Learn Hardcore Esperanto: Por mi, trankvila hejmo estas pli grava ol granda urbo. - For me, a calm home is more important than a big city.

Placing por mi at the beginning just emphasizes the personal viewpoint more strongly, similar to English: “For me, a quiet home is more important than a big city.”

So yes, it can go elsewhere; the meaning stays the same, but the emphasis shifts slightly.

What is the difference between por mi and laŭ mi here?

Both can be translated as something like “for me” or “in my opinion”, but there is a nuance:

por mi = “for me / as far as I am concerned / in my case”
- Often implies personal preference, benefit or relevance.
- Here: Por mi, trankvila hejmo estas pli grava…
  → “For me (personally), a quiet home is more important…”
laŭ mi = “according to me / in my opinion”
- Sounds closer to giving an opinion or judgment, almost like “in my view, I think that…”
- Laŭ mi, trankvila hejmo estas pli grava ol granda urbo.
  → “In my opinion, a quiet home is more important than a big city.”

In this sentence, por mi stresses your personal priority, not just your intellectual opinion.

Is the comma after Por mi necessary?

It’s not strictly required by Esperanto grammar, but it is very common and stylistically natural.

When you start a sentence with a phrase like Por mi, En somero, Post la laboro, many writers put a comma after it to mark the pause:

Por mi, trankvila hejmo estas pli grava…
En somero, mi ofte vojaĝas.

You could omit the comma and it would still be correct:

Por mi trankvila hejmo estas pli grava ol granda urbo.

The comma just helps readability and reflects the natural pause in speech.

Why is there no word like “it” or “this” as the subject, like in English?

English needs a subject in a sentence like:

“A quiet home is more important than a big city.”
(Here “a quiet home” is the subject.)

Sometimes English uses a dummy it (e.g. “It is important to…”) but here it doesn’t.

In Esperanto, you simply make trankvila hejmo the subject:

Trankvila hejmo = subject
estas = “is”
pli grava ol granda urbo = predicate (what is said about the subject)

No dummy word is needed, and you don’t add ĝi here.
Ĝi (“it”) would be wrong in this sentence.

Why is there no la before trankvila hejmo or granda urbo?

La is the definite article, like “the” in English. You use la when you talk about a specific, known thing:

la hejmo = the home (a particular home)
la urbo = the city (a particular city already known from context)

In this sentence, you are talking about things in general:

trankvila hejmo = a quiet home / quiet home in general
granda urbo = a big city / big city life in general

In generic, abstract comparisons like this, Esperanto normally leaves out la.
If you said la trankvila hejmo, it would sound like you mean one specific quiet home already known to both speaker and listener.

Could the adjectives go after the nouns, like hejmo trankvila and urbo granda?

Yes. In Esperanto, adjectives can go before or after the noun:

trankvila hejmo = hejmo trankvila
granda urbo = urbo granda

Both orders are grammatically correct and usually mean the same thing. However:

The most common, neutral order is adjective + noun: trankvila hejmo, granda urbo.
Putting the adjective after the noun can give it a bit more emphasis, or feel slightly more poetic, solemn, or stylistic.

So you could say:

Por mi, hejmo trankvila estas pli grava ol urbo granda.

This is correct but sounds more stylized than the original.

How does the comparison pli grava ol granda urbo work exactly?

Esperanto comparatives use the pattern:

pli = more
malpli = less
ol = than

So the structure is:

X estas pli [adjective] ol Y
= X is more [adjective] than Y

In your sentence:

pli grava = more important
ol granda urbo = than a big city

So:

Trankvila hejmo estas pli grava ol granda urbo.
= A quiet home is more important than a big city.

Notice:

The adjective grava itself doesn’t change form to show comparison; you just add pli.
ol always introduces the thing you compare with (never ke or something else here).

Why does grava end with -a and hejmo / urbo end with -o?

In Esperanto, word endings show the part of speech:

-o = noun
- hejmo = home
- urbo = city
-a = adjective
- trankvila = quiet/calm
- grava = important
- These describe nouns: trankvila hejmo, granda urbo, pli grava hejmo.

This makes it easy to see what role each word plays in the sentence:

trankvila (adjective) + hejmo (noun)
granda (adjective) + urbo (noun)
pli grava (comparative adjective phrase)

Why is there no -n accusative ending anywhere in this sentence?

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

In your sentence:

Trankvila hejmo is the subject.
estas is a linking verb (like “to be”).
pli grava ol granda urbo is a predicate describing the subject.
Por mi is a phrase with a preposition (por), and prepositional objects never take -n (unless for special emphasis or movement with some prepositions, which isn’t the case here).

With the verb esti (to be), you typically do not have a direct object at all, so there is nothing to put in accusative. Therefore:

Trankvila hejmo estas pli grava ol granda urbo.
(no -n needed anywhere)

What is the difference between hejmo and domo?

Both relate to where you live, but there is a nuance similar to English “home” vs. “house”:

domo = house, building
- Physical structure.
- Mi loĝas en granda domo. = I live in a big house.
hejmo = home
- More emotional or personal: the place where you feel you belong, where your life is centered.
- Mi amas mian hejmon. = I love my home.

In the sentence:

trankvila hejmo emphasizes a peaceful, comforting home life, not just a physically quiet building.

Could I change the word order to Por mi, pli grava estas trankvila hejmo ol granda urbo?

Yes, that is grammatically correct:

Por mi, pli grava estas trankvila hejmo ol granda urbo.

Thanks to Esperanto’s endings, you can move parts around more freely. Here, you put pli grava (“more important”) earlier, which can emphasize the quality “more important.”

All of these are correct, with only slight differences in emphasis:

Por mi, trankvila hejmo estas pli grava ol granda urbo.
Por mi, pli grava estas trankvila hejmo ol granda urbo.
Pli grava, por mi, estas trankvila hejmo ol granda urbo.

The first version (your original) is the most neutral and common style.

Could I say Laŭ mi, trankvila hejmo estas pli grava ol vivi en granda urbo instead? Does that change the grammar?

You can say that; it’s still grammatically correct, but it’s a slightly different sentence:

Laŭ mi = in my opinion (more opinion-focused than por mi).
vivi en granda urbo = “to live in a big city” (an infinitive phrase).

So:

Laŭ mi, trankvila hejmo estas pli grava ol vivi en granda urbo.
= In my opinion, a quiet home is more important than living in a big city.

Grammatically:

trankvila hejmo is still the subject.
estas is still the verb.
pli grava is still the comparative adjective.
ol vivi en granda urbo is now an infinitive clause used as the thing you are comparing with.

So the grammar pattern stays the same (X estas pli grava ol Y), but Y is no longer a noun phrase (granda urbo), it’s now a verb phrase (vivi en granda urbo).