Greetings, fellow Esperantistos! I'm enrolled in the beginner course in "Bildoj kaj demandoj" on the chapter, "Kien" (number 24), and I have a few questions regarding the difference in usage of "kien" and "kie". "Kie" sounds like "where", and "kien" sounds more like "to where."

If this is correct, then how come when I ask the question, "Kien iras la viro?" then I respond with, "La viro iras en la domon." However, when I'm asked, "Kien iras la viro?" I must respond with "La viro iras ĝis la domo." instead of "La viro iras ĝis la domon." It would seem that domo should take case as a direct object unless the question was using kie. Perhaps I'm missing something?

Secondly, what is the difference between the usage of "ĝis" and "al" with regard to verbs of movement (e.g. iri)? Is it similar to showing completeness of an action like in the Slavic Indo-European languages (e.g. perfective and imperfective verbs)?

In the answers to both of these questions, can you please provide a few simple examples just to be sure that I understand these concepts correctly.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your responses.

I'm with you on this. I haven't seen ĝis used that way before at all, though I don't use Esperanto a ton so that may just be from lack of exposure. My response to "Kien iras la viro?" would be "La viro iras al la domo." I'm pretty sure that you don't use the accusative with "al" because using accusative after a preposition adds an implied "al," and "al al" would be redundant. But this is honestly something I haven't really looked into - I hope someone else has a good answer!

perplexedstepan:Greetings, fellow Esperantistos! I'm enrolled in the beginner course in "Bildoj kaj demandoj" on the chapter, "Kien" (number 24), and I have a few questions regarding the difference in usage of "kien" and "kie". "Kie" sounds like "where", and "kien" sounds more like "to where."

Correct.

If this is correct, then how come when I ask the question, "Kien iras la viro?" then I respond with, "La viro iras en la domon."

Correct

However, when I'm asked, "Kien iras la viro?" I must respond with "La viro iras ĝis la domo." instead of "La viro iras ĝis la domon."

Correct. Better would be "al la domo" (see below)

It would seem that domo should take case as a direct object unless the question was using kie. Perhaps I'm missing something?

You need to distinguish between two kinds of prepositions: the ones that can indicate a location as well as a direction (e.g. en, sur, sub, apud, inter, trans, ...) and the ones that only indicate a direction (e.g. al, el ...).

The former ones need the accusative in order to distinguish between location and direction.

Example:
La sportistoj kuras trans la rivero. No accussative, so we are talking about a location. Some sportsmen are running around at a place across the river.
La sportistoj kuras trans la riveron. Accusative means that we are talking about a direction rather than a location. So sportsmen are currently on running a bridge on their way to some place accross the river.

Prepositions like (al, el, ...) always indicate a direction, so they don't need the accusative to do that distinction.

Secondly, what is the difference between the usage of "ĝis" and "al" with regard to verbs of movement (e.g. iri)?

"Al" is somewhat more general. I wouldn't say "Mi iras ĝis mia hejmo." but "Mi iras al mia hejmo." Maybe this example makes it clear:
Mi sidas en la trajno al Berlino, sed mi veturas nur ĝis Göttingen.
The train is running to Berlin, but I will be traveling [on it] only until [it reaches] Göttingen.

johmue:

perplexedstepan:Greetings, fellow Esperantistos! I'm enrolled in the beginner course in "Bildoj kaj demandoj" on the chapter, "Kien" (number 24), and I have a few questions regarding the difference in usage of "kien" and "kie". "Kie" sounds like "where", and "kien" sounds more like "to where."

Correct.

If this is correct, then how come when I ask the question, "Kien iras la viro?" then I respond with, "La viro iras en la domon."

Correct

However, when I'm asked, "Kien iras la viro?" I must respond with "La viro iras ĝis la domo." instead of "La viro iras ĝis la domon."

Correct. Better would be "al la domo" (see below)

It would seem that domo should take case as a direct object unless the question was using kie. Perhaps I'm missing something?

You need to distinguish between two kinds of prepositions: the ones that can indicate a location as well as a direction (e.g. en, sur, sub, apud, inter, trans, ...) and the ones that only indicate a direction (e.g. al, el ...).

The former ones need the accusative in order to distinguish between location and direction.

Example:
La sportistoj kuras trans la rivero. No accussative, so we are talking about a location. Some sportsmen are running around at a place across the river.
La sportistoj kuras trans la riveron. Accusative means that we are talking about a direction rather than a location. So sportsmen are currently on running a bridge on their way to some place accross the river.

Prepositions like (al, el, ...) always indicate a direction, so they don't need the accusative to do that distinction.

Secondly, what is the difference between the usage of "ĝis" and "al" with regard to verbs of movement (e.g. iri)?

"Al" is somewhat more general. I wouldn't say "Mi iras ĝis mia hejmo." but "Mi iras al mia hejmo." Maybe this example makes it clear:
Mi sidas en la trajno al Berlino, sed mi veturas nur ĝis Göttingen.
The train is running to Berlin, but I will be traveling [on it] only until [it reaches] Göttingen.

Thank you! This clears it all up for me.