Diagnosta wykrył usterkę zawieszenia i amortyzatora.

Wykrył is the past tense, masculine singular form of wykryć (to detect). Polish past tense agrees with the subject in gender and number.

So:

• wykrył = he detected
• wykryła = she detected
• wykryli = they detected (masculine-personal group)
• wykryły = they detected (non-masculine-personal)

Because the subject is a masculine diagnosta, the sentence uses wykrył.

Because usterkę is the accusative singular form of usterka. It is the direct object of wykrył.

You can think of it as answering:

• wykryć co? = to detect what?
• usterkę = a fault / defect

So:

• nominative: usterka
• accusative: usterkę

They are in the genitive case because they depend on usterka.

Polish often uses a structure like:

• usterka czego? = a fault of what?

So:

• usterka zawieszenia = a fault of the suspension / a suspension fault
• usterka amortyzatora = a fault of the shock absorber

In this sentence, the two genitive nouns are joined by i:

• usterkę zawieszenia i amortyzatora

English often uses of, or just stacks nouns more freely, but Polish commonly uses the genitive here.

Because the form zawieszenia can indeed be ambiguous out of context: it can be genitive singular or nominative/accusative plural.

Here, the syntax makes it genitive singular:

• it depends on usterkę
• it answers usterkę czego?
• it is coordinated with amortyzatora, which is clearly genitive singular

Also, in car-related language, zawieszenie usually refers to the suspension system as one unit, so singular makes perfect sense.

Grammatically, usterkę is singular, so the sentence presents it as one detected fault/problem connected with the suspension and the shock absorber.

That does not always mean the real-world situation is only one tiny issue; it just means the sentence is packaging it as a single identified defect. If someone wanted to be very explicit about multiple separate faults, they might use plural wording such as usterki or say dwie usterki.

Wykryć means to detect, to identify, to discover something not immediately obvious. It sounds very natural in technical, medical, and inspection contexts.

By contrast, znaleźć is the more general to find.

So in a diagnostic or inspection setting:

• wykryć usterkę = very natural
• znaleźć usterkę = possible, but less technical in tone

Wykryć is a perfective verb, and wykrył presents the action as completed: the diagnostician successfully detected the fault.

That is why it fits well in a report-like sentence describing a finished result.

If you used an imperfective form such as wykrywał, it would suggest an ongoing, repeated, or habitual action, not one completed detection.

No. Polish word order is fairly flexible. The original sentence is a neutral, straightforward order:

Diagnosta wykrył usterkę zawieszenia i amortyzatora.

But you could also say:

Usterkę zawieszenia i amortyzatora wykrył diagnosta.

That would put more focus on the fault itself. The meaning stays basically the same, but the emphasis changes.

Because Polish has no articles. There is no direct equivalent of English a or the.

So depending on context:

• diagnosta can mean a diagnostician or the diagnostician
• usterkę can mean a fault or the fault

The listener understands this from the situation, not from an article.

Because it is the genitive singular form of amortyzator.

So:

• nominative singular: amortyzator
• genitive singular: amortyzatora

In context, this suggests one shock absorber. If the sentence meant several shock absorbers, you would expect a plural form such as amortyzatorów.