Learn Hardcore Hausa: Ruwan ya riga ya tafasa a tukunyar, don haka uwa ta cire shi daga wuta. - The water has already boiled in the pot, so mother took it off the fire.

In Hausa, when a noun like ruwa is the subject of a verb that uses a short subject pronoun (ya, ta, sun, etc.), the noun usually appears in a special annexed / linked form with -n or -r.

ruwa = water (basic form)
ruwan = the water (linked/definite form)

So:

Ruwan ya tafasa = The water has boiled.
Ruwa yana da amfani = Water is useful. (general, not specific water)

In Ruwan ya riga ya tafasa, the -n marks ruwa as a specific, definite subject closely linked to the verb phrase. Without -n here, it would sound odd or ungrammatical to Hausa speakers.

Why do we use ya with ruwan? Isn’t ya “he”?

Yes, ya literally means he / it (masculine), but in Hausa, every noun has grammatical gender, and the verb agrees with that gender:

Masculine nouns → ya (he/it), shi (him/it)
Feminine nouns → ta (she/it), ta/ita (her/it)

Ruwa (water) is grammatically masculine, so:

Ruwan ya tafasa = The water has boiled.
Object form: Uwa ta sha shi = The mother drank it (the water).

The ya does not mean a male person here; it is just agreement with the masculine noun ruwa.

Why do we have ya twice in ya riga ya tafasa?

In Hausa, each finite verb normally takes its own subject pronoun, even if the subject is the same.

The structure here is:

Ruwan (topic/subject noun)
ya riga (it has already / it preceded)
ya tafasa (it boiled)

Literally: The water, it has already it-boiled.

So:

First ya = subject of riga (has already / preceded).
Second ya = subject of tafasa (boiled).

You cannot drop the second ya; *Ruwan ya riga tafasa is wrong. In this construction, Hausa needs the pronoun before each verb.

What exactly does ya riga ya tafasa mean? Is it like English has already boiled or had already boiled?

The phrase ya riga ya tafasa is best understood as “has already boiled” / “had already boiled”, depending on context.

riga = to be ahead of, to come earlier, to precede
Pattern: [subject] ya riga ya [verb] = [subject] has already [verb-ed]

Aspectually:

The ya form is a perfective aspect – it presents the action as completed.
Adding riga adds the meaning “already / beforehand”.

So:

Ruwan ya tafasa. = The water has boiled / boiled.
Ruwan ya riga ya tafasa. = The water has already boiled / had already boiled.

Whether you translate it as has already boiled or had already boiled depends on the wider narrative tense in English. Hausa itself doesn’t mark that exact past vs. past-perfect difference; it just marks completion and the “already” idea.

What does tafasa mean, and how is it used?

Tafasa is a verb meaning to boil.

Intransitive use (something boils by itself – very common):
- Ruwan ya tafasa.
  The water has boiled.
Transitive use (someone boils something – also possible):
- Uwa ta tafasa ruwan.
  The mother boiled the water.
- More everyday alternatives for “boil/cook” something are dafa or dafa abinci (cook food), but tafasa can be used this way too.

In the sentence:

ya tafasa = it has boiled (referring to the water).

What is the difference between tukunya and tukunyar?

tukunya = a pot (basic, often indefinite)
tukunyar = the pot (definite / linked form, with -r)

Hausa adds -n / -r to many nouns to:

Show definiteness, especially when context makes it specific:
- a tukunya = in a pot
- a tukunyar = in the pot
Or link the noun to something following it (like possession or another element), but in this sentence it mainly signals “the specific pot we’re talking about”.

So a tukunyar here means “in the pot (already mentioned or understood)”.

What does a tukunyar literally mean? Could we say a cikin tukunyar instead?

a tukunyar = in the pot / at the pot, with a as a very general preposition (in, at, on depending on context).
a cikin tukunyar = inside the pot, more explicit.

Both are grammatically correct here:

Ruwan ya riga ya tafasa a tukunyar.
Ruwan ya riga ya tafasa a cikin tukunyar.

In this context, they mean almost the same, but a cikin tukunyar emphasizes the inside of the pot more strongly. a tukunyar is shorter and perfectly natural because boiling water in a pot already implies “inside.”

What does don haka mean, and how is it used?

don haka is a conjunction meaning “so, therefore, for that reason.”

Literally:

don = because of / for
haka = that, like that, thus

So don haka = “because of that / that being so”, and functions just like:

so
therefore
as a result

In the sentence:

..., don haka uwa ta cire shi daga wuta.
= ..., so the mother took it off the fire.

You can use don haka at the beginning of a clause, just like English So/Therefore.

Why does it say uwa ta cire shi daga wuta, and not repeat ruwan?

Hausa strongly prefers object pronouns instead of repeating a noun that has just been mentioned, especially when it’s obvious what you mean.

Uwa ta cire ruwan daga wuta.
= The mother took the water off the fire. (correct, but repetitive)
Uwa ta cire shi daga wuta.
= The mother took it off the fire. (more natural, avoids repetition)

Here:

shi = him/it (masculine object pronoun)
It refers back to ruwan (the water).

So the sentence uses shi to avoid saying ruwan again, just like English prefers it instead of repeating the water.

Does shi refer to the water or the pot? How do we know?

shi refers to the water (ruwan).

We know this because of grammatical gender:

ruwa (water) is masculine → pronouns: ya / shi
tukunya (pot) is feminine → pronouns: ta / ta/ita

In the sentence:

Ruwan ya riga ya tafasa a tukunyar, don haka uwa ta cire shi daga wuta.

The object pronoun shi is masculine, so it can only refer to ruwan (masculine), not tukunyar (feminine). If the speaker wanted the pot as the pronoun object, we would expect a feminine form:

..., don haka uwa ta cire ta daga wuta.
(so the mother took it (the pot) off the fire)

In everyday speech, people would more likely name the pot again for clarity:

..., don haka uwa ta cire tukunyar daga wuta.

Is cire the usual verb for “take it off the fire”? Could we use something else?

Cire means to remove, take out, take off. It works well here:

ta cire shi daga wuta = she removed it from the fire.

Other common options include:

dauke = to lift, to remove, to take away
- Uwa ta dauke tukunyar daga wuta.
  The mother took the pot off the fire.
sauke = to bring down / take down (often used for taking a pot down from a stove/fire)
- Uwa ta sauke tukunyar daga wuta.
  The mother took the pot down from the fire.

So cire is good and correct, but dauke and sauke are also very natural, especially when talking specifically about lifting/removing a pot.

How would this sentence change if the subject were feminine or plural instead of ruwan?

The subject pronouns would change to match the noun’s gender/number.

Feminine singular subject (e.g. tukunya, pot):
- Tukunyar ta riga ta tafasa, don haka uwa ta cire ta daga wuta.
  The pot had already boiled (i.e. boiled over), so the mother took it off the fire.
Note: Here both subject and object pronoun are ta (feminine).
Plural subject (e.g. qwai, eggs):
- Qwai sun riga sun dahu a tukunyar, don haka uwa ta cire su daga wuta.
  The eggs had already cooked in the pot, so the mother took them off the fire.
- sun = they (plural subject pronoun)
- su = them (plural object pronoun)

The pattern stays the same:

Masculine sg.: ya / shi
Feminine sg.: ta / ta/ita
Plural: sun / su

But the pronouns change to agree with the new subject.