Ni estus sidintaj ĉirkaŭ la tablo pli longe, se la kelnerino ne estus alportinta la fakturon tiel frue.

We would have sat around the table longer if the waitress had not brought the bill so early.

Breakdown of Ni estus sidintaj ĉirkaŭ la tablo pli longe, se la kelnerino ne estus alportinta la fakturon tiel frue.

• esti: to be
• la: the
• ni: we
• tablo: the table

Questions & Answers about Ni estus sidintaj ĉirkaŭ la tablo pli longe, se la kelnerino ne estus alportinta la fakturon tiel frue.

Why is estus used in both parts of the sentence?

In Esperanto, a contrary-to-fact if sentence often uses -us in both the main clause and the se clause.

English says:

• we would have sat
• if the waitress had not brought

Esperanto can express both ideas with estus + participle:

• Ni estus sidintaj
• se la kelnerino ne estus alportinta

So this is a normal Esperanto way to show an unreal past situation. Esperanto does not have a separate finite verb form exactly like English had brought, so it often uses this compound pattern instead.

Why is it estus sidintaj instead of just sidus?

Estus sidintaj is more explicit. It clearly means would have sat or would have been sitting earlier in that hypothetical past situation.

The simpler sidus can sometimes work if the context already makes the time clear, but it is less precise. It can feel more like would sit or would be sitting.

So:

• sidus = simpler conditional
• estus sidintaj = explicitly counterfactual past

The sentence uses the fuller form to make the past-time relationship very clear.

What does -int- mean in sidintaj and alportinta?