لولا البيطري، الحيوان الشارد ما كان اخد اللقاح ولا تعقم.

لولا means if it weren’t for / were it not for. It introduces a counterfactual idea: because of the vet, the result happened; without the vet, it would not have happened.

In Arabic, لولا is very often followed by a noun phrase, not a full verb clause. So لولا البيطري is a complete opening by itself: if it weren’t for the vet.

Yes — originally it is an adjective meaning veterinary, but Arabic often uses adjectives as nouns when the meaning is clear.

So:

• طبيب بيطري = veterinary doctor / veterinarian
• البيطري = the vet

This shortening is very normal. A speaker can say البيطري and everyone understands it means the veterinarian.

Because in Arabic, an adjective usually matches the noun it describes in definiteness.

So:

• حيوان شارد = a stray animal
• الحيوان الشارد = the stray animal

Since الحيوان is definite, the adjective الشارد must also be definite. This is a very common pattern in Arabic.

الشارد literally has the sense of straying, wandering off, gone astray, roaming loose.

For animals, it can work well for stray or loose. Depending on region and context, you may also hear:

• ضال = stray / lost
• مشرّد = homeless / abandoned / stray

So الحيوان الشارد is understandable and natural, though different speakers might choose a slightly different adjective.

Because ش is a sun letter. In Arabic, when الـ comes before a sun letter, the l sound assimilates to the next consonant.

So الشارد is pronounced more like ish-shāred / ash-shāred, not al-shāred.

By contrast, البيطري keeps the l sound, because ب is a moon letter.

Yes. In Levantine Arabic, أخد / اخد is very commonly used with medicine, treatment, and vaccines.

So اخد اللقاح literally means took the vaccine, but in natural English it often comes out as got the vaccine or received the vaccine.

This is a normal everyday Arabic way to express it.

Because ما كان اخد gives a stronger past hypothetical / counterfactual sense.

Compare:

• ما أخد اللقاح = it didn’t get the vaccine
• ما كان اخد اللقاح = it wouldn’t have gotten the vaccine

After لولا, this longer pattern is very natural, because the speaker is talking about what would not have happened without the vet.

So ما كان اخد is not just a simple past negative; it fits the idea of an unreal past result.

Yes. Arabic often avoids repeating material that is already understood.

So:

• ما كان اخد اللقاح ولا تعقم

is understood as something like:

• ما كان اخد اللقاح ولا [كان] تعقم

In English, that is wouldn’t have gotten the vaccine nor gotten sterilized.

The second auxiliary is left out because the meaning is already clear from the first part.

Here تعقم means got sterilized / was sterilized, not sterilized something.

That matters because:

• عقّم = he sterilized [something] → active, transitive
• تعقّم = he/it got sterilized → the subject undergoes the action

Since الحيوان الشارد is the one receiving the procedure, تعقم is the right choice.

Also, it is a past form. If it were present/future, you would expect something like يتعقم or in colloquial speech بيتعقّم.

Because informal Levantine writing often simplifies spelling.

For example:

• اخد may be written instead of أخد
• تعقم may be written instead of تعقّم

In everyday typing, people often leave out:

• hamza
• shadda
• short vowels

Also, colloquial Levantine usually writes أخد rather than the formal standard spelling أخذ, because أخد reflects the spoken pronunciation better.

So this spelling style is very normal in dialect writing.

Because the subject is الحيوان, which is grammatically singular masculine.

So the verbs naturally appear in the 3rd person masculine singular:

• اخد
• تعقم

Even though English uses it for an animal, Arabic still makes the verb agree with the grammatical gender of the noun. With حيوان, masculine singular agreement is the normal choice.

It sounds understandable and fairly natural, but a little neutral / semi-colloquial rather than extremely casual.

Why:

• لولا works in both spoken and formal Arabic
• البيطري is common and clear, though some speakers may also say الدكتور البيطري
• الشارد is understandable, though another speaker might choose الضال or something similar

So the sentence is fine, but it is not slangy or highly informal. It sits in a middle register that many learners will hear often.