Mi akvumas la planton per plena akvumilo.

Because -n marks the direct object in Esperanto.

In Mi akvumas la planton, the thing receiving the action of watering is the plant, so planto becomes planton.

• Mi akvumas la planton = I water the plant.
• La planto kreskas = The plant grows.

In the second example, la planto is the subject, so there is no -n.

La is the Esperanto word for the.

So la planton means the plant rather than just a plant / plant. Esperanto has only one definite article, la, and it does not change for gender, number, or case:

• la planto
• la planton
• la plantoj
• la plantojn

It stays la in every case.

Akvumas comes from the root akv- (water) plus the verb-forming idea akvumi, which means to water.

So:

• akvo = water
• akvumi = to water
• mi akvumas = I water / am watering

The ending -as marks the present tense.

This is a very common Esperanto pattern: a noun root can become a verb with -i.

Because Esperanto often prefers a single derived verb when it is natural and efficient.

• akvumi = to water
• verŝi akvon sur la planton = to pour water onto the plant

These are related ideas, but not exactly identical. Akvumi specifically means to water something, especially plants. It is the normal everyday verb here.

Per means by means of, with, or using.

In this sentence, per plena akvumilo tells you the instrument used to do the watering: a watering can.

Compare:

• Mi skribas per plumo = I write with a pen.
• Li tranĉas per tranĉilo = He cuts with a knife.
• Mi akvumas la planton per plena akvumilo = I water the plant with a full watering can.

So per often introduces the tool or means.

Because the phrase after per is not the direct object.

The direct object is la planton. That is why it gets -n.

But per plena akvumilo is a prepositional phrase. After a normal preposition like per, nouns usually do not take -n.

So:

• la planton = direct object → -n
• per plena akvumilo = after a preposition → no -n

And since plena describes akvumilo, it matches it and also stays without -n.

Because plena is an adjective.

In Esperanto:

• -a = adjective
• -o = noun
• -e = adverb
• -i = infinitive verb

So:

• plena = full
• akvumilo = watering can

The adjective agrees with the noun it describes in number and case. Here both are singular and neither has -n, so:

• plena akvumilo

If it were plural:

• plenaj akvumiloj = full watering cans

If it were accusative:

• plenan akvumilon

Akvumilo means watering can.

It is built very regularly:

• akv- = water
• -um- = a derivational element used in certain established words
• -il- = tool/instrument
• -o = noun

So akvumilo is literally a tool used for watering.

The suffix -il- is very common:

• tranĉilo = knife (cutting tool)
• skribilo = writing instrument
• manĝilo = eating utensil

The suffix -il- means tool, instrument, or device used for doing something.

So if you have a verb or action idea, -il- often creates the thing used to perform that action:

• tranĉi = to cut → tranĉilo = cutting tool, knife
• brosi = to brush → broso / sometimes tool words built with -il-
• akvumi = to water → akvumilo = watering can

It is a very productive and useful suffix in Esperanto.

Yes, it can come after. Esperanto word order is fairly flexible here.

• plena akvumilo
• akvumilo plena

Both are possible, though plena akvumilo is the more neutral and common order.

Putting the adjective after the noun can sometimes sound a bit more literary, emphatic, or context-driven. For a basic sentence like this, learners should usually put the adjective before the noun.

It is understandable, but it is less natural than per plena akvumilo.

If you put plena after akvumilo, it may sound like you are adding the information afterward, almost as an extra descriptive touch. The most straightforward wording is:

• per plena akvumilo

That is the normal way to say with a full watering can.

Not exactly, though they are closely related.

• plena akvumilo = a full watering can
• akvumilo plena de akvo = a watering can full of water

The second version is more explicit because it says what it is full of. In most contexts, plena akvumilo is enough.

Yes, but the meaning changes.

• Mi akvumas la planton = I am watering the plant
• Mi akvumas planton = I am watering a plant / watering a plant

Esperanto has no indefinite article like a/an, so the absence of la often gives that more indefinite sense.

It can mean either, depending on context.

The present-tense ending -as covers both simple present and present progressive in many cases.

So Mi akvumas can mean:

• I water
• I am watering

If the context is about what is happening right now, English often uses am watering. If it is about a habit, English often uses water. Esperanto does not have to make that distinction here.

Yes. Esperanto word order is flexible, as long as the grammar is clear.

These all work:

• Mi akvumas la planton per plena akvumilo.
• Per plena akvumilo mi akvumas la planton.

The first is the most neutral. The second puts more focus on the means used.

Because la planton has the accusative -n, its role stays clear even if word order changes.

A helpful approximate pronunciation is ahk-VOO-mahs.

More carefully:

• ak as in father
  • k
• vu with stress on vu
• mas with a clear s, never a z sound

Esperanto stress is normally on the second-to-last syllable, so:

• ak-VU-mas
• plan-TON
• PLE-na
• ak-vu-MI-lo? No — actually ak-vu-MI-lo if pronounced syllable by syllable as ak-vu-mi-lo, with stress on MI
• PER

So the full sentence is approximately:

Mi akvumas la planton per plena akvumilo
= mee ahk-VOO-mahs lah plan-TON pehr PLEH-nah ahk-voo-MEE-loh

Because of position and meaning.

In Mi akvumas la planton per plena akvumilo, the phrase per plena akvumilo forms a unit: with a full watering can. So plena naturally modifies akvumilo, not planton.

If you wanted to say the full plant—which would be odd in meaning—you would place the adjective with planto:

• Mi akvumas la plenan planton.

But in the actual sentence, the thing that is full is the watering can.