Wakati mwalimu anapoongeza mkazo kwenye neno, sisi huandika neno hilo kwa uangalifu.

When the teacher puts emphasis on a word, we write that word carefully.

Breakdown of Wakati mwalimu anapoongeza mkazo kwenye neno, sisi huandika neno hilo kwa uangalifu.

• sisi: we
• mwalimu: the teacher
• kuandika: to write
• wakati: when
• kuongeza: to add
• kwenye: on
• kwa uangalifu: carefully
• neno: the word
• hilo: that
• mkazo: the emphasis

Questions & Answers about Wakati mwalimu anapoongeza mkazo kwenye neno, sisi huandika neno hilo kwa uangalifu.

What is the role of wakati in this sentence, and how is it different from just saying mwalimu anapoongeza mkazo…?

Wakati means “when” or “while” and introduces a time clause:

• Wakati mwalimu anapoongeza mkazo kwenye neno…
  = When the teacher adds emphasis to a word…

Without wakati, mwalimu anapoongeza mkazo kwenye neno would just be a normal present/ongoing statement: the teacher is adding emphasis to a word (not clearly linked to another action as “when…”).

You could also say:

• Tunapoandika, mwalimu huongeza mkazo… – When we write, the teacher…

Here tunapoandika already has the “when” idea inside the verb (-po-), so wakati is not needed. In the original sentence, wakati explicitly sets the time frame: at the time when…

Why do we say anapoongeza and not just anaongeza?

Anapoongeza is built from:

• a- – subject prefix for he/she
• -na- – present tense marker
• -po- – “when/while” marker (relative time)
• ongeza – verb root “add/increase”

So: a-na-po-ongeza → anapoongeza

The -po- adds the idea of “when (he) is adding” or “whenever (he) adds”, especially common after words like wakati:

• Wakati mwalimu anaongeza mkazo… = When the teacher is adding emphasis (more one-time, straightforward)
• Wakati mwalimu anapoongeza mkazo… = Whenever/at the time when the teacher adds emphasis…

In everyday speech both can appear, but anapoongeza sounds more like a general or repeated situation linked to wakati.

Why are there two o’s in anapoongeza?

Morphologically we have:

• …po (from -po- “when”)
• ongeza (verb root starting with o)

When you join them, you get po + ongeza → poongeza, written within the full form anapoongeza.

Swahili spelling usually keeps both vowels in such cases, so you see oo. It reflects the underlying parts (-po- + ongeza). The pronunciation is often like a slightly lengthened o, but in writing both vowels remain.

What exactly does mkazo mean here, and how does it relate to the verb?

Mkazo is a noun meaning “emphasis,” “stress,” or “pressure.”

It comes from the verb -kaza – to tighten, press, make firm, intensify. So:

• kuongeza mkazo – to add emphasis / increase stress
• kutoa mkazo – to give emphasis
• kuweka mkazo – to place emphasis

In this sentence:

• mwalimu anapoongeza mkazo kwenye neno
  = the teacher adds emphasis to a word / stresses a word

Why is kwenye neno used instead of just neno or katika neno?

Kwenye and katika are both prepositions often translated as “in, on, at.”

• kwenye neno – on the word / in the word
• katika neno – also in/on the word but can feel a bit more formal or bookish.

Here kwenye neno sounds very natural and idiomatic for “on a word” in spoken and written Swahili.

You could omit the preposition in some contexts (e.g. kuongeza mkazo neno fulani), but with this meaning of “placing emphasis on a word,” kwenye neno is very standard and clear.

What does huandika mean, and how is it different from tunaandika?

Huandika uses the hu- marker, which expresses habitual or general actions:

• hu- + andika → huandika = (someone) usually/typically writes.

By contrast:

• sisi tunaandika = we are writing / we write (now or generally)

In this sentence:

• sisi huandika neno hilo kwa uangalifu
  = we (habitually) write that word carefully – every time this situation happens.

If you said:

• sisi tunaandika neno hilo kwa uangalifu

it would sound more like describing what is happening now or in a more neutral present, without that strong “whenever this happens, we always do this” feeling.

Can huandika be used without sisi in this sentence?

Yes. In Swahili the subject pronoun is often dropped because the subject is already shown by the verb marker or by context.

So you could say:

• Huandika neno hilo kwa uangalifu.
  = We/they/you (habitually) write that word carefully.

But then the subject becomes ambiguous (it could be we, they, you (sg/pl), or even one/people in general). Adding sisi:

• Sisi huandika…

makes it clear that we are the ones who do it.

Why does the sentence use neno hilo and not something like neno lile?

Both hilo and lile are demonstratives (“that”), but they belong to different series:

• hilo – “that” referring to something already mentioned or known in the discourse (more anaphoric, “that word just mentioned”)
• lile – “that (over there)” or “that (more distant)” in space or sometimes in time/contrast.

Here, neno hilo refers back to neno already mentioned in the same sentence:

• …mkazo kwenye neno, sisi huandika neno hilo…
  = …emphasis on a word, we write that word…

So hilo is natural because it’s “that word (the one we just talked about).” Neno lile would sound more like pointing to a particular distant or clearly separated word in some context.

How does kwa uangalifu work grammatically, and what does it literally mean?

Kwa uangalifu means “carefully / with care.”

• kwa – preposition often used to form adverbial phrases (“with, by, in a … way”)
• uangalifu – a noun meaning care, carefulness, attentiveness (from the stem -angalifu, “careful”).

So literally: kwa uangalifu = “with carefulness” → “carefully.”

This kwa + noun structure is very common:

• kwa furaha – with happiness → happily
• kwa haraka – with speed → quickly
• kwa nguvu – with strength → forcefully

Other near-synonyms for “carefully” include kwa makini and kwa tahadhari (more “cautiously”).

Could the word order be Sisi huandika kwa uangalifu neno hilo, or must it be …neno hilo kwa uangalifu?

You can move adverbial phrases somewhat freely, but Swahili normally prefers:

• [Subject] + [Verb] + [Object] + [Adverbial]

So the original:

• sisi huandika neno hilo kwa uangalifu
  = Subject (sisi) + Verb (huandika) + Object (neno hilo) + Adverbial (kwa uangalifu)

If you say:

• Sisi huandika kwa uangalifu neno hilo

it is still understandable, but it sounds less natural and can momentarily confuse the listener, because kwa uangalifu is not an object.

So the original word order is the most idiomatic.

Is it necessary to have a comma between the two parts of the sentence?

The comma is not grammatically required, but it is good style and very common:

• Wakati mwalimu anapoongeza mkazo kwenye neno, sisi huandika neno hilo kwa uangalifu.

The comma separates:

1. The time clause: Wakati mwalimu anapoongeza mkazo kwenye neno
2. The main clause: sisi huandika neno hilo kwa uangalifu

Without the comma it is still correct, but slightly harder to read. In normal writing, keeping the comma is recommended.

How would this sentence change if we wanted to talk about a past habit instead of a present/general habit?

To make it clearly past, you change the tense of the verb in the first clause, and you can keep hu- for a past habitual meaning if the context is clearly past:

• Wakati mwalimu alipoongeza mkazo kwenye neno, sisi huandika neno hilo kwa uangalifu.
  Literally: When the teacher used to add emphasis to a word, we (would) write that word carefully.

However, many speakers would also switch the second verb to a past habitual form with -likuwa + habitual, or just a simple past, depending on nuance:

• Wakati mwalimu alipoongeza mkazo kwenye neno, tulikuwa tukiandika neno hilo kwa uangalifu.
  = When the teacher added/emphasized a word, we would be writing that word carefully.

• Wakati mwalimu alipoongeza mkazo kwenye neno, tuliandika neno hilo kwa uangalifu.
  = Whenever the teacher added emphasis to a word, we wrote that word carefully. (more completed, narrative-style)