Nimepata shati nililopoteza jana.

I have found the shirt that I lost yesterday.

Breakdown of Nimepata shati nililopoteza jana.

• shati: the shirt
• jana: yesterday
• kupata: to find
• nililopoteza: which I lost

Questions & Answers about Nimepata shati nililopoteza jana.

What nuance does the perfect ni-me- in Nimepata add compared with the past ni-li-?

• Nimepata = I have found (result is relevant now; I presumably have it).
• Nilipata = I found (event anchored in the past; result not necessarily relevant now).
• Negatives show the same contrast:
  • Sijapata = I haven’t found (yet).
  • Sikupata = I didn’t find (then).

How is nililopoteza built morphologically?

Breakdown: ni-li-lo-poteza

• ni- = I (subject marker)
• -li- = past tense
• -lo- = relative marker agreeing with a class‑5 head noun (here, shati)
• poteza = lose (transitive verb “to lose something”) So shati nililopoteza = “the shirt that I lost.”

Why is the relative marker -lo- used here and not -cho- or something else?

Because shati belongs to noun class 5 (singular). The relative marker that agrees with a class‑5 head noun is -lo-.

• Class‑5 example: shati nililopoteza (shirt that I lost)
• Class‑7 example: kitabu nilichonunua (book that I bought) uses -cho-
• Class‑6 plural (of shati): would use -yo- (see a later answer)

Where is the English word “that” in “the shirt that I lost”? I don’t see it in Swahili.

Swahili builds the “that” into the verb with a relative marker. In nililopoteza, the -lo- is the “that” which agrees with the head noun (shati). There is no separate word for “that” in this construction.

Can I rewrite this using the amba- relative (like “which/that”)?

Yes. You can say:

• Nimepata shati ambalo nilipoteza jana. This uses the independent relative pronoun ambalo (class‑5). It’s perfectly correct, often a bit more explicit or formal. The version with the in‑verb relative (shati nililopoteza) is very common and a bit more compact.

Should there also be an object marker in the relative clause, e.g., nililolipoteza?

Many speakers include the object marker for the relativized object, and many omit it—both patterns are common and understood.

• Without OM (your sentence): shati nililopoteza jana
• With OM (more explicit, often preferred in careful/standard style): shati nililolipoteza jana (ni‑li‑lo‑li‑poteza) Both are widely encountered; teachers and exams sometimes prefer the version with the object marker inside object relatives.

What exactly does jana modify here?

It modifies the verb in the relative clause (poteza), i.e., “lost yesterday.” The main clause Nimepata is about now (present result). If you wanted to say you found it yesterday, you’d put the time with the main verb and typically use past:

• Jana nilipata shati nililopoteza. = I found yesterday the shirt I had lost (before then).

Is it okay to have nime- in the main clause while jana appears in the sentence?

Yes, because jana is inside the relative clause (it refers to the losing, not the finding). You generally wouldn’t say Jana nimepata…; with a specific past time like “yesterday,” Swahili normally uses the simple past (nili-) rather than the perfect (nime-) in the main clause.

Why is ni- (I) repeated inside the relative clause? Isn’t it already clear from context?

In Swahili, every finite clause—main or relative—needs its own subject marker and tense. The relative clause is a full clause, so it has ni- (I) and -li- (past) just like any other clause: ni-li-lo-…

How would this sentence change if the noun were plural (mashati)?

• Nimepata mashati niliyoyapoteza jana. Breakdown of the relative verb: ni-li-yo-ya-poteza
• -yo- = class‑6 relative marker (agreeing with mashati)
• -ya- = class‑6 object marker (optional but often included)

Could I mistakenly say shati nilichopoteza?

That would be wrong for class 5. -cho- agrees with class 7 (e.g., kitabu). For shati (class 5), you need -lo-: shati nililopoteza (or nililolipoteza).

What’s the difference between kupoteza and kupotea? Could I use potea here?

• kupoteza = to lose something (transitive). That’s what you have: “the shirt that I lost.”
• kupotea = to get lost, be lost (intransitive). If you wanted to say “the shirt that got lost,” you could use:
• shati lililopotea jana (here the shirt is the subject of “got lost”).

Do I ever need a demonstrative like hili/hilo/lile with this noun?

Only if you want to be specific or point something out:

• Nimepata lile shati nililopoteza jana. = I’ve found that shirt (over there) that I lost yesterday. For class‑5 demonstratives: hili (this), hilo (that near you/just mentioned), lile (that over there/previously known).

How would I say “the shirt you lost yesterday” instead of “I lost”?

Change the subject marker inside the relative clause to second person singular:

• shati ulilolipoteza jana (u‑li‑lo‑li‑poteza) = “the shirt that you lost yesterday.”