Pro la nebulo mi ne tuj vidis la vojon, do mia fratino kriis al mi el la alia flanko de la strato.

Pro means because of, due to, or on account of. So pro la nebulo means because of the fog.

It explains the reason for what follows: I did not immediately see the road/path because of the fog.

A learner may compare:

• pro la pluvo = because of the rain
• pro laceco = because of tiredness

So this phrase is functioning like an adverbial expression of cause.

Esperanto often uses la when talking about a specific thing that is present in the situation or already understood from context.

So la nebulo means the fog. In a sentence like this, it usually refers to the fog around the speaker at that moment.

Using nebulo without la would sound more like fog in a general or indefinite sense, which is less natural here.

Tuj means immediately, right away, or sometimes at once.

So mi ne tuj vidis la vojon means:

• I did not see the road immediately
• or more naturally in English, I didn’t see the road right away

It does not mean that the speaker never saw the road. It only means there was a delay.

Esperanto word order is fairly flexible, but this order is very natural.

• mi = I
• ne = not
• tuj = immediately
• vidis = saw

So the sentence is built as:

• mi = subject
• ne tuj = not immediately
• vidis = verb

You could also see other word orders in Esperanto, depending on emphasis, but mi ne tuj vidis la vojon is straightforward and idiomatic.

The ending -n marks the direct object in Esperanto.

Here, la vojo is the thing being seen, so it becomes la vojon.

Compare:

• Mi vidas la hundon. = I see the dog.
• Mi vidas la vojon. = I see the road/path.

So vidi takes a direct object, and that object gets -n.

Vojo is a general word meaning way, road, path, or route, depending on context.

In this sentence, the road is a natural translation, especially because the next part mentions the other side of the street. But the Esperanto word itself is a little broader than English road.

So the exact English choice depends on context, not on a strict one-to-one rule.

Do means so, therefore, thus, or as a result.

It connects the two parts of the sentence:

• because of the fog, I did not immediately see the road,
• so my sister shouted to me from the other side of the street.

So do introduces the consequence or result.

A useful distinction:

• ĉar = because
• do = so / therefore

In Esperanto, possessives like mia, via, lia, ŝia, nia, and so on normally replace la.

So you say:

• mia fratino = my sister not
• la mia fratino

This works like:

• mia libro = my book
• nia domo = our house

Using both together is usually not normal in ordinary Esperanto.

Because krii al iu means to shout to someone.

The person is not the direct object of the shouting; they are the target or recipient, so Esperanto uses al.

• krii = to shout
• al mi = to me

So:

• ŝi kriis al mi = she shouted to me

Using kriis min would be incorrect here, because mi is not what was shouted; it is the person being addressed.

Yes. Depending on context, kriis al mi can be translated as:

• shouted to me
• called to me
• called out to me

The exact English wording depends on tone and situation. In this sentence, because of the fog and the distance, called out to me is especially natural.

El usually means out of or from, and here it expresses where the shout came from.

So el la alia flanko de la strato means:

• from the other side of the street

It focuses on the source location of the voice.

A learner might expect de, but el works well when the idea is coming from that place/side.

Alia means other. So la alia flanko means the other side.

It is singular because flanko is singular:

• la alia flanko = the other side
• la aliaj flankoj = the other sides

The article la is used because this is a specific side in the situation being described.

De here means of.

So:

• la alia flanko de la strato = the other side of the street

This is a normal way in Esperanto to link two nouns, similar to English of.

Compare:

• la pordo de la domo = the door of the house
• la fino de la vojo = the end of the road

Literally, el often has the sense of out of or from, but in this sentence the natural meaning is simply from the other side of the street.

Learners should not translate every preposition too mechanically. The important idea is that the sister’s voice came from that location.

So idiomatic English is:

• from the other side of the street

Both are in the Esperanto past tense, marked by -is.

• vidis = saw
• kriis = shouted / called out

Esperanto tense endings are very regular:

• -as = present
• -is = past
• -os = future

So this whole sentence describes past events.

Yes. Esperanto allows fairly flexible word order, especially because endings like -n show grammatical roles clearly.

For example, these would still be understandable:

• Mi ne tuj vidis la vojon pro la nebulo, do mia fratino kriis al mi el la alia flanko de la strato.
• Do mia fratino kriis al mi el la alia flanko de la strato, ĉar pro la nebulo mi ne tuj vidis la vojon.

However, the original order is very natural: it gives the cause first, then the result.