01638nas a2200145   4500008004100000245011500041210011500156300001200271490000700283520103300290653002401323653005601347100003101403856005801434       1997                        eng d00aТекстовые функции лексемы one и её переводческие эквиваленты0 aТекстовые функции лексемы one и её переводческие эквиваленты  a18–460 v223 a<p>The paper is a detailed contrastive study of the dictionary definitions of the items one and един and their functions in original texts and their translations. On the basis of this analysis the author concludes that all the various functions of one, because of which it is often defined as belonging to various classes of words (or parts of speech), can by systematized and presented as a cline, starting with its basic numerical use to denote the singleness of an object of speech, or a certain quality of this object. Then come its more or less purely structural functions as a substitute for the name of such an object or quality, already mentioned in the text or existing in the common index-field of the participants in a speech act, or as a prop-word. Following along this cline is the use of one as a noun, i. e. with denoting functions, and finally as a morpheme with an active word-formative pattern, the elements of which are used with a variety of pragmatic nuances of the invariant meaning of singularity.</p>10aContrastive Studies10aсъпоставителни изследвания1 aЗлатева, Палма  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/bg/biblio/zlateva199701147nas a2200121   4500008004100000245011600041210011600157300001200273490000600285520064500291100003100936856005800967       1981                        eng d00aФункционални еквиваленти на английското it в българския език0 aФункционални еквиваленти на английското it в българския език  a39–470 v63 aThe functions of it are arranged along a hypothetical ‘cline of delicacy’, starting from its most typical use as a personal pronoun, via its use as a non-emphatic demonstrative pronoun, as a purely grammatical item and, finally, reaching its use as a noun. The shifts in its use correspond to a gradual change in the meaning of its antecedents from the concrete to the abstract. A similar movement can be traced in the use of то. The lack of full functional equivalence between it and то is due to the difference in their status in standard English and standard Bulgarian, which results in a difference in their connotative meaning.1 aЗлатева, Палма  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/bg/biblio/zlateva198100517nas a2200133   4500008004100000245010500041210010500146300000700251490000600258653001100264653001900275100003100294856005800325       1980                        eng d00aРаботна школа по математическа и приложна лингвистика0 aРаботна школа по математическа и приложна лингвистика  a800 v510aEvents10aХроника1 aЗлатева, Палма  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/bg/biblio/zlateva1980