Esperanto speakers like to brag about the freedom of word order that the language provides. To an extent -- to a very great extent! -- this bragging is justified. Where English is, to some degree, locked into a subject-verb-object order in its sentences, and an adjective must generally precede the noun it modifies (there are exceptions to these rules, governed by some very special grammatical rules), Esperanto allows any permutation of [object, subject, verb], and the adjective is not only allowed to follow its noun as well as precede it, but can even be separated from it by other words in the sentence, without loss of comprehension. These new freedoms are made possible by, of course, the much-maligned -N ending, and the much-maligned noun- adjective agreement, respectively.
At a lower level, however, word order is not quite as free. "La" always precedes the noun with which it is associated (as does "tiu"). A preposition always precedes its object. And when we come to adverbs, we really have to watch where we put them.
The Esperanto adverb, like its counterparts in other European languages, has several functions. It can modify a verb (hence the name), an adjective, or even another adverb. In other words, while an adjective is an attribute of an object, an adverb is an attribute of an action or another attribute. Given this multiplicity of functions, it seems somehow unfair that the adverb can only have one (or, if it shows location, two) forms, where an adjective can have four.
The outcome of this is that, while you can move adjectives around to suit the circumstances and your own preferences of the moment, for an adverb to be correctly understood it has to go, preferably, before the word it modifies. For instance:
La libro aspektas ruĝe = The book looks red.
La libro vere aspektas ruĝe = The book truly looks red.
La libro aspektas vere ruĝe = The book looks truly red.
Of course, it doesn't hurt to put a noun in between an adverb and a verb, since the adverb can't modify a noun:
Vere la libro aspektas ruĝe = Truly, the book looks red.
This can even liven up your style a little.
Also, if there's only word that an adverb can modify, then obviously it doesn't have to precede that word, but can go just about anywhere:
Surtable la libro sidas = The book is sitting on the table.
La libro surtable sidas = The book is sitting on the table.
La libro sidas surtable = The book is sitting on the table.
On the other hand, there are a few words that are often classed as adverbs (you will find them listed as such in the Plena Analiza Gramatiko de Esperanto), but aren't. These are particles which can be attached not only to verbs, adjectives and adverbs, but also to nouns. I can think of four (or maybe five) offhand. These words should always be placed immediately before the word with which they're associated.
They are: ankaŭ, eĉ, ne (and, by extension, jes), nur.
Consider the following examples:
Eĉ la libro aspektas ruĝe = Even the book looks red (other things do, too).
La libro eĉ aspektas ruĝe = The book even looks red (it does other things, as well).
La libro aspektas eĉ ruĝe = The book even looks red (its appearance has some other qualities, too)
I've stuck jes in here because of its formal symmetry with ne. In actual practice, of course, that symmetry does not exist, because a sentence without ne is assumed to be a positive declaration; no positive particle is needed. There is a growing tendency these days, however, to use jes as an emphatic particle. So far, it would primarily be used only with a verb, as follows:
La libro ne aspektas ruĝe = The book doesn't look red
La libro jes aspektas ruĝe = The book most emphatically looks red
But there is no reason to assume that it can't be used with other types of words as well (this even happens in English, though usually as a parenthetical and literary remark):
La libro aspektas jes ruĝe = (approx) The book looks, yes, red
Simple exercises:
(1) Translate the following into Esperanto, using simple sentences containing only six words each. You may find that you don't want to use a standard (i.e. English) adjective-noun order, for better clarity.
It was not the boy who caught a big fish.
The boy did not catch a big fish.
It was not a big fish that the boy caught.
The boy caught a fish that was not big.
Don Harlow <donh@donh.best.vwh.net>