Learn Hardcore Hausa: An share harabar makaranta kafin yara su iso. - The school yard was swept before the children arrived.

an = an impersonal 3rd‑person perfective subject pronoun. It implies “someone / people / they (unspecified)” or “it has been…”.
share = “swept” (perfective form of the verb meaning “to sweep”).

So An share harabar makaranta literally means “(people) swept the school yard” or more naturally “The school yard has been swept.” The doer is not specified; it’s just understood that someone did it.

Is an a tense marker or a pronoun? How is an share different from sun share?

an is a subject pronoun (3rd person, impersonal) in the perfective aspect, not a separate tense particle.

Compare:

Sun share harabar makaranta. = “They swept the school yard / They have swept the school yard.”
Here sun = 3rd person plural, specific they (some group you have in mind).
An share harabar makaranta. = “The school yard has been swept” / “They swept the school yard (someone, not specified).”
Here an makes the subject generic/unspecified, which in English often comes out as a passive.

So an is used when you don’t want to, or don’t need to, say exactly who did it.

Why is share used instead of shara?

share is the finite verb form “swept”, while shara is the base form/verbal noun “sweeping”.

Na share ɗaki. = “I swept the room.”
Ina yin shara. = “I am doing the sweeping / I am sweeping.”

In An share harabar makaranta, you need the perfective verb “swept”, so you use share, not shara.

Does harabar makaranta mean “the school yard” or “a school yard”? Where are “the” and “of”?

Hausa doesn’t have a separate word for “the” or “of” here; they are expressed through noun structure:

haraba = yard / courtyard / open compound
makaranta = school
harabar makaranta ≈ “yard of (the) school” → “the school yard”

So harabar makaranta naturally comes out in English as “the school yard” (or “the school compound”), even though there is no separate word for the or of in Hausa.

What does the -r in harabar do?

The -r in harabar makaranta is a linking (genitive) consonant that joins two nouns in a “X of Y” relationship.

Base noun: haraba (yard)
In construct with another noun: harabar makaranta (“yard-of school”)

You see the same pattern in many Hausa noun‑noun combinations:

ɗakin yaro = ɗaki
- -n
  - yaro → “the boy’s room”
kofar gida = kofa
- -r
  - gida → “door of the house”

So haraba + -r + makaranta gives harabar makaranta.

Why do we say kafin yara su iso and not just kafin yara iso? Isn’t yara already the subject?

In Hausa, a finite verb normally needs a subject pronoun, even if a full noun phrase is also present.

Yara sun iso. = “The children have arrived.”
- yara = full noun phrase
- sun = subject pronoun (3rd person plural perfective)

Similarly, in the subordinate clause:

kafin yara su iso:
- yara = “children”
- su = subject pronoun (3rd person plural, subjunctive set)
- iso = “arrive”

So yara su iso literally feels like “(the) children, they arrive”. Simply *yara iso (without su) is ungrammatical in standard Hausa.

What tense or mood is su iso, and why is that form used after kafin?

su iso is in the subjunctive (or “irrealis”) mood, not the perfective.

The perfective 3rd‑person plural would be sun iso (“they have arrived”) or suka iso (“they arrived” in a narrative).
The subjunctive 3rd‑person plural is su iso (“that they arrive / should arrive / will arrive”).

After kafin (“before”), Hausa typically uses the subjunctive if the event is still in the future or not yet realized from the reference point:

An share harabar makaranta kafin yara su iso.
= “The school yard has been swept before the children arrive / before the children get here.”

So su iso here is “(that) they arrive” in a “not yet happened” sense.

If the sweeping already happened, why isn’t the arrival clause also in the past, like kafin yara suka iso?

You could say kafin yara suka iso, but the nuance changes slightly.

kafin yara su iso
looks at the children’s arrival as a future / expected event relative to the sweeping:
“(It was) swept before the children would arrive / were to arrive.”
kafin yara suka iso
treats the arrival as a completed past event in a narrative sequence:
“(It was) swept before the children arrived (and they did arrive).”

In your sentence, su iso keeps the focus on the preventive idea: make sure sweeping is done ahead of their arrival.

Why is there no word for “in/at” before harabar makaranta? Why not a harabar makaranta?

Because share is a transitive verb that takes the thing swept as a direct object, not a location with a preposition.

An share harabar makaranta.
= “They swept the school yard” (the yard itself is what was swept).

If you said a harabar makaranta, that would sound more like “in the school yard” as a location, not as the thing being swept. Here we want “sweep the yard itself”, so harabar makaranta is the direct object, without a.

Can I replace iso with zo (come)? What’s the difference?

You can say both, but there is a nuance:

kafin yara su iso
→ “before the children arrive (here / there)”
iso focuses on the fact of reaching the place, “arrival”.
kafin yara su zo
→ “before the children come”
zo is the more general verb “come”.

In many everyday contexts they can be interchangeable, and speakers might choose whichever sounds more natural to them. Iso sounds a bit more like “arrival” as an event; zo is simply “come”.

How would I say “We swept the school yard before the children arrived”?

You mainly change the first verb to have “we” as the subject, and you can choose a past‑focused form for the second clause if you want:

Neutral, still using subjunctive after kafin:
- Mun share harabar makaranta kafin yara su iso.
  = “We swept the school yard before the children arrived / before the children would arrive.”
More clearly past‑narrative for the arrival:
- Mun share harabar makaranta kafin yara suka iso.
  = “We swept the school yard before the children arrived (and they did arrive).”

Both are grammatically correct; the second makes it extra clear that their arrival is a completed past event.