La urbo estas bela, do mi volas promeni tra la malnovaj stratoj vespere.

Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Esperanto grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Esperanto now

Questions & Answers about La urbo estas bela, do mi volas promeni tra la malnovaj stratoj vespere.

Why does the sentence start with La urbo and not just Urbo?

In Esperanto you normally use la (the) when you are talking about a specific, known thing.

  • La urbo = the city (the one we both know about: where we are now, or already mentioned)
  • Urbo (without la) = a city / some city in general, not a particular one

Here the speaker is clearly talking about the city they are in or a specific city, so la urbo is appropriate. Without la, it would sound like a more generic statement about cities, not about this one.


What exactly does do mean here, and how is it used in Esperanto?

Do is a conjunction that means so, therefore, then (in the logical sense). It links a reason with a consequence.

In the sentence:

  • La urbo estas bela, do mi volas promeni…
    = The city is beautiful, so I want to take a walk…

You use do like:

  • Mi estas laca, do mi iros hejmen.
    = I am tired, so I will go home.

It is mostly logical or explanatory, not time-related. For time-related then, Esperanto normally uses tiam.


Why is estas used? Could you say La urbo bela like in some other languages?

In Esperanto you must include the verb esti (to be) in present tense: estas.

  • La urbo estas bela = The city is beautiful.

A structure like La urbo bela (without estas) is not standard Esperanto; it sounds incomplete or poetic, and beginners should avoid that.

So the normal pattern is:
[subject] + estas + [adjective/noun complement]


Why is bela and not bela urbo? Is there any difference in nuance?

Both are possible, with slightly different focus:

  • La urbo estas bela.
    Focus: a statement about the city’s quality: The city is beautiful.

  • La urbo estas bela urbo.
    More literally: The city is a beautiful city.
    This sounds a bit redundant in both Esperanto and English, and is less common.

So bela alone is the most natural way to say is beautiful.


What is the difference between promeni and marŝi? Why is promeni used here?
  • Promeni = to stroll, to take a walk, to walk around for pleasure or leisure.
  • Marŝi = to walk (as a movement, more neutral or purposeful), to march.

In the sentence, the idea is enjoying a walk through the old streets because the city is beautiful, so promeni (a leisurely walk) is the best choice.

If you say:

  • Mi volas marŝi tra la urbo.
    that can sound more like I want to walk (move by foot) through the city, not necessarily for enjoyment.

Why is tra used with promeni? Could I say promeni en la malnovaj stratoj instead of tra la malnovaj stratoj?

Both tra and en are possible, but they have different nuances:

  • tra = through, across, from one part to another, usually implying movement within and across the area.

    • promeni tra la malnovaj stratoj = strolling through the old streets, moving around inside that area.
  • en = in, inside.

    • promeni en la malnovaj stratoj = walking in the old streets (location inside them), a bit less focused on the idea of passing through from one place to another.

In this context, tra nicely emphasizes moving through various streets, like exploring them.


Why is it la malnovaj stratoj (plural) and not la malnova strato (singular)?

The plural form stratoj (streets) is used because the speaker is thinking about the old part of the city with many streets, not just one street.

  • la malnova strato = the old street (a particular single street)
  • la malnovaj stratoj = the old streets (the network/area of old streets)

Both are grammatically correct; it’s just a difference in meaning. The original sentence imagines wandering through the old district, not along a single street.


Why does malnovaj end in -aj instead of -a?

Adjectives in Esperanto agree in number with the noun:

  • Singular noun: -o → adjective: -a

    • malnova strato = old street
  • Plural noun: -oj → adjective: -aj

    • malnovaj stratoj = old streets

Here, stratoj is plural (-oj), so malnovaj must also be plural (-aj).


What does malnovaj literally mean? How does mal- work here?

The root is nova = new.

mal- is a very productive prefix meaning opposite of. So:

  • nova = new
  • malnova = old (literally: not-new, the opposite of new)

Then we add plural agreement:

  • malnova strato = old street
  • malnovaj stratoj = old streets

This mal- pattern is very common in Esperanto:

  • bona / malbona (good / bad)
  • alta / malalta (tall / short)

Why is the time expressed with vespere instead of en la vespero?

Esperanto often uses adverbs to express time in a general way:

  • vespero = evening (the noun)
  • vespere = in the evening, in the evenings (adverbial: at evening time)

In this sentence:

  • …vespere. = …in the evening.

Both of these are grammatical:

  • Mi volas promeni vespere.
  • Mi volas promeni en la vespero.

But vespere is shorter and more idiomatic when you mean in the evening (as a time in general). En la vespero sounds a bit more like one specific evening, or a slightly more formal/explicit way to say it.


Where can vespere go in the sentence? Is vespere at the end the only option?

Esperanto word order is quite flexible. All of these are correct, with only slight differences in emphasis:

  • La urbo estas bela, do mi volas promeni tra la malnovaj stratoj vespere.
  • La urbo estas bela, do mi volas vespere promeni tra la malnovaj stratoj.
  • La urbo estas bela, do vespere mi volas promeni tra la malnovaj stratoj.

Placing vespere at the end is very natural and neutral. Putting it earlier can give it more emphasis: As for the evening, that’s when I want to walk…


Could I say Mi ŝatus promeni or Mi deziras promeni instead of Mi volas promeni?

Yes, but they are not identical in tone:

  • Mi volas promeni.
    = I want to walk. (direct, factual desire)

  • Mi ŝatus promeni.
    = I would like to walk. (more polite, softer, more like a wish)

  • Mi deziras promeni.
    = I desire to walk. (more formal or strong; in everyday speech deziri is less common for simple, casual wants)

In normal conversation, voli is the default verb for to want.


Is Mi volas iri promeni correct, and how does it differ from Mi volas promeni?

Both are correct.

  • Mi volas promeni.
    = I want to walk / take a walk.
    Focus: you want the activity itself.

  • Mi volas iri promeni.
    Literally: I want to go (and) walk.
    This can emphasize the idea of going out for a walk (the going out part + the walk).

The difference is small; in many contexts they will feel almost the same.


Is the comma before do necessary? Could you omit it?

The comma is normal and recommended:

  • La urbo estas bela, do mi volas…

It separates the two clauses and makes the sentence easier to read, just like in English before so. Technically, you might see it omitted in very simple or short sentences, but standard writing uses the comma before conjunctions that join full clauses, including do.