Daktari alikagua shingo, pua na sikio la mtoto mgonjwa.

The doctor examined the neck, nose, and ear of the sick child.

Breakdown of Daktari alikagua shingo, pua na sikio la mtoto mgonjwa.

• mtoto: the child
• na: and
• mgonjwa: sick
• daktari: the doctor
• la: of
• kukagua: to examine
• shingo: the neck
• pua: the nose
• sikio: the ear

Questions & Answers about Daktari alikagua shingo, pua na sikio la mtoto mgonjwa.

Why does alikagua mean examined? How is this verb form built?

Alikagua is made of several parts stuck together:

• a- = subject prefix for class 1 (he/she/the doctor)
• -li- = past tense marker (simple past)
• kagua = verb stem meaning to examine / to inspect

So a-li-kagua literally means he/she examined.
Swahili normally doesn’t need a separate word for he or she here, because that information is already encoded in the prefix a- on the verb.

Why isn’t there a word for the before daktari or mtoto?

Swahili does not have separate words for a/an or the the way English does. Nouns like daktari and mtoto are neutral by themselves; context tells you whether to translate them as:

• a doctor or the doctor
• a child or the child

In this sentence, English naturally chooses the doctor and the (sick) child because they are specific people in the situation, but Swahili doesn’t mark that difference explicitly with an article.

Why is it daktari alikagua and not alikagua daktari?

Basic Swahili word order is:

Subject – Verb – Object

So you typically get:

• Daktari alikagua … = The doctor examined …
  subject (daktari) + verb (alikagua) + objects (shingo, pua, sikio…)

If you said Alikagua daktari, the subject would become (he/she) (understood from a-), and daktari would look like the object:

• Alikagua daktari. = He/she examined the doctor.

So the position of daktari matters; putting it first clearly marks it as the subject.

Is mtoto mgonjwa the object of the verb? It feels like "the doctor examined the sick child."

No. Grammatically, mtoto mgonjwa is not the direct object; it’s in a possessive phrase after sikio:

• sikio la mtoto mgonjwa = the ear of the sick child

The real direct objects of alikagua are:

• shingo (neck)
• pua (nose)
• sikio (ear)

The child is the possessor of those body parts, not the thing being examined in terms of syntax.

If you wanted the sick child to be the direct object, you’d say something like:

• Daktari alimkagua mtoto mgonjwa.
  The doctor examined the sick child.
  (ali-m-kagua = he/she-PST-him/her-examined)

Why is it shingo, pua na sikio without any word like of before them?

In Swahili you don’t use a preposition like of between a verb and its direct object. You just list the nouns directly after the verb:

• Daktari alikagua shingo, pua na sikio …
  The doctor examined (the) neck, nose and ear …

The of idea only appears later, inside the possessive phrase:

• sikio la mtoto mgonjwa = the ear of the sick child

There’s no need for of (or anything similar) between alikagua and shingo/pua/sikio.

Why is it sikio la mtoto mgonjwa and not sikio ya mtoto mgonjwa?

The possessive linker -a (meaning of) must agree with the class of the noun it follows:

• sikio belongs to noun class 5 (sikio / masikio).
• The class 5 form of -a is la.

So you get:

• sikio la mtoto mgonjwa
  ear of the sick child

The form ya is for class 9/10 nouns (like shingo and pua), not for sikio. That’s why la, not ya, is used here.

Does la mtoto mgonjwa apply only to sikio, or also to shingo and pua?

Grammatically, la mtoto mgonjwa attaches directly to sikio, so the most literal reading is:

• (He) examined neck, nose, and the ear of the sick child.

However, in real-life interpretation, listeners will usually understand that all three body parts belong to the same child, simply from context and common sense.

If you wanted to make the grammar also show that clearly, you could repeat or restructure the possessives, for example:

• Alikagua shingo ya mtoto mgonjwa, pua yake na sikio lake.
  He examined the sick child’s neck, nose and ear (literally: his neck, his nose, and his ear).

Strict noun-class agreement makes it hard to have one possessive form that clearly covers shingo (9), pua (9) and sikio (5) at the same time.

Why is it mtoto mgonjwa and not mgonjwa mtoto?

In Swahili, descriptive adjectives normally come after the noun they modify:

• mtoto mzuri = good child
• mtoto mdogo = small child
• mtoto mgonjwa = sick child

So mtoto mgonjwa is the natural order: noun + adjective.
Putting the adjective first (mgonjwa mtoto) would sound wrong or at least very odd in standard Swahili.

What exactly is mgonjwa here: an adjective or a noun?

Mgonjwa can function as:

1. An adjective meaning sick / ill:

   • mtoto mgonjwa = sick child

2. A noun meaning a sick person / a patient:

   • Wagonjwa wako wapi? = Where are the patients?

In mtoto mgonjwa, it is behaving as an adjective describing mtoto. It agrees with mtoto by using the m- prefix for class 1 singular (person).

Why doesn’t Swahili mark plural on shingo and pua here? Aren’t there two of each body part?

Swahili body-part nouns don’t always map neatly onto English expectations of singular/plural use.

• shingo (neck) is normally just one; using it in plural is rare.
• pua (nose / nostril(s)) is class 9/10 and can often cover the whole nose/noses without changing form.

Often, context is enough, and Swahili doesn’t insist so strongly on plural marking as English in such lists.

For ear, both sikio (singular) and masikio (plural) exist. You could say:

• … shingo, pua na masikio ya mtoto mgonjwa.
  … the neck, nose and ears of the sick child.

The original sentence just happens to use the singular sikio, which is still natural Swahili in context.

Why is there no and between shingo and pua? There is only one na before sikio.

Swahili uses na (and) in lists very similarly to English: it is normally placed before the last item only:

• shingo, pua na sikio
  = neck, nose and ear

Putting na between each item is possible but not standard in a simple list:

• shingo na pua na sikio – possible, but sounds more marked/emphatic.

Why is it sikio la mtoto mgonjwa instead of something like sikio ya mtoto ambaye ni mgonjwa?

Mtoto mgonjwa is a compact noun + adjective phrase: the sick child. It’s shorter and more natural for simple descriptions.

You could say:

• sikio la mtoto ambaye ni mgonjwa
  = the ear of the child who is sick

That’s grammatically fine but wordier and more like a relative clause in English (“the child who is sick”). In normal speech and writing, mtoto mgonjwa is preferred when you just want an ordinary adjective.

Can alikagua also mean he was examining or he has examined, like English continuous or perfect tenses?

No. -li- is the simple past marker, closest to examined / did examine.

To express other time-aspect ideas, Swahili uses different markers:

• -na-: present / present continuous
  
  • Daktari anakagua … = The doctor is examining / examines …
• -me-: completed action (often like English has examined)
  
  • Daktari amekagua … = The doctor has examined …

So alikagua is specifically a past tense form, not present or perfect.

Could I rewrite the sentence to make it clearer that all the body parts belong to the sick child?

Yes. Here are a few natural alternatives:

1. Repeat the noun:

   • Daktari alikagua shingo ya mtoto mgonjwa, pua yake na masikio yake.
     The doctor examined the sick child’s neck, his nose and his ears.

2. Pull the possessor earlier:

   • Daktari alikagua shingo na pua za mtoto mgonjwa na sikio lake.

3. Make the child the direct object and refer to body parts more generally:

   • Daktari alimkagua mtoto mgonjwa: shingo, pua na masikio.
     The doctor examined the sick child—(his) neck, nose and ears.

The original sentence is still acceptable; these are just ways to spell out the possessive relationship more explicitly.