The vortaro gives one translation of "voli" as "to will." Let me get this straight then.

In English, one might say, "Will you wash the car?" or "Will you help me?" and usually no one responds with, "I will help you," or "I will wash the car," we usually just say, "I will," or "Yes, I will."

So if I am asking a question, may I say "Volas vi lavi la auxton?" Or should I just stick with "Cxu vi lavas la auxton?"

And if I will wash the car, do I need to tell that person "Mi volas lavi la auxto?" or can I just simply say, "Mi volas."

Foreigner:The vortaro gives one translation of "voli" as "to will." Let me get this straight then.

In English, one might say, "Will you wash the car?" or "Will you help me?" and usually no one responds with, "I will help you," or "I will wash the car," we usually just say, "I will," or "Yes, I will."

So if I am asking a question, may I say "Volas vi lavi la auxton?" Or should I just stick with "Cxu vi lavas la auxton?"

Sorry, there's no connection between "voli" and the English future tense form "Will you ...?"

If you enter "voli" in Google Translate - translate.google.com/#eo/en/voli - and click on the translation 'wanting', you see 'want', 'wanting to', 'want to'. So 'voli' means 'want to', 'wish to', and 'Volas vi lavi la auxton?' means 'You want to wash the car?'

But what you really mean is "are you going to wash the car (whether you like doing it or not)?" English has a past tense (washed) and a present tense (washes) but it hasn't got a simple future tense and so uses "will you"/"are you going to"/"is it your intention to".

Esperanto does have a future tense, indicated by ..os. So "will you"/"do you intend to"/"are you going to" wash the car is "ĉu vi lavos la aŭton?", i.e. ĉu (question particle) vi lavos la aŭton (you will wash the car). And in the same way, "will you help me" is "ĉu vi helpos min?", literally "are you going to help me?".

Foreigner:And if I will wash the car, do I need to tell that person "Mi volas lavi la auxto?" or can I just simply say, "Mi volas."

My reply would be: "Jes" or "Jes, mi lavos ĝin".

In some instances English's 'will' will relate to Esperanto's 'voli'

But 'will it rain tomorrow' has no connection with the idea behind voli. The translation for that would be ĉu pluvos morgaŭ.

My mother left me some money in her will requires yet another translation of 'will' (testamento).

On the other hand, kontraŭ ŝia volo means against her will. Bonvolu sekvi min could be if you will follow me. Kiel vi volas can mean as you will.

You might even say attributing a bloodymindedness to an inanimate object la aŭto ne volas starti for the car won't (will not) start.

In short, when translating 'will' into Esperanto, first examine the meaning.

sudanglo:
But 'will it rain tomorrow' has no connection with the idea behind voli. The translation for that would be ĉu pluvos morgaŭ.

What if someone does ask me that question and I am giving an affirmative response? If I am asked, "Cxu pluvos margaux?" Can I simple reply with, "Gxi volos," as "It will." Or must I use the verb that is happening, "Gxi pluvos," as in "It will (rain)." I'm sure I can leave the "morgaux" off. From what noelekim said I would assume not, but I'd like to confirm it.

Foreigner:What if someone does ask me that question and I am giving an affirmative response? If I am asked, "Cxu pluvos margaux?" Can I simple reply with, "Gxi volos," as "It will." Or must I use the verb that is happening, "Gxi pluvos," as in "It will (rain)." I'm sure I can leave the "morgaux" off.

Use "jes" …

Again: The English "to will" is mainly used as an auxiliary verb and therefore can not be translated directly. The Esperanto-verb "voli" is best represented with the English verb "to want".

You would never ever say "gxi pluvos". That gets you back to a translation of "it", which isn't needed or wanted in any of the Esperanto versions; "it" acts like a dummy subject in English, we say "It is raining" only because we need to insert a placeholder as a subject, because we can't have a verb only ("raining" or "Is raining" not being grammatical in English.) Esperanto allows you to have a single verb as the whole sentence so there's no need for placeholder fake subjects like English uses.

Your answer to "Cxu pluvos morgaux?" would be either "Jes" or "Pluvos" or "Jes, pluvos".

erinja:You would never ever say "gxi pluvos". That gets you back to a translation of "it", which isn't needed or wanted in any of the Esperanto versions; "it" acts like a dummy subject in English, we say "It is raining" only because we need to insert a placeholder as a subject, because we can't have a verb only ("raining" or "Is raining" not being grammatical in English.) Esperanto allows you to have a single verb as the whole sentence so there's no need for placeholder fake subjects like English uses.

Your answer to "Cxu pluvos morgaux?" would be either "Jes" or "Pluvos" or "Jes, pluvos".

I didn't realize that. Thanks for the help.

I think the main confusion here is that you don't know the English verb to will, which isn't used very often, and so are thinking of something else.

It's not the will that features in "I will wash the car" and so on. That is a modal verb or auxiliary, a characteristic of which is that it doesn't exist with the to particle. Similarly there's no to must, to can, to should and so on. You don't say "He wills/cans/musts/shoulds wash the car", so I hope you can visualise that the will you see in that sentence is not the verb to will.

There is a regular English verb to will which used to be used where we now say to want. (German-speakers will notice the link with willen. To want in this sense is only a few centuries old.) That's what the definition is referring to. It exists nowadays only in traditional sentences such as "Will you take this woman as your lawful-wedded wife?", which doesn't actually mean "are you going to ..." but "do you want to ..." and the response to which is "I will", meaning "Yes, I want to" rather than "Yes, I'm going to".

The translation of voli as to will ought to be dropped. It doesn't help clarify anything that to want doesn't and can only cause confusion because there's no realistic way that most native speakers or learners would even be aware that there's a verb to will which means to want.

Will you take this woman as your lawful-wedded wife?", which doesn't actually mean "are you going to ..." but "do you want to ..." and the response to which is "I will", meaning "Yes, I want to" rather than "Yes, I'm going to".

Interesting example Tim.

But I can imagine someone saying 'I don't want to pay this bill, but I will'.

It might cause some reaction in the church if you said 'I don't want to marry, her but I will'.

I thought the reply in the wedding ceremony was 'I do', rather than 'I will', but as as a confirmed bachelor, what would I know.

sudanglo:I thought the reply in the wedding ceremony was 'I do', rather than 'I will', but as as a confirmed bachelor, what would I know.

"Will you take..." answered by "I will" is the older an more traditional wedding vow. (Still used occasionally) Over the last several decades it has been increasingly replaced by "Do you take..." answered by "I do." Perhaps the vows changed because of the way in which the understanding of the word "will" changed. Does anyone know if weddings are commonly enough performed in Esperanto for any traditional vows to exist? (Ĉu vi volas...? Ĉu vi prenos...?)