Learn Hardcore Esperanto: Ni planas resti en malgranda hotelo, kiam ni vojaĝos al alia urbo. - We plan to stay in a small hotel when we travel to another city.

Planas (we plan) describes what is happening now: right now we are making the plan.
Vojaĝos (will travel) refers to an action that will happen later, in the future.

So the time line is:

now: Ni planas … (we are planning …)
later: … kiam ni vojaĝos (… when we will travel)

In English we often say “when we travel” (present form) about the future, but in Esperanto it is more natural and clearer to use the real future tense in such clauses: kiam ni vojaĝos.

What exactly is resti here, and why does it end in -i?

Resti is the infinitive form of the verb (to stay, to remain). In Esperanto the infinitive always ends in -i.

After many verbs that express wanting, planning, being able, etc., you use the infinitive:

Ni planas resti – We plan to stay
Mi volas dormi – I want to sleep
Ŝi povas veni – She can come

So planas resti = plan + to stay.

Why is it en malgranda hotelo and not en malgrandan hotelon?

The ending -n is mainly for:

The direct object of a verb:
- Mi vidas la hotelon. – I see the hotel.
Showing direction with a place word (movement into / onto / to a place) when there is no preposition like al:
- Mi iras hejmen. – I go home (to home).

In en malgranda hotelo, en is a preposition meaning in / inside. The noun after a normal preposition stays in its basic form (no -n is needed for case).

We are not going into the hotel at this moment; we are just describing where we will stay (our location), so:

resti en malgranda hotelo – stay in a small hotel (static location)
iri en la hotelon – go into the hotel (movement into it; here -n is used for direction)

Why doesn’t malgranda hotelo have -n or -j on malgranda?

Adjectives in Esperanto agree with the noun in number and case:

Singular: hotelo → malgranda hotelo
Plural: hoteloj → malgrandaj hoteloj
If there is an -n: hotelo → malgrandan hotelon, hotelojn → malgrandajn hotelojn

In our sentence, hotelo is:

singular (one hotel)
not a direct object and not showing bare direction, because it’s after en

So it stays: malgranda hotelo – singular, no -n. The adjective matches: malgranda (no -j, no -n).

Why is it en malgranda hotelo and not ĉe malgranda hotelo?

Both en and ĉe can be used with places, but they differ slightly:

en malgranda hotelo – in a small hotel, inside the building as a guest
ĉe hotelo – at a hotel, near / at the location of a hotel (more general, not necessarily inside as a lodger)

For talking about staying as guests in a hotel, en hotelo is the usual choice.
Ĉe hotelo would sound more like “at the hotel (area)” than “staying in it.”

Can we say en la malgranda hotelo instead of en malgranda hotelo?

Yes, but the meaning changes slightly.

en malgranda hotelo – in a small hotel (some small hotel, not specified)
en la malgranda hotelo – in the small hotel (a particular small hotel that you and the listener already know about)

Esperanto uses la only for things that are specific / already known in the context, similar to English “the.”
Without la, it’s more like “a / some.”

Why is it al alia urbo and not al alian urbon or al alia urbon?

The preposition al already expresses “to / towards”. After al, the noun does not take -n for direction, because al itself shows that function:

al urbo – to a city
al alia urbo – to another city

You have two correct patterns:

with “al” and no -n:
- vojaĝi al alia urbo
without “al” but with -n for direction:
- vojaĝi alian urbon

But you do not combine both: ✗ al alian urbon is normally avoided as redundant.

What is the difference between alia urbo and la alia urbo?

alia urbo – another city, a different city (not specified which one)
la alia urbo – the other city, a specific one already known or clearly identified in the situation.

Examples:

Ni loĝas en Londono, sed morgaŭ ni vojaĝos al alia urbo.
– We live in London, but tomorrow we’ll travel to another city (unspecified).
En Britio estas Londono kaj Birminghamo. Mi loĝas en Londono, sed li loĝas en la alia urbo.
– In Britain there are London and Birmingham. I live in London, but he lives in the other city.

Why is there a comma before kiam? Is it necessary?

Kiam ni vojaĝos al alia urbo is a subordinate clause (“when we travel to another city”).

In Esperanto, it is normal and recommended to separate such subordinate clauses from the main clause with a comma, especially when the clauses are a bit longer:

Ni planas resti en malgranda hotelo, kiam ni vojaĝos al alia urbo.

If you put the kiam-clause first, you also use a comma:

Kiam ni vojaĝos al alia urbo, ni planas resti en malgranda hotelo.

So the comma is not just decorative; it helps show the sentence structure, and most style guides expect it here.

Can we move the kiam-clause to the beginning of the sentence?

Yes. Word order is fairly flexible in Esperanto, and moving the time clause to the front is completely correct:

Kiam ni vojaĝos al alia urbo, ni planas resti en malgranda hotelo.

The meaning stays the same. Starting with Kiam ni vojaĝos… just puts a bit more emphasis on the time-frame.

Could we say kiam ni vojaĝas al alia urbo instead of kiam ni vojaĝos al alia urbo?

Yes, but the meaning changes.

kiam ni vojaĝos al alia urbo – when we (will) travel to another city this future time (one specific or limited future situation)
kiam ni vojaĝas al alia urbo – when(ever) we travel to another city in general / habitually (every time we do that)

Compare:

Ni planas resti en malgranda hotelo, kiam ni vojaĝos al alia urbo.
– We are now making plans for an upcoming trip.
Kiam ni vojaĝas al alia urbo, ni restas en malgranda hotelo.
– Whenever we travel to another city, our usual habit is to stay in a small hotel.

So in the original sentence, vojaĝos matches the idea of a particular future trip.

What is the difference between resti and loĝi in this context?

resti – to stay / remain somewhere (not leave that place during some period)
loĝi – to live / reside somewhere (have your home or lodging there, even temporarily)

In practice:

Ni planas resti en malgranda hotelo.
– We plan to stay in a small hotel (we won’t be somewhere else during that period).
Ni planas loĝi en malgranda hotelo.
– We plan to live / lodge in a small hotel (our accommodation will be there).

For tourists, both can be used, but loĝi en hotelo focuses more on the idea of where you are housed, while resti en hotelo focuses slightly more on not going elsewhere (for that time).

Is vojaĝi al the normal way to say “travel to”? Could we say vojaĝi en?

Yes, vojaĝi al is the standard way to say “travel to (a destination)”:

vojaĝi al alia urbo – travel to another city
vojaĝi al Francio – travel to France

Vojaĝi en can be used, but it usually has a different nuance:

vojaĝi en Francio – travel in/within France (move around inside France)
vojaĝi en la urbo – travel around in the city

So:

vojaĝi al
- place = go to that place
vojaĝi en
- place = travel within that place

In the original sentence, al alia urbo is exactly right.