanje. – I would treat him to a trip.
(here mu = to him; the structure is parallel to si = to myself)

Why is it si and not se here?

Croatian has two short reflexive pronouns:

se – accusative (direct object) or part of inherently reflexive verbs
si – dative (indirect object: “to myself / to yourself / …”)

In priuštiti si nešto the reflexive is an indirect object: you afford something to yourself, so you must use the dative:

priuštiti si putovanje – treat yourself to a trip (dative)
kupiti si knjigu – buy yourself a book (dative)

Typical se examples instead:

smijati se – to laugh
bojati se – to be afraid
vidim se u ogledalu – I see myself in the mirror (accusative reflexive)

So in this sentence, si is required, not se.

Is priuštio bih si the only possible word order, or could I say bih si priuštio?

The usual and natural word order here is:

Priuštio bih si putovanje…

In Croatian, short words like bih, bi, si, se, mi, ti, mu are clitics and have fairly strict word‑order rules: they normally go in the second position in the clause (after the first stressed word or phrase), and they form a little “cluster” in a fixed order.

In this sentence, the first stressed word is priuštio, so the clitics follow it:

Priuštio bih si… ✔

Starting the sentence with bih sounds wrong:

Bih si priuštio… ✘ (unnatural)

If you add a word in front, the clitics move:

Rado bih si priuštio putovanje. ✔
(here Rado is first; then the clitic cluster bih si, then priuštio)

So: priuštio bih si (or with some word before it) is what you should use.

Why is it veću plaću and not veća plaća?

Because veću plaću is the direct object of imam (I have), so it must be in the accusative case.

Nominative (subject): veća plaća – a higher salary
Accusative (object): veću plaću – a higher salary (as object)

In the sentence:

Da imam veću plaću…

the structure is imam + što? (what?) → veću plaću (direct object), so you use:

veću – feminine singular accusative of veći (bigger/higher)
plaću – feminine singular accusative of plaća (salary)

Compare:

Veća plaća je važna. – A higher salary is important. (subject → nominative)
Imam veću plaću. – I have a higher salary. (object → accusative)

What is the difference between plaća and plaću here?

They are just different case forms of the same noun:

plaća – salary (nominative singular, used for the subject)
plaću – salary (accusative singular, used for the direct object)

Examples:

Moja plaća je mala. – My salary is small. (subject → nominative plaća)
Imam malu plaću. – I have a small salary. (object → accusative plaću)

In imam veću plaću, plaću is the thing you “have”, so it’s in the accusative.

What case is metrom in putovanje metrom, and why is that case used?

Metrom is in the instrumental singular of metro.

The instrumental is often used to express means of transport in Croatian, without a preposition:

ići metrom – to go by metro
putovati vlakom – to travel by train
doći autobusom – to come by bus
voziti se tramvajem – to ride the tram

So:

putovanje metrom literally = a journey by metro

You could paraphrase it more descriptively as:

putovanje podzemnom željeznicom – a journey by underground railway,

but metrom in the instrumental is the normal, concise way.

Could I say vožnja metrom instead of putovanje metrom? Is there a difference?

Yes, you could say vožnja metrom, and it would be correct, but there is a nuance:

putovanje metrom – a trip / journey by metro, often sounds a bit longer or more “travel‑like”
vožnja metrom – literally a ride by metro, which can be any length, often sounds more like the act of riding

In your sentence:

priuštio bih si putovanje metrom kroz sve dijelove grada

this nicely suggests a kind of excursion, riding through the whole city.
Vožnja metrom kroz sve dijelove grada would also work, just with slightly more focus on the ride itself rather than the “trip” as a small adventure.

What cases are used in kroz sve dijelove grada, and why?

There are two important cases here:

dijelove – accusative plural of dio (part)
grada – genitive singular of grad (city)

Structure:

kroz + accusative
The preposition kroz (through) always takes the accusative, so:
- nominative: dijelovi – parts
- accusative: dijelove – (through) the parts
dijelove grada
grada is in the genitive (“of the city”):
- dijelove grada = parts of the city
sve
sve agrees in case and number with dijelove (accusative plural masculine inanimate), so you get:
- kroz sve dijelove grada – through all (the) parts of the city

So grammatically:

kroz → requires accusative → dijelove
dijelove čega? (of what?) → grada (genitive)

Could I say po svim dijelovima grada instead of kroz sve dijelove grada? What’s the difference?

Both are correct, but the prepositions give slightly different pictures:

kroz sve dijelove grada – through all parts of the city
Suggests movement passing through those parts, maybe along a line or route.
po svim dijelovima grada – around all parts of the city / throughout the whole city
po with the locative (svim dijelovima) suggests movement or distribution around / across / throughout an area in a more scattered way.

With the metro, both make sense:

putovanje metrom kroz sve dijelove grada – a metro ride that goes through all parts (maybe following lines through each district).
putovanje metrom po svim dijelovima grada – a ride that covers all parts of the city (slightly more “all over the place”).

Your original kroz is perfectly natural; po would just change the nuance a little.

Why is it priuštio bih and not priuštila bih? Does this depend on the speaker?

Yes, the form of priuštio depends on the gender and number of the subject.

The conditional uses the L‑participle, which agrees with the subject:

Ja (muškarac): priuštio bih si… – I (male speaker) would treat myself…
Ja (žena): priuštila bih si… – I (female speaker) would treat myself…
Mi (mješovita grupa): priuštili bismo si… – We would treat ourselves…
Mi (samo žene): priuštile bismo si… – We (all women) would treat ourselves…

In your sentence, priuštio bih si assumes a male speaker.
If a woman were speaking, she would naturally say:

Da imam veću plaću, priuštila bih si putovanje metrom kroz sve dijelove grada.