Is there a difference between "nimevipika viazi" and "nimepika viazi"? Are both correct? Does the meaning change? Asante!
it means about the same in your example, "nimevipika" is just being slightly more descriptive
This was my question too. Unfortunately no-one has answered it yet.
how does one know whether the phrase "viazi vitamu" refers to the sweet potatoes or just delicious ordinary potatoes?
Kirehani is sweet potatoes. :)
Ordinary potatoes in E.A. are sweet potatoes = "viazi". European potatoes are "viazi vya kizungu". So I would translate "viazi vitamu" as delicious sweet potatoes. There are also other varieties of potatoes of which "kirehani" is one.
Where I live, "Irish potatoes" are viazi viringo, and sweet potatoes are viazi vitamu
should it not be translated: I have cooked them sweet potatoes-meaning I have cooked sweet potatoes for them? I have cooked the sweet potatoes could be translated:nimepika viazi vitamu- or am I wrong?
no, because "vi" infix refers to objects in the ki-vi plural noun class and not people
Would "I have cooked them sweet potatoes" be "Nimewepika viazi vitamu"?
How to use both object infixes then: I have cooked them sweet potatoes? Or I have sent it to my friend? Would Nimeimtumia rafiki yangu be correct?
"Them" in that sentence just emphasises "them potatoes". But still nimepika works perfectly fine
Side comment here: I thought sweet potatoes were the same things as yams... so via vikuu... Are they different in Africa? Is my local grocer just being lazy?!?!
If I remember correctly yams in Africa are different than in America... but in America yams and sweet potatoes are different... so your grocer lied.