"Cherries and an orange."
Translation:Bįįh yildeeʼį́ dóó chʼil łitsxooí.
Yáʼátʼééh! I think the most important difference is: the one is a noun, the other is a verb.
- chʼil łitsxooí
It would be translated as, chʼil, (a / the) plant (in this case, it is a fruit, but sometimes it can be a vegetable) + łitsxooí, the one that is orange. Here, there is a nominalizer (-í) suffixing the verb, so the construction is the one that / or which (is doing the action) + the verb, is orange.
The meaning would be: in singular, he / she / it is orange / in duoplural, they (two) are orange (The conjugation here is -tso, neuter imperfective aspect stem of the root -tsoii, "to be yellow". It is important to note that this verb is also formed by different prefixes, and infixes, as the adjectival łi-, the emphatic -x-, and more infixes that do not appear, -∅-. The result is a word meaning it is yellowish orange, while the word łichxííʼ, the verb, it is reddish orange, and the noun łichxíʼí, the color red, from the root -chiiʼ, "to be red")
Note: In the case that a sentence with chʼil is used, with "a / the plant" as the subject, then I think it would be necessary to add a filler word, éí, meaning "that one", mostly used as a non visible (or remote from the speaker) pronoun, but also for referring to the subject in the sentence. So, the construction Chʼil éí łitsxo could mean The plant is orange. I think, in this case, the verb cannot be alone, and the word éí would also be necessary when the sentence is just: It is orange (or They two are orange) / Éí łitsxo.
I hope it helps. :)