Learn Hardcore Hausa: Gayyatar tana cewa su zo gida mu ci abinci tare. - The invitation says they should come home so we eat together.

Gayyata means “invitation”.
The -r on gayyatar is the definite suffix attached to many feminine nouns ending in -a, so gayyatar means “the invitation”, not just “an invitation”.

Why is it “tana” and not “yana”? Why is the verb feminine here?

In Hausa, verbs agree in gender with their subject in the 3rd person singular.
Gayyata(r) is treated as a feminine noun, so the agreement form is ta (she/it) + na (progressive marker) → tana.
If the subject were a masculine noun, you would get yana instead.

What does “tana cewa” literally mean, and how does that compare to English “says”?

Literally, tana cewa is “it is saying” (she/it + PROG + “saying”).
In English we usually say “the invitation says …” in the simple present, but Hausa very often uses this progressive form for statements of content, so gayyatar tana cewa … is the natural way to say “the invitation says that …”.

What is the role of “cewa” in this sentence? Can it be left out?

Cewa functions like the English word “that” introducing a reported clause:

Gayyatar tana cewa [su zo gida mu ci abinci tare].
= “The invitation says that [they should come home so we can eat together].”

It signals that what follows is the content of what is being said.
In careful or standard speech after tana cewa, cewa is normally kept; in fast colloquial speech some speakers might drop it, but keeping it is safer and clearer for learners.

Why do we need “su” before “zo”? Isn’t “zo” already an imperative meaning “come!”?

Zo! by itself is a 2nd person imperative: “Come!” (spoken directly to “you”).
In su zo, su is the 3rd person plural subjunctive pronoun (“they”), and zo is the bare verb.

So su zo means something like:

“let them come” / “they should come”,
not a direct command to “you”, but a reported or wished action for “them”.

That fits the English meaning: “the invitation says (that) they should come home …”.

Similarly, what does “mu” do before “ci” in “mu ci abinci tare”?

Mu is the 1st person plural subjunctive pronoun (“we”).
Mu ci (abinci) = “let’s eat (food)” / “we should eat (food)”.

So in the sentence, mu ci abinci tare means “so that we (the host and the guests) eat food together”, i.e. “so we can eat together”.
The use of mu shows it is not just “they eat”, but we all eat.

Why is it “abinci” and not “abincin”? Is there a difference?

Abinci means “food” in a general, indefinite sense.
Adding -n (or -din/-r depending on the noun) makes it definite: abincin = “the food”.

Here, the invitation is talking about eating food in general, not some specific, already-known dish, so abinci (indefinite) is more natural.

What does “tare” add to the sentence, and where does it usually go?

Tare means “together” (or “together with”).
Placed at the end of mu ci abinci, it modifies the whole action:

mu ci abinci = “we should eat food”
mu ci abinci tare = “we should eat food together”

In this kind of sentence, tare typically comes after the object (here abinci), near the end of the clause.

Does “gida” here mean “house” or “home”? And why isn’t there a word for “our” or “your”?

Gida can mean both “house” and “home”, depending on context.
In invitation contexts, zo gida is naturally understood as “come (to the) house/home (of the host)”—in English we’d often translate it simply as “come over”.

Hausa doesn’t always state possession explicitly when it’s obvious from context, so you don’t need gidanmu (“our house”) here; gida alone is enough.

Why is the structure “su zo gida mu ci abinci tare” and not something like “su zo gida su ci abinci tare”?

You could say su zo gida su ci abinci tare, which would mean “they should come home and they should eat together (there)”—it focuses on them doing both actions.
In the original sentence, su zo gida mu ci abinci tare splits the subjects:

su zo gida = “they should come home”,
mu ci abinci tare = “(so) we should eat together.”

This highlights that “coming” is about them, but “eating” is a joint activity involving “we” (the hosts + guests).

Could this idea be expressed with direct speech instead of “tana cewa …”? How would that look?

Yes. With direct speech you would quote the invitation’s words, for example:

Gayyatar ta ce: “Ku zo gida mu ci abinci tare.”
- ta ce = “it/she said”
- ku zo = “you (pl.) come!”

This is like: “The invitation said: ‘Come home so we can eat together.’”
The original sentence with tana cewa … presents it as indirect / reported speech, without quotation marks.