Learn Hardcore Esperanto: Mia frato havas novan biciklon, kaj li veturas rapide laŭ la vojo. - My brother has a new bicycle, and he rides quickly along the road.

In Esperanto, possessive adjectives like mia, via, lia, etc. (my, your, his…) already play the role that an article would play in English.

Mia frato = my brother
You normally do not add la before a possessive:
- ✅ Mia frato
- ❌ La mia frato (sounds wrong or at least very unusual in standard Esperanto)

So mia frato by itself is the natural way to say my brother.

Why do novan and biciklon both end in -n?

The -n ending marks the accusative case, usually used for the direct object of the verb.

The verb is havas (has).
The thing that is had (the direct object) is biciklo (bicycle).
Therefore, biciklo gets -n → biciklon.
The adjective describing that noun must agree in case and number:
- Noun: biciklo → biciklon
- Adjective: nova → novan

So:

nova biciklo (a new bicycle — as a subject or in dictionary form)
novan biciklon (a new bicycle — as a direct object)

This agreement rule applies everywhere:

granda domo → grandan domon
belaj floroj → belajn florojn

Why is there no word for a before novan biciklon?

Esperanto has no indefinite article (no word for a or an).

novan biciklon can mean:
- a new bicycle
- one new bicycle (from context)
If you want to make it definite (the new bicycle), you add la:
- la novan biciklon = the new bicycle

So:

English: My brother has *a new bicycle.*
Esperanto: Mia frato havas novan biciklon. (no extra word for a)

Why does la vojo have la, but mia frato and novan biciklon don’t?

Different reasons in each case:

mia frato
- No la because mia (my) already makes it specific.
- The possessive replaces the function of the here.
novan biciklon
- No la because we’re talking about a (not the) new bicycle.
- Esperanto doesn’t use an article for the indefinite.
la vojo
- la is used because this refers to a particular road that both speaker and listener can identify from context.
- la vojo = the road (that road we know about)

So the pattern is:

Possessive (+ noun): mia frato (no la)
Indefinite noun: novan biciklon (no la)
Definite, known noun: la vojo (with la)

Why is it veturas and not something like iras for goes?

Esperanto has several verbs that can all translate as go in English, but they’re more specific:

iri = to go (neutral movement, usually on foot)
kuri = to run
veturi = to travel / go by vehicle (car, bus, train, bike, etc.)
marŝi = to walk

Veturi is used when someone is moving by means of a vehicle or similar. A bicycle counts as such for Esperanto usage.

So:

Mia frato veturas rapide suggests he is traveling using some vehicle — here, we know from the first part it’s his bicycle.
If you said Mia frato iras rapide, it would sound more like my brother is going quickly (on foot), unless specified otherwise.

Does veturi specifically mean “to ride a bike” here, or is that just understood from context?

Veturi itself does not mean to ride a bike; it just means to travel / to go by vehicle.

In this sentence:

Mia frato havas novan biciklon gives us the context: he has a new bike.
…kaj li veturas rapide laŭ la vojo tells us he’s traveling quickly along the road.
We naturally understand he is using the bicycle.

If you wanted to be very explicit, you could say:

Mia frato veturas per sia nova biciklo. = My brother travels by his new bicycle.
Mia frato rajdas biciklon. = My brother rides a bicycle.
Mia frato biciklas. (or bicikli) = My brother cycles.

But in normal context, veturas is enough when the bike has just been mentioned.

Why is it rapide and not rapida?

Rapide is an adverb, and rapida is an adjective.

rapida modifies nouns:
- rapida veturilo = a fast vehicle
- rapida frato = a fast brother
rapide modifies verbs, adjectives, or other adverbs:
- li veturas rapide = he travels quickly (modifies veturas)

In this sentence, rapide describes how he travels, so you need the adverb form:

li veturas rapide = he travels quickly

Using rapida here would be wrong, because it would be trying to describe a noun, but the thing you’re describing is the manner of the action, not a thing.

What exactly does laŭ mean in laŭ la vojo?

Laŭ has several related meanings. Two common ones:

Along (following a path / line):
- Laŭ la vojo = along the road
- Laŭ la rivero = along the river
- Ni promenas laŭ la strando. = We walk along the beach.
According to (in agreement with someone/something):
- Laŭ mi = according to me / in my opinion
- Laŭ la leĝo = according to the law
- Laŭ la gazetoj = according to the newspapers

In this sentence, it’s the “along” meaning:

li veturas rapide laŭ la vojo = he travels quickly along the road (following the road’s direction).

What’s the difference between vojo and strato? Could we say laŭ la strato instead?

Yes, you could say laŭ la strato, but there is a nuance:

vojo = way, path, road (very general)
- can be a country road, path through a field, a track, etc.
strato = street (usually in a town or city, with houses/buildings along it)

So:

la vojo might be any kind of road/way.
la strato suggests more of a city or town street.

Both laŭ la vojo and laŭ la strato are grammatically correct; you choose based on the mental image you want: countryside road vs city street.

Is the word order fixed, or could we say Mia frato rapide veturas laŭ la vojo instead?

Word order in Esperanto is fairly flexible, because roles are mostly shown by endings (-o, -a, -e, -n) rather than position.

All of these are correct:

Mia frato veturas rapide laŭ la vojo.
Mia frato rapide veturas laŭ la vojo.
Rapide mia frato veturas laŭ la vojo. (a bit more emphatic on rapide)

The most neutral orders generally are:

Subject – verb – other elements:
- Mia frato veturas rapide laŭ la vojo.
Or verb – subject when you want to stress the verb first:
- Vetur as mia frato rapide laŭ la vojo. (less common, more stylistic)

In everyday Esperanto, Mia frato veturas rapide laŭ la vojo and Mia frato rapide veturas laŭ la vojo are both very natural.

Do the adjective and noun always have to agree like novan biciklon? What would the plural look like?

Yes, in Esperanto, adjectives must always agree with the nouns they describe in:

Number (singular/plural)
Case (nominative/accusative)

So:

Singular, no -n (e.g. subject):
- nova biciklo = a new bicycle
Singular, with -n (direct object):
- novan biciklon

Plural:

Add -j to both noun and adjective:
- No -n:
  - novaj bicikloj = new bicycles
- With -n (direct object):
  - novajn biciklojn = new bicycles (as the object)

Example:

Miaj fratoj havas novajn biciklojn.
My brothers have new bicycles.

Do we really need to repeat li? Could we say Mia frato havas novan biciklon, kaj veturas rapide laŭ la vojo?

You can omit the li and many people would still understand you, especially in informal speech:

Mia frato havas novan biciklon, kaj veturas rapide laŭ la vojo.

However, in standard, clear Esperanto, it’s more natural to repeat the subject pronoun in the new clause:

Mia frato havas novan biciklon, kaj li veturas rapide laŭ la vojo.

Reasons:

Each clause (Mia frato havas… / li veturas…) is clearer with its own subject.
Esperanto generally doesn’t habitually drop subject pronouns like Spanish or Italian do.

So the given sentence with li is stylistically better, especially for learners and for written language.