Learn Hardcore Esperanto: Sabate post la laboro ni iras en la urbon, al kafejo en la centro. - On Saturday after work we go into the city, to a café in the center.

-o = noun
- labor-o = work (a thing, concept)
- urb-o = city
- kafej-o = café
- centr-o = center
-e = adverb
- sabat-e = in a Saturday way → on Saturday (time adverb)
-n = accusative ending
- urbo-n in en la urbon marks direction / movement toward the city (because en can mean both in and into, so -n disambiguates).

So in the sentence:

sabate = adverb describing when
laboro, urbo, kafejo, centro = nouns
urbon = same noun urbo, but with -n to show motion into it.

Why is it Sabate and not sabato or en sabato?

Days of the week are very often turned into adverbs in Esperanto to mean “on [that day]”:

sabato = Saturday (as a noun, the day itself)
sabate = on Saturday / on Saturdays (adverb of time)

You could also say:

en sabato, je sabato, sabaton (time accusative)

They are all understandable, but sabate is the most natural and common way to say “on Saturday”, especially for regular or habitual actions.

In context, Sabate post la laboro… most naturally means “On Saturdays after work…” as a repeated habit.

Does Sabate mean one specific Saturday or every Saturday?

Without extra context, sabate usually suggests a general or habitual meaning:

Sabate post la laboro ni iras…
→ On Saturdays after work we go…

If you want to stress just this coming Saturday, you’d normally say:

Ĉi-sabate post la laboro… = this Saturday
Venontan sabaton post la laboro… = next Saturday (using time-accusative sabaton)

So:

sabate → usually every Saturday / on Saturdays (in general)
ĉi-sabate, venontan sabaton → a particular Saturday.

Why is it post la laboro and not post laboron?

Post is a preposition meaning after. In standard Esperanto, prepositions take the basic (non-accusative) form of the noun:

post la laboro = after the work
post la vespermanĝo = after dinner
post la leciono = after the lesson

You normally use -n with time expressions only when there is no preposition, e.g.:

Sabaton ni iras en la urbon. = On Saturday we go into town.
Lundon mi laboris. = I worked on Monday.

So:

post la laboro → correct: preposition post
- normal noun
post laboron → not standard; there’s no need for -n after post.

Why is there la in la laboro, but no la in kafejo?

Esperanto has only one article, la, which roughly corresponds to English the.
There is no word for a/an; that is shown by the absence of la.

la laboro = the work → here: our usual work / the workday just mentioned or understood from context
kafejo = a café (unspecified, any café)
- If you say la kafejo, it means a specific café that speaker and listener both know.

So in the sentence:

post la laboro = after the (usual, known) work
al kafejo = to a café (not specified which one)

Why is the verb iras in the present tense, even though in English we’d often say “we’re going” or “we go” in a future-like way?

Esperanto present tense -as mainly shows that the action is not in the past and is seen as current / regular / typical:

ni iras = we go / we are going

Time is clarified by time words, not by tense alone.
Here, sabate (on Saturdays) shows a regular, habitual action, so:

Sabate post la laboro ni iras…
→ We (usually) go after work on Saturdays.

If you want to stress a one-time future plan, you can use the future tense:

Sabaton post la laboro ni iros en la urbon.
→ This / next Saturday after work we will go into town.

But for typical habits, present tense is normal in Esperanto, just like English We go there every Saturday.

Why is it en la urbon with -n, but en la centro without -n?

The preposition en can mean both:

in (location, no movement), and
into (movement toward the inside).

To distinguish these, Esperanto uses the accusative -n:

en la urbo = in the city (location, no -n)
en la urbon = into the city (movement, with -n)

In the sentence:

ni iras en la urbon
→ we go into the city (movement) → so urbon has -n

But:

kafejo en la centro
→ a café in the center (the café is located there, no movement) → centro stays without -n.

So:

en + noun
- with -n → movement into
- without -n → location in.

Could we say en la urbo instead of en la urbon? What would change?

Yes, but the meaning changes:

Ni iras en la urbon.
→ We go into the city (we are outside and go to it).
Ni iras en la urbo.
→ We walk / go in the city (we are already in the city and we’re moving around inside it).

The difference is:

en la urbo = place of the movement (within the city)
en la urbon = destination of the movement (to the city).

In the original sentence, the idea is going to town, so en la urbon is the natural choice.

Why doesn’t kafejo have -n? Aren’t we going toward the café as well?

Direction can be shown in two ways:

By -n after a preposition that can mean both place and direction (en, sur, sub…), or
By a preposition that already means direction by itself, like al (to).

en la urbon → en can mean in or into, so we add -n to show into.
al kafejo → al already means to, so no -n is needed.

You could say:

en kafejon = into a café (using en
- -n)
al kafejo = to a café (using al to show direction).

Both express movement, but the original chooses al kafejo, so kafejo stays without -n.

Why is it al kafejo and not al la kafejo?

Both are grammatically correct, but the meaning changes slightly:

al kafejo = to a café (any café in the center, not a particular one the listener must identify)
al la kafejo = to the café (a specific café both speaker and listener have in mind)

In the sentence …al kafejo en la centro, the idea is simply to some café located in the center, so no la is natural.

Why is it en la centro and not al la centro?

Because en la centro describes where the café is, not where we are moving:

al kafejo → direction: to a café
en la centro → location: in the center

So we have:

al kafejo (kiu estas) en la centro
→ to a café (which is) in the center.

If you said al la centro, that would mean to the center (as a destination), e.g.:

Ni iras al la centro. = We’re going to the (city) center.

Here we are not going to the center in general, but to a café that is located there, so en la centro fits better.

What exactly is the comma doing in …en la urbon, al kafejo en la centro?

The comma is just separating two destination phrases that both depend on iras:

en la urbon = into town
al kafejo en la centro = to a café in the center

So the structure is:

ni iras [en la urbon], [al kafejo en la centro]

You could also leave out the comma:

…en la urbon al kafejo en la centro.

It’s still grammatical. The comma simply makes the sentence a bit clearer and more pleasant to read.

How flexible is the word order? Could we say Ni sabate post la laboro iras en la urbon, al kafejo en la centro?

Esperanto has quite flexible word order, because grammatical roles are shown mainly by endings and prepositions, not by position.

Your alternative:

Ni sabate post la laboro iras en la urbon, al kafejo en la centro.

is perfectly correct and natural. Some other acceptable variants:

Post la laboro sabate ni iras en la urbon, al kafejo en la centro.
Ni iras sabate post la laboro en la urbon, al kafejo en la centro.

General tendencies:

The subject + verb (ni iras) usually stay near the beginning.
Time and place expressions (sabate, post la laboro, en la urbon) can move around for emphasis and style.

Is la urbon necessary? Could we say just en urbon?

You could say en urbon, but it usually sounds a bit strange because urbo is a generic noun (a city, any city). Without la or some other determiner, it’s unclear which city you mean.

More natural options:

en la urbon = into the city (the town that’s understood from context, e.g. the local one)
en iun urbon = into some city (unspecified city)
en nian urbon = into our city

So in typical real-life contexts, speakers say en la urbon, assuming “the” local town / city is meant.

How would I change the sentence to talk about a single upcoming Saturday instead of a regular habit?

To emphasize one particular Saturday instead of a habit, change sabate to a specific time expression, e.g.:

Ĉi-sabaton post la laboro ni iros en la urbon, al kafejo en la centro.
→ This Saturday after work we will go into town, to a café in the center.

Venontan sabaton post la laboro ni iros en la urbon, al kafejo en la centro.
→ Next Saturday after work we will go into town, to a café in the center.

Notice also the use of iros (future) instead of iras to highlight the one-time future plan.