Learn Hardcore Esperanto: En la mateno multaj gastoj de la hotelo petas lokan mapon, ĉar ili ne volas veturi per aŭtobuso. - In the morning many guests of the hotel ask for a local map, because they do not want to travel by bus.

En la mateno = literally “in the morning”. It sounds a bit more concrete, like referring to that part of the day in a more “physical” way.
Matene = “in the morning / in the mornings / during the morning (time)”. This is the adverb form and is very natural for talking about habits.

In this sentence, you could say either:

En la mateno multaj gastoj…
Matene multaj gastoj…

Both would be understood as referring to a regular, habitual situation. Many speakers would prefer Matene in a general statement like this, but En la mateno is perfectly fine.

Why is there la in la mateno, but no la in multaj gastoj?

Esperanto la is usually like English the, but its use is a bit more consistent than in English.

la mateno – “the morning”. When you’re talking about a known or specific thing, or a well-known part of the day, la is very common.
multaj gastoj – “many guests”. Here, we don’t mean some specific guests already known in the context, but just many guests in general. So no la.

You could say la multaj gastoj de la hotelo (“the many guests of the hotel”), but that would mean we are talking about a particular, known group that has already been identified. In this neutral, descriptive sentence, multaj gastoj without la is the natural choice.

Why is it gastoj de la hotelo and not something like hotelogastoj?

Both structures exist, but they’re not always equally natural.

gastoj de la hotelo = “guests of the hotel”. This is neutral, clear, and always correct.
hotelogastoj (compound word) literally = “hotel-guests”. This can be used, but it sounds more technical or specialized, as if “hotel guest” is a fixed category or role (like on a form).

In everyday description, people generally prefer gastoj de la hotelo. As a learner, sticking with [noun] de [noun] is safe and idiomatic:
la ĉambroj de la hotelo, la administranto de la hotelo, etc.

Why is petas used here and not demandas? Both can mean “ask”, right?

Esperanto distinguishes between asking for something and asking a question:

peti = to request something, to ask for something.
- Mi petas mapon. – “I request a map / I ask for a map.”
demandi = to ask a question.
- Mi demandas, kie estas la hotelo. – “I ask (I’m asking) where the hotel is.”

In your sentence, the guests are requesting a map, not asking a question. So petas lokan mapon is correct; demandas lokan mapon would be wrong or at least very strange.

Why is it petas lokan mapon and not petas por lokan mapon?

With peti, you normally don’t use por before the thing requested. You simply say:

peti ion – to ask for something
- Li petis helpon. – “He asked for help.”
- Ni petas trinkakvon. – “We request drinking water.”

So:

petas lokan mapon = “ask for a local map” (correct, idiomatic)
petas por lokan mapon sounds influenced by English “ask for” and is not standard Esperanto.

You can use peti de iu when you say from whom you request something:

Ili petas (de la ricevo) lokan mapon. – “They request a local map (from the reception).”

Why do lokan and mapon both end with -n?

The -n shows the accusative case, usually marking the direct object of the verb.

Basic noun: mapo (a map)
Direct object: mapon (as the thing being requested)

Adjectives must agree with the noun in number and case:

loka mapo – “a local map” (subject form)
lokan mapon – “a local map” (object form)

So since mapon is the direct object of petas, it gets -n, and the adjective loka also takes -n to match: lokan mapon.

Why isn’t there an -n on mateno in En la mateno?

The -n is mainly used:

For direct objects, e.g. Mi vidas la hundon.
Sometimes for direction (movement towards), e.g. Mi iras hejmen.

In En la mateno:

mateno is inside a prepositional phrase (en
- noun).
It is not the direct object of a verb.
There is no motion “into” the morning; it’s just “in the morning” (time).

So you keep mateno in its basic form, without -n: En la mateno.

Why is petas in the present tense if the sentence describes a habitual action (something that happens every morning)?

In Esperanto, the present tense (-as) is used both for:

Actions happening right now:
- Mi legas. – “I’m reading.”
Habitual or regular actions:
- Mi ĉiam legas vespere. – “I always read in the evening.”

So En la mateno multaj gastoj… petas lokan mapon means “In the morning, many guests (typically) ask for a local map.” The context tells us it’s a habitual action, not just a single morning.

No special tense is needed for habits; the simple present -as covers that.

How do we know that ili refers to gastoj?

Pronouns in Esperanto refer back to the most natural, grammatically fitting noun in the context:

The main subject earlier is multaj gastoj de la hotelo.
Later, ili appears: ĉar ili ne volas…

There is no other plural noun that could be the referent, so ili naturally refers to gastoj.

If there were ambiguity, you could repeat the noun instead of using ili, but here the connection is clear and normal.

Why is it ne volas veturi, and not something like volas ne veturi?

The usual place for ne is right before the word or phrase it negates. In this sentence:

voli veturi acts together: “to want to travel/ride”.
The meaning is “they do not want to travel by bus”.

So we negate the wanting, not just the travelling as a separate idea. Thus:

ili ne volas veturi per aŭtobuso – “they do not want to go/travel by bus.”

If you said ili volas ne veturi per aŭtobuso, the focus would be different:
“They want not to go by bus” (emphasizing the not, as if that were their goal). It’s possible, but stylistically stronger and less neutral.

What’s the difference between veturi and iri here? Could we say ili ne volas iri per aŭtobuso?

Both iri and veturi involve movement, but:

iri = to go (neutral; any way of moving)
veturi = to go/travel in or on a vehicle (car, bus, train, bike, etc.)

Because aŭtobuso is clearly a vehicle, veturi per aŭtobuso is very natural and precise: “travel/ride by bus.”

You could say:

ili ne volas iri per aŭtobuso

This is understandable, and many speakers would accept it, but veturi per aŭtobuso feels a bit more idiomatic for “travel by bus.” As a rule of thumb:

Use iri when the means isn’t important: Mi iras al la urbo.
Use veturi (or vojaĝi) when you want to highlight transport.

Why do we use the preposition per in per aŭtobuso? What does per really mean?

Per generally means “by means of” / “with” (as an instrument or method).

Common patterns:

per aŭtobuso – by (means of) bus
per trajno – by train
per telefono – by phone
per skribilo – with a writing tool

So veturi per aŭtobuso literally means “to travel by means of a bus,” i.e. to go by bus.

You wouldn’t use en aŭtobuso for the means of transport.
En aŭtobuso = “in a bus” (location inside), not “by bus” as a method of travelling.

Why isn’t it per la aŭtobuso? In English we often say “by the bus”.

English and Esperanto differ here. In Esperanto, for general means of transport, you usually omit “la”:

per aŭtobuso – by bus
per trajno – by train
per taksio – by taxi

You’d use la only if you are referring to a specific, known vehicle:

Ili veturas per la aŭtobuso numero 12. – “They travel by bus number 12.”
Ni veturis per la lasta trajno. – “We travelled by the last train.”

In your general sentence, it’s about any bus as a transport method, so per aŭtobuso is correct and natural.

Is aŭtobuso the only word for “bus”? Can we say buso?

Both words exist:

aŭtobuso – the most standard, widespread form.
buso – a shorter, colloquial form that many people also use.

In this kind of neutral, textbook-like sentence, aŭtobuso is the safest choice. In everyday conversation, you’ll definitely also hear buso:

Mi venis per buso. – “I came by bus.”
Ni atendu la aŭtobuson. – “Let’s wait for the bus.”