Li parolas kvazaŭ li estus la reĝisoro.

Kvazaŭ means as if or as though.

So Li parolas kvazaŭ li estus la reĝisoro means something like He speaks as if he were the director.

It introduces a comparison that is not being presented as a plain fact, but as an appearance or impression.

Estus is the conditional form of esti (to be).

After kvazaŭ, Esperanto often uses the conditional when the situation is only apparent, imagined, or contrary to fact. In this sentence, the idea is:

• he is speaking in a certain way
• that way makes it seem as if he were the director
• but he is not necessarily the director, and very often the sentence suggests that he is not

So estus matches the English idea were in as if he were the director.

Usually, yes.

Using kvazaŭ with the conditional often suggests that the comparison is unreal or not actually true. So the normal reading is:

• he talks in a way that resembles a director's manner
• but he is not really the director

Still, context always matters. The grammar strongly points toward an unreal or doubtful comparison.

Estus is the conditional mood of esti.

A quick comparison:

• estas = is / are / am
• estis = was / were
• estos = will be
• estus = would be

In this sentence, Esperanto uses the conditional not because it literally means would be in a future sense, but because the conditional is also used for unreal or hypothetical situations.

You may sometimes see or hear kvazaŭ followed by the indicative, such as estas, especially when the speaker wants to present the comparison more directly.

But in a sentence like this, estus is the more standard and expected choice if the meaning is as if he were the director.

So for learners, a good rule is:

• use kvazaŭ + conditional for as if / as though in unreal comparisons

Because there are really two clauses here:

1. Li parolas = He speaks
2. kvazaŭ li estus la reĝisoro = as if he were the director

Each clause needs its own subject, so the second li cannot normally be omitted.

English does the same:

• He speaks as if he were the director

La means the.

Here, la reĝisoro means the director, referring to a specific role or position. The idea is not just a director-like person, but the director, the person who holds that role.

So the sentence suggests:

• he talks as though he were the one in charge in that role

Because reĝisoro is not a direct object here.

The structure is:

• li estus la reĝisoro = he would be the director

After forms of esti, the noun that identifies the subject is not a direct object. It is a predicate noun, so it does not take -n.

Compare:

• Li estas la reĝisoro. = He is the director.
• not Li estas la reĝisoron.

Parolas is the present tense of paroli, meaning to speak or to talk.

So Li parolas means:

• He speaks
• or He is speaking, depending on context

Esperanto's present tense can cover both of those English possibilities.

Yes, to some extent, but the given order is the most natural.

The standard version is:

• Li parolas kvazaŭ li estus la reĝisoro.

You could also move things around for emphasis, but that is less neutral. For most learners, it is best to keep the straightforward order:

• main clause first
• kvazaŭ clause after it

It is pronounced approximately:

• re-ĵi-SO-ro

A few helpful points:

• ĝ sounds like the j in judge
• stress in Esperanto is always on the second-to-last syllable
• so the stress falls on SO

So:

• reĝisoro → re-ĝi-SO-ro

No. The sentence is fine as written.

Some writers might add a comma before a subordinate clause, especially for clarity:

• Li parolas, kvazaŭ li estus la reĝisoro.

Others leave it out:

• Li parolas kvazaŭ li estus la reĝisoro.

Both are understandable. The version without the comma is perfectly normal.