Manĝinte pomon kaj bananon, mi ne plu estas malsata.

Manĝinte is the adverbial participle meaning having eaten.

It is built from:

• manĝ- = the root meaning eat
• -int- = the past active participle marker, meaning the action is already completed
• -e is normally the adverb ending, but with participles used this way, the form ends as -inte, which functions adverbially: having done X

So:

• manĝi = to eat
• manĝinta = having eaten / someone who has eaten
• manĝinte = having eaten

In this sentence, Manĝinte pomon kaj bananon... means Having eaten an apple and a banana...

Because Esperanto often expresses that idea with a participle form instead of a separate word.

English uses two words:

• having eaten

Esperanto compresses that into one form:

• manĝinte

This is very common in Esperanto. Instead of building a whole clause like after I ate, Esperanto can use a compact participial phrase.

So these are similar in meaning:

• Manĝinte pomon kaj bananon, mi ne plu estas malsata.
• Post kiam mi manĝis pomon kaj bananon, mi ne plu estas malsata.

The first version is shorter and very natural in Esperanto.

They end in -n because they are direct objects.

In Esperanto, the thing directly affected by the verb usually takes -n:

• Mi manĝas pomon. = I eat an apple.
• Mi manĝas bananon. = I eat a banana.

Here, the eating happened inside the participial phrase, but the rule is the same:

• Manĝinte pomon kaj bananon...

Both apple and banana are things eaten, so both get -n.

Because malsata is not a direct object. It is a predicate adjective describing mi.

In:

• mi estas malsata

the verb estas means am / is / are, and malsata describes the subject mi.

So:

• Mi estas malsata. = I am hungry.
• Mi ne plu estas malsata. = I am no longer hungry.

Predicate adjectives in Esperanto normally do not take -n just because they follow esti.

Ne plu means no longer or not anymore.

• plu by itself has the sense of further, more, or any longer
• with ne, it becomes no longer / not anymore

So:

• Mi ne plu estas malsata. = I am no longer hungry.

This is a very common expression in Esperanto:

• Mi ne plu laboras tie. = I no longer work there.
• Li ne plu dormas. = He is not sleeping anymore.

Because ne plu is the normal fixed expression for no longer / not anymore.

In Esperanto, ne usually comes before the part it negates. Here, ne plu works together as a unit of meaning.

So you should learn:

• ne plu = no longer
• ĉu plu? = still? / anymore?
• ankoraŭ = still

For example:

• Mi ankoraŭ estas malsata. = I am still hungry.
• Mi ne plu estas malsata. = I am no longer hungry.

Yes. That is exactly what -int- shows here.

The sentence means the eating was completed before the state in the main clause:

• first: I ate the apple and banana
• after that: I am no longer hungry

So manĝinte gives a sense like:

• after eating
• having eaten
• once I had eaten

That time relationship is an important part of the form.

Normally, the implied subject of manĝinte is the same as the subject of the main clause.

So in:

• Manĝinte pomon kaj bananon, mi ne plu estas malsata.

the person who ate is mi.

In other words, it means:

• Having eaten an apple and a banana, I am no longer hungry.

Not:

• After someone else ate an apple and a banana, I am no longer hungry.

This same-subject idea is very important with Esperanto participial phrases. If the subject would be different, it is usually better to use a full clause instead.

Because Esperanto has no indefinite article.

English distinguishes between:

• an apple
• the apple

Esperanto only has a definite article:

• la = the

So:

• pomo can mean an apple or just apple
• la pomo means the apple

In this sentence, pomon kaj bananon naturally means an apple and a banana because they are being mentioned non-specifically.

Yes. A very natural alternative is:

• Post kiam mi manĝis pomon kaj bananon, mi ne plu estas malsata.

That means the same thing: After I ate an apple and a banana, I am no longer hungry.

The version with manĝinte is more compact. The full-clause version may feel easier for beginners because it looks more like English sentence structure.

Both are good Esperanto.

Because Manĝinte pomon kaj bananon is an introductory participial phrase.

It sets the background for the main clause:

• Manĝinte pomon kaj bananon, = having eaten an apple and a banana,
• mi ne plu estas malsata. = I am no longer hungry.

The comma helps separate that introductory phrase from the main statement. In practice, Esperanto punctuation can be somewhat flexible, but this comma is normal and helpful.

Because the sentence is describing your current state after the completed action.

• manĝinte = having eaten earlier
• estas malsata / ne plu estas malsata = your state now

So the timeline is:

1. you ate
2. now you are no longer hungry

That is why the participle marks the earlier completed action, while estas stays in the present tense.

Yes.

• sat- relates to being sated / full
• mal- is the opposite-forming prefix
• -a is the adjective ending

So:

• sata = full, not hungry
• malsata = hungry

This is a very common Esperanto pattern:

• bona = good

• malbona = bad

• granda = big
• malgranda = small

So malsata is literally the opposite of sata.

Usually, yes, that is the most natural interpretation.

Because Esperanto lacks an indefinite article, singular nouns like:

• pomon
• bananon

normally mean:

• an apple
• a banana

So the phrase is understood as an apple and a banana.

If you wanted to be more explicit, you could say:

• unu pomon kaj unu bananon = one apple and one banana

But in ordinary speech, that is often unnecessary unless the number matters.