Se la vetero estos bela venontan semajnfinon, ni denove promenos en la arbaron kun la infanoj.

Breakdown of Se la vetero estos bela venontan semajnfinon, ni denove promenos en la arbaron kun la infanoj.

esti
to be
bela
beautiful
la
the
ni
we
kun
with
infano
the child
vetero
the weather
se
if
semajnfino
the weekend
en
into
arbaro
the forest
denove
again
venonta
next
promeni
to stroll
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Esperanto grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Esperanto now

Questions & Answers about Se la vetero estos bela venontan semajnfinon, ni denove promenos en la arbaron kun la infanoj.

Why is estos used (future tense) in the se-clause, when in English we say “If the weather is nice…” with a present tense?

In Esperanto, the tense in a se (if) clause normally matches the actual time being talked about, not the tense pattern of English.

  • Se la vetero estos bela… = If the weather *will be nice…* (talking about the future)
  • …ni denove promenos… = …we will walk again… (also future)

So both verbs are in the future because both events are in the future.

In English you must not say “If the weather will be nice…”, but in Esperanto that construction is completely normal and correct. You could also say:

  • Se la vetero estos bela morgaŭ, ni promenos.
  • Se la vetero estas bela hodiaŭ, ni promenas.

The general rule: use estas / estis / estos according to real time, even in se-clauses. Don’t copy English tense rules here.

Why is venontan semajnfinon in the accusative (-n) when it’s just “next weekend” and not a direct object?

Esperanto uses the accusative -n not only for direct objects, but also:

  1. For direction (movement towards something).
  2. For time expressions indicating when something happens.

Here it is the second use. Venontan semajnfinon tells us when the weather will be nice and when we will walk:

  • Se la vetero estos bela venontan semajnfinon…
    If the weather will be nice *next weekend…*

So:

  • venonta semajnfino = a next weekend (just a noun phrase)
  • venontan semajnfinon = next weekend (when?) – adverbial use, so it takes -n.

Other similar examples:

  • Hieraŭ vespereyesterday evening (no -n, more like a set phrase)
  • Lundon mi laboros hejme.On Monday I’ll work at home.
    (Lundon gets -n because it answers “When?”)
Why is there no article la in venontan semajnfinon, but there is la in la vetero, la arbaron, la infanoj?

With time expressions like venontan semajnfinon, Esperanto often behaves like English: we usually say “next weekend”, not “the next weekend”, unless we’re contrasting it with another one.

So:

  • venontan semajnfinonnext weekend (general, the upcoming one)
  • la venontan semajnfinonthe next weekend (that specific coming weekend, e.g. in a sequence)

In this sentence, we simply mean the upcoming weekend in a normal, general way, so no la is needed.

On the other hand:

  • la veterothe weather (general concept, treated as definite)
  • en la arbaroninto the forest (a specific forest known from context)
  • kun la infanojwith the children (specific children: probably our kids, or some group already known in the conversation)

So: articles are about definiteness, not about case. The -n on venontan semajnfinon is for time, not for “the”.

What is the difference between venontan semajnfinon and la venonta semajnfino?

Grammatically:

  • venontan semajnfinon – accusative of time, no article:

    • Used as an adverbial: when?next weekend.
    • Fits best here: Se la vetero estos bela venontan semajnfinon…
  • la venonta semajnfino – nominative, with la:

    • A full noun phrase, subject or object: the next weekend.
    • E.g. La venonta semajnfino estos tre okupata.
      The next weekend will be very busy.

In your sentence, we want a time expression, not a subject, so venontan semajnfinon is the more natural choice.
You could say:

  • Se la venonta semajnfino estos bela, ni denove promenos…

That would be understood, but it slightly shifts the focus to “that coming weekend” as an entity, rather than simply saying “next weekend (time)”.

Why is venonta formed from veni (“to come”)? How exactly does -ont- work here?

Venonta is the future active participle of veni (to come).

  • Root: ven- (come)
  • Future active participle suffix: -ont-
  • Adjective ending: -a

So: ven-ont-avenonta = “(that which is) going to come / about to come / coming (in the future).”

Some patterns:

  • faronta – about to do, going to do
  • legonta – going to read
  • estonta – future, to-be

Venonta semajnfino literally: the weekend that is going to comenext weekend.

Why is it en la arbaron (with accusative -n) and not en la arbaro?

En can indicate:

  1. Location (in, inside):

    • en la arbaroin the forest (no movement → no -n)
  2. Direction toward a place (into):

    • en la arbaroninto the forest (movement → accusative of direction)

In your sentence:

  • ni denove promenos en la arbaron kun la infanoj

is most naturally understood as:

  • we will (go) walking into the forest again with the children
    (there is movement toward the forest).

If you say:

  • ni denove promenos en la arbaro kun la infanoj

that usually means:

  • we will (stroll) in the forest again with the children
    (already inside; location, not direction).

Both are grammatical, but -n with en signals movement into the place.

Is promeni a transitive verb here? Does en la arbaron function like an object of promenos?

Promeni is intransitive: it means “to stroll, to walk (for pleasure)” and does not take a direct object.

So in:

  • ni denove promenos en la arbaron

the structure is:

  • ni – subject (we)
  • promenos – intransitive verb (will stroll / walk)
  • en la arbaron – prepositional phrase showing direction (where to)

The accusative -n here belongs to the preposition en (direction), not to the verb. It’s not an object; it’s “into the forest”.

You could rephrase:

  • Ni denove iros en la arbaron por promeni kun la infanoj.
    We’ll go into the forest again to take a walk with the children.
What’s the difference between en la arbaron and tra la arbaron in this kind of sentence?
  • en la arbaroninto the forest: movement to the inside:

    • Ni promenos en la arbaron. – We’ll walk (go) into the forest.
  • tra la arbaronthrough the forest: movement across it from one side to the other:

    • Ni promenos tra la arbaron. – We’ll walk through the forest.

So:

  • en focuses on entering or being inside.
  • tra focuses on going through from one side to the other.
Why is denove placed before promenos? Could we also say ni promenos denove?

Yes, both are possible:

  • ni denove promenos…
  • ni promenos denove…

In Esperanto, adverbs like denove (again) have flexible position, but:

  • Putting it before the verb is very common and neutral:

    • ni denove promenos – we will again walk.
  • Putting it after the verb can sound slightly more emphatic on the “again”, depending on intonation:

    • ni promenos denove – we’ll walk, again.

There’s no big grammatical difference here; both are correct. Context and rhythm of the sentence usually decide the choice. Many people naturally put short adverbs before the main verb.

Why is the word order la vetero estos bela and not something like estos bela vetero or la vetero bela estos? Are these other orders possible?

The neutral, most common word order in Esperanto is:

  • Subject – Verb – Rest
    La vetero estos bela.

Other orders are possible, because Esperanto word order is relatively free, but they usually carry some emphasis or sound a bit marked:

  • Estos bela vetero.
    Puts more stress on estos or bela vetero; more like: There will be nice weather. Acceptable, but not as neutral as La vetero estos bela.

  • La vetero bela estos.
    Possible, but feels poetic or unusual in everyday speech.

For learners, it’s safest and most natural to stick to:

  • La vetero estos bela.
  • Ni denove promenos en la arbaro.

and only later to experiment with more flexible orders for emphasis.

Why is it kun la infanoj and not just kun infanoj or kun niaj infanoj?

All three are possible, but they have slightly different nuances:

  • kun la infanojwith the children (some specific children already known from context – often “our” children, or a known group).
  • kun infanojwith children (some children in general, not a specific known group).
  • kun niaj infanojwith our children (explicitly says they are “our” children).

Esperanto often uses la where English uses a possessive, when the owner is obvious:

  • Parents talking: Ni promenos kun la infanoj.
    Understood as “our children” unless context says otherwise.

If you really need to stress whose children, use niaj infanoj. In a neutral family context, la infanoj is natural and idiomatic.

Could we also say se estos bela vetero venontan semajnfinon without la before vetero?

Yes, you can say:

  • Se estos bela vetero venontan semajnfinon, ni denove promenos…

This means essentially the same thing: If there will be nice weather next weekend…

Difference in nuance:

  • Se la vetero estos bela…
    Talks about the weather as a known thing (today’s weather, general weather situation).

  • Se estos bela vetero…
    More like: If there will be (some) nice weather… – impersonal, similar to English “if the weather is nice” vs “if there will be good weather”.

Both are correct. The version with la vetero is very standard and perhaps more common, but the impersonal estos bela vetero is also idiomatic.