Learn Hardcore Esperanto: Mi vidas mian amikinon en la ĝardeno.

Mi = I
vidas = see (present tense of vidi = to see)
mian = my (in the accusative form, agreeing with amikinon)
amikinon = (female) friend as direct object
- amik- = friend
- -in- = female
- -o = noun ending
- -n = accusative ending (direct object)
en = in
la = the
ĝardeno = garden

So: Mi vidas mian amikinon en la ĝardeno = I see my (female) friend in the garden.

Why is it mian and not mia?

In Esperanto, possessive words like mia behave like adjectives and must agree with the noun they describe in:

Number: singular/plural
Case: nominative/accusative

Here:

Noun: amikinon (direct object, singular)
So the possessive must match: mian amikinon

Patterns:

mia amikino = my (female) friend (subject)
mian amikinon = my (female) friend (object)
miaj amikinoj = my (female) friends (subjects)
miajn amikinojn = my (female) friends (objects)

So mian is required because amikinon is the direct object.

Why does amikinon end with -n instead of just amikino?

The -n ending marks the accusative case, which is mainly used for:

The direct object of a verb
Some motion meanings with prepositions (e.g. en la ĝardenon = into the garden)

In this sentence:

Mi is the subject (the one who sees).
mian amikinon is the direct object (the one who is seen).

So the noun must take -n: amikino → amikinon.

Without -n, Mi vidas mia amikino would be ungrammatical (or at best very non‑standard).

Why is it amikinon and not just amikon? Does it have to be female?

amiko = a (male or unspecified) friend
amikino = a specifically female friend (-in- means female)

So:

mian amikon = my friend (male or gender not specified)
mian amikinon = my female friend

The sentence has chosen to specify that the friend is female. Grammatically, you could also say:

Mi vidas mian amikon en la ĝardeno.
→ I see my (male/unspecified) friend in the garden.

For romantic partners, Esperanto usually uses:

koramiko / koramikino = boyfriend / girlfriend (literally “heart‑friend”), to avoid confusion with a non‑romantic friend.

Why does ĝardeno not end with -n like amikinon?

ĝardeno is inside the prepositional phrase en la ĝardeno.

General rule:

Nouns used as direct objects of a verb → -n
Nouns governed by prepositions (like en, sur, sub) → usually no -n when they express location

Here, en la ĝardeno means in the garden (location, no movement), so:

ĝardeno stays without -n

Compare:

Mi iras en la ĝardenon.
→ I go into the garden. (motion into, so ĝardenon)
Mi estas en la ĝardeno.
→ I am in the garden. (location, so ĝardeno)

Why is it la ĝardeno and not just ĝardeno?

la is the definite article, meaning the.

en ĝardeno = in a garden (some garden, not identified)
en la ĝardeno = in the garden (a specific garden both speaker and listener can identify from context)

So en la ĝardeno suggests a particular, known garden (for example, our garden, the school garden, the only nearby garden, etc.). If you wanted to say in a garden more generally, you would say en ĝardeno.

Who is in the garden here—I or my friend? Is the sentence ambiguous?

The sentence can be understood in two ways, much like in English:

My friend is in the garden, and I see her (possibly from elsewhere or also from the garden).
I am in the garden, and there I see my friend.

Grammar alone does not fully disambiguate this; context usually clarifies it.

If you want to be explicit:

I see my friend who is in the garden.
→ Mi vidas mian amikinon, kiu estas en la ĝardeno.
I am in the garden and (there) I see my friend.
→ Mi estas en la ĝardeno kaj vidas mian amikinon.
or more compact: En la ĝardeno mi vidas mian amikinon. (stronger suggestion that I am there)

Can I change the word order, or must it always be Mi vidas mian amikinon en la ĝardeno?

Word order in Esperanto is quite flexible because the -n ending shows which noun is the object. All of these are grammatically correct:

Mi vidas mian amikinon en la ĝardeno.
En la ĝardeno mi vidas mian amikinon.
Mian amikinon mi vidas en la ĝardeno.
Mi, en la ĝardeno, vidas mian amikinon.

The basic neutral order is still subject – verb – object – (other stuff), so:

Mi vidas mian amikinon en la ĝardeno.

is the most typical and straightforward version. Moving parts around changes emphasis or style, not core meaning.

What is the difference between vidi, rigardi, and spekti? Why use vidas here?

vidi = to see (the visual perception itself, often involuntary)
- Mi vidas mian amikinon. = I see my friend.
rigardi = to look at (an intentional action, directing your eyes)
- Mi rigardas mian amikinon. = I look at my friend / I am looking at my friend.
spekti = to watch (usually something like a show, movie, performance, game)
- Mi spektas filmon. = I’m watching a film.

In the sentence Mi vidas mian amikinon en la ĝardeno, we simply state that the friend is within your field of vision, so vidas (from vidi) is the natural choice.

How do I pronounce ĝ in ĝardeno, and where is the stress in the words?

Pronunciation:

ĝ is pronounced like English j in judge or jam.
So ĝardeno sounds like jar-DEH-no (approximation).

Stress in Esperanto:

Always on the second‑to‑last syllable (the penultimate).

In this sentence:

Mi → (one syllable, obvious)
VÍ‑das → stress on VÍ
MÍ‑an → stress on MÍ
a‑MI‑KÍ‑non → stress on KI
Én la → Én
ĝar‑DÉ‑no → stress on DE

So: Mi VÍdas MÍan a‑mi‑KÍnon EN la ĝar‑DÉno.

Is the accusative -n always required for direct objects in Esperanto? Do people ever drop it?

In correct, standard Esperanto, the accusative -n is always required for direct objects and for the usual directional uses.

Without -n, many sentences become ambiguous or simply wrong.
Because word order is flexible, -n is what keeps the roles clear.

In some informal speech or online writing, you might see people omit the -n, often under influence from their native languages. This is considered incorrect by traditional standards and by most teachers.

So you should:

Always use -n for direct objects:
- Mi vidas mian amikinon.
Never deliberately drop it in normal Esperanto.

How would I say clearly: 1) “I am in the garden and I see my friend”?
2) “I see my friend who is in the garden”?

1) I am in the garden and I see my friend.

Mi estas en la ĝardeno kaj vidas mian amikinon.
(Very clear that I am in the garden.)
You can also front the place for emphasis:
En la ĝardeno mi estas kaj vidas mian amikinon.

2) I see my friend who is in the garden.

Mi vidas mian amikinon, kiu estas en la ĝardeno.
(kiu = who, referring to mian amikinon.)
If the friendship is not specifically female, you can of course say:
Mi vidas mian amikon, kiu estas en la ĝardeno.