Learn Hardcore Croatian: Jučer smo otišli na koncert prekasno, pa smo čuli samo kraj i jedan vic glazbenika. - Yesterday we went to the concert too late, so we heard only the end and one joke from the musician.

Jučer smo otišli na koncert…
Literally: Yesterday we went to the concert…
– Neutral, natural sentence. “Jučer” (yesterday) is highlighted a bit because it’s at the beginning.
Mi smo jučer otišli na koncert…
– Emphasizes “we” (as opposed to someone else): We (as opposed to they) went to the concert yesterday...
Otišli smo jučer na koncert…
– Puts a bit more focus on the action of going; still quite natural, just a different rhythm.

Croatian allows relatively free word order because grammatical relations are mostly shown by endings, not by position. However, clitics (like smo) have stricter placement rules (second position in the clause), which limits word order somewhat. In this sentence, “Jučer smo otišli…” is the most neutral and typical way to say it.

Why is it “smo otišli” and not something like a single past-tense word, like English “went”?

Croatian past tense is usually formed with:

present of “biti” (to be) + l‑participle

So for “otići” (to go, to leave):

ja sam otišao / otišla – I went
ti si otišao / otišla – you went
on je otišao, ona je otišla – he/she went
mi smo otišli / otišle – we went
vi ste otišli / otišle – you (pl.) went
oni su otišli, one su otišle – they went

In the sentence:

smo = present tense of “biti” (we are) used as an auxiliary
otišli = l‑participle of otići

Together they express past tense: we went.

Why is it “otišli smo” (with -li) instead of “išli smo”?

Both verbs exist, but they are different:

ići – to go (imperfective, focuses on the action itself, not completion)
otići – to go away / to leave / to go (and be gone) (perfective, focuses on the completed event)

In this context, otišli smo na koncert implies:

We went to the concert (we left our place and arrived there).
There is a sense of completed movement to a destination.

If you said jučer smo išli na koncert, it would sound more like:

Yesterday we were going to the concert (describing the going as a process), often used when something about that process is important (e.g. we met someone on the way, or we didn’t manage to get there).

Why is it “na koncert” and not “u koncert”?

Croatian uses different prepositions for locations like concerts, parties, events, etc.:

na koncert – to the concert
na predstavu – to the show
na zabavu – to the party
na izložbu – to the exhibition

“na” + accusative is often used for events, surfaces, and some institutions.
“u” + accusative is more for going into enclosed spaces:

u kuću – into the house
u školu – to (into) the school
u sobu – into the room

A concert is treated more like an event than a physical container, so we say na koncert.

What exactly is the difference between “kasno” and “prekasno”?

kasno = late
- Došli smo kasno. – We came late.
prekasno = too late (excessive, beyond acceptable)
- Došli smo prekasno. – We came too late.

In the sentence:

otišli smo na koncert prekasno = we went to the concert too late
– This explains why they heard only the end: their lateness had negative consequences.

What does “pa” mean here, and how is it different from “i” or “zato”?

In this sentence:

…prekasno, pa smo čuli samo kraj…

“pa” works like “so” / “and so” / “and then”. It connects two clauses and often implies a consequence, result, or sequence:

We went too late, so we heard only the end.

Rough comparison:

i = and (just adds information, no cause-effect required)
pa = and/so, with a feeling of result, consequence, or “and then”
zato (or zato što) = therefore / because (more explicit cause-effect)

You could also say:

Otišli smo prekasno, zato smo čuli samo kraj. – We went too late, therefore we heard only the end. (sounds more formal/explicit)

Why is “smo” repeated: “smo otišli” and “smo čuli”? Could I say “…prekasno, pa čuli smo samo kraj…”?

You must repeat “smo” in the second clause, because each finite verb in past tense needs its own auxiliary:

(Mi) smo otišli… – we went
(Mi) smo čuli… – we heard

As for placement: Croatian clitics like “smo” usually stand in 2nd position in their own clause. After the conjunction “pa”, a new clause starts, so “smo” has to appear right after “pa”:

…prekasno, pa smo čuli samo kraj… ✅ (correct, natural)
…prekasno, pa čuli smo samo kraj… ❌ (sounds wrong; clitic is not in second position)

So both the repetition and the placement are required.

Why is it “čuli smo samo kraj” without any article like “the end” before “kraj”?

Croatian has no articles (a, an, the). Definiteness and indefiniteness are usually understood from context.

kraj by itself can mean “end” or “the end”, depending on context.

In this sentence, we clearly know they are talking about the end of the concert, so “kraj” is understood as “the end” even without an article:

Čuli smo samo kraj. = We heard only the end (of it).

The more explicit version would be:

Čuli smo samo kraj koncerta. – We heard only the end of the concert.

Here kraj koncerta is end of the concert, with “koncerta” in the genitive.

Why is it “čuli smo samo kraj i jedan vic” and not “samo jedan vic i kraj”? Is that word order important?

Both word orders are grammatically correct:

čuli smo samo kraj i jedan vic
čuli smo samo jedan vic i kraj

The difference is only in rhythm and slight focus. In the original:

kraj comes first, then jedan vic.
It feels like: we heard only the end (of the concert), and one joke – putting the end first because it’s more central to the story.

In everyday speech, people might choose either order depending on what they want to emphasize first. There is no strict rule here; it’s mainly stylistic.

What is the function of “jedan” in “jedan vic glazbenika”? Isn’t “jedan” just the number one?

Yes, “jedan” literally means one, but in Croatian it can also work like English “a / one single” to introduce a new, specific but previously unmentioned thing:

jedan vic = one joke / a joke

So:

čuli smo jedan vic – We heard a joke / one joke.

It can add a nuance of “one particular” joke, sometimes almost like storytelling: we heard this one joke the musician told.

Without “jedan”:

čuli smo vic glazbenika – We heard the musician’s joke.
This sounds a bit more like referring to a known or specific joke, less natural in this context.

Why is it “glazbenika” and not “glazbenik” or “glazbenikom”?

“glazbenika” is in the genitive singular.

In “jedan vic glazbenika”, the structure is:

vic (koga? čega?) glazbenika
– a joke of the musician / the musician’s joke

Croatian often uses the genitive case to express possession or source, where English uses “of” or ’s:

knjiga dječaka – the boy’s book / book of the boy
auto mog brata – my brother’s car / car of my brother
jedan vic glazbenika – a joke of the musician / the musician’s joke

Other forms:

glazbenik – nominative (subject: the musician does something)
glazbenikom – instrumental (e.g. s glazbenikom = with the musician)

Here we need genitive to show “whose joke?”, so we use glazbenika.

Could you say “jednu šalu glazbenika” instead of “jedan vic glazbenika”? What’s the difference between “vic” and “šala”?

Both are related to the idea of a joke, but they’re used a bit differently:

vic
– a joke with a punchline, something you “tell” in a few sentences.
– ispričati vic – tell a joke.
šala
– can be a joke, but also teasing, playful remark, joking behavior in general.
– To je bila samo šala. – It was just a joke.
– On uvijek priča šale. – He always makes jokes.

In this concert context, where the musician tells a specific humorous story or line to the audience, “vic” is more natural:

čuli smo jedan vic glazbenika – we heard one (told) joke by the musician.

“jednu šalu glazbenika” is grammatically ok, but stylistically a bit less typical for a told joke.

Why is “otišli” and “čuli” in the masculine plural form? What if the group is all women?

The forms you see:

otišli
čuli

are the masculine plural l‑participles.

In Croatian:

For mixed groups (men + women) or unspecified groups, the masculine plural is the default:
- Mi smo otišli. – We (mixed/unknown) went.
For all-female groups, you use feminine plural:
- Mi smo otišle. – We (women only) went.
- Mi smo čule. – We (women only) heard.

Since the sentence doesn’t specify the gender of “we”, the masculine plural is used as the default grammatical gender.

Could “jučer” be placed later in the sentence, like “Otišli smo jučer na koncert prekasno”? Does its position change the meaning?

Yes, you can move “jučer” around; the meaning stays the same, but the rhythm and slight emphasis change.

All of these are correct:

Jučer smo otišli na koncert prekasno.
Otišli smo jučer na koncert prekasno.
Otišli smo na koncert jučer prekasno. (less common order)

Placing “jučer” at the very beginning is the most neutral and typical in storytelling; it sets the time frame first. Moving it later shifts focus slightly more to the act of going or the lateness.

The main restriction is not about “jučer” itself, but about keeping clitics like “smo” in second position in each clause.