Also, in "made it" in English, usually "it" should be specified whether it is the subject, object or perhaps a neutral referral to the situation. In Sotho there is a different approach whereby you have noun classes and they have concord with the rest of the sentence. That way, you can infer which "it" you are talking about by the different nouns hopefully being in different classes and "it" thus being qualified. This can in some cases make a sentence less ambiguous than the corresponding English sentence. Essentially, you then have multiple versions of "it". Humans are always in separate classes from objects, which again are in separate classes from for example plants. You can point out of course that it's unlikely that a plant is both the subject and object of a sentence. The language would be sensible even without these classes, but it makes it much more rhythmic and easier to follow the gist of a discussion.
A possible original version would be: "Ke dirile selo seo gore dipitša ga di dirwe." In this case you have "seo" in concord with the thing being done and "di" in concord with the word for pots.
> [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCU2Uh42qS4. Explanation: She is actually just saying that she stole her mom's money that should have been used to make pots with for people that had paid. Literally: "I did the thing that made that the pots couldn't be made."
This literal rendering isn't far off of normal (if inelegant) vernacular English. "I did the thing that made [it] [so that] the pots couldn't be made."