Breakdown of Post la vespermanĝo, mia patro rakontas pli longan rakonton ol hieraŭ.
Questions & Answers about Post la vespermanĝo, mia patro rakontas pli longan rakonton ol hieraŭ.
In Esperanto, la is used much like English the: to refer to a specific, known item.
- post la vespermanĝo = after the (specific) dinner, e.g. tonight’s dinner that everyone in the conversation knows about.
- post vespermanĝo (without la) is more general, like after dinner (in general / after having dinner). It’s possible, but it sounds a bit more generic or habitual.
In everyday speech, post la vespermanĝo is very natural if you mean “after tonight’s dinner” or “after that particular dinner” rather than “after dinner as an activity in general.”
When an adverbial phrase (of time, place, etc.) comes at the very beginning, Esperanto often uses a comma, especially in written style:
- Post la vespermanĝo, mia patro rakontas…
This comma:
- separates the introductory time phrase from the main clause,
- makes the sentence easier to read.
It’s a style/clarity choice rather than a strict rule. You will also see it written without a comma:
- Post la vespermanĝo mia patro rakontas…
Both are acceptable; the version with a comma looks slightly more formal or careful.
Rakontas is present tense (-as ending). Esperanto has only three simple tenses:
- rakontas – present
- rakontis – past
- rakontos – future
Present tense covers both:
- “tells” (simple present) and
- “is telling” (present continuous)
So mia patro rakontas can mean both:
- my father tells (e.g. habitually, every evening), or
- my father is telling (right now).
The context decides which English form is best. In your sentence, with a time expression like post la vespermanĝo, it can be understood as either a repeated habit or something planned for this evening.
The -n marks the accusative (direct object) in Esperanto.
- The direct object of rakontas is rakonton (story → a story that is being told).
- Adjectives must agree with the noun they describe in number and case.
So:
- rakonto (story) → rakonton (as direct object)
- longa rakonto (a long story) → longan rakonton (long + story, both in the accusative as direct object)
Because rakonton is the object, it takes -n; because longa agrees with rakonto, it also takes -n → longan.
You can say pli longa rakonto in general, but not in this sentence without losing the object function.
- pli longa rakonto is just the nominative form: “a longer story.”
In your sentence, that “longer story” is the direct object of rakontas, so it needs the accusative -n:
- Mia patro rakontas pli longan rakonton.
Without -n, pli longa rakonto would not be marked as the object, and the sentence would be ungrammatical or ambiguous. So in this context you must use pli longan rakonton.
Pli … ol … is the basic pattern for comparisons:
- pli longa = longer
- ol = than
Here:
- pli longan rakonton = a longer story
- ol hieraŭ = than yesterday
Literally: “my father tells a longer story than yesterday.”
Note that:
- When the second part (after ol) is clear, Esperanto often omits repeated words:
- Full version (more explicit): pli longan rakonton ol tiu, kiun li rakontis hieraŭ.
- Normal spoken/written version: pli longan rakonton ol hieraŭ.
The omitted part (the one he told) is understood from context.
Ol is a comparative conjunction; it directly links what is being compared. You do not add extra prepositions to the time word after ol:
- pli longan rakonton ol hieraŭ
not: ✗ pli longan rakonton ol je hieraŭ
You compare:
- today’s story
to - “(the story of) yesterday”
So ol hieraŭ on its own is fine; the missing noun phrase “the story of” is simply understood.
Yes. Esperanto word order is quite flexible because roles are mostly marked by endings rather than position.
All of these are grammatical and natural, with slight differences in emphasis:
- Post la vespermanĝo, mia patro rakontas pli longan rakonton ol hieraŭ.
(Time phrase first; neutral, very common.) - Mia patro post la vespermanĝo rakontas pli longan rakonton ol hieraŭ.
(Subject first; slightly more focus on my father.) - Mia patro rakontas pli longan rakonton ol hieraŭ post la vespermanĝo.
(Time phrase at the end; emphasis may feel more on the “after dinner” part.)
What you should not change is the endings. As long as rakonton / longan keep their endings, their role as direct object remains clear.
Yes, that’s a correct way to put it in the future:
- rakontos (future tense) = will tell
So:
- Post la vespermanĝo mia patro rakontos pli longan rakonton ol hieraŭ.
= After dinner my father will tell a longer story than yesterday.
The rest of the structure (articles, accusative endings, pli … ol …) stays the same; only the verb ending changes to -os for future.
- mia patro = my father (specifically yours).
- la patro = the father (some specific father known from context), not necessarily yours.
In most situations where you mean your own father, you use mia patro.
You might use la patro:
- in a story where “the father” is a character already introduced,
- or when contrasting family roles (the father, the mother, the son, etc.).
So in your sentence, if you are talking about your own family, mia patro is the natural choice.