From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Feb 28 11:29:50 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:29:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from f93.law8.hotmail.com ([216.33.241.93] helo=hotmail.com)
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 18oqCc-0004Us-00
	for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:29:50 -0800
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:29:11 -0800
Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
	Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:29:10 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2]
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: {nalgundei} Would somebody like to check this,
 please?
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:29:10 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F93u2EmR336uqMuahkU0001fc0e@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Feb 2003 19:29:11.0155 (UTC) FILETIME=[AB798430:01C2DF5F]
X-archive-position: 197
X-Approved-By: jjllambias@hotmail.com
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-original-sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-list: lojban-beginners


la jexOm cusku di'e

>I took this lujvo in 
>http://www.lojban.org/files/draft-dictionary/NORALUJV.txt
>
>{nalgundei}
>na'e+gunka+djedi:
>non-working day, weekend day or holiday:
>x1 = djedi1 (full day), x2 = gunka1 (worker), x3 = djedi3 (full day 
>standard)
>
>And {djedi} is
>x1 is x2 full days in duration (default is 1 day) by standard x3
>
>Isn't the duration you mention the djedi2 that is no more in the 
>{nalgundei}
>signature?

I usually don't look up lujvo in wordlists. Since the duration
of the vacation makes sense as a place, I don't know why it was
dropped in the lujvo definition. It makes little sense to have
the standard x3 and not the number x2. In any case, I understood
what you meant quite well.

> > I would probably use {di'e} instead of {ti}.
>
>Isn't {di'e} more about what is said than about what is shown?

{di'e} is "what follows". I would use "ti" to refer to a
photograph that I'm holding in my hand and showing to you,
for example. But I find using {ti} in a written text to
refer to something else on the page not quite right.
But worse is using {ti} to refer to something just
described which is not even present, neither on the
page nor where the speaker is, i.e. instead of {la'e di'u}).
In English we can use "this" for any of {ti}, {di'u/dei/di'e},
or {la'e di'u/di'e}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail