Learn Hardcore Esperanto: Dimanĉe ni ne restos hejme, sed promenos en la arbaron proksime de la urbo. - On Sunday we will not stay at home, but will walk into the forest near the city.

Dimanĉon ni ne restos hejme… – also “On Sunday we won’t stay at home…”, using the accusative of time.
Je dimanĉo – a more neutral “on Sunday” with the preposition je.

In this sentence, Dimanĉe is the most compact, idiomatic way to say “On Sunday”.

Why is it ni ne restos hejme and not ni restos ne hejme?

The usual position of ne (not) in Esperanto is directly before what it negates, and most often that’s the verb:

ni ne restos hejme = we will not stay at home

ni restos ne hejme is grammatically possible, but now ne hejme is what’s being contrasted: “we will stay not at home (but somewhere else).” It sounds marked and contrastive, like stressing not at home in English.

So:

Neutral negation of the action: ni ne restos hejme
Special emphasis on location (and probably a contrast): ni restos ne hejme (sed ie alia)

What is the difference between restos and estos? Why not say ni ne estos hejme?

esti = to be
resti = to stay, remain

So:

ni ne estos hejme = we will not be at home (our location at that time won’t be home)
ni ne restos hejme = we will not stay (remain) at home (we might start at home but won’t stay there)

In many contexts English says “won’t be at home” where Esperanto can either use esti or resti, but resti emphasizes the idea of remaining in one place. In this sentence, restos fits well: the idea is that on Sunday we won’t stay home; we’ll go out.

Why is it hejme and not hejmo or hejmen?

All three forms exist but mean different things:

hejmo (noun) = a home, a house
- Mi havas belan hejmon. – I have a nice home.
hejme (adverb) = at home (location, no movement)
- Mi estas hejme. – I am at home.
hejmen (direction, accusative) = (to) home (movement towards home)
- Mi iras hejmen. – I’m going home.

In ni ne restos hejme, the idea is a state/location (“we won’t stay at home”), not movement, so hejme (at home) is correct.

How do we know this sentence is about the future without a word like “will”?

Esperanto marks tense directly on the verb with endings:

-as = present
-is = past
-os = future

So:

restos = will stay
promenos = will walk / will go for a walk

That -os ending shows it’s the future. Esperanto normally doesn’t need an extra word like English will or shall.

Why is the subject ni not repeated before promenos? Should it be …sed ni promenos…?

It can be repeated, but it doesn’t have to be.

The subject ni is already clear from the first clause:

Dimanĉe ni ne restos hejme, sed promenos…

Since promenos is in the same sentence and joined by sed (but), it is naturally understood that ni is still the subject:

(ni) ne restos hejme, sed (ni) promenos…

Both are correct:

…sed promenos… – more compact, typical Esperanto style
…sed ni promenos… – also correct; slightly more explicit or emphatic

Why does it say en la arbaron with -n? I thought en already meant “in”.

In Esperanto, en can mean:

location (in): “in, inside”
movement into: “into”

To show movement into a place, Esperanto often adds the accusative -n to the noun after certain prepositions (including en):

en la arbaro = in the forest (location)
en la arbaron = into the forest (movement towards and inside it)

In this sentence, promenos en la arbaron means we’ll walk into the forest (not just already being in it).

Could we say promenos en la arbaro instead of en la arbaron? How would the meaning change?

Yes, but the nuance changes:

promenos en la arbaron – we will walk into the forest (movement from outside to inside)
promenos en la arbaro – we will walk in the forest (the walking takes place inside the forest; no emphasis on entering it)

The original en la arbaron highlights the going into the forest as part of the plan for Sunday.

Why is it en la arbaron and not al la arbaro?

Both are possible, but they’re not identical:

al la arbaro = to the forest (towards the forest; doesn’t say you go inside)
en la arbaron = into the forest (movement that ends inside the forest)

So:

Ni promenos al la arbaro. – We’ll walk to the forest (maybe stop at the edge).
Ni promenos en la arbaron. – We’ll walk into the forest.

The sentence uses en la arbaron to make it clear that the destination is inside the forest.

Why do we say la arbaron but not la hejme?

Two different issues are involved:

Article with “arbaro”
- arbaro is a regular noun: forest.
- la arbaro / la arbaron = the forest / the forest (as object) – a specific forest, presumably known from context (the one near the city).
- Without la, arbaro would be more like a forest / some forest.
“hejme” is not a noun here
- hejme is an adverb (at home), not a noun phrase like the home.
- Adverbs don’t take the article la, so la hejme is ungrammatical.

If you used the noun form, you could say:

en la hejmo – in the home (in the house)

But the simple, idiomatic way to say “at home” is hejme, with no la.

What is the difference between promeni, marŝi, and iri?

They all involve moving on foot, but with different focuses:

promeni = to stroll, to go for a walk (often leisurely, for pleasure)
- Ni promenos en la arbaron. – We’ll go for a walk into the forest.
marŝi = to march, to walk (step by step) – focuses on the act of walking, not on “taking a stroll”
- La soldatoj marŝas. – The soldiers are marching.
- Can also just mean “walk”, but with a more neutral/technical feel.
iri = to go (any way of going, not necessarily on foot)
- Ni iros en la arbaron. – We’ll go into the forest. (by walking, car, bike – unspecified)

In this sentence, promenos highlights a relaxed walk for enjoyment.

Why is it proksime de la urbo and not proksima la urbo or proksime al la urbo?

A few points:

Form and pattern

proksime = adverb: near, nearby
proksima = adjective: near, nearby (describes a noun)

With a noun you usually say:

proksime de X – near X
- La arbaro estas proksime de la urbo. – The forest is near the city.
Or as an adjective:
- arbaro proksima al la urbo – a forest near the city

So proksima la urbo is incorrect; you need a preposition (al, de) or a noun it directly modifies.

de vs. al

proksime de la urbo is the most usual way to say near the city.
proksime al la urbo is also used by some speakers; it’s understandable, but de is more standard here.

Thus proksime de la urbo is the standard, idiomatic pattern: near the city.