PrimeMinisterK:I've noticed that it seems like everyone who really knows something about Esperanto also knows a lot about grammar in general. Were you into languages before you started learning Esperanto, or did Esperanto teach you about grammar?

Totally not into grammar before.

Actually, I don't really know that much English grammar even now. I know the basics that they taught us in elementary school (nouns, adjectives, adverbs, etc.) but not really a lot more than that. Most of what I've picked up beyond the basics has been specifically because of Esperanto (and therefore almost exclusively oriented around Esperanto and how it maps to English).

This means that sometimes I am a little uncomfortable explaining grammatical concepts, because I may not know the actual academic terms for what I'm trying to say. But I figure if I can communicate something clearly using descriptive language, even if I'm not always using the completely correct terminology, I'm OK with that.

The direct object comes up a LOT in Esperanto, because it's the thing that gets the -n marking, which is probably the most confusing or troublesome part of Esperanto for most people. The accusative case was a massive headache for me, but I faced it down and learned to respect it. It is an integral part of how the language functions.

My issue is with transitivity, something I think Zamenhof made a mistake on, but which I still accept because the language ain't changin' to suit my tastes. I prefer the looser way English does it, where I can boil AND I can boil water and the existence or lack of an object makes clear which is meant. That isn't the way it we do it in Esperantujo, though, where you have to memorize the transitivity of every single verb and thus when to use -ig, when to use -iĝ, and when to use neither ("Mi bolas, sed la akvon mi boligas"). I still continually make mistakes in this area, because not all verbs are transitive in ways that I logically expect.

The correction is in black. I didn't correct the imprecise things you sometimes wrote if they work (for example some parts of the the first sentence).
_ means that you should not have written the accusative.

PrimeMinisterK:

Zam_franca:Here's a few 'practice sentences' that you can translate:

Excellent, thanks! Let's give this a try.

Zam_franca:Do you have any charger that I could use?

Ĉu vi havas sarĝilon kiun mi povas uzi?

Zam_franca:I have many allergies.

Mi havas multe da alergioj_.

* Totally guessing on "multe da" here, but it seems I read something about this regarding quantities of something.

Zam_franca:
He is a 16 000 times liar.

Hmm. I'm really not sure. Actually, in English this is kind of a strange sentence as well. Are you saying he has lied 16,000 times?

Zam_franca:I love travelling in other countries.

Mi ŝatas (/ŝategas) vojaĝi en aliaj landoj.

Zam_franca:She met him yesterday.

Ŝi renkontis lin hieraŭ.

Zam_franca:We often take the train in order to see our friends in Geneva.

Ofte ni vojaĝas (/vojaĝadas) per trajno por vidi niajn amikojn en Ĝenevo.

* That may not quite be what you're looking for. I'm not really sure how to say "to take the train."

Zam_franca:If you had a friend that lives in a foreign country, would you visit him?

Se vi havus amikon kiu_ vivas en eksterlando [kiu vivas eksterlande works too and it sounds more natural to me, but as far as I know you were correct) ĉu vi vizitus lin?

* Whoa. We're getting into very unfamiliar territory here. I remember reading something about a conditional mood, and this seems like it might be the time to use it. But I really have no idea what I'm doing. I don't even know if ĉu can come in the middle of a sentence like that.

Yes, I meant someone that lied 16 000 times.

Yes, ĉu can come in the middle of a sentence.

You didn't make so much mistakes! Well done!

Also note the difference between

A) Mi ŝatas vojaĝi en aliaj landoj.
B) Mi ŝatas vojaĝi en aliajn landojn.

A means: I like to visit other countries and to travel around inside these countries.
B means: I like to travel from one country to others.

Compare:
C) Mi kuris sub la arbo.
D) Mi kuris sub la arbon.

C means: I was running around in circles under the tree. The whole running took place under the tree.
D means: I started running at some place away from the tree and then ran under it. The running started away from the tree and ended under the tree.

With "in" and "on" it is easier for English speakers, because you have "into" and "onto". However Esperanto does not only make a difference between "in" and "into", and "on" and "onto", but also between "under" and "under-to", "beside" and "beside-to", "below" and "below-to", "over" and "over-to", etc.

Every single Esperanto preposition has two usages:
If it is followed by the nominative (without -n), then it denotes a location.
If it is followed by the accusative (with -n), then it denotes a direction.

Here a quick and incomplete overview of the accusative in Esperanto:

1) Direct object.
The direct object of a transitive verb is marked with accusative when it (its head) is a noun or a pronoun: Mi batas mian amikon. Mi batas vin.

2) Direction.
2.1) Direction with a preposition
Local prepositions with the accusative denote direction: en la domo = in the house; en la domon = into the house.
2.2) Direction of local adverbs
Local adverbs like tie, kie, etc mark accusative to denote direction: tie = there; tien = thither; kie = where; kien = whither
2.3) Direction of locatives
Some noun derive a locative by the -e ending: hejmo = a home; hejme = at home; arbaro = a forest; arbare = in a forest.
Those locatives can add -n to denote direction: hejmen = (going) home; arbaren = (in)to the forest
3.4) Direction of nouns
This usage is archaic and not used very much nowadays: Mi vojaĝis Parizon = I travelled to Paris.

3) Measure
In this case the accusative is generally followed by an adjective that describes a measurable quantity: longa, larĝa, vasta, pezo, alta, etc.
Mia auto estas tri metrojn longa. = My car is three meters long.
Mi trovis du kilogramojn pezan terpomon. = I found a two kilogramme (heavy) potato.

- - - -

When not to use the accusative:

1) The subject of an intransitive verb
No matter whether the subject of an intransitive verb is an agent (I run) or a patient (I fall), you never mark it with the accusative: Mi kuras, mi falas.

2) After non-local prepositions
For example "mi havas multe da problemoj" or "mi parolas pri leono".

3) Direct objects that are not nouns or pronouns
For example "mi vidis multe", "mi volas kuri" or "mi vidis dek".

4) Predicate nouns
For example "mi estas sana" or "mi pentris ŝin nuda".

Tonight I came up with some of my own sentences and tried to translate them. If anyone can point out all of my failures I will grudgingly be grateful to you.

1. Which book is yours?
Kiu libro estas via?

2. I learned everything that I know at the university. 
Mi lernis io ke mi scias ĉe la universitato. 

3. She will throw that ball into the catcher's mitt. 
Ŝi ĵetos tiun pilkon en la kaptoganton. 

4. They didn't find the boys anywhere. 
Ili ne trovis ie la knabinojn. 

5. That is something I do not understand. 
Tio estas io mi ne komprenas. 

6. He hopes to live forever, but he knows this is impossible. 
Li esperas vivi ĉiam, sed li scias ĉi tiu estas neebla. 

7. I wrote my name in the ledger, where the signatures go.  
Mi skribis mian nomon en la gastolibron, kie iras la subskribojn. 

(I'm not sure if this is the right use of iri, but I figured I'd try it.)

8. The boxer will win all of his fights, because he is the best. 
La boksisto gajnos ĉion lian konkursojn, ĉar li estas la plej bona. 

(I'm not sure if "ĉar" and "tial ke" mean the same thing, but I've seen both as translations of "because.")

9. That is where the building is, which they bought. 
Tiu kie estas la konstruaĵon, kiun ili aĉetis. 

10. What is the best movie of all time?
Kio estas la plej bona filmo, de ĉio tempo?

flanke:
Oh,I also used it.Actually,I used Verda Reto（Chinese Esperanto Website: http://reto.cn/php/hanyu/ ）,Kurso de Esperanto,Duolingo,and also lernu! when I began to learn Esperanto in 2017.

I am using Duolingo as well, but there's one thing that doesn't make sense to me:

It will say something like, "What is the word for dog" and the option will be hundon, not hundo. That doesn't make sense, since hundon would only be used in the context of a sentence, and not by itself as a vocabulary word. I have no idea why it's like that but it really bothers me.

flanke:By the way,there's the official grammar（ https://bertilow.com/pmeg/ ） which is written by a member of the unique Esperanto official (lingual) institution Akademio de Esperanto.And the grammar in lernu!（ https://lernu.net/gramatiko ）is its translated simple/easy version.Just refer to them.

Thanks for the heads up!

flanke:I think you should say:

Ĉu vi havas ŝarĝilon kiun mi povas uzi

Why kiu and not ke? Is that just your preference or is ke incorrect?

flanke:Mi havas multe da alergioj or Mi havas multajn alergiojn

Hmm, so do words not take the -n if they're quantities?

flanke:
Ofte ni vojaĝas per trajno por ke vidu niajn amikojn en Ĝenevo
(por ke faru=in order to do )

Hmm, okay. That is something I will have to try to remember.

So what are some instances where por would be used by itself?

flanke:
Se vi havus amikon kiu vivas en fremda lando,ĉu vi vizitus lin?

Hmm, the dictionary here gives "eksterlando" as the only word for foreign country. Also, I guess I am still confused on when the correlative gets the -n and when it doesn't.

Thanks for your help!

Metsis:
Basics of grammar is taught in the elementary school in my country. What are the parts of speech (nouns, verbs, adjectives, numerals, adverbs) and how to do some elementary parsing (what is subject, predicate, object, attribute, predicative). How could you otherwise understand your own language? How could you possibly learn other languages that are taught in the school?

I suspect that kids in any developed nation grow up learning grammar in school, but I don't think most people retain most of that knowledge consciously. They know how to speak because they've been doing it all their lives. They don't need to be able to explain what the pluperfect tense is to use it properly. (I cannot explain what the pluperfect tense is, by the way.)

RiotNrrd:
My issue is with transitivity, something I think Zamenhof made a mistake on, but which I still accept because the language ain't changin' to suit my tastes. I prefer the looser way English does it, where I can boil AND I can boil water and the existence or lack of an object makes clear which is meant. That isn't the way it we do it in Esperantujo, though, where you have to memorize the transitivity of every single verb and thus when to use -ig, when to use -iĝ, and when to use neither ("Mi bolas, sed la akvon mi boligas"). I still continually make mistakes in this area, because not all verbs are transitive in ways that I logically expect.

So I think I can kind of use context clues here, but just to be clear, what is transitivity exactly?

Zam_franca:The correction is in black. I didn't correct the imprecise things you sometimes wrote if they work (for example some parts of the the first sentence).

I mentioned earlier in the thread that I have done some professional writing. I was a freelance magazine writer for a few publications.

I hope one day to be able to compose in Esperanto well enough to get published, which means that I not only have to learn to write without errors, but also write in a way that isn't clunky and that comes across as attractive prose which sounds good to the ear. I'd like to not only compose some original work, but also do some translation.

Likewise, I have an interest in filmmaking and would like to create films in Esperanto, which seems like something the community DESPERATELY needs, because I haven't found much, and what I have found isn't very good.

Hopefully I'll get there!

Zam_franca:I love travelling in other countries.

Mi ŝatas (/ŝategas) vojaĝi en aliaj landoj.

We often take the train in order to see our friends in Geneva.

Ofte ni vojaĝas (/vojaĝadas) per trajno por vidi niajn amikojn en Ĝenevo.

This -egas and -adas is foreign to me. What's that all about? Must be in a lesson I haven't gotten to yet.

Zam_franca:You didn't make so much mistakes! Well done!

Thanks! Maybe it's not hopeless after all!

nornen:Also note the difference between

A) Mi ŝatas vojaĝi en aliaj landoj.
B) Mi ŝatas vojaĝi en aliajn landojn.

A means: I like to visit other countries and to travel around inside these countries.
B means: I like to travel from one country to others.

Compare:
C) Mi kuris sub la arbo.
D) Mi kuris sub la arbon.

C means: I was running around in circles under the tree. The whole running took place under the tree.
D means: I started running at some place away from the tree and then ran under it. The running started away from the tree and ended under the tree.

With "in" and "on" it is easier for English speakers, because you have "into" and "onto". However Esperanto does not only make a difference between "in" and "into", and "on" and "onto", but also between "under" and "under-to", "beside" and "beside-to", "below" and "below-to", "over" and "over-to", etc.

Every single Esperanto preposition has two usages:
If it is followed by the nominative (without -n), then it denotes a location.
If it is followed by the accusative (with -n), then it denotes a direction.

Thanks. Hmm.

This seems like something that is going to give me trouble, but that can probably be mastered with a little practice.

Would you mind giving me a few practice sentences to translate? I appreciate the help.