La uzota bovlo estas pli granda ol la jam lavita bovlo.

Uzota is a participial adjective built from the verb uzi (to use).

It breaks down like this:

• uz- = the root use
• -ot- = future passive participle
• -a = adjective ending

So uzota bovlo means the bowl that is going to be used or the bowl to be used.

It describes the bowl as the object of a future action: someone will use it.

These three forms are all participles, but they express different time relationships:

• uzata = being used (present passive participle)
• uzita = used / having been used (past passive participle)
• uzota = going to be used / to be used (future passive participle)

So:

• la uzata bovlo = the bowl being used
• la uzita bovlo = the used bowl / the bowl that has been used
• la uzota bovlo = the bowl that will be used

In your sentence, uzota is chosen because the bowl has not been used yet; it is the one intended for use.

Jam means already, and lavita means washed.

So la jam lavita bovlo means:

• the already washed bowl
• more naturally in English: the bowl that has already been washed

Lavita is another participial adjective:

• lav- = wash
• -it- = past passive participle
• -a = adjective

So it describes the bowl as having undergone the washing already.

Because they are functioning as adjectives and describing bovlo.

In Esperanto, adjectives end in -a, and they agree with the noun they modify.

Here:

• uzota bovlo = bowl that is to be used
• lavita bovlo = washed bowl
• pli granda = bigger

All of these are adjective forms, so they take -a.

Since bovlo is singular and has no accusative ending, the adjectives also stay singular and have no accusative ending.

Because bovlo is not the direct object here.

The sentence structure is:

• La uzota bovlo = subject
• estas = is
• pli granda ol la jam lavita bovlo = predicate/comparison

So both bowls are being talked about, but neither is a direct object of an action in this sentence.

You would use -n if the noun were a direct object, for example:

• Mi lavas la bovlon. = I wash the bowl.

But in:

• La uzota bovlo estas pli granda...

the bowl is the subject, so no -n.

This is the regular Esperanto way to make comparisons.

• granda = big
• pli granda = bigger
• ol = than

So:

• pli granda ol = bigger than

The full comparison is:

La uzota bovlo estas pli granda ol la jam lavita bovlo.
= The bowl to be used is bigger than the bowl already washed.

This pattern works with many adjectives and adverbs:

• pli longa ol = longer than
• pli bela ol = more beautiful than
• pli rapide ol = more quickly than

Because the sentence refers to two specific bowls, and each noun phrase is definite:

• La uzota bovlo = the bowl to be used
• la jam lavita bovlo = the already washed bowl

In Esperanto, just like in English, if both are definite, both can take the / la.

Using la twice helps clearly distinguish the two bowls as two known, specific items.

Yes, sometimes it could be omitted if the context is clear.

For example, you might say:

La uzota bovlo estas pli granda ol la jam lavita.

That would mean The bowl to be used is bigger than the already washed one.

Esperanto often allows an adjective or participial adjective to stand on its own when the noun is understood. But repeating bovlo is very clear and completely natural, especially for learners and in contexts where you want to avoid any ambiguity.

The given order is the most straightforward and natural:

• La uzota bovlo = the subject
• estas = the linking verb
• pli granda ol la jam lavita bovlo = what is said about it

Esperanto word order is somewhat flexible, but not all rearrangements sound equally neutral.

For example, this is also understandable:

Pli granda ol la jam lavita bovlo estas la uzota bovlo.

But it sounds more marked, as if emphasizing the comparison.

So the original sentence is the best neutral order for most situations.

Not really.

Uzota does not mean usable. It means that will be used or to be used.

A bowl that is usable would be something like uzebla:

• uzebla bovlo = a usable bowl / a bowl fit for use

So there is an important difference:

• uzota bovlo = the bowl that is going to be used
• uzebla bovlo = a bowl that can be used

One refers to a planned future action; the other refers to possibility or suitability.

It can use a relative clause, but Esperanto often prefers a compact participial adjective.

So these are similar in meaning:

• La uzota bovlo
• La bovlo, kiu estos uzata

And likewise:

• la jam lavita bovlo
• la bovlo, kiu jam estis lavita

The participle version is shorter and very common in Esperanto. English often prefers a relative clause, so this is something English speakers have to get used to.

Estas is the present tense of esti (to be).

It links the subject with a description:

• subject: La uzota bovlo
• predicate adjective phrase: pli granda ol la jam lavita bovlo

So estas does not show an action being done to something. It simply links the subject to a quality: is bigger than...

This is why the sentence is not about someone using or washing bowls right now. Those ideas are packed into the participles uzota and lavita, while the main verb is just is.

Yes, it is natural Esperanto.

It is a slightly formal or careful way to distinguish two bowls by their status:

• one is the one to be used
• one is the one already washed

That kind of compact description with participles is very normal in Esperanto.

A speaker might also choose simpler wording depending on context, but the original sentence is grammatically correct and idiomatic.