A Bulgarian spring custom

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

>Date:         Thu, 5 Mar 1992 13:40:00 GMT
>From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad%COGSCI.ED.AC.UK@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>

>>  Date:        Tue, 3 Mar 1992 10:33:45 -0500
>>  From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@EDU.COLUMBIA.CTR>
>>  >Date:         Mon, 2 Mar 1992 22:33:09 GMT
>>  >From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad%COGSCI.EDINBURGH.AC.UK@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
>>  >I'm not sure this [sc. {prenbulgaria}] 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.
>I think it said something about there having to be an impermissible
>consonant cluster in the first so-and-so-many lerfu of the word.

Yes, but that's an impermissible *initial*, so as prevent *tosmabru
dissolution.  You can't have impermissible *medials* (not counting vocalic
consonsants) in general.  Since "nb" isn't a permissible initial,
{prenbulgaria} is okay.  Am I right on this?

>>  >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.
>It is not a matter of making me happy, merely of deriving the le'avla
>from what the country is called in her own language.  The original
>vowel is {y}, replaced by {u} or {o} in languages that lack {y} as a
>full-fledged vowel, such as German or Esperanto.  Lojban needn't do that.

I assumed it was {u} because so many languages lack schwa as a full-fledged
vowel, so I didn't know Bulgarian had it.  Using the l vocalically works
well to get that across.

>>  >But I'm sure {zbasu} is not the best word for word-building.
>>
>>  Probably {krasi} would be better.
>Hm.  If "martenitza" is used in an English text (as a loanword), {le
>krasi} will be {le banblgaria}, whereas {le te zbasu} will still be
>{zo mart.}.  It might be a useful distinction.

Grumble.  You're probably right.

>>  >>  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.
>"IOR" is always true when "XOR" is true.  It is also true in some
>other cases, but those don't happen in real life, so it doesn't matter.

As I said, it's a matter of taste.  Since IOR is a superset of XOR, you're
perfectly entitled to use it (and I might as well, in the same situation.)

~mark