2017.09.20
heavily in progress.
Chapter 1: Introduction

Noun = Names for things, places, ideas, etc: Mary, dog, happiness, water, school, internet, Google, mother.. Normally we can say "a...", "an...", "a piece/cup of...", or "the..." in front of the word if it is a noun: a piece of happiness, a cup of milk, the milk, an apple.

Adjective = A word that describes how those "names" (nouns) are.

————————

Complete Esperanto words are created from two or more parts, one is an "idea" word and the other a "grammar" word:

kato = cat. "kat - idea", "o - noun" = 2 words.
blua = blue. "blu - idea", "a - adjective" = 2 words.
kato blua, blua kato = blue cat = "cat-noun blue-adjective" = 4 words.

In many languages these idea words are called "roots" and are only at the beginning of a word, and these grammar words are called "suffixes" and can only go on the end of a word. We say "sadly, tiredly", but can't say just "ly" as a word by itself; that -ly is a "grammar word" in English.

In Esperanto that's not the case, and "cat" actually has equal status as a word compared to "noun". We can for example say "mia o, o mia" (my noun, thing, object) and use "o" as a word by itself, and that would be perfectly correct. Most people don't use Esperanto this way however, simply because the way they write and talk copies English and other languages that don't do it.

As a general rule, all words need grammar words at the end; that way we can move them around in the sentence more or less freely but keep the same meaning. For example, in English we can say "I said" and "said I", and they mean exactly the same thing. Esperanto has very few rules about word order so it can do exactly the same thing (mi diris, diris mi).

If there's no grammar word attached to the end of an idea word, it means the idea relates to what directly comes after it. For example:

kial mi = why (did) I?
ĉar mi = because I, because of me

"Why" and "Because" can't go behind "I, Me" except for if we attach the grammatical word "e: where, when, why, how" (=time, location, method):

kiale mi, mi kiale = why I; because I (in reason, "I")
ĉare mi, mi ĉare = because I (because of me)

This will make more sense later. I just needed to introduce you to it here because it's the backbone to all of Esperanto.

Chapter 2: Grammar Words 1 (o, a, e)

You already know these three because they were shown in the introduction, but I'll show more examples here.

vintro : (a) winter
vintra : winter's, wintery
vintre : winter-ly (in winter, winter-wise)

"Mal" means the direct opposite of something, roughly our "un-, non-" in words like "unimportant (versus important), "unbaked" (versus baked), "non-issue" (versus issue). The opposite of winter is summer.

malvintro : (a) summer
malvintra : summer's, summery
malvintre : summerly (in summer, summer-wise)

varmo : (a) warmth
varma : warmth's, warm
varme : warmly (in warmth, warm-wise)

malvarmo : coldness
malvarma : coldness's, cold
malvarme : coldly (in coldness, cold-wise)

kolero : (an) anger, angriness
kolera : anger's, angry
kolere : angrily (in anger, anger-wise)

akvo : water, aqua
akva : water's, watery, aquarial
akve : aquatic (in water, water-wise)

arbo : (a) tree
arba : tree's, arboreal
arbe : in a tree, tree-wise

tempo : (a) time
tempa : time's, timey, temporal, chrono
tempe : timely,  time-wise

We can put these words together any way we want, except for that an adverb ("e-word") can't break apart a noun and adjective ("o-word" and "a-word") that relate to each other:

vintra tempo malvintre
tempo vintra malvintre
malvintre vintra tempo
malvintre tempo vintra

All of those mean simply "a wintery time in summer" or "winter's time in summer", no differences in word order ever change meaning in any way whatsoever. However we can't break an a-word and o-word apart with an e-word, because then it's like we're starting a new sentence that describes something else (the adjective won't be describing the noun anymore):

vintra malvintre tempo (= "wintery in summer. a time")
tempo malvintre vintra (= "a time in summer. wintery")

Here's a few more words, and some more example sentences:

kot : mud
ĵak : a coat (=clothing)
pur : pure, clean
ĝarden : garden
ferm : close, closed
kest : box ("chest" as in "treasure chest")

Try writing:
1. A garden in a box
2. A dirty (=opposite-clean) garden
3. A muddy coat in a garden
4. An open (=opposite-closed) box in a coat

Answers:
1. ĝardeno + keste (= keste ĝardeno, ĝardeno keste)
2. malpur + ĝardeno
3. kota + ĵako + ĝardene
4. malferma + kesto + ĵake

Hopefully you didn't write "kota ĝardene ĵako" or "malferma ĵake kesto".

Chapter 3: Verbs 1 (as, os, es)

The words "a, o, e" change meaning when followed by "s".

as = "now-time action", "began but not yet finished action". eats, runs, walks; is eating, is running, is walking.
os = "not yet started action". will eat, is going to run, will be walking.
es = "owner". whose, yours, dog's, cats'.

In English we can say our sense of "time" in different ways depending on how we're thinking about it. For example:

• "I like that book" = I like that book even now. "I liked that book" = I liked that book at the time of my reading it (and I'm making no comment about if I still like it now or not).
• "I wrote that book" (wrote = in the past) means I'm finished writing it. "I'm the writer of that book" (I'm = still now) means I'm not finished being "the writer" of it even if the book itself I've finished writing.
• "I'm running" means "I'm in the middle of a run right now", but "I like running" means we haven't stopped "liking" to run, our "like" will continue and appear again sometime in the future.
• "Dogs eat grass" means that dogs eat grass "now and in the future", dogs the world over aren't magically going to stop eating grass after today.

Esperanto is the same way. How you say something is up to your own personal thoughts, so I might say "He says he doesn't like it" but you might say "He said he doesn't like it". Both are correct.

Special Exception: There's one word (des) that ends in es but doesn't mean ownership. It's actually from the phrase "ju (reason)... des (result)":

"The (ju) more money I have, the (des) happier I get."
"The (ju) louder I sing, the (des) more my throat hurts."

This phrase is borrowed from Scandinavian (Swedish, Danish, Norwegian), where it's "ju... desto" (ex. in Swedish "ju rikare desto lyckligare" = "the richer the happier").

Examples:

vintras : is winter
vintros : will be winter, is going to be winter
vintres : winter's

Most people use "a" instead of "es" to show ownership, because in a huge amount of languages the adjective form ("wintery") is used for both instead of them having a special form like us in English ("winter's").

The main problem with Esperanto is that according to context, we don't say the full word (or sentence) because the meaning is still obvious. For example, we in English say simply "Good night!" when what we really mean is "I hope you have a good night!", or "Bless you!" when we really mean "May a god bless you so you don't die (of your illness that's making you sneeze)".

In Esperanto, the three most common additional words you can put onto a verb is "ig - causes, turns it into, forces it to (be/do)", "iĝ - becomes, turns into", "est - is, am, are, be":

vintrigas = "winter-causes" = makes (it) winter, brings about winter, turns (it) into winter
vintras = "winter-becomes" = (it) becomes winter, (it) turns into winter
vintrestas = "winter-is" = (it)'s winter, (it) be winter

ĝardenigas = turns (it) into a garden
ĝardenas = (it) turns into a garden
ĝardenestas = (it) is a garden, (it) be a garden

librigas = turns (it) into a book
libriĝas = (it) becomes a book
librestas = (it) is a book, it be a book

As long as the meaning is clear by context, all 3 of these can be left out when we actually speak and write. Some examples:

purigas —> puras (cleans, purifies)
droniĝas —> dronas (drowns)
belestas —> belas (is beautiful, is handsome)
ruĝestas —> ruĝas (is red)

Though we can always attach these words (and any others we want to use to describe something), they very naturally don't always make sense, so many aren't in common use. For example:

sidigas = makes (it) sit
sidiĝas = (it) becomes sitting, (it) takes a seat
sidestas = (it) is a sit

Most people probably can't think of a time when they'd ever need to say "it is a sit" (sidestas), but "I become sitting, I sit down, I take a seat (mi sidiĝas)" and "I make (it) sit" (mi sidigas) are normal and common.

Chapter 4: Verbs 3 (u, us, is, i)

Just "u" means a command or suggestion. It's usually understood as a command when speaking about other people, and a suggestion when speaking about yourself. (mi sidu, sidu mi = I should sit). In English we have a few phrases like "Long live the King!" and "God bless him!" which sound like commands; those use u-form in Esperanto as well.

sidu = sit down! (you) should sit!

vintriĝu = become winter! (you) should become winter!
vintrestu = be winter! (you) should be winter!

Thus a lot of English phrases that would need a "long string" of words ends up being short in Esperanto, for example "make it snow!" would be "neĝigu!". Both languages use 3 separate words (neĝ, snow; ig, cause; u, command), it's just that Esperanto doesn't put spaces in-between them.

An "us" means "would (be/do)", "were (it to be)". In other words, a situation that we haven't done yet, aren't doing now, and probably aren't going to do in the future.

neĝus - (it) would snow, were (it to) snow
sidus - (i) would sit, were (i to) sit
ĝardenus - (it) would become a garden, were (it to) become a garden

An "is" means past-tense:

diris - said
sidis - sat
ĝardenis - became a garden
vintrigis - caused winter, brought about winter
belestis - was beautiful

But "i" alone specifically shows that there is no sense of time in the verb. In English this means our "to" in phrases like "I like to eat", "I liked to eat". The sense of time in the sentence is carried by "like, liked" and not by "to eat". Again, it might not always make sense to use it:

sidi - to sit
neĝi - to snow
beli - "to beauty" —> beligi "to beautify", beli "to become beautiful", belesti "to be beautiful"


Esperanto has no word "a, an", because most languages don't — it's actually a corrupted form of the word "one":

one → on → an → a


Special Words:

ho! = oh! (as in "oh no! oh my!"). This isn't a noun, it's just a shout.

io = an unknown thing, something
kio = what (thing)
tio = that (thing)
tio ĉi; ĉi tio = this (thing)
ĉio = all things, everything


Notice how the English word "nothing" is "no + thing". Our word "nobody" is "no + body":

every thing = everything
not (a) thing = nothing
some unknown thing = something

In Esperanto, there are three ways to say "nothing". Which one you want to use is according to your preference! (Most people use "nenio"):

malĉio = opposite of "everything" = nothing (in languages like Japanese, this is the normal way of saying it.)

ne io = not something = nothing (our English way of saying it.)

nen
io = nothing (this is exactly the same as "ne io" except Zamenhof inserted an N to make it easier to pronounce — just as how we erased "t some" from "not something" to get "nothing".)

»*«

The word ĉi by itself means "this", but it's not a noun and can't be used on its own. It always has to have something before or after it: hundo ĉi, ĉi hundo "this dog".

The word kio ("what thing"), when meaning a question, has to come in front of whatever begins the question. Questions don't necessarily start at the beginning of a sentence:

est = be, is, am, are

kio estos? = what (thing) will it be?
estos kio? = it will be what (thing)?

hundo estos; estos hundo = It will be a dog.
hundo estos kio? = a dog will be what (thing)?

The topics in this section will be much clearer once we know more grammar and can understand longer sentences.


Adjectives describe names (nouns): red, sad, poor, bad, slow, hidden, broken, stupid, useless, crunchy. If you can put it before the word "dog" or "idea" and it makes sense, it's an adjective: Ask yourself, what type of dog is it?

An old dog. A soft dog. A blue dog. A crunchy dog. A lame dog.


When we put two words together, the one that describes the other one is put first. In the word "hairbrush", it's a brush for your hair. "Bedsheet" is a sheet to put on your bed. "Bathtub" is a tub for bathing in. "Paper-towel" is a towel made out of paper. "Notebook" is a book for writing notes in. "Brush, sheet, tub, towel, book" are all the main idea — the basic word whose meaning needs to be clarified.

ban = bath. uj = container.
banujo = bathtub.

banuja akvo; akvo banuja = a bathtub's water.

Some commonly-condensed words:

vorto'signif'aro = "word-signification-collection", becomes:
vort'aro = word-collection
= dictionary (languages like Swedish say "word-book", short for "word-meaning-book")

krem'glaci'aĵo = "cream-ice-stuff", becomes:
glaci'aĵo = ice-stuff
= ice cream. (languages like Japanese, Icelandic and Swedish say simply "ice")

flug'vetur'ilo (fly-travel-tool), ĉiel'flug'ilo (sky-fly-tool):
flug'ilo = fly-tool
= airplane, wind-glider, hot air balloon, etc.

There are many other ways we can say "airplane", for example:

ĉiel'naĝ'ilo = sky-swim-tool
ĉiel'boato = sky-boat
ĉiel'ŝipo = sky-ship
aero'ŝipo = airship
aero'vetur'ilo = air-travel-tool
aero'vojaĝ'ilo = air-voyage-tool
kvazaŭ'bird'ilo = quasi bird-tool; as though a bird tool

Vetur means travel in or using a vehicle, as in a machine; vojaĝ is travel in general, meaning in a machine, on foot or on a horse etc.

We can say "ĉielo'naĝo'ilo" and so on if we want. We don't have to remove the O that marks it as a noun.

We can also attach adjectives to nouns, but that's for a later lesson.

»*«

Special words:

1. la = the. It's not an adjective. It doesn't become plural ("laj" is not an option). This comes directly before the O-word (noun), and directly before both the O-word and A-word (adjective) if the A-word is in front:

la hundo = the dog
la blua hundo; la hundo blua = the blue dog
"hundo la" is not an option.

2. tra = through, as in going from one place to the next. It's usually used without any grammatical words on the end, and when used that way it must come directly before what it talks about. If you put a grammatical word on the end, then it can go in any normal place in the sentence. If you attach it to a verb, it goes at the beginning:

trai = to (go) through
trao = "a (go-)through". for example, when talking about the fact that they drilled a hole in a mountain in order to make a road.

mi = I, me. ir = go (as in travelling).
mi iras tra; iras mi tra; mi trairas; trairas mi
= I go through. I am going through.

3. These don't follow the normal rules, because they don't mean ownership. This is because the creator of Esperanto had older versions of the grammar, and he kept these irregular words from one of his other versions. Otherwise, these are the same as normal adjectives.

ia hundo; hundo ia
= an unknown type of dog. some kind of dog.

kia hundo...! = what kind of dog...!
tia hundo; hundo tia = that kind of dog
ĉia hundo; hundo ĉia = every kind of dog, all kinds of dogs

tia ĉi hundo; ĉi tia tie hundo = this kind of dog

Ĉi and tia have to be together. We can't say "ĉi hundo tia", or it means "this dog that kind of". Likewise, we can't say "tia hundo ĉi" or it means "that kind of dog, this (word that comes next)".

malĉia hundo; hundo malĉia = no types of dog
ne ia hundo = not some kind of dog
nenia hundo; hundo nenia = no kind of dog

3: -J

More than one (plural). This can only go after adjectives (-A) or nouns (-O):

kato = cat, a cat
katoj = cats

kata = cat's, a cat's (one cat owns it)
kataj = cats' (more than one cat owns it)

If an adjective (-A) describes a plural noun (-OJ) or more than one singular noun (-O, -O), then the adjective is also plural (-AJ). The adjective has to go in front or behind what it describes:

bluaj katoj; katoj bluaj = blue cats, blue cats'

kaj = and (this is an exception; the word "and" itself isn't a plural adjective)

hundo = a hound, a dog (noun)
bluaj hundo kaj kato; hundo kaj kato bluaj = a blue dog and cat.

This means that both the dog and cat are blue, because the adjective is plural (-AJ). However there is only one cat and only one dog (-O, -O).

Bluaj hundoj kaj katoj; katoj kaj hundoj bluaj
= blue dogs and cats.

This means that there are multiple dogs and cats, and they are all blue. "And — kaj" connects two phrases and makes them equal. If we say "blue and red" we mean both colors at the same time. If we say "blue dog and cat", in Esperanto we mean both animals are blue. To break this connection, we use a word like "but", or we make it clear that it's not a blue cat: blue dog but white cat; blue dog and white cat.

blua hundo kaj bluaj katoj
a blue dog and blue cats.

katoj kaj blua hundo
cats and a blue dog (the cats aren't blue).

The adjective being singular (-A) means that it only describes the noun that is also singular (-O).

Special Words:

Words like "ĉi, tra" can't have -J put on the end. We can write "traoj" ("throughs") but not just "traj".

These follow the rules.

io = something (an unknown thing)
ioj  = somethings (more than one unknown thing)
ia = some kind (an unknown type of)
iaj = some kinds (more than one unknown type of)
ĉio = everything, all things
ĉioj = all things.

There's not any real difference between "ĉio" and "ĉioj". With the words or phrasing that does have slight differences in meaning that only an advanced speaker will know, it all just comes in time — without you even being taught it. Instead you'll eventually realize it instinctively due to how the language works as a whole! Esperanto is just that easy!


When we have two verbs together like this, we have two options. The first is to use this "timeless" form just as we do in English: "He likes to eat". The other verb shows (likes) shows the time.

The second is to put them into a single word, and the tense for both is put on the end: "He eat-likes".

vol = want; be willing to do something (as in our words "voluntarily, volition").

li volas manĝi; li manĝi volas; manĝi li volas (etc)
= he wants to eat

li manĝvolas; manĝvolas li = he eat-wants
= he wants to eat

These mean exactly the same thing, it's just that the second one is faster to write. Usually, in the beginning, people write Esperanto more like their native language (or like whoever taught them). As they get better they tend to want to shorten and condense everything as much as possible, even things they didn't mind before — just like how we say "rhino" instead of "rhinocerus", "net" instead of "internet" and "ain't" instead of "are not".

It's a natural process in all languages, but in ones like Esperanto, Chinese, Japanese, Greenlandic etc. where words are put together extremely frequently, it's actually a necessity. If every word was extremely long and then five words had to be put together to say half a sentence, no one would be speaking! That's also why some words have multiple versions:

malproksima "opposite-near" = far
fora = "away", far

Malproksima was the original Esperanto word, but many languages say things like "the yonder man" (the man far over there) extremely frequently, so someone decided we needed a shorter word; it became popular and now it's probably here to stay.

You can shorten words too, as long as you put a note saying what you're doing and as long as they don't overlap with an existing word. Zamenhof has specifically stated that this is allowed. For example:

proksim → prok (near)
civilizacio → civo (civilization)
grimaco → grim (grimace, smile?)

You would then need to check multiple dictionaries, and Wikipedia, to see if these words didn't already mean something. Then, when you write a book, poem, whatever in Esperanto, always write a note explaining your usage.

Most people are bad at creating words for things, and instead borrow words. This is especially true for people who speak English as their mother tongue, because we've completely lost this habit in our own language (Chinese, Swedish, Japanese etc people are extremely good at it). For example:

blog = ret'memor'ejo (online-memory-place), ret'skrib'ejo (online-write-place), ret'ĵurnalo (online journal), ret'tag'libro ("daybook", meaning diary; this copies German, Icelandic etc)

bus station = bus'atend'ejo (bus-await-place), bus'paŭz'ejo (bus-pause-place), and so on.

update = freŝ'igi (make fresh), nov'igi (make new), pli'bon'igi (more good make = make better, improve)

telephone = tele'parol'ilo (bridging distances talk tool)

However, some people have felt the need to create and use "blogo (blog)", "buso'stacio (bus station)", and "telefono (a direct borrowing)". This kind of thing just makes Esperanto harder to learn, as it means everyone has to learn more and more words. The better you get at Esperanto, the better you get at creating your own words and using fewer unique ones.

As an example of other people creating words that don't make any sense, we have "ĝis'dat'igi" (until-date-cause), which in the current era people use to mean "update" — but it should, by all accounts, mean "to stamp on an expiration date; planned obsolesce" or something to do with due-dates, etc.

»*«

Special Words: There are a few words that end in I but aren't verbs. They're just words that people usually don't put grammatical endings on:

pri = concerning, relating to, about. (ex. "I thought about it")
prii = to be about
prias = is about

libr = book (like as in "library")

La libro estos pri hundo; La libro prios hundo
= The book will be about a dog.

This sentence could also mean "The dog will be about a book", but common sense tells us that that's not the meaning. We'll learn how to clarify this later.



Special Words:

1. ĉu = comes at the beginning of a question if it can't be answered with another question-word (that starts with ki-, as in "kio, kia"). This isn't a command. Like with "kio, kia", the question doesn't have to come at the very beginning of the sentence, but because we don't know all the grammar yet it's easiest to have simple questions as examples:

ĉu estas hundo? ĉu hundo estas? ĉu hundas? = is (it) a dog?
ĉu manĝas? = is it a meal? are (you, he...) eating?

When there are two ĉu, it means "either one; whether or not". This is because many languages, including Japanese, use this kind of word in this way:

te = tea. akv = water (as in "aqua, aquatic, aquarium")

ĉu teo, ĉu akvo, mi drinkos
= whether it's tea or water, I am (still) going to drink (it).
= I don't care if it's tea or if it's water, I'll be drinking either one.

akva teo; teo akva = watery tea.
teoakvo; teakvo = tea-water.

2. The meaning of these ones are slightly tricky. They refer to something that is "known" but the real name of it isn't being said. For example:

— I like the dog. The dog's legs are long.
— I like the dog that has long legs.
— I like the long-legged dog.

— I see a girl. The girl's hair is brown.
— I see a girl who has brown hair.
— I see a brown-haired girl.

— It's a time that/which is long past.

The words "that, who, which" don't really mean anything and just refer back to "dog, girl, time" so that we don't have to repeat ourselves a lot. We already know who or what they refer to. The -U words below are the same. Usually all these below refer to people (humans). This is just because we humans normally talk about other humans, they have no such actual restriction.

iu = someone, somebody, some known thing.
kiu = a known person or thing (who, which, that)
tiu = that known person or thing
ĉi tiu, tiu ĉi = this known person or thing
ĉiu = each, every
ĉiuj = all, everyone

Again, there is not much difference between "ĉiu" and "ĉiuj". However ĉiuj is often used on its to mean "everyone":

iu manĝas; manĝas iu = someone eats
ĉiuj manĝas; manĝas ĉiuj = everyone eats

ĉiu hundo; hundo ĉiu = each dog, every dog
ĉiuj hundoj; hundoj ĉiuj = all dogs

kiu manĝos? = who is going to eat? who is about to eat?

There are two ways to show ownership in these "ki-, ti-..." words. The easiest way is to put -A at the end of the forms above:

iua = someone's, somebody's
kiua = whose, "which's" (ex. "The man whose hat... The chair whose legs")
tiua = that person's
ĉi tiua; tiua ĉi = this person's
ĉiua = everyone's, everybody's

malĉiua; neniua= nobody's
ne iua = not somebody's

You can use this way if you want to, but it's not the most-used one.

— Putting "ajn" after one of these words above, means "any at all". We can put adjectives or nouns in-between too:

io ajn = anything at all
iu ajn = anyone at all

ia hundo ajn bonus; bonus ia hundo ajn
= any kind of dog at all would (be) good

ia akva teo; ia teo akva; teo ia akva; teo akva ia
= some kind of watery tea


An adverb is how, when, why or where you do something. They're things that add to verbs in order to describe them:  tiredly, quickly, softly, tomorrow, on Mondays, in the winter, at school, in the park, always, never, sometimes.

If you can put "-wise" after it, it's an adverb: likewise, time-wise.

NOTE!: A "situation" is simply a location in time. "When I was at school" actually means "The location, or point, in time where I was at school".

Adverbs are one of the most difficult pieces of grammar to understand in English. If it's confusing, you'll learn it by reading Esperanto instead of by studying grammar.

Notice how our English word "on" can be used for both "on the table" (a physical location) and "on Monday" (a non-physical location; a location in time).

Likewise, "in a box" (physical) and "in my opinion" (non-physical).

Walked to the store (physical) and "listened to the radio" (non-physical).

At the seashore (physical), at 4 o'clock (non-physical);
ashore ("at shore", physical), asleep ("at sleep", when sleeping).

All these can be said with adverbs in Esperanto:

lundo = Monday (the "name" of a day)
lunde = on Monday; Monday-wise

tablo = a table
table = on, in, or at a table; table-wise

opinio = an opinion
opinie = in (my, his...) opinion; opinion-wise

radio = a radio
radie = in, at, on, or to (as in "listen to") a radio; radio-wise

anglo = an English thing, an English person
angle = in English

We might as well write the English translations like this:
a-Monday, a-table, a-opinion, a-radio, a-English

(Compare: a-hunting "at hunting", aflutter "at flutter", afoot "at foot: on foot", abreast "at the breast", aside "at the side", etc. These are phrases, originally meaning "physical", that no longer mean so but still carry a related meaning.)

Adverbs describe verbs, thus any full sentence with an adverb needs a verb as well. Likewise, any full sentence with an adjective needs a noun.

skribas angle; angle skribas
= writes in English; is writing in English

tabl = table
skribos table; table skribos
= will write at, on, in, or using a table

lund = Monday
skribus lunde; lunde skribus
= would write on Monday

skribu lunde!; lunde skribu!
= write on Monday! (a command)

»*«

dormo = sleep (the name of a state/action)
dorma = sleepy
dorme = asleep, in sleep

kolero = anger (anger is the "name" of a feeling)
kolera = angry
kolere = angrily, in anger

koleras = is angry, angers
koleros = will be angry, will anger

akvo = water
akva = watery, water's, (aqua, aquatic)
akve = in water, at water, on water

vintro = winter
vintra = winter's, wintery
vintre = in winter, wintrily, (at wintertime, winter-wise).

herbo = grass
herba = grassy, grass' (the grass owns something)
herbe = in grass, on grass, at grass

skribo = a piece of writing
skriba = writing's, written (ex. "the written language")
skribe = in writing

similo = a similar thing, a simile, a likeness.
simila = similar, alike, similar's, likeness'.
simile = alike, similarly, likewise.

Again, we might as well say:

asleep, a-anger, a-water, a-winter, a-grass, a-writing, alike.

Special words:

1. These only refer to location, not to method or time.

ie = some unknown place, somewhere, someplace
kie = what place, where
tie = that place, there
ĉi tie; tie ĉi = this place, here
ĉie = every place, everywhere

malĉie; nenie = nowhere, noplace
ne ie = not somewhere

2. This is the second way to say ownership. It suddenly doesn't refer only to "location" anymore. It's very confusing and doesn't follow the rules, which is why the other way (adding -A to -U words) is better.

ies = some unknown person's, someone's, somebody's
kies = whose, some place's
ties = that place's, that person's
ĉi ties = this place's, that person's
ĉies = everyone's, everywhere's
malĉies, nenies = no-one's, nobody's, nowhere's, noplace's
ne ies = not someone's

kies hundo? = whose dog?
hundo kies manĝo bonas = a dog whose meal is good

»*« NOTE!

Some words don't always have grammar words at the end. In those cases, they always come in front of what they talk about, and which grammar word should exist there is just according to common sense. They can have grammar words at the end, but many people find it easier not to write them:

nun = now (no grammar word)
nune = now (grammar word - adverb)

These two mean exactly the same thing. There are just a few words like this where, according to preference, you can write them with or without the grammar words. This is because in many languages, these words have an unclear grammatical form and the creator of Esperanto didn't want to make Esperanto be too difficult.

7: -NT-, -T-

Words like "red, dog, angrily" don't tell us what specific tense they are; their sense of time rides on whatever verbs are in the sentence. Those use normal -a, -o, -e forms.

However, words with NT or T are called "participles", which is just a fancy name for a verb that has turned into another type of word while keeping its own sense of time. For example:

I ate an apple (past-tense verb)
The eaten apple (past-tense adjective)

I wrote the paper (past-tense verb)
The written paper (past-tense adjective)

The paper fell (past-tense adjective)
The fallen paper (past-tense adjective)

I stole a dog(past-tense adjective)
The stolen dog (past-tense adjective)

The cat talks; the cat is talking (present-tense verb)
The talking cat (present-tense adjective)

Water is boiling (present-tense verb)
The boiling water (present-tense adjective)

NT marks the person or thing that is doing the action, usually meaning -er as in employer, heater.

T alone marks the person or thing that is getting an action done to it, as in employee (person being employed by someone else), heatee (thing recieving heat from something else).

First comes the idea-meaning of the word, then the time-vowel that marks tense, the NT or T, and finally the grammatical word(s) marking if it's a noun, adjective, etc. The end result is a combination of all of this, even if it takes a full sentence to translate it to English.

A (present tense), NT (doing)
or T (getting done), O (noun):

parol = speak (idea-word)
parolas = speaks (Present-Tense verb)
parolanto = speaker (PT noun; person speaking)
parolato = speakee (PT noun; person being spoken to)

aĉetanto = a buyer. a (noun) that is buying something.
aĉet
ato = a buyee, a purchase. a (noun) that is being bought by someone.

pluv = rain (idea-word)
pluv
a = rain's, rainy, (pluvial)
pluv
ante = when raining. The rain itself is doing an action.
pluv
ate = when being rained on. Something is inflicted with "rain".


Remember that you can be a "speaker" or "writer" (in present tense) even if you're not speaking or writing at this very moment.

A (present), NT or T, A (adjective):

parolanta kato; kato parolanta (present-tense adjective)
= a talking cat; a cat that is speaking

parolata kato; kato parolata (present-tense adjective)
= a talk
ee cat; a cat that is being spoken to

I (past tense), NT or T, E (adverb):

parolinte = when (he, they, it...) spoke
parolite = when (he, they, it...) were spoken to

lundinte = having been Monday
lundite = having been afflicted with Monday (”having had a case of the Mondays”)

U (hypothetical), NT or T, A (adverb):

aĉet
unta kato; kato aĉetunta = a cat that would have bought (something)
aĉet
uta kato; kato aĉetuta = a cat that would have been bought (by someone else)

manĝunta homo; homo manĝunta
= a would-be eater
= a person who
would eat

manĝ
uta homo; homo manĝuta
= a would-be eatee
= a person who
would have been eaten (by someone or something else)

The following type of form is never used by the average person, but it can be useful when writing fiction, teaching foreign languages, or needing to save space in text messaging, chatrooms etc. You
can use the below forms if you want, there are no restrictions against them. Just know that some people won't understand them because they're not very good at Esperanto grammar.

Time vowel, NT or T, time vowel, S (verb):

aĉetintus = having been the (noun) that would purchase
manĝantos = being the (noun) that is going to eat
skribuntis = would be the (noun) that had written

mi skribantis; skribantis mi
= I am the one who wrote


mi legontos; legontos mi = I will be the one who is going to read.

Time vowel, NT or T, I (verb without tense):

parolati = to be being talked to
= to be the one that someone is talking to

skribinti = to be the one who wrote
= to have been the writer

Most of the time, NT and T forms go completely unused. The simple form always works in normal, easy conversation. We can say "skribintus" (was the one who would write), or "bluanta kato" (a cat that is being blue), but most people simply write "skribus, blua kato" to mean the same thing instead.

Always remember, normal conversation in Esperanto is about adjusting yourself to fit the level of the person you are speaking to. If you know that they understand, or if you don't care if they don't understand, then you can write in any way you want. Otherwise, write in simple language. Many people make the mistake of thinking that "speaking simply" means "speaking exactly like everyone else". This is never true. In fact, most people write in a more difficult way than they should to learners, so you shouldn't copy them.

Two participles at once:


aĉet = buy. antaŭ = before. ĝu = enjoy.
aĉet
ato antaŭĝuote
a (noun) that
is being bought before it is going to be enjoyed
= a before-hand purchase (ex. buying a movie ticket when you're going to watch the movie one week later).

manĝ = meal, eat. pluv = rain. parol = talk.
manĝunto pluvata parolas
= a rainee, would-be eater talks
= a person or thing who is getting rained on, and who would (otherwise) be eating, is now talking

Always remember that -O does not specifically mean "human" or "a living creature", it only means "noun". Thus "parolanto" could always refer to any type of noun at all that is speaking — like a doll with a voicebox, or a computer.

Likewise, -A means either "adjective" or "ownership". When you read, the same word could mean either one of those. It may seem confusing in this textbook, but in real-life usage it usually never is because we have clear context clues.

Again, sometimes which tense to use is just according to your own opinion:

lern = learn (idea word)
lernanto = a (noun) that is learning
= a student, learner (pupil); computer AI, etc.

lernato = a (noun) that is "having learning done to it"
= a (noun) that is receiving learning or being taught
= a student, learner, (pupil)

Both mean exactly the same thing in the end, unless context says otherwise. Differences like these will always appear when reading and listening to other people's Esperanto. For example, you will think a "sell-place" is a place to sell your own items (a pawn shop), but another person will think it's a "place that sells items; a place that has items for sale" (a grocery store). Again, in context such differences aren't confusing.

Side note:

In English, we say "rain is falling". The rain itself is doing the action of falling. Otherwise, we say "it is raining" — what is this mysterious "it"? It's possibly a placeholder for the word "water", as in "water is raining down from the sky".

Esperanto can say "water is raining down" and "rains, raining" but it does not say "it rains".

pluvas = rains; is raining; it's raining

Likewise, we say "it's hot out". What's this mysterious "it's"? Likely the sentence really means "the weather is hot outside (my house)". Esperanto says either "The weather is hot", "is hot", or "hots", but not "it's hot".

Most languages don't say "it's" like this, and neither does Esperanto. If you make a mistake on this you'll still be understood, so don't worry about it. It's amazing how many mistakes you can make in Esperanto grammar and word-choice and still be understood!

9: -N

This means "until x is reached or attained". It only goes after -O, -A or -E.

mi batas lin = i hit (until was attained) he
= i hit him; i was hitting him

mi parolas lin = i talk (until my words reach) he
= i talk to him; i am talking to him

mi iras domen = i go (until is attained) location house
= i go until the house is reached
= i go to the house. right up to it, perhaps even inside it.

mi iras trans la straton = i go across (until is reached) the street
= i cross the street

Now, here is the difference between having N and not:

mi iras trans la strato
= i am walking on the other side of the street. i'm not actually crossing it to get to the other side.

mi iras dome = i go location house
= i go around inside the house. i'm not going until i "reach" the house, so i must already have reached it earlier!

mi saltas sur la liton = i jump (until is reached) on the bed
= i jump onto the bed, from somewhere else that is not the bed.

mi saltas sur la lito = i jump on the bed
= i jump up and down on the bed. i'm not jumping to "reach" the bed so i must be already on it.

»*«

mi manĝas la

manĝas katon; katon manĝas
= eats (until is attained) a cat
= eats a cat.

The cat is the "manĝato", the eatee, the thing being eaten.

manĝas kato; kato manĝas
= a cat eats.

The cat is the "manĝanto", the eater, the thing doing the eating.

Mi manĝas katon = I eat a cat. I'm eating a cat.
La kato estas la manĝato = The cat is the eatee.

Min manĝas kato = A cat eats me. A cat is eating me.
La kato estas la manĝanto = The cat is the eater.

»*«

mi iras katon; mi katon iras; iras mi katon; iras katon mi
= i go (until is reached) a cat
= i go to the cat

irata kato; kato irata
= a cat that "is being gone to"
= a cat that someone or something is travelling towards

»*«

Mi iris tien
= I went (until was reached) there
= I went thither. I went to that place.

Mi iris tie
= I went there
= I walked around when already being there.

Pluvo falas la teron
= Rain falls (until is reached) the ground/earth/dirt.
= Rain falls to the ground.

Pluvo falas teren
= Rain falls (until is reached) location ground
= Rain falls to the ground.

Pluvfalas teren
= Rainfalls (until is reached) location ground
= Rain falls to the ground

Meanwhile:

Pluvas tere =
1. Location, Time: Rains on, at, in or when "earth".
2. Method: Rains earth (literally, raining dirt).

»*«

dormas vintre = sleeps in winter
dormas vintren = sleeps until winter is reached (the opposite of hibernation)

manĝas ĝardene = eats at, in, on, etc. a garden
manĝas ĝardenen = eats one's way to a garden

manĝas ĝardeno = a garden eats (something)
manĝas ĝardenon = (something) eats a garden

This may seem complicated or confusing, but it gets easier with time.

»*«

The section we just learned is the most difficult aspect in Esperanto, and in most languages in general, for English native speakers. It's called "accusative case" in most language textbooks; "whom case" in Faroese, and so forth.

Whom did you talk to?
Kiun parolis ci? (kiu = who)

Whose dog?
Kies (Kiua) hundo?

Who talked?
Kiu parolis?

Here = ĉi tie
Hither ("come hither! come to this place!") = ĉi tien









Combining Words

When the word looks too confusing, - or ' can be put as a separator: hund-domo, hund'domo

' is normal in language textbooks of all kinds, and was also used in the first Esperanto books. Meanwhile, - is used by the average person, but | is used in Russia, • is used in Japanese etc. There is no rule for which one you have to use, and the same is true for all punctuation ("sentence-marks"): Use whatever you want!

Capitalizing words is similar. There's only three rules:

— Capitalize the first word of a place or title (ex. book title). "The catcher in the rye" is just as fine as "The Catcher In The Rye".

— Last names should be in all capitals. This is because different languages put the family name first, while we in English put the family name last. Thus, "Adolf HITLER" or "HITLER Adolf". When it's clear that it's a last name for whatever reason (such as you having already made it clear before), then you don't need to do it.

— The beginning of a new sentence should be capitalized.

In reality however, the rules above (and things Zamenhof constantly states in his writings about Esperanto) suggest this:

Anything's fine as long as the other person understands what you're talking about. If you put quotes around the book title ("the catcher in the rye" then there's no need to capitalize anything. If you have a period/full stop, or an exclamation mark, then you don't have to capitalize the beginning of the next sentence (because it's already clear that it's a new sentence).

Capitalizing place names is just most names are borrowed from other languages and thus don't fit in with Esperanto grammar. If I say "america", it looks like some unknown adjective in Esperanto. If I say "America", the person has at least some kind of clue — ah, that's the name of something.

However, you can always write this: america-o, america-e and so forth to make it clear that it's a name, a place or time, etc.

»*«

When to combine or separate words is just done according to your personal judgement. It's best to separate words that end up looking the same, or that end up seeming too confusing, ex:

sen'tema (without a theme; sen = without, tem = theme)
sent'ema (sensitive; sent = feeling, em = tendency)

pal'manoj (pale-hands; pal = pale, man = hand)
palm'anoj (members of palm trees; palm = palm tree, an = member)

In a few cases it doesn't matter whether the word comes in front or behind:

vir = male
bov = bovine (cow)

virbovo = "male-bovine", a bovine that is male.
= a bull

bovviro, bovoviro = a male that is a bovine
= a bull

Both mean exactly the same thing. Which one you choose is just up to personal preference, or if you think one way is easier to pronounce than the other.

NOTE!: "vir" means only "male", and "in" means only "female". What, exactly, is being male or female (a dog, cat, human) isn't included; for that you have to add in another word just as with "virbovo". However, these two words are used as slang to mean "man, woman; boy, girl" and the word "hom - human, person" that should be tacked on, is instead just implied.

Similarly, "ul - a being; a creature" can refer to any being, including dead ones (corpses, ghosts and zombies), and of any type (dogs, humans, bacteria) but it's used as slang to mean "human; guy, gal" and so forth.

Thus while "tiuj uloj - those creatures" is in reality an extremely vague meaning, it's usually going to mean "those guys, those people" because humans just normally talk about other humans.









————————————————————
needs editing past here!!!!

2.



Level two verbs:

Every verb has "to be: is, am, are" built-in. So we can say:
bad'i, to bathe.
— mi bad'as = "I bathe", I am bathing
— mi ruĝ'as = "I reds", I am red
— mi lac'as = "I tireds", I am tired, fatigued, jaded

We can also use a separate verb and then the adjective (a) or adverb (e) form. But the other method is faster and shorter:
— mi estas bade = "I am being in-a-bath-way", I'm having a bath
— mi estas ruĝa = "I am being red"
— mi estas laca = "I am being tired"

Likewise, we can turn other words into verbs where English doesn't:

— ruĝa, red, ruĝ'as, is red, ruĝ'i, to be red, to be a red (thing)
— nokto, a night, nokt'as, is night, nokt'i, to be night-time
— bado, a bathe, ujo, a container, bad'ujo, a bath-tub, bad'uji, "to bath-tub", to be a bath-tub, to take a bath in the bath-tub, to clean the tub, etc. (depending on context)

Note that these verb-forms only mean "is, am, are, am being". Some people mistakenly think that a base verb like this can also mean "becomes, causes to be, forces" but that is only true in cases where the rule "if it's obvious, it doesn't need to be said" is working. Meaning that instead of the base word meaning those things, it's actually that they're simply not saying the full form of the word they mean. So there are quite a few times when you can use this "is being" form together with the n-form to mean "causes, does" for example, because the n clarifies what is going on, but in general it's best to be clear.

In order to say "causes, forces to be" or to make clear that something is the inflictor, we add "-ig-" to right before the end. In order to say  "becomes, does on its own" we add -iĝ-. More about this is in the section about suffixes, so here we have only one example:

blanko, a white (thing), whiteness
— blank'as, is white
— blanka estas, estas blanka, is being white, is white
— blank'ig'as, is causing or forcing to be white (white-washes, bleaches, paints white, etc. depending on context)
— blank'iĝ'as, becomes white, is turning white
— blank'iĝ'anto, a person or thing that is becoming white
—blank'ig'e, "white-causingly", in causing to be white

A verb in -as, -is, -os, -us form means both "eats" and "is eating, am eating" depending on context. However we can also say things like "had been eating, would have eaten, would have been eating". Note that such specific wordforms are actually unusual in the world's languages, because most languages think "it's obvious through context", but English has them. We add the word "-ad-" meaning "continuously, to keep on doing, to repeatedly do, to do over and over again, to do routinely, to do as a habit":

blank'is, was white, had been white.
— blank'int'is, had been white
— blank'int'as, has been white
— blank'int'us, would have been white

— blank'ad'is, had been white, had continuously been white (but now that's not the case), had kept on being white
— blank'ad'into, was, or had been, a person or thing which had continuouslly or repeatedly been white
— blank'ad'int'as, is a person or thing who had continuously been white
— blank'int'us, would have been white

This is true for all verbs, and for any other word you want to use it with. However, as stated, most languages do not get so specific, and thus most users of Esperanto also aren't so specific and don't use these long forms. They do end up being useful forms for when teaching other languages, but in normal writing and speaking they're completely unnecessary. "Was white, had been white" both simply mean "are not white right now", after all!



Word Order

The few rules for word order are thus:
1. Adjectives (a), must come directly before or after the noun (o) that they describe and match. An adverb (e), can't come in-between. For example:

kato, a cat. blua, blue, blue's. blu'as, is blue. lito, a sleeping-bed. lite, in bed, on bed, bed-wise, beddily.

These forms are fine and all mean "a blue cat in bed (a bed for sleeping, not a flowerbed etc.)
— kato blua lite; blua kato lite; lite blua kato; lite kato blua
— kato blua en lito; blua kato en lito; en lito kato blua; en lito blua kato
— kato blua enlite; enlite kato blua

These are not, or at least I don't think they are but I have to go research a bit to refresh my memory:
— kato lite blua (a cat in bed blue)
— blua lite kato (blue in bed a cat)

These sentences mean "a cat is blue in (a) bed":
— kato bluas lite; kato lite bluas; bluas lite kato; bluas kato lite
— kato estas blua en lito; blua estas kato en lito; blua estas kato lite...

2. The word "the" (la) must come directly before the noun (o) it describes, and if the adjective (a) comes before the noun then "the" (la) also comes before that adjective:

— la kato blua; la blua kato ("the blue cat"). These forms are okay.
— kato la blua ("a cat the blue"), blua la kato ("blue the cat"). These forms aren't okay.

3. Small words that don't end in -a, -o, -e, or -s, or that are otherwise exceptions, must always come before the thing they are talking about. "La (the)" is one such example, but it is special in that it's the only word that really shouldn't be compounded to the beginning of the word it relates to. There are a handful of these words, for example "for (away)", "de (of)", and "pri (regarding, concerning, about)", "laŭ (according to, ex. according to someone's opinion)", where the last letter is part of the unchange-able, un-removable root of the word. These little words can stand alone with a space before the word or phrase they relate to, or they can be compounded to the word, but they don't lose any of their letters when compounded. They can go behind the word only when changed into another form, such as with adding -a or -e:

pri, about, concerning, relating to (as in subjects, not as in family members)
— skrib'as, writes, is writing. skribas pri libro, writes about a book.
— pri'skribas libro, writes about a book, describes a book.
— skribas pri'libre, writes "in a way that's concerning a book", writes about a book.
— skribas libro prie, "writes a book aboutly", writes about a book. This form is very possible and certainly isn't against the rules, however most people don't realize they can use it and so it doesn't appear often. It can also make things a little more confusing.

However we cannot say "skribas libro pri", because that would mean "writes a book about...", instead of "writes about a book".

Even though you shouldn't compound "la (the)", you actually can and when doing so you remove the "a", but it's supposed to be only for poetic writing and it's not allowed to be read aloud that way (it should still be read aloud as "la" with the ah-sound). With the examples below, you can imagine how it can look very ugly or confusing, and this is also the only exception in all of Esperanto where a word wouldn't be pronounced exactly as it's written:

— l'kato, the cat. l'libro, the book. l'arbo, the tree. Pronounced as "la kato, la libro, la arbo".
o = a buyer. a (noun) that is buying.
aĉetato = a purchase. a (noun) that is being bought.

Again, sometimes this is just according to your own opinion:

lern = learn (idea word)
lernanto = a (noun) that is learning; a student, learner, pupil
lernato = a (noun) that is being taught; a student, learner, pupil

Both mean exactly the same thing in the end.

Side note:

In English, we say "rain is falling". The rain itself is doing the action of falling. Otherwise, we say "it is raining" — what is this mysterious "it"? It's possibly a placeholder for the word "water", as in "water is raining down".

Esperanto can say "water is raining down" and "rains, raining" but it does not say "it rains".

pluvas = rains; is raining; it's raining

Likewise, we say "it's hot out". What's this mysterious "it's"? Likely the sentence really means "the weather is hot outside (my house)". Esperanto says either "The weather is hot", "is hot" or "hots", but not "it's hot". Most languages don't say "it's" in these circumstances and neither does Esperanto.


———————————————
NEEDS EDITING PAST HERE

9: -N

N is the same as T, but it comes after a grammatical vowel and can't have -S attached. Therefore, -ON is the same as -TO. -AN is the same as -TA.

A word without N is the same as NT. Therefore, -O is the same as -NTO. -A is the same as -NTA.

-N is used in combination with a verb to denote that something comes from another place, and moves to a new place. It is not the thing that is doing the verb (action), instead it is getting the action done to it:

parolas = speaks
parolas katon; katon parolas = speaks to a cat.
= The cat is being spoken to. The cat is a "parolato".

parolas kato; kato parolas = a cat speaks.
= The cat is doing the speaking. The cat is a "parolanto".




iris = went
iris ĝardenon; ĝardenon iris = went to a garden (and made it all the way there)
iris ĝardenen; ĝardenen iris = went to a or the garden; went to gardens (and made it all the way there)



————————————————————————


Combining Words

When combining words, there are three rules to remember:

1. Grammatical words don't need to be added, except for on the very last word in the chain, as long as the word still makes sense without it. They can always be added for clarification.

2. "What comes before, describes what comes after". This means an adjective would come before a noun ("red house"), an adverb would come before a verb ("quickly goes"), and a noun would come before a verb (to lick plates = to plate-lick) if they were put together.

In other words, "like what, when, where, why, how" comes before in combined words:

Idea Words:
ul = creature, a being (whether alive or dead, but something that is or was alive)
hund = dog, hound


hunda domo; domo hunda = a dog's house.
hundadomo = a dog's house.
hunddomo; hundodomo = dog-house

domhundo; domohundo = a house-dog
domahundo = a house's dog

When the word looks too confusing, - or ' can be put as a separator: hund-domo, hund'domo

This is just done according to your personal judgement. In texts meant for beginners it's best to separate all words, as looking things up in the dictionary is much easier that way. Otherwise it's best to separate words that end up looking the same, or that end up seeming too confusing, ex:

sen'tema (without a theme)
sent'ema (sensitive)

pal'manoj (pale-hands)
palm'anoj (members of palm trees)

Idea Words:

sen = without, -less, -free (as in sugarless, sugarfree)
tem = theme (as in an essay topic)
em = tendency

pal = pale, light colour
palm = palm (tree)
man = hand
an = member, citizen

"Without" (sen) describes the amount of theme (tem), so without comes first.


In a few cases it's up to opinion, or doesn't matter, if a word comes at the very front or end of something:

vir = male (idea word)
hom = human, person (idea word)

virhomo = "male-human", a human who is male.
homviro = "human male", a male who is human.

2.




————————————————————————
UNEDITED PAST HERE

Level two verbs:

Every verb has "to be: is, am, are" built-in. So we can say:
bad'i, to bathe.
— mi bad'as = "I bathe", I am bathing
— mi ruĝ'as = "I reds", I am red
— mi lac'as = "I tireds", I am tired, fatigued, jaded

We can also use a separate verb and then the adjective (a) or adverb (e) form. But the other method is faster and shorter:
— mi estas bade = "I am being in-a-bath-way", I'm having a bath
— mi estas ruĝa = "I am being red"
— mi estas laca = "I am being tired"

Likewise, we can turn other words into verbs where English doesn't:

— ruĝa, red, ruĝ'as, is red, ruĝ'i, to be red, to be a red (thing)
— nokto, a night, nokt'as, is night, nokt'i, to be night-time
— bado, a bathe, ujo, a container, bad'ujo, a bath-tub, bad'uji, "to bath-tub", to be a bath-tub, to take a bath in the bath-tub, to clean the tub, etc. (depending on context)

Note that these verb-forms only mean "is, am, are, am being". Some people mistakenly think that a base verb like this can also mean "becomes, causes to be, forces" but that is only true in cases where the rule "if it's obvious, it doesn't need to be said" is working. Meaning that instead of the base word meaning those things, it's actually that they're simply not saying the full form of the word they mean. So there are quite a few times when you can use this "is being" form together with the n-form to mean "causes, does" for example, because the n clarifies what is going on, but in general it's best to be clear.

In order to say "causes, forces to be" or to make clear that something is the inflictor, we add "-ig-" to right before the end. In order to say  "becomes, does on its own" we add -iĝ-. More about this is in the section about suffixes, so here we have only one example:

blanko, a white (thing), whiteness
— blank'as, is white
— blanka estas, estas blanka, is being white, is white
— blank'ig'as, is causing or forcing to be white (white-washes, bleaches, paints white, etc. depending on context)
— blank'iĝ'as, becomes white, is turning white
— blank'iĝ'anto, a person or thing that is becoming white
—blank'ig'e, "white-causingly", in causing to be white

A verb in -as, -is, -os, -us form means both "eats" and "is eating, am eating" depending on context. However we can also say things like "had been eating, would have eaten, would have been eating". Note that such specific wordforms are actually unusual in the world's languages, because most languages think "it's obvious through context", but English has them. We add the word "-ad-" meaning "continuously, to keep on doing, to repeatedly do, to do over and over again, to do routinely, to do as a habit":

blank'is, was white, had been white.
— blank'int'is, had been white
— blank'int'as, has been white
— blank'int'us, would have been white

— blank'ad'is, had been white, had continuously been white (but now that's not the case), had kept on being white
— blank'ad'into, was, or had been, a person or thing which had continuouslly or repeatedly been white
— blank'ad'int'as, is a person or thing who had continuously been white
— blank'int'us, would have been white

This is true for all verbs, and for any other word you want to use it with. However, as stated, most languages do not get so specific, and thus most users of Esperanto also aren't so specific and don't use these long forms. They do end up being useful forms for when teaching other languages, but in normal writing and speaking they're completely unnecessary. "Was white, had been white" both simply mean "are not white right now", after all!



Word Order

The few rules for word order are thus:
1. Adjectives (a), must come directly before or after the noun (o) that they describe and match. An adverb (e), can't come in-between. For example:

kato, a cat. blua, blue, blue's. blu'as, is blue. lito, a sleeping-bed. lite, in bed, on bed, bed-wise, beddily.

These forms are fine and all mean "a blue cat in bed (a bed for sleeping, not a flowerbed etc.)
— kato blua lite; blua kato lite; lite blua kato; lite kato blua
— kato blua en lito; blua kato en lito; en lito kato blua; en lito blua kato
— kato blua enlite; enlite kato blua

These are not, or at least I don't think they are but I have to go research a bit to refresh my memory:
— kato lite blua (a cat in bed blue)
— blua lite kato (blue in bed a cat)

These sentences mean "a cat is blue in (a) bed":
— kato bluas lite; kato lite bluas; bluas lite kato; bluas kato lite
— kato estas blua en lito; blua estas kato en lito; blua estas kato lite...

2. The word "the" (la) must come directly before the noun (o) it describes, and if the adjective (a) comes before the noun then "the" (la) also comes before that adjective:

— la kato blua; la blua kato ("the blue cat"). These forms are okay.
— kato la blua ("a cat the blue"), blua la kato ("blue the cat"). These forms aren't okay.

3. Small words that don't end in -a, -o, -e, or -s, or that are otherwise exceptions, must always come before the thing they are talking about. "La (the)" is one such example, but it is special in that it's the only word that really shouldn't be compounded to the beginning of the word it relates to. There are a handful of these words, for example "for (away)", "de (of)", and "pri (regarding, concerning, about)", "laŭ (according to, ex. according to someone's opinion)", where the last letter is part of the unchange-able, un-removable root of the word. These little words can stand alone with a space before the word or phrase they relate to, or they can be compounded to the word, but they don't lose any of their letters when compounded. They can go behind the word only when changed into another form, such as with adding -a or -e:

pri, about, concerning, relating to (as in subjects, not as in family members)
— skrib'as, writes, is writing. skribas pri libro, writes about a book.
— pri'skribas libro, writes about a book, describes a book.
— skribas pri'libre, writes "in a way that's concerning a book", writes about a book.
— skribas libro prie, "writes a book aboutly", writes about a book. This form is very possible and certainly isn't against the rules, however most people don't realize they can use it and so it doesn't appear often. It can also make things a little more confusing.

However we cannot say "skribas libro pri", because that would mean "writes a book about...", instead of "writes about a book".

Even though you shouldn't compound "la (the)", you actually can and when doing so you remove the "a", but it's supposed to be only for poetic writing and it's not allowed to be read aloud that way (it should still be read aloud as "la" with the ah-sound). With the examples below, you can imagine how it can look very ugly or confusing, and this is also the only exception in all of Esperanto where a word wouldn't be pronounced exactly as it's written:

— l'kato, the cat. l'libro, the book. l'arbo, the tree. Pronounced as "la kato, la libro, la arbo".