I have a few questions about a passage from a book I am using to learn esperanto and was wondering if someone could answer them. The passage is
"Miaj Junaj amiko kay amikino, kay ankaŭ ilia patrino, iris hieraŭ al la parko... La infanoj promenis, kaj baldaŭ ili vidis ke grizaj nuboj venas sur la ĉielon, kaj mia juna amikino timis ke pluvos. Ŝi Parolis al la patrino pri la nuboj kay la pluvo, montris al ŝi la grizajn nubojn, kay diris ke si volas iri al la domo. Ili komencis marŝi al la strato, kay preskaŭ kuris, ĉar ili ne havis ombrelon. Tra la fenstroj de la domoj oni rigardis ilin, kay la knabo miris ĉu li kay liaj patrino kay fratino amuzas tiujn virojn kay virinojn. Tamen la patrino diri ke ŝi ne timas ke ŝi amuzos tiujn, sed ke ŝi timas pluvon.Ŝi kaj la filino volas esti zorgaj pri almenaŭ la novaj ĉapeloj. La filo diris al Ŝi ke li ankaŭ timis la pluvon."

First I am having a hard figuring out what "montris al ŝi la grizajn nubojn" means because the words seem to be jumbled up in a weird way. I am having a heard time trying to visualize what is happening. Also why is "grizajn nubojn" marked with "n"?

Then I am having a hard time figuring out who the pronouns refer to. For example "Tamen la patrino diri ke ŝi ne timas ke ŝi amuzo tiujn, sed ke ŝi timas pluvon" Is the "ŝi" refer to the mother or the daughter.? Could you use "si" to get rid of this confusion? Could you use "si" in "La filo diris al Ŝi ke li ankaŭ timis la pluvon" instead of "li"?

sublimestyle:
First I am having a hard figuring out what "montris al ŝi la grizajn nubojn" means because the words seem to be jumbled up in a weird way. I am having a heard time trying to visualize what is happening. Also why is "grizajn nubojn" marked with "n"?

In Esperanto the direct (or accusative) object is marked with a -n, that is one of the basic rules of the language.

sublimestyle:
Then I am having a hard time figuring out who the pronouns refer to. For example "Tamen la patrino diri ke ŝi ne timas ke ŝi amuzo tiujn, sed ke ŝi timas pluvon" Is the "ŝi" refer to the mother or the daughter.? Could you use "si" to get rid of this confusion? Could you use "si" in "La filo diris al Ŝi ke li ankaŭ timis la pluvon" instead of "li"?

There is an error in this sentence. There are also errors above, f.e. the letter y (kay) does not exist in Esperanto. I don't know if you mistyped or if the errors were in the original text.

I understand that the direct object gets the "n" ending, but I am confused when using the accusative ending with prepositions. For example one could say "Mi iris al la domo" and you would not have to use the accusative. but to say you went into the house you could use the accusative of direction like in the example "Mi iris al la domon." I understand this much but with the sentence "montris al ŝi grizajn nubojn" the preposition and accusative ending are confusing me because I do not know if it is expressing motion or just marking the direct object. Maybe I'm just over thinking this one, but I have a hard time visualizing what is happening in this sentence. I am also ocd when it comes to reading anything. I have to understand everything or I get annoyed. I know this is a bad trait for language learning and I have been lectured on it before, but I just can not overcome it.

With the word "kay" I just mistyped "kaj." I seem to do that a lot for some reason.

Also, when you say their is an error in the sentence, is an error with pronoun usage?

In the phrase "Ŝi... montris al ŝi grizajn nubojn", the second "ŝi" is the indirect object, and "grizajn nubojn" is the direct object. The preposition is only associated with the indirect object, and not the direct object, which (correctly) gets the accusative -n. To make it clearer, you could put parentheses around "al ŝi" without affecting the meaning. You could also rearrange the words: "Ŝi... montris grizajn nubojn al ŝi".

In the sentence, the daughter is talking to the mother about the weather, and showing her (the mother) the grey clouds. So, the first "ŝi" in the sentence is the daughter, and the second refers to the mother. If the second referred to the daughter as well, it would have been "si", not "ŝi".

The translation of the sentence is: She spoke to her mother about the clouds and the rain, showed (to) her the grey clouds, and said she wanted* to go to the house.

----------
* In English, indirect speech is usually expressed in the past tense, but in Esperanto it is expressed using the tense that would have occurred at the time - the present, in this case (thus volas, rather than volis).

sublimestyle:For example one could say "Mi iris al la domo" and you would not have to use the accusative. but to say you went into the house you could use the accusative of direction like in the example "Mi iris al la domon."

Also, when you say their is an error in the sentence, is an error with pronoun usage? ("Tamen la patrino diri ke ŝi ne timas ke ŝi amuzo tiujn, sed ke ŝi timas pluvon")

Remember, the accusative of direction is never used with the pronoun "al" because it always shows direction. There are some others like that, such as "ĝis" and "tra." The accusative is only used in such situations if there could be confusion without it. Ex- Mi promenis in the ĝardeno = I walked around in the garden. / Mi promenis en the ĝardenon = I took a walk into the garden.

I was confused by the way the sentence was worded but the story sounded familiar to me and, sure enough I found it in Ivy Kellerman's "A Complete Grammar of Esperanto." The sentences prior to that one gave me the context I needed. "Ili komencis marŝi al la strato, kaj preskaŭ kuris, ĉar ili ne havis ombrelon. Tra la fenestroj de al domoj oni rigardis ilin, kaj la knabo miris ĉu li kaj liaj partino kaj filino amuzas tiujn virojn kaj virinojn. Tamen la patrino diris ke ŝi ne timas ke ŝi amuzos tiujn, sed ke ŝi timas la pluvon." Translation: They began to walk to the street, and they were almost running because they didn't have an umbrella. Through the windows people watched them and the boy wondered if he and his mother and sister amuzed those men and women. His mother said that she wasn't afraid of whether she would amuze them, she was afraid of the rain.

I hope this will make it clearer to you.The difference between direct and indirect objects becomes clearer as you make progress in the language. And you're right with your observation that you must be flexible when learning another language and not expect everything to be crystal clear right away. Word order is often different than in English, and things often just won't translate exactly word for word.