[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

A Bulgarian spring custom

>  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.

>  >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 find {blgaria} quite pronouncable.

Good.  (Pronounceability isn't a le'avla-type_of virtue, though.)

>  >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.

>  >>  the-set-of colors <...> are signs (urging)
>  >
>  >`Urging'?  I meant `symbolising'.
>
>  I was reading the gi'uste hurriedly.  Pay me no mind. :-)

That's all right.  I did wonder for a while how I should do justice to
this distinction - the colours of the marchie _meaning_ health versus
the same colours in your face _meaning_ [something about your] health.
I'm not sure I chose the correct pair of words for the two `meaning's.

>  >>  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.

Ivan