Learn Hardcore Esperanto: Se mi havus pli da tempo, mi pensus pri pli bona donaco. - If I had more time, I would think about a better present.

In this sentence, havus and pensus both show that we are talking about a situation that is not actually true right now (you don’t actually have more time; you’re just imagining it).

Why do both verbs use -us, when in English we only say “If I had more time, I would think about a better present”?

In Esperanto, both parts of an unreal/hypothetical condition normally use -us:

Se mi havus pli da tempo, mi pensus pri pli bona donaco.
= If I had more time, I would think about a better present.

You generally avoid mixing -us with ordinary present or future in such unreal conditions. So these are normally not used for this meaning:

✗ Se mi havas pli da tempo, mi pensus…
✗ Se mi havus pli da tempo, mi pensos…

Use -us in both clauses for “if … would …” when the condition is unreal or purely hypothetical in the present.

Could I say Se mi havis pli da tempo, mi pensus pri pli bona donaco instead?

Not for the same meaning.

Se mi havus… mi pensus… = unreal present: “If I had more time (but I don’t), I would think…”
Se mi havis… literally uses past tense: “If I had (at some time in the past)…” and doesn’t by itself mark unreality.

Using havis with pensus would sound grammatically odd and unclear: a real past clause combined with a hypothetical result. For a standard unreal present condition, keep both verbs in -us:

Se mi havus pli da tempo, mi pensus pri pli bona donaco.

Is -us a tense (like past or future), or something else?

-us is not a tense; it doesn’t mark time (past/present/future). It marks mood (conditional / hypothetical).

The time is understood from context:

Se mi havus pli da tempo (nun), mi pensus…
→ unreal now.
Se mi havus pli da tempo morgaŭ, mi pensus…
→ unreal in the future.

So havus and pensus themselves don’t say “past” or “future”; they just say “would / hypothetical”. Time is added by other words, if needed.

Why is it pli da tempo and not just pli tempo?

In standard Esperanto, when you say more of some noun as a quantity, the normal form is:

pli da + noun

So:

pli da tempo = more (amount of) time
pli da akvo = more water
pli da mono = more money

Using pli tempo is often felt to be incorrect or at least non-standard in this kind of phrase. Tempo is a noun, so we show “more of that noun” with pli da tempo, not by putting pli directly before the noun.

(You can put pli directly before an adjective or adverb, like pli bona “better / more good”, pli rapide “more quickly”.)

What exactly does da mean, and when do we use it?

Da is a special preposition used after a word that expresses a quantity, amount, or measure. It loosely means “of (in the sense of quantity of)”.

Typical pattern: quantity word + da + noun

Examples:

pli da tempo = more (quantity) of time
multe da homoj = many people / much (quantity) of people
iom da akvo = some (amount of) water
kelkajn litrojn da lakto = a few liters of milk

So in pli da tempo, pli functions as a kind of “quantity word” (“more (amount)”), and tempo is the thing we’re measuring. Da connects them.

Why is there no article like a or the in pli bona donaco?

Esperanto has only one article: la, which corresponds to the. It has no indefinite article (“a / an”).

So:

donaco can mean a gift or just gift in general, depending on context.
la donaco = the gift (a specific one we both know about)

In pli bona donaco, adding la would sound like we’re talking about a specific gift that both speaker and listener can identify:

pli bona donaco = a better present (unspecified)
la pli bona donaco = the better present (a particular one, “the better choice” among some set)

In your sentence, you mean this in a general/non‑specific way, so no la is needed.

Why is there no -n ending on tempo or donaco?

The -n ending (accusative) marks:

The direct object of a verb:
- Mi vidas la donacon. = I see the present.
Direction toward something with some prepositions:
- Mi iras hejmen. = I go (to) home.

In the sentence:

pli da tempo – tempo is the object of the preposition da, not a direct object of a verb.
pri pli bona donaco – donaco is the object of the preposition pri, again not a direct object.

Nouns directly governed by a preposition normally do not take -n. Therefore:

pri pli bona donaco is correct,
✗ pri pli bona donacon is wrong here.

Could I say pri pli bona donacon with -n to emphasize something?

No, not in normal Esperanto.

While -n can sometimes be added to nouns after certain prepositions to show direction toward something (e.g. sur la tablon “onto the table”), that doesn’t apply to pri, which means about / concerning and doesn’t express physical direction.

So:

pri pli bona donaco = about a better present (correct)
✗ pri pli bona donacon = incorrect in standard usage

Why do we use pri with pensi? Could we use de instead?

With pensi (to think), Esperanto almost always uses pri to express the topic of your thoughts:

pensi pri io = to think about something

So:

Mi pensas pri vi. = I think about you.
Mi pensus pri pli bona donaco. = I would think about a better present.

De usually means of / from (source, origin, possession, etc.), not “about”. For this meaning, you should not say:

✗ pensi de pli bona donaco

Use pensi pri to say think about.

Could I use pripensi instead of pensi pri here?

Yes, you could, with a small nuance difference.

pensi pri io = to think about something (quite neutral)
pripensi ion = to think something over, to consider it carefully

So you could say:

Se mi havus pli da tempo, mi pripensus pli bonan donacon.

Here pripensus takes a direct object with -n (pli bonan donacon), because the preposition pri is built into the verb itself.

Meaning-wise:

pensi pri pli bona donaco = “think about a better present” (quite general)
pripensi pli bonan donacon = “think a better present over / carefully consider a better present”

Can I change the word order, for example: Mi pensus pri pli bona donaco, se mi havus pli da tempo?

Yes. Esperanto word order is fairly flexible, and both orders are natural:

Se mi havus pli da tempo, mi pensus pri pli bona donaco.
Mi pensus pri pli bona donaco, se mi havus pli da tempo.

The meaning is the same: “If I had more time, I would think about a better present.”

The comma between the se‑clause and the main clause is standard and helpful, but in very short sentences some writers might drop it. Here, keeping the comma is clearer.

How would I say “If I had had more time, I would have thought about a better present” in Esperanto?

To make the condition clearly past and unreal, Esperanto usually combines estus (“would be”) with a participial form:

Se mi estus havinta pli da tempo, mi estus pensinta pri pli bona donaco.

Literally: “If I were-having-had more time, I were-having-thought about a better present.”

Many speakers actually avoid such heavy forms in everyday speech and rely on context:

Se mi estus havinta pli da tempo, mi pensus pri pli bona donaco.
Or they rephrase the idea entirely.

But the fully “textbook” version for a clearly unreal past condition is:

Se mi estus havinta pli da tempo, mi estus pensinta pri pli bona donaco.