Kiam mi revenas hejmen, mi metas la malsekajn botojn apud la pordo kaj la gantojn sur la seĝon.

A useful way to parse it is:

• Kiam mi revenas hejmen = a time clause, meaning when I return home
• mi metas = I put
• la malsekajn botojn apud la pordo = the wet boots by the door
• kaj la gantojn sur la seĝon = and the gloves onto the chair

So the main verb metas applies to two things:

• la malsekajn botojn
• la gantojn

Each one then has its own place phrase:

• boots → apud la pordo
• gloves → sur la seĝon

Because Esperanto often uses the present tense for a habitual or repeated action.

Here the idea is not one specific event, but something like:

• Whenever I come home, I put my wet boots by the door and the gloves on the chair.

So:

• revenas = I return / I come back
• metas = I put

If you wanted one specific future situation, you would more likely use future forms:

• Kiam mi revenos hejmen, mi metos...

Kiam means when, while se means if.

In this sentence, the speaker is describing what happens at the time they come home, not an uncertain condition. So kiam is the right word.

• kiam = when
• se = if

This sentence has the sense of a regular pattern:

• When I come home, I do this.

Because hejmen shows movement toward home, while hejme means at home.

This is a very common Esperanto pattern:

• hejme = at home
• hejmen = to home, homeward

The -n here is not a direct object ending. It is the accusative of direction, used to show movement toward a place.

Compare:

• Mi estas hejme = I am at home
• Mi iras hejmen = I am going home

So mi revenas hejmen means I return home, not I return at home.

Because adjectives in Esperanto agree with the nouns they describe.

Let’s break it down:

• boto = boot
• botoj = boots
• botojn = boots as a direct object

And:

• malseka = wet
• malsekaj = wet, plural
• malsekajn = wet, plural, direct object form

So:

• la malsekajn botojn = the wet boots

The adjective malsekajn matches botojn in both:

• number: plural (-j)
• case: accusative (-n)

Because gantojn is also a direct object of metas.

The verb meti means to put, and it normally takes a direct object: you put something.

In this sentence, there are two things being put:

• la malsekajn botojn
• la gantojn

Both are objects of the same verb, so both take -n.

That is why you get:

• mi metas la malsekajn botojn ... kaj la gantojn ...

Even though gantojn comes later in the sentence, it is still governed by metas.

Sur la seĝon uses -n to show movement onto the chair.

This is another use of the accusative to show direction:

• sur la seĝo = on the chair
• sur la seĝon = onto the chair

Since the gloves are being placed there, sur la seĝon emphasizes movement to that position.

With apud la pordo, the phrase simply gives the final location beside the door. That is very natural here.

So the contrast is roughly:

• sur la seĝo = on the chair
• sur la seĝon = onto the chair

For apud, learners should know that you may sometimes also see directional -n in other contexts, but apud la pordo is completely normal here.

Because la gantojn is a separate noun phrase.

If you said:

• la malsekajn botojn kaj gantojn

that could sound like one combined group, and it may suggest that malsekajn applies to both boots and gloves.

But the actual sentence separates them clearly:

• la malsekajn botojn
• kaj la gantojn

This makes it easier to understand that:

• the boots are wet
• the gloves are just the gloves
• each item has its own place phrase

So repeating la helps clarity.

In this sentence, it belongs only to the gloves.

The structure is:

• la malsekajn botojn apud la pordo
• kaj la gantojn sur la seĝon

So each noun phrase is followed by its own location phrase.

A reader naturally understands:

• boots → by the door
• gloves → on the chair

This is one reason the sentence is written in this order: it keeps the relationships very clear.

Yes, Esperanto word order is fairly flexible, because endings like -n help show what each word is doing.

But the given order is very natural and easy to follow. It places each object near the phrase that belongs with it:

• botojn apud la pordo
• gantojn sur la seĝon

You could rearrange parts for emphasis, but the original version is probably the clearest for normal usage.

For example, Esperanto could allow variations like:

• Kiam mi revenas hejmen, mi metas apud la pordo la malsekajn botojn kaj sur la seĝon la gantojn.

That is grammatical, but less straightforward for a beginner.