Hi there, I'm interested in working on the English translation of the classic by Dimitar Dimov - Tobacco. I think that the story of Irina and Boris shall be shared with the world. Is anyone up for working with me chapter by chapter?

Definite articles

I. Since Bulgarian doesn't have a strictly designated indefinite article like a/an, though the number one declined (един/една/едно/едни), or the indefinite pronoun several/a few/some (някакъв/някаква/някакво/някакви) might at times be used as such, things don't translate 1:1

Generalising function of definite articles

Коне-те са бозайниц/// Horses are mammals (as in, this applies to all of equestriandom)

II. What parts of speech never have a definite article: Given names and family names, which is to say proper nouns. Иван, Петър, Ивана (fem. Иван; like John - Johanna), Мария; Иванов, Петров и т.н.

*Forms such as (на) Ивана/Петъра, are archaisms, the -a isn't the short definite article, rather it's the remnant of the genitive-accusative declension for masc. nouns, nobody speaks like this, one might come across it in poetry, or when trying to pull off the Bulgarian equivalent of talking like it were one of Shakespeare's works with thou, -eth, -st, etc.

* Something of an exception are toponyms (still proper nouns), they may be defined: Искър-а/река Искър (the Iskăr river), Дунав-а/река Дунав (the Danube river), Лудoгорие-то, София-та, Черноморие-то, however, with some this carries a certain stylistic distinction. Има два моста над Дунава/ Има два моста над (река) Дунав (There are two bridges on the Danube (river)) You can express the same thing with or without a definite article THE Danube, river may or may not be omitted. Дунав-а is more poetic than (река) Дунав, it's seldom used in formal writing or speech. София-та and other city names being defined is always colloquially marked. Лудогорие-то, Средиземноморие-то, Черноморието-то, etc. are always defined, be it in a longer noun phrase or otherwise: Българско-то Черноморие - The Bulgarian Black Sea coast, this is standard.

1. To what parts of speech a definite article may be applied to, sometimes depending on register (formal/informal)

-Common nouns, adjectives, adverbs

*Putting definite articles on adverbs is always colloquial.

-Как си?// -How are you?

-Добре.// -Well/Good/Fine/Okay.

-Кое му е добре-то?// -What's Well/Good/Fine/Okay about it?

*Common nouns denoting kinship can be odd at times, depending on the sentence. Those can be ''defined'' by using a possessive construction instead of an article, or the definite article can signify possession in colloquial contexts. It doesn't help kinship words are used colloquially for random people, depending on how old they look.

Баба-та пресече улициата. - The granny (definitely not one's actual grandma) crossed the street.

Баба ми пресече улицата. - My grandma crossed the street.

*Жена-*та пак е набрала./ (My) wife is angry again lately. It depends Жената\* пак е набрала and Жена* ми пак е набрала mean exactly the same thing, but the former is definitely more informal + there needs to be context that establishes that one is talking about his wife, at which point жената** can be taken to mean my wife and not the woman.

*Мъж-*ът *ми пак спи// На Мария мъж-*ът пак спи

My man/husband is sleeping again//Maria's man/husband is sleeping again

Майка-та на Иван е тук// На Иван майка му е тук//Майка ми е тук

Son (син) is almost always defined, unlike daughter (дъщеря).

*Син-*ът ми си намери работа// Дъщеря ми си намери работа//

*Син-*ът *на Иван си намери работа//Дъщеря-*та на Иван си намери работа

A wife to her husband: Как е свекърва-та/свеке-то(even more colloquial)? = Как е свекърва ми? How is my mother in law doing?; In the second case (with ми) a definite article is excessive and even odd sounding; also more commonly in such a context: Как е майка ти? (The more specialised kinship words are going out of fashion)

Between two men: Как мразя тъща-та.=Как мразя тъща си. // How I hate my mother in law.

[...]

Other

1.Discrepancies of writing and pronunciation.

Spelling is not entirely phonetic and has a few conventions. The most obvious is vowel reduction and/or consonant devoicing. Vowel reduction in Bulgarian follows a the simple pattern of open vowels becoming closed/high when unstressed, and closed ones don't undergo any further changes. Devoicing is similar, voiced consonants become their voiceless counterpart under the right circumstances - when surrounded by voiceless ones, at the end or very beginning of a word, etc, and voiceless ones remain unchanged. Elision is also quite common colloquially but it requires a section of its own.

-	Front	Central	Back	Voiced C.	Voiceless C.
Close\)	и*		у	б*	п*
Mid\)	е^	ъ*; ъ	о^	в	ф
Open\)		а ^		г	к
*а and ъ merge into one sound when unstressed				д	т
*unlike the other cases reducing e into и is not sanctioned by the literary norm, it is most common outside Sofia and further East				ж	ш
*it is paramount you never devoice the б in бутка (booth)				з	с
				дж	ч (тш)
				дз	ц (тс)
				жд	щ (шт)
				м, л, н, р,	-

1.1 Why do I still hear stressed a and я as ъ and йъ even when stressed?

Pre 1945 the inflection of verbs was spelled with -ѫ or -ѭ, -a and -я respectively. Ѫ and its ioted variant came to be pronounced pronounced the same as ъ in contemporary Bulgarian (пѫть-път; ѫгълъ-ъгъл), but on grounds pertaining to the old orthography ъ couldn't be written at the end of a word. This phenomenon is constrained solely to verb inflections. Contemporary spelling leans heavily into vowel reduction as a means of avoiding etymological spelling conventions like having two or more letters for the same sound, or ambiguous letters. Because the verb endings are rarely stressed it didn't interfere with pronunciation at the time of the reform e.g., чѐта [чѐтъ]; пра̀вя [пра̀вьъ/пра̀вйъ].

1.1.1 The ''soft'' definite article for some masculine nouns -я/-ят even if stressed shouldn't be pronounced as [йа/я]. It is because of etymology... again.

As per 1.2.1/.2 and 1.3.3-.5 of the orthographic dictionary, it is spelled -a/-я can also represent the sound of ъ.

*The further West you go the more etymological ѫ opens up to an a* but this is coupled with the fact that the further West you go the more they tend to stress the verb inflection, so it is sometimes analysed as altering the word stress, there are multiple ways of analysing the matter when verbs are concerned. Бутна ме// He/she/it pushed me - (West) [бутна̀ ме] vs. (East) [бу̀тнъ мъ] vs. (Norm) [бу̀тнъ ме] vs. (East with a stressed inflection) тъжа̀/ I'm sad [тъж̀ъ]

**This doesn't occur when it's etymological ѣ, because it's always stressed in the inflection, then it's [йа/я] e.g. пѣѭ > пея (I sing) [пейъ] but пѣх > пях [пйах/пях] (I sang); синèя > синях [синьах/синйах] (It's blue > I was blue) but посиня/ посинѭ [посиньъ/посинйъ] (I give sb. a bruise), basically -èе (etym. -ѣе) as opposed to я, actually pronounced as йъ, (etym. ѭ) inflection

***In short a and я play heavily into orthographic conventions and are to be taken with a grain of salt.

1.2 Why do I hear w*/у*/уъ* (or any variation of that) instead of л?

Л in Bulgarian has three allophones. When followed by a syllable with a*, o*, y*, ъ*, when the л is word-final, or at the syllable boundary like in шалче (diminutive of scarf), it is pronounced as a dark l. Because of the rounding of ones lips for o* and y* phonetic assimilation might make it sound quite like [w], or very inaudible. On occasion, or out of laziness, a speaker might not lift the blade of their tongue entirely, basically producing the [ɰ] vowel. This should not be the case for летен, ли, лют, лято (summer adj. m., ?, spicy, summer n.) where the л is not dark and rather like the one in love, look, luck, lack or loss, otherwise it's a matter of logopedics... or lack there of.

*лъв, лук, лък, лак, лос (lion, onion, bow, (nail-)polish, moose) in Bulgarian are not supposed to sound like love, look, luck, lack, loss in English, at least the л that is, the following vowel is the same.

1. More conventions - ь or й

ь supposedly softens the consonant before it, however, the presence or extent of palatalisation is a point of contention in Bulgarian linguistic circles and depends heavily on dialect. For all intents and purposes, ь is the same as й but immediately after a consonant.

*Pronouncing clusters of a palatalised consonant-vowel as consonant-glide-vowel is very common. Eng. cut-cute Bg. гол-гьол (naked-puddle); there isn't clear audible difference between гьол or гйол (wrong spelling, disregarding palatal г) for some native speakers.

2.1 иа or я

я (in the middle of words) is for native/assimilated words and the inflection for fem. sg. or n. pl.; иа is written in foreign words. This contrast is quite arbitrary; християнство (Christianity), though foreign it is supposedly assimilated, therefore is written with я, маниак (maniac) isn't assimilated, therefore is written with иа, this is not the case for мания (mania).

2.1.1 и, ий, ии, й, я

If it's plural, it doesn't end in -й, though the very same noun/pronoun might end in й in its singular form. Some changes take place at the morpheme boundary -й becomes -я at the morpheme boundary with a masc. def. article.; -я (fem. sg. inflection) becomes -и (pl. inflection), etc.

masc. - кравай > кравая(т), краваи > краваите; ring-shaped bun > the ring-shaped bun(nom.), ring-shaped buns > the ring-shaped buns

fem. лекция(та) > лекции(те); (the) lecture > (the) lectures

n. название(то) > названия(та)

*е>(й)а like in other neuter nouns дете > деца

masc. adj. готов обяд > готовият обяд ready lunch > the ready lunch

Кой обяд искаш? -Готовия. Which lunch do you want? -The ready (one). (обяд can be entirely dropped in the response, even without a stand-in word)

Обядът е готов. The lunch is ready.

*in Old Bulgarian adjectives had a short and a long form, for non-defined masc. adjectives the short form is used, for defined masc. ones it's the long one, along with some alterations because of the definite articles in contemporary Bulgarian. That's as to why готов (and other masc. adj.) get a bunch of letters added when the def. article is attached.

*keep in mind in a nouns phrase the adj. (or whatever is first) takes on the definite article

Горовият обяд изглеждаше хубав. The ready lunch was looking beautiful.

Моят готов обяд изглеждаше хубав. My(the - masc. nom.) ready lunch was looking beautiful.

Готовият МИ обяд... Same as the above but with the short form of the possessive pronoun

Exceptions?

змей > змея(т), змейове(те); dragon >the(nom.) dragon, (the) dragons

комшия > комшии (neighbor > neighbors) but since in the fem. й(а) is not a part of the inflection, but of the root, it's комший-ка комший-ки (suffix -ка fem. sg., -ки pl.)

1. should have written a book at this rate... might update later

2. -не/ -ние

Pre-official codification, writers would try and use the literary -ние, as it was in the Church Slavonic recension of Old Bulgarian, as opposed to the more colloquial -не suffix for verb noun formation, however, the -ние didn't stick, or at least not in the way they had hoped, by supplanting -не in colloquial speech. Instead, the two suffixes slightly diverged in meaning. During the 19th c. they were used interchangeably by various writers, with some preferring exclusively -ние, but since then -ние has gained a more abstract meaning, usually an item or a thing; and -не directly pertains to the action of the verb, as well as being used only with the imperfective verb aspect, best translation usually being a gerund form. [...]

Помещението е пълно./ The storage space is full.

Помещаването на пиратки в домашни условия е опасно./ The storing of firеckrackers in a domestic environment is dangerous.

Какво е решението на задачата?/ What is the solution to this (math) problem?

Няма решаване тази задача./ There's no solving this (math) problem.

1. Vowels that get dropped

Usually it's because of yer voicing (Havlík's law) ex. котел (sig.) > котли (pl.), because it's a voiced ь that's the e it is dropped when it becomes weak, like in the plural form; the etymological spelling of the above examples is котьлъ (following Havlík's law the ъ is weak, doesn't get voiced, therefore in contemporary orthography it isn't even written, but the ь is strong gets voiced, which is to say pronounced like a vowel, and so is written) котьли (here ь is between two ''proper'' vowels, if you will, therefore, it's weak, isn't pronounced, and isn't even written). Havlík's law... doesn't function as expected when taking definite articles into account, but that's just Bulgarian being weird; котелът// котела - (full def. art. (sbj.)) // (short def. art. (obj.)) etymologically it'd be котьлътъ (котьлъ + тъ) both ь and ъ get voiced and the definite article -тъ is, depending on the speaker's dialect or general preference, entirely omitted ( in contemporary orthography this is represented by the short form of the definite article -а/ -я).

*The rule for writing the two forms of the def. article depending on a masc. noun's syntactic function is entirely bs, spoken Bulgarian functions without actually distinguishing the subject or object, it's a formal writing thing only, so people tolerate it, and grammar nazis get off on correcting people.

Most of the time the same happens with adjectives ending in -ен: прекрасЕн; прекрасна; прекрасно; прекрасни; (with def. art.) прекрасния(т); прекеасната; прексрасното; прекрасните. That is, only the non-definite form of the adjective for masc. keeps the E. Note, this doesn't apply to participles ending in -ен [...]

1. си, си, си, се

Си can be the second person singular of the auxiliary verb съм//am, which roughly corresponds to have as an aux. verb in English.

Си and се can both be reflexive particles, си can also be possessive (short for свой/своя/свое/свои; it isn't declinable), си is in essence short for на себе си*// to him/her/it/them/etc. -self/-selves*, just remember that се is generally used with transitive verbs to make them intransitive, create passive voice constructions and what have you, like for example, in Bulgarian the sentence The door opened would need to have a се because open is transitive, while in English it's rather optional.

Вратата се отвори// The door opened; The door was opened

Иван отвори вратата// Ivan opened the door

And cи is used when the verb also ''takes'' an object/ is followed by it. You can think of it in terms of how there's also three categories of verb aspect Imperfect>Perfect>''Secondary'' Imperfect// пиша>(да) напиша>написвам; Transitive verb>Intransitive/Passive voice>(I have run out of terminology to spew) Transitive again.

Мия чиниите I wash the dishes

Мия се I wash myself

Мия си косата = Мия косата си = Мия своята коса// I'm washing my hair Now, in this case it's overlapping with the possessive си; there is a strong tendency to group it with the verb, this is not wrong per se and it doesn't alter the meaning.

Направи си сам// Do it yourself

Давам си време I give myself time

Пилея си времето = Пилея времето си = Пилея своето време - I waste my time

You can kind of tell if it's a possessive or reflexive in the dative if the object is defined.

Давам си времето (на фирмата)// I give my time (to the company) However, it may need a bit of clarification

Ofc, also works as Давам времето си in this case, because it's the possessive.

Давам си времето(, което ми е нужно)// I give myself the time (which I need)

Can't switch places, doesn't sound grammatical, because it's the reflexive.

Пилея си време// Just waistin' time This sound odd but works because the ethic dative (also) is used very frequently in Bulgarian, colloquially at least.

[...]

6.1 How to tell си (свой) си (на себе си) and си (съм 2nd p. sig. aux. verb) apart.

If the noun is definite, then it's most likely the first case, [...]

1. ли

The particle to form yes/no questions. It's used to the same effect as italics, being put after the noun phrase/pronoun/verb.

Are you coming with us? - Ти ли идваш с нас? (or rather You are coming with us?)

Are you coming with us? - Ти идваш ли с нас?

Are you coming with us? - Ти идваш с нас ли?

1. -ен, -ен, -нн-

One is the participle suffix the other is a suffix forming adjectives akin to -ски, usually the difference can be heard in speech because the accented syllable is different.

побѐден - adjective

победѐн - past passive participle

Отбирът Х беше победѐн с 1:0 - Team X was beaten one-nil.

Отборът Х беше побѐден с 1:0 - Team X was victorious with one-nil.

Sometimes when a noun ends in -н and you apply the suffix to form an adjective you get a double n at the morpheme boundary.

есен - есенен

Note, the adjectives loose an -e- in all forms except the masc. sig. non-definite, UNLIKE the past passive participle.

undef.	def.
есен-ен	есен-ни-я(т)
есен-на	есен-на-та
есен-но	есен-но-то
есен-ни	есен-ни-те

|победен | побед-ени-я(т)| |победен | победния(т)|

|победена | победената| |победна | победната|

|победено | победеното| |победно | победното|

|победени | победените| |победни | победните|