Learn Hardcore Esperanto: Por mi, familio estas plej grava.

por mi literally means “for me” in the sense of “from my personal point of view / in my case / as far as I’m concerned.”
- Por mi, familio estas plej grava.
  = For me (personally), family is the most important thing.
laŭ mi literally means “according to me”, so it focuses more explicitly on opinion:
- Laŭ mi, familio estas plej grava.
  = In my opinion, family is the most important.

In everyday speech, both can often be used where English says “in my opinion”, but:

por mi subtly suggests “for my life / for my priorities”
laŭ mi is more “this is my judgment / my view.”

Why is there a comma after “Por mi”? Is it required?

The comma after Por mi is stylistic but common and helpful.

Por mi here is a fronted phrase of emphasis: it sets the context “as far as I’m concerned”.
In Esperanto, you may put a comma after such an introductory phrase to make the sentence clearer, just like in English:
- Por mi, familio estas plej grava.
- Por mi familio estas plej grava. (also correct; just a bit less visually clear)

So the comma is not grammatically required, but it is perfectly normal and often preferred for readability.

Why is it “familio” and not “la familio” or “mia familio”?

In Por mi, familio estas plej grava, familio is used in a general / abstract sense:

familio = family as a concept, family life in general.
la familio = the family (a specific family or “the” institution of family in a more defined way).
mia familio = my family, specifically the speaker’s relatives.

So:

Por mi, familio estas plej grava.
= For me, family (as a general value) is most important.

You could say:

Por mi, mia familio estas plej grava.
That means “For me, my (own) family is the most important (thing).”
This is more concrete: not family as a value in general, but my personal family members.

Why doesn’t “familio” have a plural ending (-j) here?

Because we are talking about family as a singular concept:

familio = one family (or the idea of “family”)
familioj = several families

In the sentence:

Por mi, familio estas plej grava.

the subject is familio (singular), so we use the singular form. If you wanted to say:

“For me, families are the most important (thing)”, then you would say:
- Por mi, familioj estas plej gravaj.
  (Note that gravaj is also plural to match familioj.)

Why is there no accusative -n ending on “mi” after “por”?

In Esperanto:

The -n ending normally marks the direct object of a verb, or sometimes direction.
After most prepositions (like por, kun, en, pri, etc.), the noun or pronoun stays in the base form, without -n, unless you are explicitly marking direction.

So:

por mi = for me (prepositional object, no -n)
You would not say por min in normal Esperanto.

You only add -n after a preposition in special cases to indicate direction, and that doesn’t apply to por here.

What exactly does “plej grava” mean, and how is it different from “pli grava”?

Esperanto uses:

pli = more (comparative)
plej = most (superlative)

And grava = important.

So:

pli grava = more important
- Familio estas pli grava ol mono.
  Family is more important than money.
plej grava = most important
- Por mi, familio estas plej grava.
  For me, family is the most important (thing).

In your sentence, plej grava is a superlative, not just a comparative.

Shouldn’t it be “la plej grava”, like “the most important” in English?

Both forms are used in Esperanto:

plej grava
la plej grava

The article “la” is often optional with superlatives, especially when the group is not explicitly mentioned.

Familio estas plej grava.
= “Family is (the) most important.” (general statement, no explicit group)
Familio estas la plej grava afero en mia vivo.
= “Family is the most important thing in my life.” (here, la is natural because we define a specific thing among others)

In Por mi, familio estas plej grava, not saying la makes it sound slightly more like a general, value-type statement. Adding la would also be correct; the nuance is subtle and usually both are acceptable.

Why is “grava” ending in -a and not something like “gravan” or “gravoj”?

Grava is an adjective (“important”) and adjectives in Esperanto:

always end in -a in their basic form,
agree in number (singular/plural) and sometimes case (accusative) with the noun they describe.

Here:

Subject: familio (singular, nominative)
Adjective: grava (singular, nominative)
“estas” links them: familio estas grava (family is important)

No -n is needed because familio isn’t a direct object; it’s the subject. So:

singular: familio estas grava
plural: familioj estas gravaj

Can the word order change, like “Familio estas plej grava por mi”? Is that still correct?

Yes, that’s fully correct. Esperanto word order is fairly flexible, especially for adverbial phrases like por mi.

All of these are grammatical, with only small differences in emphasis:

Por mi, familio estas plej grava.
(Fronted emphasis on “for me”.)
Familio estas plej grava por mi.
(More neutral order; still clear it’s your personal view.)
Familio, por mi, estas plej grava.
(Double commas give extra emphasis to “for me” as an aside.)

The basic relationship and meaning do not change.

Is “familio” really the subject, even though the sentence starts with “Por mi”?

Yes. The subject is familio.

Por mi is a prepositional phrase (literally: “for me”) that gives the perspective or circumstance, but it is not the subject.
The grammatical skeleton is:
- Familio (subject)
- estas (verb “is”)
- plej grava (predicate adjective)

So, re-ordered into a very clear structure:

Familio estas plej grava por mi.
Clearly shows familio as the subject.

Could I say something like “Por mi, la familio estas plej grava”? How would that sound?

Yes, it’s grammatically correct, but the meaning becomes more specific:

Por mi, familio estas plej grava.
= “For me, family (as a value / in general) is most important.”
Por mi, la familio estas plej grava.
Depending on context, this can sound like:
- “For me, the family is most important.” (maybe a specific family everyone knows about), or
- a bit like you’re talking about “the family unit” as a recognized entity (more definite than just the general concept of family).

In everyday conversation about values, people more often omit la: Familio estas plej grava.