Mi ne transiras tie, kiam la strato ŝajnas tro danĝera por infanoj.

Transiras is from transiri, which means to cross or to go across.

It is built from:

• trans = across
• iri = to go

So transiri is a single verb meaning cross. In this sentence, Mi ne transiras tie means that the speaker does not cross at that place.

Tie means there in the sense of at that place.

Tien means to there or to that place, showing direction.

Here the sentence is talking about the place where the crossing happens, so tie is the natural choice.

A useful contrast:

• Mi staras tie = I am standing there.
• Mi iras tien = I am going there.

With transiras, the movement idea is already inside the verb cross, so tie tells you where the crossing happens.

Often transiri takes an object, for example:

• Mi transiras la straton = I cross the street.

But the object can be left out if it is obvious from context. In this sentence, the place tie is the important part, and the thing being crossed is easy to infer from la strato in the second clause.

A fuller version could be:

• Mi ne transiras la straton tie, kiam la strato ŝajnas tro danĝera por infanoj.

So the shorter version is normal if the meaning is clear.

Grammatically, kiam means when. But in a sentence like this, with present tense and a general statement, English often understands it as whenever.

So the idea is not just one single occasion. It sounds more like a general rule or habit:

• whenever the street seems too dangerous for children, I do not cross there.

Esperanto uses kiam for both kinds of situations, and the context tells you which one is meant.

Ŝajnas means seems or appears.

So:

• la strato estas tro danĝera = the street is too dangerous
• la strato ŝajnas tro danĝera = the street seems too dangerous

Using ŝajnas makes the statement less absolute. It shows that this is how the street appears to the speaker, not necessarily an objective fact.

Because danĝera is not a direct object here. It is a predicate adjective after ŝajnas.

In Esperanto, after verbs like esti, ŝajni, fariĝi, and similar verbs, the describing adjective normally stays in the basic form, not the accusative.

So:

• La strato ŝajnas danĝera = The street seems dangerous.

Here la strato is the subject, and danĝera describes that subject.

La strato refers to a particular street, or at least a street that is identifiable in the context.

But infanoj without la means children in general.

So:

• la strato = the street
• infanoj = children, as a group in general

If you said la infanoj, that would mean the children, referring to some specific children already known in the conversation.

Por infanoj means for children.

Here por shows suitability or appropriateness. So tro danĝera por infanoj means too dangerous for children in the sense of:

• not safe enough for children
• unsuitable for children
• more dangerous than is acceptable for children

It does not mean the street is dangerous only to children. It means children are the standard being used to judge the danger.

In Esperanto, ne usually goes directly before the word or phrase being negated. Very often that is the verb.

So:

• Mi ne transiras = I do not cross

This is the normal way to negate a whole action.

If you move ne, the emphasis can change, but in ordinary sentences, putting it before the verb is the standard pattern.

Yes. Esperanto word order is fairly flexible, especially with subordinate clauses.

You could also say:

• Kiam la strato ŝajnas tro danĝera por infanoj, mi ne transiras tie.

This means the same thing. The version with kiam first may sound a little more natural to some learners, because English often does the same.

In both versions, the comma helps show where the subordinate clause begins or ends.