Mimi ninapenda kitabu tulichosoma jana.

I like the book that we read yesterday.

Breakdown of Mimi ninapenda kitabu tulichosoma jana.

• mimi: I
• kupenda: to like
• kitabu: the book
• jana: yesterday
• tulichosoma: which we read

Questions & Answers about Mimi ninapenda kitabu tulichosoma jana.

Why does the sentence start with Mimi ninapenda instead of just Ninapenda?

In Swahili, the subject is already marked inside the verb (ni- = I), so Ninapenda kitabu tulichosoma jana is a complete sentence.

Adding Mimi (I) puts extra emphasis on the subject, a bit like:

• As for me, I like the book we read yesterday.
• I personally like the book we read yesterday.

You typically add Mimi when:

• You’re contrasting with someone else: Mimi ninapenda…, lakini yeye hapendi…
• You want to stress your opinion or feeling.

For a neutral statement, Ninapenda kitabu tulichosoma jana is perfectly fine and very natural.

What are the parts of ninapenda, and what does each part mean?

Ninapenda can be broken down like this:

• ni- = subject marker for I
• -na- = present tense marker (general present / present continuous)
• penda = verb root meaning to like / to love

So ni-na-penda literally means I–present–like, i.e. I like / I love.

Other persons follow the same pattern, just changing the subject marker:

• u-na-penda → unapenda = you (sing.) like
• a-na-penda → anapenda = he / she likes
• tu-na-penda → tunapenda = we like, etc.

What exactly does tulichosoma mean, and how is it built?

Tulichosoma is a relative verb form meaning that we read (referring back to kitabu).

Breakdown:

• tu- = we (subject marker)
• -li- = past tense marker (did / -ed)
• -cho- = relative marker agreeing with a class 7 noun (like kitabu)
• som- = verb root read
• -a = final vowel

So tu-li-cho-som-a is literally:

we–past–class7-relative–read–(final vowel)

In context:

• kitabu tulichosoma jana = the book that we read yesterday

Why is the relative marker -cho- used in tulichosoma? Why not some other form?

The relative marker in Swahili must agree with the noun class of the word it is describing.

• kitabu (book) is a class 7 noun.
• The class 7 relative marker is -cho-.

So:

• kitabu tulichosoma jana = the book that we read yesterday
  (cho agrees with kitabu)

If it were plural (vitabu, class 8), the relative would change:

• Ninapenda vitabu tulivyosoma jana.
  tulivyosoma → tu-li-vyo-som-a, with -vyo- as the class 8 relative marker.

Why is it tulichosoma and not tulisoma?

• Tulisoma = we read (simple past statement, no relative meaning)
  
  • tu-li-som-a = we–past–read
• Tulichosoma = that we read (relative form, referring back to kitabu)
  
  • tu-li-cho-som-a = we–past–class7-relative–read

Without -cho-, you just have a normal past tense verb.
Adding -cho- turns it into a relative clause that means that we read with book as its head noun.

Could I also say kitabu ambacho tulisoma jana? Is that different from kitabu tulichosoma jana?

Yes, you can say both, and both are correct:

1. kitabu tulichosoma jana
2. kitabu ambacho tulisoma jana

They mean the same thing: the book that we read yesterday.

Difference:

• kitabu tulichosoma jana uses the short relative (the relative marker -cho- inside the verb).
• kitabu ambacho tulisoma jana uses amba- plus -cho (ambacho) as a separate word before the verb.

In everyday speech, the compact form (kitabu tulichosoma jana) is very common and natural.
The amba- form (kitabu ambacho tulisoma jana) is also common, sometimes perceived as slightly more explicit or a bit more formal, especially in writing or careful speech.

Why does kitabu come before tulichosoma? Could the order be reversed?

In Swahili, a noun that is being described by a relative clause normally comes before that clause:

• kitabu tulichosoma jana
  → literally: book that-we-read yesterday

This works like English the book that we read yesterday, where book also comes before that we read yesterday.

You would not normally say:

• ✗ tulichosoma kitabu jana to mean the book that we read yesterday

That instead is understood as we read a book yesterday, with kitabu as a normal object, not the book that….

What is the role of jana here? Could it go in a different place in the sentence?

Jana means yesterday, and here it is part of the relative clause:

• kitabu tulichosoma jana
  → the book that we read yesterday

Placing jana at the end is very natural, because it modifies the action tulichosoma.

You could move jana earlier in the main clause for different emphasis, for example:

• Jana tulisoma kitabu, na mimi ninapenda kitabu hicho.
  Yesterday we read a book, and I like that book.

But within the original structure, …tulichosoma jana is the most straightforward and common placement.

If I wanted to say I like the books we read yesterday (plural), what would change?

You would make kitabu plural (vitabu, class 8) and change the relative marker accordingly:

• Mimi ninapenda vitabu tulivyosoma jana.

Breakdown of tulivyosoma:

• tu- = we
• -li- = past
• -vyo- = relative marker for class 8 (agreeing with vitabu)
• som- = read
• -a = final vowel

So it parallels the singular:

• Singular: kitabu tulichosoma jana
• Plural: vitabu tulivyosoma jana

Could I say Mimi ninapenda kile kitabu tulichosoma jana? What does kile add?

Yes, you can say:

• Mimi ninapenda kile kitabu tulichosoma jana.

Here kile is a demonstrative (that) for class 7:

• kile kitabu = that book (farther away in space, time, or context)

Nuance:

• Mimi ninapenda kitabu tulichosoma jana.
  → I like the book we read yesterday (identifiable from context, but not specially pointed out).

• Mimi ninapenda kile kitabu tulichosoma jana.
  → I like that particular book we read yesterday (more strongly picking it out, maybe among other books or in contrast to others).

So kile adds a sense of pointing to that specific book.