"The girl needs permission to go into the city."
Translation:La knabino bezonas permeson iri en la urbon.
Laŭ mi, when the proposition is a "directional" type such as "en/in", the "directional -n" can follow the proposition to clarify the action ("in vs into").
Volitive in Esperanto is really confusing to me. From other very similar sentences, I would expect "iru" in this case. Can anyone explain why "iri" is better here?
Lernu diras, "Volitiva verbo, verbo kun U-finaĵo, montras, ke la ago aŭ stato ne estas reala, sed dezirata, volata, ordonata aŭ celata."
Because you only get one main verb in a sentence, (which in this is "needs / bezonas,") and that's the one that gets conjugated. The other is just an infinitive.
In English, the infinitive is "to" + the root, here "to go." In esperanto, that's root + i, here "iri."
So "Ŝi bezonas permeson iri al la urbo."
I can see why that would be annoying. My guess is that the course authors were making a distinction between "entering" and "going into" a city. I suspect if you reported it, it would be added as an alternative.
Thanks. I'll report it next time, assuming I remember to type or choose "eniri".
But ... is there really any distinction in meaning between "entering" and "going into"? "Entering" does seem a bit more formal, but I wouldn't expect the difference between "eniri" and "iri en" to be one of formality.