A Bulgarian spring custom

["Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!shoulson>]

>Date:         Mon, 2 Mar 1992 22:33:09 GMT
>From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad%COGSCI.EDINBURGH.AC.UK@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>

>>  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'm pretty sure it's legal, though it may not be preferable.  Maybe
{prenrbulgaria}, or {prenrblgaria} (wow, 5 consonants!)

>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.

(*shrug*).  It's your le'avla, whatever makes you happy.  I don't speak
Bulgarian, so I sort of assumed it really was a {u}.  You're the expert.  I
find {blgaria} quite pronouncable.

>>  >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.)

And I should have made sense of it anyway.  But yeah, it's nice to throw in
the {ke'a} now and then.

>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.

Probably {krasi} would be better.

>>  the-set-of colors of the human (skin as-well-as blood) are signs (urging)
>`Urging'?  I meant `symbolising'.

I was reading the gi'uste hurriedly.  Pay me no mind. :-)

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

{lenu} or {lesi'o} or {ledu'u} or {leza'i} or {lo*}.  Take your pick.

>>  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?

Nothing major, except that you used the inclusive or.  Doesn't really
matter much, it's a matter of preference, and I'd very likely do the same.

>>  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.

Well, as soon as you use {da}, you assert the existence of one or more,
unless you explicitly quantify it otherwise.  {lo} might be safer, since it
doesn't imply existence.

~mark