Sen akvo, la planto mortos baldaŭ.

Sen means without.

In Esperanto, most prepositions, including sen, are followed by the normal dictionary form of the noun, not the accusative. So:

• sen akvo = without water

You would not use -n here, because akvo is not a direct object and there is no idea of motion toward something.

So:

• Sen akvo = correct
• Sen akvon = incorrect in this sentence

La is the definite article, meaning the.

So:

• la planto = the plant
• planto = a plant / plant depending on context

Esperanto has no separate word for a/an, so the bare noun can be indefinite. Using la shows that the speaker has a specific plant in mind, or that the plant is already known from context.

In this sentence, la planto most naturally means the plant.

Because -os is the Esperanto ending for the future tense.

Verb endings in Esperanto are very regular:

• -as = present
• -is = past
• -os = future
• -us = conditional
• -u = command / wish
• -i = infinitive

So:

• morti = to die
• mortas = dies / is dying
• mortis = died
• mortos = will die

In this sentence, the meaning is about what will happen later, so mortos is the right form.

Morti means to die.

It describes the event or process of dying, not the state of already being dead.

Compare:

• morti = to die
• morta = dead, mortal-related as an adjective depending on context
• esti morta = to be dead

So la planto mortos means the plant will die, not the plant will be dead right now.

No. Morti is normally intransitive, just like English to die.

That means it does not take a direct object. A plant can morti, but you do not usually morti something.

If you want to kill, Esperanto usually uses mortigi:

• La planto mortas. = The plant is dying.
• La frosto mortigis la planton. = The frost killed the plant.

This is a very common Esperanto pattern:

• morti = die
• mortigi = cause to die, kill

Baldaŭ means soon.

It is an adverb, which is why it ends in -aŭ here rather than -e. Not all Esperanto adverbs end in -e; some basic adverbs are separate fixed words, and baldaŭ is one of them.

So:

• baldaŭ = soon

In the sentence:

• la planto mortos baldaŭ = the plant will die soon

Yes. Esperanto word order is fairly flexible, especially with adverbs.

These are all possible:

• Sen akvo, la planto mortos baldaŭ.
• Sen akvo, la planto baldaŭ mortos.
• La planto mortos baldaŭ sen akvo.
• Baldaŭ la planto mortos sen akvo.

They are not always identical in emphasis, but they are all understandable.

The version you were given sounds natural and emphasizes the condition first: Without water...

The comma separates the introductory phrase Sen akvo from the main clause.

• Sen akvo = introductory prepositional phrase
• la planto mortos baldaŭ = main clause

This comma is natural and helpful, especially in writing, because it marks a pause similar to English:

• Without water, the plant will die soon.

You may sometimes see Esperanto sentences without such a comma, especially in shorter or less formal writing, but here the comma is perfectly normal.

Yes, very closely.

• sen = without
• akvo = water

So Sen akvo is a direct and natural way to say Without water.

Depending on context, it can mean:

• without any water available
• if it does not get water
• lacking water

In this sentence, it expresses the condition under which the plant will die.

Because there is no direct object here.

Let’s look at the parts:

• Sen akvo: after the preposition sen, the noun stays in its basic form
• la planto: this is the subject, so no -n
• mortos: verb
• baldaŭ: adverb

The accusative -n is mainly used for direct objects and sometimes for motion toward something or certain time expressions. None of those apply here.

So the absence of -n is exactly what you should expect.

Yes, that is a natural English interpretation of the idea, even though Esperanto does not use if here.

The sentence literally says:

• Without water, the plant will die soon.

But in meaning, it can imply:

• If the plant does not get water, it will die soon.

So sen akvo expresses the condition in a compact way, without needing a separate conditional clause.

Yes, essentially.

• Sen akvo, la planto mortos baldaŭ.
• La planto mortos baldaŭ sen akvo.

Both mean roughly the same thing. The difference is mainly one of emphasis and style.

Starting with Sen akvo highlights the condition first, which often sounds very natural when you want to stress the cause or circumstance.

Because of both meaning and structure.

In:

• Sen akvo, la planto mortos baldaŭ

baldaŭ is placed near the verb phrase mortos, so it is understood as will die soon.

It would not make sense here for baldaŭ to describe akvo. Semantically, soon water is not a natural reading in this sentence.

So the sentence is understood as:

• Without water, the plant will soon die
• not without soon water

Context and normal syntax make this clear.