A Bulgarian spring custom

[Ivan A Derzhanski <cbmvax!uunet!COGSCI.EDINBURGH.AC.UK!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!iad>]

>  From: CJ FINE <C.J.Fine@bradford>
>  Date: Mon, 2 Mar 92 16:07:08 GMT
>
>       .i [le'i skari pe le [remna skapi jo'u ciblu]] cu sinxa
>       [fole kazyka'o] ki'ule[du'u da [poi remna] cu se flira [lo dukse
>       bele[ka blabi] .a le[ka xunre]] ???cu cusku ledu'u da bilma
>  I can't find anything for that "cu cusku" to attach to. Perhaps you need
>  another "lenu" before "da poi remna"?

I need another {lenu} before {ledu'u}.  `The colours of human skin and
blood symbolise health, because, if someone is too pale or too flushed,
it means that he is ill.'

>  > ni'o zu'i dasni la'ezoiby. MARtenitsa by. ji'elenu viska lo cipnkikonia
>
>  Be careful. "ji'e" has no idea of time in it.

Oops.  What does it have an idea of?  Space?

>  "ca'olepu'inu viska" might
>  be better (if "pu'i" is the anticipative - I'm not sure) or more
>  prosaically "pujenaicalemu'i viska".

{pujenaica} is actually incorrect, because obviously {le puzi dasni}
will be wearing the marchie (word I just made up) {ca lenu viska} and
even probably {bazi lenu viska} the stork.  What matters is that he
should take it off shortly after that.

>  Date:        Mon, 2 Mar 1992 10:45:43 -0500
>  From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@EDU.COLUMBIA.CTR>
>
>  >la cimast. du le pamoi masti pe le vensa noi jaica cikna binxo faile
>  >mivmunje
>
>  <...> the {jai} conversion can be
>  confusing, especially here where it's not necessary.

I think I was following the old rule "never make it simple if you can
make it complicated".  Or just showing off my command of {jai}.  But I
have nothing against {le vensa noi le mivmunje cu cikna binxo ca ke'a}
and {le vensa noi ca ke'a le mivmunje cu cikna binxo}.

I take it {mivmunje} worked well for `nature'?

>  I know Nick likes to use 4-rafsi in le'avla <...>.  This would
>  yield something like {prenbulgaria}, <...>

I'm not sure this is a legal le'avla.  You shouldn't have to get to
the very end of the word to find out that it is not a lujvo.

I object against the {u} in {bul}.  The original language has {y},
which I removed in order to (1) make the word a legal le'avla and (2)
obtain an impermissible cluster.

>  >vo'epedi'u se cmene zoiby. MARtenitsa by. noi zo mart. noi valsi la
>  >cimast. le banblgaria cu te zbasu

With an elided {ke'a} at the very end.  (I shouldn't have elided it.)

`The x1 of the prior sentence (ie the thing I'm wearing on my collar
now) has the name "martenica", which (sc. the name) is such that
"mart", which is the word for `March' in Bulgarian, is the source
whereof it (sc. the antecedent of the relative clause, ie the word
"martenica") is made.'

zbasu  fa producer  fe product  fi source
te zbasu  fa source  fe product

I insist on the conversion, because I really don't care who derived
the word for `marchie' from the word for `mart'.  But I'm sure {zbasu}
is not the best word for word-building.

>  >le'i skari pe le remna skapi
>  >jo'u ciblu cu sinxa fole kazyka'o ki'uledu'u da poi remna cu se flira
>  >lo dukse beleka blabi .a leka xunre cu cusku ledu'u da bilma
>
>  I think this one's ungrammatical:

Yes.

>  the-set-of colors of the human (skin as-well-as blood) are signs (urging)

`Urging'?  I meant `symbolising'.

>  the quality-of-health because-of

I omitted a {lenu} here (or something similar - what's the best way to
say `the fact that'?).

>  the-sentence something[it exists!] that is
>  human is be-faced by something-excessive in (the-quality-of being-white
>  and/or the-quality-of being-red) ?!X!X? expresses the sentence:
>  that-something is ill.
>
>  Note also that you're asserting the existence of a
>  sick person who is pale and/or flushed (can you be both?),

No, but so what?

>  not saying that if someone is pale/flushed, then he is sick.

I thought I wasn't asserting it, given that I was postulating the
existence of this person within a {du'u}-abstraction.  But maybe I
should think a little more about this.

Ivan