I think manki has a different meaning and cannot be used here.

I also think that there is no need to directly translate miss in this context, the guy knows that he wasn't there.

Therefore one could say:

Estis bonega festo, estas domaĝe ke vi ne ĉeestis.

This would also avoid the -intus form.

Manki means "to be lacking". For example Mankas al la urbo flughaveno, "The town lacks an airport". Thus the subject of manki is the thing that is wanted and lacking, not the person who wants for something.

To translate "miss" in the sense of "giving up" we have rezigni pri, although "miss" in the sense of "neglect" or "pass by" could be preterlasi, and "miss" in the sense of failing to catch something (like a train) would be mistrafi.

horsto:I also think that there is no need to directly translate miss in this context, the guy knows that he wasn't there.

Why not translate it? It's only like saying 'verpassen' in German. Maltrafi and preterlasi fit the bill perfectly (perhaps in slightly different ways as I mentioned in my previous post - but there does seem to be a considerable amount of overlap in actual usage.)

Vi mankis al mi, kiam vi estis for la tutan monaton = I missed you when you were away for the whole month. (ie. I was lonely etc, longing for your return...)

In terms of the party yesterday, then we could perhaps say 'Vi mankis al mi dum/cxe la festo' = I missed you (was sad and lonely without you) during/at the party.

If you just said 'Vi mankis cxe la festo' (without the 'al iu' part), then this seems to literally mean 'you were lacking/missing at the party', ie you weren't there! Very similar to 'Vi forestis cxe la festo...' (You were absent from the party) Although, maybe there is a distinction: "Miaj plej bonaj amikoj venis al mia festo, nur mankis vi" = My best friends came to my party, only you were missing (forestis doesn't seem like such a good choice for this context..)

Maybe I'm not completely accurate with all this, but that's my impression so far. Going on a camping trip for a few days now. Enjoy the weekend!

Chainy:If you just said 'Vi mankis cxe la festo' (without the 'al iu' part), then this seems to literally mean 'you were lacking/missing at the party', ie you weren't there! \

How about "Vi mankis al la festo"? I know - it makes no sense, how can an abstract concept have an opinion that someone was missing? But we do say "the life of the party" amongst various other ambiguous things that hint that humans sort of anthropomorphise parties and social gatherings and pretend the party is indeed a living being. So that could work as a playful way of saying "naw, the party missed you " to have a go at someone who didn't attend and make them feel guilty about there choice

I am not a native English speaker.
But like most other humans I am able to think and use logic.
I read all these debates over should and must things.
And I came out with a big WOW.
Should Esperanto adjust itself with any language or it is itself a perfect and logical language?
Is English or French or Sanskrit the babysitter of Esperanto?
The way you guys are debating says that Esperanto needs to be supported by other languages.
Have you ever argued about how to say this or that in French?
For example.... If there is not similar term for "laugh my ass off" in Esperanto should we argue about that?
There is no similar term for above example in Persian and we do not think we lack something.
Does Esperanto lack anything? Should Esperanto being adjusted or justified by other languages or any language has right to get permission to Esperanto to be as it is?

ka_veh:I am not a native English speaker.
But like most other humans I am able to think and use logic.
I read all these debates over should and must things.
And I came out with a big WOW.
Should Esperanto adjust itself with any language or it is itself a perfect and logical language?
Is English or French or Sanskrit the babysitter of Esperanto?
The way you guys are debating says that Esperanto needs to be supported by other languages.
Have you ever argued about how to say this or that in French?
For example.... If there is not similar term for "laugh my ass off" in Esperanto should we argue about that?
There is no similar term for above example in Persian and we do not think we lack something.
Does Esperanto lack anything? Should Esperanto being adjusted or justified by other languages or any language has right to get permission to Esperanto to be as it is?

Nobody's trying to unnaturally bend Esperanto to fit the whims of the English language! I think it's normal to have difficulties finding the right equivalent expression in a foreign language... I'm sure there are quite a few expressions that work brilliantly in Persian, but then when you try and put it in English or Esperanto (or possibly any other language) then it's a big flop!

I think everyone would agree with you that when learning a foreign language (including Esperanto) there always comes a point where you have to make the leap into thinking in the foreign language, manipulate it according to its rules, rather than the rules of your mother tongue.

I think the discussion on this thread has been useful for native English speakers as it has helped us to get a better feel for how Esperanto copes with 'should' and 'must'. Clearly not in the same way as in English!

Of course any language has 'permission to be as it is'. Nobody would argue with that. Does our discussion here really suggest otherwise?! I don't think so. I'm pretty sure that all the participants here were just interested in learning about how Esperanto works, rather than try to impose anything on it!

I've been teaching English as a foreign language for many years and I constantly get questioned along the lines of 'yeah, but how would you say this in English...?' And then I sometimes get confronted with the opinion that English is somehow a 'poor' language if it doesn't have the exact equivalent phrase! There you go, it's quite a normal frustration for people learning foreign languages. Obviously, anyone who sticks with their studies soon realises that any accusations of a language being 'poor' for such a reason are extremely silly. It's just a matter of a different mindset, one that takes time to get into... But frustrated questions are part of the process of getting there!

I think that ka_veh was not referring to the people who are trying to find appropriate ways to translate their thoughts into Esperanto.

These debates can sometimes degenerate into people complaining that Esperanto doesn't make this or that distinction, or complaining that Esperanto doesn't have a word for some particular word that their native language has. I think this is what ka_veh is referring to, and to me it is a problem, because people who make a big deal about these things tend to be the same ones who have many ideas about changing Esperanto to fit their idea of what's right or needed.

I've got a lil' something to say. The new practise of letting the inclusion of vi change the meaning of 2nd-person imperatives (for example: iru for = go away!, but vi iru for = you should go away) actually violates the following part of The Fundamento: The verb does not change its form for numbers or persons. This is because the distinction cannot apply in the 1st person (i.e. there's only ni iru for) so we have a situation where different persons effectively have different conjugations.

As Miland said earlier, there's no Esperanto root meaning "should" as such, but as the first replier said, there's the suffixes end and ind and I think it's in this that we have our solution to the "should problem". For example, for "we should go away" we could say ni endas iri for or ni estas irendaj for or ni estas forirendaj. (Having said this, I worry that end is too similar to dev - but the fact that devi isn't being used arguably conveys the idea that the meaning is weaker.)

Another idea I had a couple of years ago was the imperative of devi, e.g. ni devu iri for.

I don't like your "endas" ideas.

And at any rate, "end" means "must". We must go is different than we should go, so it's a poor translation of the idea.

I don't see it that "iru for" has a different meaning than "vi iru for", per se. The exclamation point makes a difference. I could tell someone, in a calm and rational way "Iru for", and it would be taken as more of a suggestion than a command, akin to "Vi iru for."

Similarly, "Vi iru for!" shouted at someone would almost certainly be taken as a command.

The u ending is not a command by definition. It's a command, a request, or a wish. Technically the tone of voice would tell the listener which of those things it is, plus context - not the inclusion of a pronoun.