La rompita fenestro povintus vundi min, sed mia ganto savis mian manon.

Because rompita is a passive participle. It describes something that has had the action done to it.

• rompi = to break
• rompita = broken, having been broken
• rompinta = having broken something

So rompita fenestro means a window that was broken. If you said rompinta fenestro, it would mean a window that broke something else, which is not the intended idea here.

Esperanto has only one article: la, which means the.

There is no separate indefinite article for a or an. If something is indefinite, Esperanto usually just leaves out the article.

So:

• fenestro = a window, or window in a general sense
• la fenestro = the window

Here, la rompita fenestro refers to a specific broken window, not just any broken window.

Povintus is a compact way of expressing the idea of could have or would have been able to.

It is built from:

• povi = to be able to, can
• -int- = marks something prior or completed
• -us = conditional

So povintus vundi min means something like could have injured me.

A useful way to understand it is that it is close in meaning to estus povinta vundi min.

Because verbs like povi, voli, devi, and similar verbs are followed by an infinitive.

So:

• povas vundi = can injure
• povus vundi = could injure
• povintus vundi = could have injured

This works much like English can injure, could injure, could have injured.

Because min is the accusative form of mi.

In Esperanto, the direct object usually takes -n. The direct object is the person or thing directly affected by the action.

Here, vundi affects me, so:

• mi = I
• min = me

So vundi min means to injure me.

Because the whole noun phrase is the direct object, and adjectives must agree with the noun they describe.

• mano = hand
• manon = hand as a direct object
• mia = my
• mian = my, agreeing with an accusative singular noun

So:

• mia mano = my hand
• mian manon = my hand as a direct object

This agreement is very important in Esperanto. Adjectives match the noun in number and case.

Both kinds of wording can appear in Esperanto, but mian manon is very natural here because it clearly shows whose hand it was.

With body parts, Esperanto often uses possessives when the owner matters or when the speaker wants to be explicit.

So mia ganto savis mian manon is completely normal and very clear: my glove saved my hand.

Because in normal Esperanto, possessive words such as mia, via, lia, and so on already make the noun definite.

So:

• mia ganto = my glove

Usually you do not add la before a possessive. Using la mia ganto would sound unusual in ordinary Esperanto and is generally avoided except in special stylistic situations.

Because the two parts describe different kinds of events.

• povintus vundi min describes something that was possible but did not happen
• savis mian manon describes what actually happened

So the first clause uses the conditional idea, while the second clause uses the ordinary past tense -is.

This contrast is very common:

• unreal or prevented possibility → -us
• real past event → -is

Yes. Esperanto word order is fairly flexible because endings show the grammatical roles.

This sentence uses a very neutral order:

• subject → verb → object

But other orders are possible for emphasis. For example, Mian manon savis mia ganto would still be understandable because manon has -n, marking it as the object.

Still, the original order is the most straightforward and natural for a learner to imitate.