Se mi ne timus la bruon, mi dormus pli longe ol nun.

Breakdown of Se mi ne timus la bruon, mi dormus pli longe ol nun.

mi
I
se
if
ne
not
pli
more
dormi
to sleep
nun
now
bruo
the noise
timi
to fear
ol
than
longe
long
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Esperanto grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Esperanto now

Questions & Answers about Se mi ne timus la bruon, mi dormus pli longe ol nun.

What does the verb ending -us mean in timus and dormus?

The ending -us is the conditional mood in Esperanto. It usually corresponds to English “would …”.

  • timi = to fear / to be afraid (infinitive)
  • timus = would fear / would be afraid
  • dormi = to sleep
  • dormus = would sleep

So timus and dormus show that we are talking about a hypothetical situation, not about something that is actually happening.

For comparison:

  • timas = fears / is afraid (present fact)
  • timos = will fear (future fact)
  • timi = to fear
  • timus = would fear (hypothetical)
Why do both verbs use -us? Could I mix timas with dormus, or timus with dormos?

In Esperanto, for a contrary‑to‑fact (unreal) situation about the present, it is normal to use -us in both clauses:

  • Se mi ne timus la bruon, mi dormus pli longe ol nun.
    → unreal present: in reality I do fear the noise, and I don’t sleep longer.

If you change the endings, the meaning changes:

  • Se mi ne timas la bruon, mi dormos pli longe ol nun.
    = If I am not afraid of the noise, I will sleep longer than now.
    → realistic situation about the present/future.

Mixing them is usually confusing for learners:

  • Se mi ne timus la bruon, mi dormos pli longe…
  • Se mi ne timas la bruon, mi dormus pli longe…

These mixtures are not grammatically impossible, but they suggest odd combinations like “unreal condition but real result” or vice versa. For clear, standard usage:

  • real condition → real result: timas / timos / timis etc.
  • unreal condition → unreal result: timus … dormus
Why is it la bruon with an -n at the end?

The -n marks the direct object (accusative) in Esperanto.

The verb timi is transitive, meaning it normally takes a direct object:

  • Mi timas hundojn. = I am afraid of dogs.
  • Ŝi timas la mallumon. = She is afraid of the darkness.

So in the sentence, la bruon is “the thing that is feared”, the object of timi, so it takes -n:

  • mi (subject)
  • timi (verb)
  • la bruon (direct object → accusative -n)
Why is there la before bruon? Could I just say bruon without la?

La is the definite article: it means “the”.

  • la bruo = the noise (some specific noise we know about)
  • bruo = noise / (some) noise / noise in general

So:

  • Se mi ne timus la bruon…
    → If I were not afraid of the noise (e.g., the current street noise, the neighbours’ music, etc.).

If you said:

  • Se mi ne timus bruon, mi dormus pli longe…
    → If I were not afraid of noise (in general), I would sleep longer…

Both are grammatically correct; the choice depends on whether you mean a specific current noise or noise in general.

Why doesn’t Esperanto use a preposition like “of” here? Why timi la bruon and not timi pri la bruo?

In English you say “be afraid of something”, but Esperanto uses a straight transitive verb:

  • timi ion = to fear something / to be afraid of something

So:

  • Mi timas la bruon. = I am afraid of the noise.

You don’t need (and normally don’t use) a preposition like pri, de, or je here.

Related verbs:

  • timigi iun = to frighten someone (make someone afraid)
  • timiĝi (pro io) = to become afraid (because of something)

Example:

  • Mi timiĝis pro la bruo. = I became afraid because of the noise.

But the basic pattern is:

  • timi + direct object (accusative)timi la bruon
What does pli longe ol nun literally mean, and how do comparisons work?

Breakdown:

  • pli = more
  • longe = long(ly) / for a long time (adverb)
  • ol = than
  • nun = now

So pli longe ol nun literally means “more long(ly) than now”, i.e. longer than now.

The usual comparative pattern in Esperanto is:

  • pli + adjective/adverb + ol + comparison point

Examples:

  • Li estas pli alta ol mi. = He is taller than I am.
  • Ŝi parolas pli rapide ol antaŭe. = She speaks more quickly than before.
  • Mi dormus pli longe ol nun. = I would sleep longer than now.
Why longe and not longa?

Longa is an adjective; longe is an adverb.

  • Adjectives (-a) describe nouns:
    • longa dormo = a long sleep
  • Adverbs (-e) describe verbs, adjectives, or other adverbs:
    • dormi longe = to sleep for a long time

In the sentence, longe describes how you would sleep (the duration of the action dormus), so you need the adverb:

  • mi dormus longe / pli longe = I would sleep long / longer
Can I leave out ol nun and just say Mi dormus pli longe?

Yes, you can say simply:

  • Mi dormus pli longe. = I would sleep longer.

Without ol nun, the comparison point is implicit:

  • longer than now / than usual / than I actually do, etc., depending on context.

Adding ol nun makes the reference point explicit:

  • Mi dormus pli longe ol nun.
    → specifically compared with how long I sleep now.
What exactly does ol do, and can I replace it with something like de?

Ol is the standard conjunction used after comparatives like pli, malpli, plej, same:

  • pli … ol … = more … than …
  • malpli … ol … = less … than …
  • same … kiel … = as … as …

Examples:

  • Ŝi estas pli juna ol li. = She is younger than he is.
  • La domo estas malpli granda ol la alia. = The house is less big than the other one.

In such comparisons you do not use de (or any other preposition) instead of ol. So pli longe de nun would be wrong; it must be pli longe ol nun.

Is the word order fixed? Could I say Mi dormus pli longe ol nun, se mi ne timus la bruon?

Word order in Esperanto is quite flexible, especially because roles are marked by endings like -n.

Both of these are fine:

  • Se mi ne timus la bruon, mi dormus pli longe ol nun.
  • Mi dormus pli longe ol nun, se mi ne timus la bruon.

The comma is recommended to clearly separate the se‑clause from the main clause, especially when the se‑clause comes first, but usage is similar to English punctuation rules and somewhat stylistic.

Inside each clause, the default and clearest order is still:

  • subject – verb – (object) – (adverbs)

as in:

  • mi (subject) timus (verb) la bruon (object)
  • mi (subject) dormus (verb) pli longe ol nun (adverbial phrase)
Why is the negation ne placed before timus? Could it go somewhere else?

In Esperanto, ne normally goes right before the verb (or the specific word/phrase you want to negate):

  • Mi ne timas la bruon. = I am not afraid of the noise.
  • Se mi ne timus la bruon… = If I were not afraid of the noise…

If you move ne, you change what is being negated:

  • Se ne mi timus la bruon, …
    If not I (but someone else) were afraid of the noise, … (emphasis on mi)

So in your sentence, Se mi ne timus la bruon is the normal, neutral way to say “If I were not afraid of the noise”.