Learn Hardcore Esperanto: Matene, antaŭ ol ni iras al la oficejo, ni vidas multajn birdojn flugi. - In the morning, before we go to the office, we see many birds flying.

Matene = “in the morning” as a general, habitual time.
- Matene mi trinkas kafon. = I drink coffee in the mornings.
En la mateno = “in the morning” as a more concrete time, often a specific morning or a more “noun-like” expression.
- En la mateno mi havos kunvenon. = In the morning I will have a meeting (e.g. tomorrow morning).

In your sentence, Matene, antaŭ ol ni iras… describes a habitual routine, so the adverb Matene is very natural. Using En la mateno would not be wrong, but it would sound more like you’re talking about a specific morning.

Why is there a comma after Matene? Is that required?

The comma after Matene separates a fronted time expression from the rest of the sentence. It’s similar to:

In the morning, before we go to the office, we see many birds flying.

In Esperanto, commas are often used where English might or might not use them, especially:

after sentence-initial adverbials (Matene, Hodiaŭ, Poste, etc.)
before many conjunctions introducing clauses (ke, ĉar, kvankam, often antaŭ ol when it starts a full clause)

So Matene, antaŭ ol ni iras al la oficejo, ni vidas… is very normal and clear punctuation, though some writers might sometimes omit one of the commas in less formal text.

What is the difference between antaŭ and antaŭ ol here? Why do we need ol?

antaŭ alone is a preposition: “before (in space or time)”.
- antaŭ la domo = in front of the house
- antaŭ la manĝo = before the meal
antaŭ ol is a conjunction-like expression used before a clause with a verb: “before (doing) / before (we do)”.
- antaŭ ol ni iras al la oficejo = before we go to the office
- antaŭ ol vi tion faros = before you do that

So:

You say antaŭ la oficejo (preposition + noun).
But antaŭ ol ni iras al la oficejo (linking to a clause with a verb).

The ol itself originally means “than” (as in comparisons), but in this fixed expression antaŭ ol it’s just part of the standard pattern “before (someone) does X”.

Why is it ni iras (present) instead of ni iros (future) in antaŭ ol ni iras al la oficejo?

Esperanto often uses the present tense in time clauses that describe regular, repeated situations, even when in English you might think of the action as “later” in the day.

Matene, antaŭ ol ni iras al la oficejo, ni vidas… =
“In the morning, before we go to the office, we see…”

This describes a habitual routine, not a single future event. The going and the seeing both belong to the same “morning routine,” so they’re in the present tense.

If you were talking about one specific future morning, you could use future tense in both clauses:

Morgaŭ matene, antaŭ ol ni iros al la oficejo, ni vidos multajn birdojn flugi.
= Tomorrow morning, before we go to the office, we will see many birds flying.

So the present tense here expresses habitual action, not strictly “now.”

Why is it al la oficejo and not al la oficejon? Doesn’t motion usually take -n?

There are two common ways to express motion toward something in Esperanto:

Using the preposition al (no accusative -n needed):
- ni iras al la oficejo = we go to the office
Using the accusative -n without al, especially in short expressions:
- ni iras oficejen = we go (to the) office

You normally don’t combine both:

✗ ni iras al la oficejon – considered incorrect or at least stylistically bad.

So in your sentence, al la oficejo is perfectly correct and standard: al already marks direction, so the noun stays in the nominative form oficejo.

Why do we say multajn birdojn with -j and -n? What is each ending doing?

birdo = bird (singular, subject form)
birdoj = birds (plural)
birdojn = birds (plural, accusative, i.e. direct object)

In the sentence, birdojn is the direct object of vidas (“we see [what?] birds”), so it takes -n:

ni vidas birdojn = we see birds

Now multa is an adjective meaning “many, much.” Adjectives must agree with the noun in number (-j) and case (-n):

multaj birdoj = many birds (plural subject)
multajn birdojn = many birds (plural object)

So:

-j on both multaj and birdoj = plural
-n on both multajn and birdojn = accusative (direct object)

That’s why you get multajn birdojn.

Why is flugi in the infinitive and not flugas or flugantaj / flugantajn?

flugi is the infinitive, and here it acts as a kind of complement to the object:

ni vidas multajn birdojn flugi
= we see many birds fly / we see many birds flying

Structure-wise, it’s like:

Mi vidas lin kuri. = I see him run / running.

You could rewrite with a full clause:

Ni vidas, ke multaj birdoj flugas. = We see that many birds are flying.

Alternatives and nuances:

ni vidas multajn flugantajn birdojn
= we see many flying birds
(focus more on the birds as “flying ones,” more adjectival)
ni vidas multajn birdojn, kiuj flugas
= we see many birds that are flying

The original flugi construction feels a bit more like a direct perception: we see the birds do this action. It’s close to English “see X do(ing) Y.”

Is multajn birdojn the subject of flugi or just the object of vidas?

Grammatically, in Esperanto:

multajn birdojn is the direct object of vidas.
flugi is an infinitive that tells us what those birds are doing.

So the structure is:

ni vidas [multajn birdojn] [flugi]

It’s similar to English:

“We see [many birds] [flying].”

Esperanto doesn’t mark a separate case for the “subject” of the infinitive here; instead, you simply attach the infinitive to the main predicate, with the object understood as the “doer” of the infinitive’s action. Context makes the relationship clear.

Could we say ni vidas, ke multaj birdoj flugas instead of ni vidas multajn birdojn flugi?

Yes, absolutely. Both are correct, but they have slightly different flavors:

ni vidas multajn birdojn flugi
- Closer to direct perception: we actually see the birds performing the action.
- Like English: “we see many birds flying.”
ni vidas, ke multaj birdoj flugas
- More like we perceive/notice the fact that many birds are flying.
- Like English: “we see that many birds are flying.”

In everyday speech, both are fine; the first sounds a bit “tighter” and more visual, the second a bit more propositional (“we see that…”).

Could I say Matene, antaŭ ol iri al la oficejo, ni vidas… without repeating ni?

Yes, that’s also correct and quite natural:

Matene, antaŭ ol iri al la oficejo, ni vidas multajn birdojn flugi.

Here iri is an infinitive: “before (going) to the office.” Because the subject ni is the same for the main verb and the understood action iri, you can omit ni in that subordinate part.

Nuances:

antaŭ ol ni iras al la oficejo
- full clause, slightly more explicit and “sentence-like.”
antaŭ ol iri al la oficejo
- more compact, feels a bit closer to English “before going to the office.”

Both are good Esperanto.

Why is there no article (la) in multajn birdojn? When would I use la there?

In Esperanto, la is a definite article (“the”), used when you’re talking about something specific, known, or previously mentioned.

multajn birdojn = many birds (in general, not previously identified)
la multajn birdojn = the many birds (a particular group that has been specified in context)

In your sentence, we’re just describing a general, habitual experience: we see many (unspecified) birds. So no la is needed.

You might use la in a context like:

Ĉiu mateno, ni vidas la multajn birdojn, kiuj loĝas ĉe la lago.
= Every morning we see the many birds that live by the lake.

Here it’s about a specific known group of birds.

Is the word order fixed? Could we move parts of the sentence around?

Esperanto word order is fairly flexible because roles are marked by endings (-n, -j) and prepositions. You could rearrange the parts as long as it stays clear. For example:

Ni matene, antaŭ ol ni iras al la oficejo, vidas multajn birdojn flugi.
Antaŭ ol ni iras al la oficejo, matene ni vidas multajn birdojn flugi.
Ni vidas multajn birdojn flugi matene, antaŭ ol ni iras al la oficejo.

All are grammatically correct, though the original:

Matene, antaŭ ol ni iras al la oficejo, ni vidas multajn birdojn flugi.

sounds especially natural because it starts with the time frame, then the condition, then the main statement.

The key points to keep:

ni vidas goes together as subject + verb.
multajn birdojn flugi stays as the object + complement group.
antaŭ ol must introduce its clause or infinitive phrase directly.

Does vidas here mean “see (physically)” or “experience/notice/realize”?

In this sentence, vidas is naturally understood as literal seeing with the eyes, because it takes a direct object plus an action:

ni vidas multajn birdojn flugi
= we see many birds fly / flying

Vidi can also mean “realize / perceive / understand,” especially with ke-clauses:

Mi vidas, ke vi pravas. = I see that you’re right.

But with a concrete object (multajn birdojn) and an action they are performing (flugi), the basic, visual meaning is the default.