rikforto:However, eniri is not the subject. The jargon is that it is a null-subject sentence; eblas does not need to take a subject. In English, we add the dummy pronoun "it" to do the same thing. Once upon a time I read that this was illegal in Esperanto, but apparently I was misinformed.

Not sure what you mean by being misinformed about there being no dummy subjects in Esperanto. We don't use dummy subjects in Esperanto. Where did you see something about a dummy subject being ok?

rikforto:However, eniri is not the subject. The jargon is that it is a null-subject sentence; eblas does not need to take a subject. In English, we add the dummy pronoun "it" to do the same thing. Once upon a time I read that this was illegal in Esperanto, but apparently I was misinformed.

Compare the subjects of these sentences:
La patro (S) estas sana.
La venko (S) estas ebla.
La venko (S) eblas.
Venki (S) estas eble.
Venki (S) eblas.
Eniri (S) eblas.

"Eniri" is indeed the subject. According to your analysis, if "eblas = estas eble" does not take a subject, what syntactic role does "eniri" have?

In English there is much discussion and very little consensus about when the odd "it" is expletive, cataphoric or whatever else, especially in cleft sentences. But we do not need to import this English confusion to Esperanto.

opalo:My guess is that ĝi is a theatre, cinema, auditorium, or other place where temporary exit to buy a snack might be difficult.

altindiefanboy:Maybe "it" meaning "the store"?
Ĉu en [la vendejo] eblas aĉeti ion por manĝi?

Even then, I would still say that differently. "Ĉu en ĝi oni povas aĉeti ion por manĝi?" would be a more direct translation from English at least. I would prefer it.

So in conclusion, this unwieldy sentence is considered more of a "useful phrase" than e.g. "Ĉu oni povas aceti ion por manĝi tie/ĉi tie)?" Or, if it isn't a reference to something already mentioned, by specifying the 'it' in the sentence?

Is it any wonder people puzzle over these things?

Vestitor:Is it any wonder people puzzle over these things?

Well, eblas + (verb) is a completely routine construction and I think you maybe need more practice reading.

It's clearly not the eblas + verb that is in question. Maybe you need more reading practice?

erinja:

rikforto:However, eniri is not the subject. The jargon is that it is a null-subject sentence; eblas does not need to take a subject. In English, we add the dummy pronoun "it" to do the same thing. Once upon a time I read that this was illegal in Esperanto, but apparently I was misinformed.

Not sure what you mean by being misinformed about there being no dummy subjects in Esperanto. We don't use dummy subjects in Esperanto. Where did you see something about a dummy subject being ok?

Er, rather, I read null-subjects are not allowed. Dummy subjects are not. I was clearly not doing well with the whole "languages" thing yesterday.

Couldn't tell you where I saw that an explicit subject was required, but I am sure I did.

If something seemed to say that everything required a subject, then it must have been poorly worded. There is no other normal way to say certain things, other than without a subject. "Pluvas", for example.

erinja:If something seemed to say that everything required a subject, then it must have been poorly worded. There is no other normal way to say certain things, other than without a subject. "Pluvas", for example.

What is the 'it' in 'it's raining'; the rain itself?

Vestitor:It's clearly not the eblas + verb that is in question. Maybe you need more reading practice?

You just (immediately before my reply) inexplicably complained that this was "unwieldy". You started the thread by saying didn't even know what the sentence meant, even though you have more than 600 posts on these forums and ĝi was obviously just a building.

opalo:

Vestitor:It's clearly not the eblas + verb that is in question. Maybe you need more reading practice?

You just (immediately before my reply) inexplicably complained that this was "unwieldy". You started the thread by saying didn't even know what the sentence meant, even though you have more than 600 posts on these forums and ĝi was obviously just a building.

It's not that I couldn't read it, it's that it is a long-winded way of saying something (assuming it refers to a building at all, that is not implied). I offered a clearer alternative - buried in this pile of off-topic posts.

When I asked: what does it mean? I was being rhetorical.