From jexom@free.fr Fri Feb 28 07:48:44 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:45:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from postfix3-2.free.fr ([213.228.0.169])
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 18omkd-0008So-00
	for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:48:44 -0800
Received: from imp2-2.free.fr (imp2-2.free.fr [213.228.0.152])
	by postfix3-2.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 527DDC141
	for <lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org>; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:48:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: by imp2-2.free.fr (Postfix, from userid 33)
	id 3BC208C0AC; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:48:42 +0100 (CET)
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: {nalgundei} Would somebody like to check this, please?
Message-ID: <1046447322.3e5f84da063f2@imp.free.fr>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:48:42 +0100 (CET)
From: "jexOm." <jexom@free.fr>
References: <F183dutox7nyeKzGZuN00000516@hotmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <F183dutox7nyeKzGZuN00000516@hotmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.6
X-Originating-IP: 130.213.142.68
X-archive-position: 194
X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
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: jexom@free.fr
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-list: lojban-beginners

> la jexOm cusku di'e
> 
> >mi puza mo'u se nalgundei ka'a la lojbanistan.
> 
> I would expect the x2 of {nalgundei} to be a number,
> the number of days of vacation, and perhaps x3 to be
> the non-worker. But there are no strict rules for this.

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?

That's why I translated "I am in holidays" with {mi se nalgundei}.
I don't know if there are better ways to say this. Actually, I wanted "I am in
vacation".

> {seka'a la lojbanistan}, if that was the destination.
> {ka'a} tags the goer.

Yes, of course, you're right.

> >.i ti te kacma le nu lo co'a cerni zo'e le ca'u xaskoi
> 
> {le nu co'a cerni}, no {lo} in front of {co'a cerni}.

Yes, that's it. I didn't understand why it didn't parse fully...

> I would probably use {di'e} instead of {ti}.

Isn't {di'e} more about what is said than about what is shown?

Thanks a lot for your time. This was helpfull, I feel like I make some progress...
  Jérôme.