This sentence sounds way too much like "Irás al parque" (You will go to the park) to me.
iri (v.) to go - from Latin īre. However, this form is only preserved in the future tenses of French and Spanish: the present tenses of that verb in those languages were replaced by the latin verb vādō.
This is an almost completely Spanish sentence, at least when it comes to etymology. :) "Nosotros vamos al parque"
When I first saw the sentence I thought it meant in Spanish "You are neither going to the park" haha
whatabout "Ni iras la parkon."? Can the accusative be used to describe motion to somewhere?
Actually you can, but since almost nobody drops al in this case, it will look weird.
Regarding pronunciation: the man says "iras al", the "s" before a vowel keeps the "s" sound just as expected, and doesn't change into a "z" like Portuguese, French and Spanish (some places).
But... He says "ala" instead of "al la", forming a "liaison" between those two "L", meaning an exception of the "bijective" or "one-to-one" correspondence between letters and sounds.
So, is his pronunciation "malbona"?
Yes. He is mispronuncing. Both L's must remain discrete. Nevertheless since too many people mixes both L's I advice you to keep this mispronuciation in mind, because you will hear it a lot.
It's kept with "la parko" because it modifies "la parko," not "iras." You might be able to get away with it if you're writing a poem and you make that inversion to preserve the rhyme scheme, though, but I'm not an Esperanto poet.
How can you tell if someone is saying, "We are going to the park," or if they're saying, "We go to the park"? Or do you just have to guess based on context?
What is the difference in meaning? I thought both meant the same in English. Unless "We are going to the park" is future tense, but that is obviously not the case here.
Well you use, "We go to the park," to say that you go to that park in general but you'd use, "We are going to the park," if your were going to go in the (near) future or if you were on your way already. The meanings are similar but not the same.
"Obviously not the case"? Does Esperanto have different endings depending on tense?
From the tips and notes on "Basics 1": "All present tense verbs end in -as, [...]." Yes, the endings determine the tense. See for example http://esperanto.davidgsimpson.com/eo-verbforms.html for a list of possible conjugations.
You can use this tenses for both uses, and rely on context. Nevertheless there is a compound tense (which will come up later in this course) which is used when you want to say emphatically that you are going to a place in that very moment.
Mi estas iranta al parko
Jes. "Look, it's what I'm doing while we're talking: I'm going to the park!" is indeed "Mi irantas al la parko."
If you're not stressing it like that, it'll just be "Mi iras al la parko."
In spanish it would be...ni iras al parko,nosotros vamos al parque,if "al"is in the sentence we dont need to add another article.
Mi iras al parko = I go to a park = Yo voy a un parque
Mi iras al la parko = I go to the park = Yo voy al parque
Summary: Do not confuse al & al la. THEY ARE DIFFERENT!!!
Spanish al IS NOT Esparanto al!!! They are false friends.
(I teach both Spanish and Esperanto, trust me)
More or less... It is not a short form. You just don't say it in that way in spanish. Its like redundant and sounds weird. It's incorrect indeed but you have the idea :)
Because if it ended in -a then it would be an adjective. Esperanto is (conveniently) particular about spelling denoting part of speech.
So similar to the Spanish: "Ni irás al parque" - you're not even going to the park. But the idea is the oppositte. o-o
Ni still confuses me as I often mix it with Swedish ni. Would've been easier if it were noi or something