Mi legis la laboranoncon hieraŭ.

Because -is is the Esperanto ending for the past tense.

The base verb is legi = to read. Its main tense forms are:

• legas = reads / is reading
• legis = read
• legos = will read

Since the action happened yesterday, the past tense legis is the natural choice.

Yes. Esperanto verbs do not change according to person or number.

So all of these are correct:

• mi legis
• vi legis
• li legis
• ŝi legis
• ni legis
• ili legis

That is much simpler than English, where verbs sometimes change form, such as I read vs. he reads.

The -n is the accusative ending. It marks the direct object, meaning the thing directly affected by the verb.

In this sentence:

• Mi = the subject, the person doing the action
• legis = the action
• la laboranoncon = the thing that was read

So laboranonco becomes laboranoncon because it is the direct object.

A few comparisons:

• Mi legis la libron. = I read the book.
• Mi vidis la hundon. = I saw the dog.
• Mi legis la laboranoncon. = I read the job advertisement.

If it were plural, you would see -ojn:

• Mi legis la laboranoncojn. = I read the job advertisements.

The basic form is laboranonco.

It is a compound noun made from roots:

• labor- = work / labor
• anonc- = announcement / advertisement
• -o = noun ending

So laboranonco is literally something like work-announcement, which corresponds to job advertisement or job ad.

Then the direct-object ending -n is added:

• laboranonco → laboranoncon

This kind of compounding is very common in Esperanto.

Because Esperanto often expresses a single idea with a compound word.

Here, laboranonco is treated as one noun: job advertisement.

If you split it into two words, you would usually get something structurally different, for example:

• labora anonco = a work-related announcement

That can be similar in meaning, depending on context, but it is not quite the same thing as the fixed compound laboranonco.

So in your sentence, the one-word form is normal and natural.

Esperanto has la for the, but it does not have a separate indefinite article like a or an.

So:

• la laboranonco = the job advertisement
• laboranonco = a job advertisement or just job advertisement, depending on context

Using la usually means the speaker has a specific advertisement in mind, or that it is already clear which one is meant.

No. Hieraŭ is an adverb of time, and its position is fairly flexible.

All of these are possible:

• Mi legis la laboranoncon hieraŭ.
• Hieraŭ mi legis la laboranoncon.
• Mi hieraŭ legis la laboranoncon.

The version with hieraŭ at the end is very natural, but Esperanto allows movement for emphasis or style.

Not quite. Esperanto often uses the same basic order as English:

• subject + verb + object

So Mi legis la laboranoncon hieraŭ is the most neutral arrangement.

But Esperanto word order is more flexible because the direct object is marked by -n. For example:

• La laboranoncon mi legis hieraŭ.

This still means I read the job advertisement yesterday, because laboranoncon is clearly marked as the object.

For learners, though, it is best to use the normal straightforward order first.

Hieraŭ is pronounced roughly hi-EH-raŭ.

A helpful breakdown is:

• hi
• e
• raŭ

The aŭ sounds roughly like the ow in cow.

So the whole word is approximately hi-EH-row/ow, but with the final part sounding like ow in cow, not like oh.

Also remember that Esperanto stress normally falls on the second-to-last syllable, so the stress is on E:

• hi-E-raŭ