An Esperanto infinitive ending in -i has no tense or person ending, but it is still a verb. It can select an accusative object and prepositional complements just as a finite verb can: legi la mesaĝon, paroli pri la problemo, doni la ŝlosilon al ŝi. When that infinitive follows another verb, its object often appears at the end of a longer verb chain.
English uses the same surface order in “I want to read the message,” so the basic pattern feels familiar. The important difference is that Esperanto keeps marking grammatical roles visibly: nouns, adjectives, pronouns, and eligible correlatives take -n when they are objects of the infinitive.
For the larger syntax of these verb chains, see infinitives as complements. This page concentrates on how their internal objects are marked.
The infinitive keeps the valency of its verb
Changing legi from a finite form to an infinitive does not change what roles it licenses:
Mi legas la novan raporton.
I am reading the new report.
Mi volas legi la novan raporton.
I want to read the new report.
In both sentences, la novan raporton is the direct object of the verb meaning “read,” so both adjective and noun take -n. The finite verb volas introduces the infinitive phrase, but it does not “absorb” the infinitive’s object.
Ni devas rezervi du apudajn ĉambrojn antaŭ vendredo.
We need to reserve two adjoining rooms before Friday.
Ĉu vi povus alporti ion varman por trinki?
Could you bring something warm to drink?
In the second sentence, ion varman is the object of the infinitive alporti; trinki has an understood object referring to that drink. This illustrates why the nearest noun is not automatically the object of the nearest infinitive. Meaning and valency determine the structure.
One subject can control a chain of infinitives
After modal and intention verbs such as povi, devi, voli, intenci, and provi, the main-clause subject is normally also the understood doer of the infinitive. A longer chain still leaves the final verb responsible for its own object:
Mi provos ripari la kafmaŝinon ĉi-vespere.
I will try to repair the coffee machine this evening.
Ni volas komenci renovigi la kuirejon en Majo.
We want to start renovating the kitchen in May.
The chain can be represented as ni → volas → komenci → renovigi → la kuirejon. Only renovigi directly licenses la kuirejon. There is no need to repeat ni before each infinitive, and Esperanto infinitives cannot take a grammatical subject in the nominative form directly beside them.
Prepositional frames also survive unchanged:
Mi ne volas paroli pri la buĝeto antaŭ la gastoj.
I do not want to talk about the budget in front of the guests.
Because paroli normally takes pri for its topic, la buĝeto does not receive object -n. Infinitive position is never a license to discard or replace a verb’s lexical frame.
Two accusatives may belong to two verbs
With verbs of requesting, persuading, allowing, causing, or perceiving, one accusative can belong to the finite verb while another belongs to the infinitive:
Mi petis ŝin kontroli la rezervon.
I asked her to check the reservation.
Ŝin is the direct object of petis and the understood doer of kontroli. La rezervon is the object of kontroli. Their adjacency to the appropriate verbs makes the relations clear.
La estro lasis nin fini la kunvenon pli frue.
The manager let us finish the meeting earlier.
Mi vidis la infanon transiri la straton sen akompananto.
I saw the child cross the street without anyone accompanying them.
In lasis nin fini la kunvenon, nin belongs to lasis and la kunvenon to fini. In the perception construction, la infanon is what the speaker saw and is also understood as the one crossing; la straton is the object of transiri.
PMEG notes that lasi plus a transitive infinitive can become ambiguous when only one accusative is present: does it name the person allowed to act, or the thing affected by the infinitive? In clear modern prose, keep each object next to its licensing verb or rewrite with a ke-clause.
Mi ne povis lasi ilin forĵeti miajn notojn.
I could not let them throw away my notes.
Mi ne povis permesi, ke ili forĵetu miajn notojn.
I could not allow them to throw away my notes.
The two versions are equivalent in core meaning. The ke-clause is longer but makes both subjects and objects explicit.
The infinitive itself does not take -n
An infinitive phrase can function as the complement—or in some analyses the object—of another verb, but the infinitive never acquires an accusative ending. Esperanto has legi, not legin. The object inside the infinitive phrase carries its own role marker:
Ŝi amas kuiri simplajn sezonajn pladojn.
She loves cooking simple seasonal dishes.
Here the whole phrase kuiri simplajn sezonajn pladojn completes amas. Inside that phrase, simplajn sezonajn pladojn is the direct object of kuiri.
Not every complement after an infinitive is an object. Compare:
| Infinitive phrase | Role after the infinitive | Form |
|---|---|---|
| legi la kontrakton | direct object | -n |
| respondi al la kliento | addressee | al, no object -n |
| paroli pri la ŝanĝo | topic | pri, no object -n |
| iri hejmen | direction | directional -n, not object -n |
| labori du horojn | duration | measure -n, not object -n |
Post la laboro mi volas iri hejmen kaj dormi ok horojn.
After work I want to go home and sleep for eight hours.
Neither hejmen nor ok horojn is a direct object. The first marks a goal and the second a duration. The ending is coherent—n marks several non-subject relations—but its interpretation depends on the construction.
Objects can precede the infinitive
Although this page emphasizes the frequent infinitive + object order, Esperanto allows an object before its infinitive. This is common with a short pronoun or a contrastive phrase:
Mi volas ĝin legi antaŭ ol mi respondos.
I want to read it before I reply.
Tiun proponon mi ne povas akcepti.
That proposal I cannot accept.
The first order is accepted and ordinary; the second is contrastively fronted. Case remains obligatory. When several verbs and complements are present, however, placing an object immediately after its verb is usually the clearest pedagogical choice.
— Ĉu vi povos kontroli la rezervon hodiaŭ? — Jes, mi promesas kontroli ĝin antaŭ la vespero.
— Will you be able to check the reservation today? — Yes, I promise to check it before evening.
The reply makes the attachment transparent: ĝin is the object of kontroli, while the whole infinitive phrase completes promesas.
Norm, variation, and register
The Fundamenta grammar treats infinitives as verbal forms, and Fundamenta examples already show them with objects. PMEG makes the rule explicit: an infinitive can have objects and complements just like a finite verb, and those elements may occur before or after it. This is the neutral norm, not a later innovation.
Attested prose contains denser and more widely separated dependencies, especially in (literary) writing. For international clarity, keep an object close to the infinitive that selects it. Where lasi or a perception verb creates genuine ambiguity, a ke-clause is the recommended neutral repair.
Common Mistakes
1. Leaving the infinitive’s object unmarked.
❌ Mi volas legi la nova artikolo.
Incorrect — the noun phrase is the object of legi.
✅ Mi volas legi la novan artikolon.
I want to read the new article.
2. Adding object -n after a required preposition.
❌ Ni devas paroli pri la novan planon.
Incorrect — pri already marks the topic relation.
✅ Ni devas paroli pri la nova plano.
We need to talk about the new plan.
3. Marking the noun but not its adjective.
❌ Ŝi lernas kuiri tradicia pladojn.
Incorrect — the adjective must share the object's accusative marking.
✅ Ŝi lernas kuiri tradiciajn pladojn.
She is learning to cook traditional dishes.
4. Copying English “to” as al before an infinitive.
❌ Mi volas al aĉeti novan telefonon.
Incorrect — the infinitive ending -i already marks the infinitive.
✅ Mi volas aĉeti novan telefonon.
I want to buy a new phone.
5. Treating two accusatives as objects of the same verb.
❌ Mi petis ŝin la adreson.
Incorrect for ‘I asked her for the address’ — the two roles need separate marking.
✅ Mi petis ŝin pri la adreso.
I asked her for the address.
Key Takeaways
- An infinitive remains a verb and licenses its own object and complements.
- The object takes -n throughout its noun phrase; the infinitive itself never does.
- Two accusatives are possible when one belongs to the finite verb and the other to the infinitive.
- Prepositional, directional, and measure phrases keep their own marking after infinitives.
- Keep complements close to their licensing verbs when a longer chain could be ambiguous.
Now practice Esperanto
Reading grammar gets you part of the way. The exercises are where it sticks — free, no signup needed.
Start learning Esperanto →Related Topics
- Direct ObjectsA1 — Learn which Esperanto verb complements are direct objects, how -n marks them, and how object marking remains stable when word order changes.
- Two Objects and ValencyA2 — How Esperanto distributes recipients, things transferred, and other participants between the accusative and prepositional phrases.
- Objects before the VerbB1 — How fronted and preverbal objects use accusative marking to preserve roles while managing topic, contrast, and information flow.
- Infinitives as ComplementsA1 — Build verb chains with an -i infinitive, assign its understood subject, and keep tense, negation, objects, and clause boundaries clear.
- Infinitive SubjectsA1 — Use an infinitive phrase as a clause subject, describe its action with an adverb, and identify its understood actor clearly.
- Subject Control with InfinitivesA2 — Identify the understood actor of an infinitive after same-subject, influence, perception, causative, and purpose constructions.