Morgaŭ ni veturos per aŭtobuso al la urbo.

Tomorrow we will travel by bus to the city.

Breakdown of Morgaŭ ni veturos per aŭtobuso al la urbo.

• la: the
• ni: we
• al: to
• urbo: the city
• morgaŭ: tomorrow
• veturi: to ride
• per: by
• aŭtobuso: the bus

Questions & Answers about Morgaŭ ni veturos per aŭtobuso al la urbo.

What does morgaŭ mean, and can it appear in other positions in the sentence?

Morgaŭ means tomorrow. It is an adverb of time.

Word order in Esperanto is quite flexible, so you can move it around without changing the basic meaning:

• Morgaŭ ni veturos per aŭtobuso al la urbo.
• Ni morgaŭ veturos per aŭtobuso al la urbo.
• Ni veturos morgaŭ per aŭtobuso al la urbo.

All of these are grammatical. Putting morgaŭ at the beginning slightly emphasizes the time (“Tomorrow, we will go…”).

What exactly does veturos mean, and how is it different from iros?

Both veturi and iri can be translated as to go, but they are used differently:

• iri: to go (in general), especially on foot

  • Ni iros al la urbo. – We’ll go to the city (probably just “go”, walk, or without specifying transport).

• veturi: to travel using a vehicle (car, bus, train, etc.)

  • Ni veturos per aŭtobuso al la urbo. – We’ll go / travel by bus to the city.

In your sentence veturos makes it clear that the movement is by vehicle, and per aŭtobuso tells you which kind of vehicle.

How is veturos formed, and what tense is it?

Esperanto verbs are very regular. The infinitive here is veturi: vetur- (root) + -i (infinitive ending).

The tense endings are:

• -as – present
• -is – past
• -os – future
• -us – conditional
• -u – imperative / jussive

So:

• mi veturas – I travel / I am traveling
• mi veturis – I traveled
• mi veturos – I will travel
• mi veturus – I would travel

In Esperanto, the verb form doesn’t change for person:

• mi/vi/li/ŝi/ĝi/ni/ili veturos – I/you/he/she/it/we/they will travel

Why do we say per aŭtobuso and not en aŭtobuso?

per usually means by means of / with (instrument, method, vehicle).
en means in / inside.

For transport:

• per aŭtobuso – by bus (means of transport)
• en aŭtobuso – in a bus (location: physically inside a bus)

Your sentence talks about the means of travel, so per aŭtobuso is the natural expression:

• Morgaŭ ni veturos per aŭtobuso al la urbo. – Tomorrow we will go by bus to the city.

You could say ni staras en la aŭtobuso – we are standing in the bus (location).

Why is there no article before aŭtobuso? Why not per la aŭtobuso?

In Esperanto, la is the definite article, roughly like the in English.

• aŭtobuso – a bus / bus (in general)
• la aŭtobuso – the bus (some specific bus already known from context)

With means of transport, we usually speak in a general sense:

• per aŭtobuso – by bus
• per trajno – by train
• per aviadilo – by plane

So there is no la, because we don’t mean any particular, specific bus.

per la aŭtobuso is possible, but it would mean something specific like “by the (already mentioned) bus”, e.g. “We will go by the bus that leaves at eight.”

So is per la aŭtobuso ever correct, and what nuance does it have?

Yes, per la aŭtobuso can be correct; it just adds definiteness:

• Ni veturos per aŭtobuso. – We’ll go by bus (no particular bus in mind; just that mode of transport).
• Ni veturos per la aŭtobuso. – We’ll go by the bus (the one we both know about: maybe the 7:30 bus, or the school bus, etc.).

Native speakers will usually say per aŭtobuso unless they want to emphasize a specific, known bus.

Why is it al la urbo and not al la urbon?

al means to / towards and already marks direction. In Esperanto, a noun directly after a normal preposition stays in the basic form (no -n):

• al la urbo – to the city
• kun la urbo – with the city
• pri la urbo – about the city

So:

• al la urbo – correct
• al la urbon – generally considered wrong or at least redundant; al already carries the “to” meaning, so you don’t add an accusative -n for direction here.

The -n for movement is used instead in phrases without al, especially with prepositions that normally show location:

• en la urbo – in the city
• en la urbon – into the city (movement into it)

Could we omit al and use just the accusative to mean “to the city”, like ni veturos la urbon?

No. That does not work in standard Esperanto.

You normally need a preposition or a clear directional suffix to express “to”:

Correct options:

• ni veturos al la urbo – we’ll travel to the city
• ni veturos en la urbon – we’ll travel into the city (focus on entering it)

But:

• ni veturos la urbon – ungrammatical / not Esperanto.

Unlike some languages, Esperanto doesn’t use bare accusative objects for destinations with veturi, iri, etc. You must show direction with a preposition (al, en, sur, etc.) and, when needed, with -n after a locational preposition to show movement.

Why do we have la urbo but not la aŭtobuso? What does la urbo imply?

Again, la means the, referring to something specific or known.

In many contexts, la urbo means the city that is contextually clear, often “the city we both have in mind” – for example, the nearest city, the capital, or the city that has already been mentioned in the conversation.

So:

• per aŭtobuso – by bus (transport type, generic)
• al la urbo – to the city (a specific one known from context)

If you said al urbo without la, it would usually sound odd, unless you mean “to a city (unspecified, any city)”, which is not the normal idea here.

Could we say Morgaŭ ni veturos buse al la urbo instead of per aŭtobuso?

Yes, very naturally.

buse is an adverb formed from bus (root) + -e (adverb ending), meaning by bus.

So you can say:

• Morgaŭ ni veturos buse al la urbo. – Tomorrow we’ll go by bus to the city.
• Morgaŭ ni veturos per aŭtobuso al la urbo. – Tomorrow we’ll go by bus to the city.

Both are correct. buse is very common and slightly more compact; per aŭtobuso is a bit more explicit (especially for beginners).

Why don’t we ever say morgaŭn with -n?

Morgaŭ is already an adverb of time, so it doesn’t take -n.

The accusative -n is often used on nouns of time to mean “for (a length of) time” or “on (a certain day/time)”:

• lundo → lunde (on Monday, adverb) or lundon (on Monday: noun in accusative of time)
• unu tagon – (for) one day
• ĉi-matene – this morning (adverb, no -n)

Morgaŭ functions the same way as an adverb like hodiaŭ (today), hieraŭ (yesterday). You just say:

• Morgaŭ ni veturos… – Tomorrow we’ll travel…
• Hodiaŭ ni veturas… – Today we are traveling…

Forms like morgaŭn are not standard Esperanto.

How would we say similar sentences in other tenses or moods?

Starting from:

• Morgaŭ ni veturos per aŭtobuso al la urbo. – Tomorrow we will go by bus to the city.

You can adjust time words and verb endings:

• Present:

  • Hodiaŭ ni veturas per aŭtobuso al la urbo. – Today we’re going by bus to the city.

• Past:

  • Hieraŭ ni veturis per aŭtobuso al la urbo. – Yesterday we went by bus to the city.

• Conditional (“would go”):

  • Ni veturus per aŭtobuso al la urbo, se… – We would go by bus to the city, if…

The structure stays basically the same; you just change the time word (morgaŭ / hodiaŭ / hieraŭ) and the verb ending (-os / -as / -is / -us).