La fakto, ke meteoro brilas, klarigas, kial ni vidas ĝin.

La fakto means the fact. In this sentence, it is the main subject of the verb klarigas.

So the basic skeleton is:

• La fakto ... klarigas ...
• The fact ... explains ...

Everything between those parts gives more information:

• ke meteoro brilas = what the fact is
• kial ni vidas ĝin = what that fact explains

So the whole idea is: The fact that a meteor shines explains why we see it.

Ke means that when it introduces a clause.

In La fakto, ke meteoro brilas..., the part after ke is a full clause:

• meteoro brilas = a meteor shines

So ke meteoro brilas means that a meteor shines.

Esperanto uses ke very regularly for this kind of clause. English sometimes omits that, but Esperanto normally keeps ke.

The clause ke meteoro brilas is inserted after La fakto and before the main verb klarigas, so commas are used to mark that inserted clause clearly.

Structure:

• La fakto, ke meteoro brilas, klarigas ...

This is very normal in Esperanto writing. Commas are often used more consistently than in English to separate subordinate clauses.

So the commas help show the structure:

• main subject: La fakto
• explanatory clause attached to it: ke meteoro brilas
• main verb: klarigas

Meteoro without la means a meteor or meteor(s) in general, depending on context.

Here it is talking about the general idea of a meteor shining, not a specific already-identified meteor. So meteoro is natural.

If you said la meteoro, that would usually mean the meteor, a particular one already known from context.

Brilas is the present tense of brili = to shine.

Esperanto often uses the present tense for general truths or facts, just as English does:

• Akvo bolas je 100°C.
• Water boils at 100°C.

So meteoro brilas means something like a meteor shines / is shining, depending on context. Here it expresses a general explanatory fact, so the present tense is completely normal.

Klarigas comes from klarigi, which means to explain, to make clear, or to clarify.

So:

• La fakto ... klarigas ...
• The fact ... explains ...

A useful pattern is:

• X klarigas Y = X explains Y

In this sentence:

• the fact that a meteor shines = the thing doing the explaining
• why we see it = the thing being explained

Because the second clause means why we see it, not that we see it.

Compare:

• ke ni vidas ĝin = that we see it
• kial ni vidas ĝin = why we see it

So the sentence is not just saying that we see it. It is explaining the reason:

• La fakto, ke meteoro brilas, klarigas, kial ni vidas ĝin.
• The fact that a meteor shines explains why we see it.

Kial is the normal Esperanto word for why.

Ĝin is the accusative form of ĝi.

The verb vidi means to see, and the thing seen is the direct object, so Esperanto marks it with -n:

• ni vidas ĝin
• we see it

Here:

• ni = subject
• vidas = verb
• ĝin = direct object

Without the -n, it would be ungrammatical in standard Esperanto.

Ĝin refers back to meteoro.

So:

• meteoro = meteor
• ĝin = it

Even though meteoro appeared inside an earlier clause, it can still be the thing referred to by ĝin later in the sentence.

In Esperanto, ĝi is the normal pronoun for a thing, object, animal of unspecified sex, or anything not referred to as li or ŝi.

A meteor is a thing, so ĝi is correct:

• meteoro ... ni vidas ĝin
• a meteor ... we see it

This is more straightforward than English, where it also covers many uses. In Esperanto, ĝi is the expected choice for non-persons.

Somewhat, yes, but the given order is very natural and clear.

The standard structure is:

• La fakto, ke meteoro brilas, klarigas, kial ni vidas ĝin.

You could rearrange parts in some contexts, but this version clearly shows:

1. the main subject: La fakto
2. the content of that fact: ke meteoro brilas
3. the main verb: klarigas
4. what is explained: kial ni vidas ĝin

Because the sentence contains two subordinate clauses, a clear word order is especially helpful.

Yes. A very literal breakdown would be:

• La fakto = the fact
• ke meteoro brilas = that a meteor shines
• klarigas = explains
• kial ni vidas ĝin = why we see it

So, almost word for word:

The fact that a meteor shines explains why we see it.

This is one of those nice cases where Esperanto and English line up quite closely.

Very often, yes, when you want to say the fact that ...

For example:

• La fakto, ke li venis, surprizis min.
• The fact that he came surprised me.

So fakto + ke-clause is a common and useful pattern in Esperanto.

It is similar to English the fact that ..., but Esperanto usually keeps the structure very explicit.