Re: A Bulgarian spring custom

[CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!C.J.Fine>]

Mark on Ivan:
>
> >la cimast. du le pamoi masti pe le vensa noi jaica cikna binxo faile
> >mivmunje
>
> Minor stylistic point:  this use of ellipsized {ke'a} at the beginning of
> relative clauses is all well and good, but the {jai} conversion can be
> confusing, especially here where it's not necessary.  I think I'd have had
> an easier time with {le vensa noi le mivmunje cu cikna binxo ca ke'a} or
> even {le vensa noi ca ke'a le mivmunje cu cikna binxo}.

I don't agree. I found it qutie clear, and delightful.
>
> >vo'epedi'u se cmene zoiby. MARtenitsa by. noi zo mart. noi valsi la
> >cimast. le banblgaria cu te zbasu
>
> At first I though this was ungrammatical, but now I see that it is in fact
> grammatical, just real confusing:

I agree. It took me a couple of times through to make sense of the
nested "noi"s.
>
> Ooooh, waitasec.  You mean that the word is *made* from the Bulgarian word
> for the third month!  That doesn't *quite* come from your sentence, but
> maybe it does with proper filling in of ellipsized places.  Or maybe it
> would work better if I would take the time to look up up gismu and discover
> that {te zbasu} is building material and not assume that it's thing-made
> because I feel like like it.  Yeah, I guess it works fine.  I'll leave this
> meaningless commentary in anyway, so you can see the confusion; take it as
> you will.

It does work - and it does *quite* come from the sentence.
                        kolin