Learn Hardcore Esperanto: En la mateno mi preskaŭ malfruas, ĉar mi ne vidas la horon sur la horloĝo. - In the morning I am almost late, because I do not see the time on the clock.

En la mateno = literally “in the morning”, with preposition + article + noun.
- Used when you talk about a particular part of the day as a period:
  - En la mateno mi laboras. – In the morning I work.
Matene = an adverb, meaning “in the morning / in the mornings / in the morning-time” in a general, habitual sense.
- Very common for talking about routines:
  - Matene mi trinkas kafon. – I drink coffee in the mornings.

In this sentence, En la mateno is perfectly fine and idiomatic; Matene mi preskaŭ malfruas… would also be natural, and even a bit more typical when describing a repeated habit or a usual situation. Both are correct, with matene sounding slightly more like “as a rule, in the morning”.

Why is the verb malfruas in the present tense and not past (malfruis) or future (malfruos)?

In Esperanto, the present tense (-as) is used both for:

Right now actions:
- Mi legas. – I am reading.
Habitual / repeated actions:
- Mi ĉiam legas vespere. – I (usually) read in the evening.

Here, En la mateno mi preskaŭ malfruas is understood as “In the morning I am (usually) almost late” – a repeated or typical situation.

If you wanted:

Past:
- En la mateno mi preskaŭ malfruis… – This morning / at some past morning I almost was late.
Future:
- Morgaŭ matene mi preskaŭ malfruos… – Tomorrow morning I will almost be late (a bit strange logically, but grammatically fine).

So the present (malfruas) fits because the sentence describes a general, usual situation.

Why is it mi preskaŭ malfruas and not mi estas preskaŭ malfrua?

Both forms are grammatical, but they differ slightly in style and focus.

Mi malfruas literally: “I am-late” (as a verb).
- malfrui is an intransitive verb: “to be late, to arrive late”.
- Very natural and common for talking about being late:
  - Mi malfruas al la kunveno. – I’m late for the meeting.
Mi estas malfrua literally: “I am late (as an adjective)”.
- Grammatically fine, but less idiomatic when talking about arriving or showing up late.
- More often you’d see adjectives like:
  - Mi estas laca. – I’m tired.
  - Mi estas feliĉa. – I’m happy.

In standard usage, malfrui (verb) is the normal way to say “be late” in the everyday sense. So:

Mi preskaŭ malfruas = I am almost late. (very natural)
Mi estas preskaŭ malfrua sounds a bit heavier, more like you’re describing a quality, and is less common in this context.

What exactly does preskaŭ mean here, and does it always go before the verb?

Preskaŭ means “almost / nearly”. It modifies the thing that comes right after it.

In this sentence:

mi preskaŭ malfruas = “I am almost late”
→ preskaŭ modifies malfruas.

Usual placement rules:

Normally preskaŭ goes directly before the word or phrase it modifies:
- Preskaŭ ĉiu venis. – Almost everyone came.
- Li preskaŭ falis. – He almost fell.
- Ŝi preskaŭ ĉiam ridetas. – She almost always smiles.

If you move it, the meaning may become unclear or sound odd:

Mi malfruas preskaŭ – sounds incomplete or unnatural.
Preskaŭ mi malfruas – possible in special emphasis, but unusual; normally you keep preskaŭ before malfruas.

So: mi preskaŭ malfruas is the normal, clear order.

Is malfruas transitive? Can I say something like mi malfruas la trajnon?

No. Malfrui is intransitive: it does not take a direct object.

Mi malfruas. – I am late.
Mi malfruas al la kunveno. – I am late for the meeting.
Mi malfruis je kvin minutoj. – I was late by five minutes.

You should not treat it like English “miss (the train)”:

Mi malfruas la trajnon. – wrong / unidiomatic.

Correct ways to express that idea:

Mi malfruas al la trajno. – I am late for the train.
Mi malfruis, do mi ne kaptis la trajnon. – I was late, so I didn’t catch the train.

Why is it la horon with -n? Is that the “time accusative” or just an object?

Here, la horon is in the accusative because it is the direct object of vidas:

Mi vidas la horon.
- Subject: mi (I)
- Verb: vidas (see)
- Direct object: la horon (the hour / the time shown)

So the -n is just the normal object accusative.

The “time accusative” (accusative used to show duration or point in time) would look like:

Mi laboris la tutan matenon. – I worked the whole morning (duration).
Mi venos lundon. – I will come on Monday (point in time).

In this sentence, la horon is not marking a time expression like that; it is simply “what is seen”, the object of vidas.

Could we say la horo without -n, or would that be wrong?

In standard Esperanto grammar, omitting the accusative -n on a direct object like this is considered wrong.

Because vidas is a normal transitive verb (“to see”), its direct object should have -n:

Mi vidas la horon. – correct.
Mi vidas la horo. – incorrect in standard usage.

So in the given sentence, la horon with -n is the correct form.

Why do we use horo and not tempo here?

In Esperanto:

horo = an hour, or the clock time (what a clock shows).
- Kiu horo estas? – What time (what hour) is it?
- Mi ne vidas la horon. – I can’t see the time (displayed).
tempo = time in the general, abstract sense (the concept of time, time available, rhythm, etc.).
- Mi ne havas tempon. – I don’t have time.
- La tempo rapide pasas. – Time passes quickly.

Here, la horon sur la horloĝo means “the time (the hour) on the clock face / display” – specifically what the clock is showing.

If you said Mi ne vidas la tempon sur la horloĝo, people would understand, but it sounds less precise and less typical than using horon in this context. Horo is the usual choice for clock time.

Why do we say sur la horloĝo? Could we use en, je, or ĉe instead?

Sur la horloĝo literally means “on the clock” and refers to what appears on the face/display of the clock.

sur = on (on the surface / on top of something).
- La nombroj estas sur la horloĝo. – The numbers are on the clock.

Alternatives:

en la horloĝo = “in the clock”
- Would refer to inside the clock’s mechanism; not what you want here.
je la horloĝo = very vague; je is a general preposition when nothing else fits. Here, sur fits perfectly, so je is not needed.
ĉe la horloĝo = “at the clock / by the clock”
- This would mean being near the clock, not reading what it shows.

So sur la horloĝo is the natural choice because you are talking about the time displayed on the clock.

Why do we use la in la horon and la horloĝo? Could we omit the article?

La is the definite article, roughly like “the” in English.

la horon = “the time (the hour)”, meaning the specific time that is now being shown.
la horloĝo = “the clock”, a particular clock that speaker and listener both know (for example, the one in the room).

If you omitted la:

Mi ne vidas horon sur horloĝo. – “I don’t see any hour on any clock” (very unnatural, and suggests something more generic or indefinite).

Established clock-related phrases often use la, because you usually refer to a specific time and specific clock. So:

la horloĝo = that particular clock here.
la horon = the current time that clock is supposed to show.

In this context, using la is both grammatically correct and stylistically natural.

Could we move the ĉar-clause to the front, like Ĉar mi ne vidas la horon sur la horloĝo, en la mateno mi preskaŭ malfruas?

Yes, that word order is grammatically correct in Esperanto.

Both are fine:

En la mateno mi preskaŭ malfruas, ĉar mi ne vidas la horon sur la horloĝo.
Ĉar mi ne vidas la horon sur la horloĝo, en la mateno mi preskaŭ malfruas.

Differences:

The original order (reason after result) is very common and neutral.
Putting the ĉar-clause first emphasizes the reason a bit more:
“Because I can’t see the time on the clock, I (then) almost end up late in the morning.”

Punctuation:

A comma before ĉar is standard, as in the original sentence.
When the ĉar-clause comes first, you also use a comma before the main clause, just like in English.

The word order inside the ĉar-clause (mi ne vidas la horon sur la horloĝo) stays exactly the same.