Learn Hardcore Esperanto: Mi neniam memoras la vojon al tiu hotelo, do mi ĉiam rigardas la mapon. - I never remember the way to that hotel, so I always look at the map.

The verb memori (“to remember”) normally takes a direct object: memori ion = “to remember something”.
Here, the thing remembered is la vojo (“the way/route”), so it becomes la vojon as the object.

Whole phrase:

Mi neniam memoras la vojon al tiu hotelo.
- Mi = I (subject, no -n)
- la vojon = the way (direct object, with -n)
- al tiu hotelo = to that hotel (a prepositional phrase, no -n needed)

So vojon is accusative because it is what you “remember”. The prepositional part al tiu hotelo never takes -n after al in normal usage.

Why do we say al tiu hotelo instead of tiun hotelon?

Because in Esperanto, direction “to” is normally shown with the preposition al, not with the accusative alone.

al tiu hotelo = “to that hotel”
- al = to/towards
- tiu hotelo = that hotel

Using tiun hotelon without al would mean “that hotel” as a direct object, e.g.:

Mi vidas tiun hotelon. = I see that hotel.

But in this sentence, the hotel is not what you remember; you remember the way that leads to it. So:

la vojon = the way (direct object of memoras)
al tiu hotelo = to that hotel (shows destination)

Why is neniam before memoras? Can it go somewhere else?

The most usual place for an adverb like neniam (“never”) is right before the verb:

Mi neniam memoras... = I never remember...

However, Esperanto word order is flexible. Other possibilities:

Neniam mi memoras la vojon...
(More emphatic: “Never do I remember the way...”)
Mi memoras neniam la vojon...
(Understandable, but sounds less natural; people almost always put neniam right before the verb or at the start of the clause.)

General rule: put neniam, ĉiam, ofte, hodiaŭ, etc. just before the verb unless you have a special reason to move it.

What is the difference between neniam and something like ne ĉiam?

They are not the same:

neniam = never (0 times)
- Mi neniam memoras la vojon.
  = I never remember the way (not even once / it simply never happens).
ne ĉiam = not always (sometimes yes, sometimes no)
- Mi ne ĉiam memoras la vojon.
  = I don’t always remember the way (sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t).

So neniam is stronger and absolute; ne ĉiam only says that it is not 100% of the time.

Is Mi ĉiam ne memoras a correct way to say “I never remember”?

It is grammatically understandable, but it is not the normal way to say it.

Mi ĉiam ne memoras literally = “I always don’t remember”, which sounds odd in Esperanto just like in English.
The natural, standard form is Mi neniam memoras.

In general, Esperanto prefers a single negative word like neniam, neniu, nenio, instead of combinations like ĉiam ne.

Why is it rigardas la mapon and not rigardas en la mapo?

Both can exist, but they mean slightly different things:

rigardi la mapon = to look at the map (the map itself is what you are looking at; the map is the direct object)
rigardi en la mapo = to look in the map (focuses on looking within the information the map contains)

In normal everyday speech, when you mean “check the map” or “look at the map”, you most often just say rigardi la mapon. That’s exactly parallel to English “look at the map” / “look at my phone”.

So the sentence:

...do mi ĉiam rigardas la mapon.
simply and naturally means “so I always look at the map.”

Why is it la mapon instead of just mapon?

The definite article la means “the”, and this is a specific, known map (for example, the one on your phone or in the hotel brochure).

la mapo = the map (a particular, identifiable map)
mapo = a map / some map (indefinite)

In context, you normally have a particular map in mind, so Esperanto uses la mapon.

You could say just rigardi mapon, but that would sound more general or indefinite, like “look at a map (any map)”, which is less natural here.

What is the difference between do and tial? Could we say ...tial mi ĉiam rigardas la mapon?

Both do and tial can express a result, but they work differently:

do is a conjunction like “so, therefore, then”. It links clauses:
- Mi neniam memoras la vojon..., do mi ĉiam rigardas la mapon.
tial is an adverb meaning “for that reason, because of that”:
- Mi neniam memoras la vojon..., tial mi ĉiam rigardas la mapon.

In this sentence, both do and tial are grammatically correct.
Nuance:

do is slightly more neutral / conversational.
tial puts a bit more emphasis on the idea of “for that reason”.

Many speakers would naturally use do here, but tial is fine too.

Why is the verb memoras in the present tense, even though this is about a general habit?

In Esperanto, the present tense with a verb like memori covers:

actions happening right now
habits / general truths

So:

Mi neniam memoras la vojon.
can mean “I never (tend to) remember the way” — a habitual statement.

This is similar to English, where simple present can express habits:

“I never remember the way to that hotel.”

You do not need a separate “habitual tense” in Esperanto; present tense is enough.

Why is it tiu hotelo and not la hotelo?

Both are possible, but not identical:

tiu hotelo = that hotel (distinguishes it from others)
- Suggests you mean one specific hotel already identified in the situation: maybe you always stay at that same one.
la hotelo = the hotel (also specific, but without the “that” / pointing feel)
- Often used if there’s only one relevant hotel in the situation, or it’s clear from context.

In this sentence, tiu hotelo emphasizes that particular, known hotel: “the way to that hotel (as opposed to some other hotel).”

Is there any difference between memori and expressions like memori pri or rememori?

Yes, there are some nuances:

memori ion = to remember something
- Mi memoras la vojon. = I remember the way.
memori pri io = to remember about something / to have it in mind
- Ĉu vi memoras pri nia renkontiĝo? = Do you remember our meeting? (Do you remember that it will happen?)
rememori = to recall, call back to mind (a bit more active process)
- Mi provas rememori la vojon. = I am trying to recall the way.

In the original sentence, the simple memoras is perfect, because you are talking about whether the way is present in your memory or not.