00628nam a2200181   4500008004100000245005300041210005300094260002300147300000900170100003900179700002500218700002900243700002200272700002500294700003300319700003300352856006100385       1993                        eng d00aБългарски тълковен речник0 aБългарски тълковен речник  aСофияbБАН  a10781 aАндрейчин, Любомир1 aГеоргиев, Л1 aИлчев, Стефан1 aКостов, Н.1 aЛеков, Иван1 aСтойков, Стойко1 aТодоров, Цветан  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/bg/biblio/andreychin199302404nas a2200145   4500008004100000245022400041210012500265300001100390490000600401520169000407653002402097653005602121100002502177856005602202       1978                        eng d00aКъм по-приемлива анализа и постройка на опитите за съпоставителни и типологични изследвания в славянското езикознание0 aКъм поприемлива анализа и постройка на опитите за съпоставителни  a3–130 v33 a<p>Through distribution and stratification, the author aims at a more accurate characterization of the various methods (contrastive and typological in particular) used in Slavonic language studies. The study has been prompted by the existing inconsistency in their formulation which is, to a certain extent, understandable. The starting point is the continuity and mutual complementation of all methods of study used so far. The relative difference between these methods stems from their attitude towards the presumed parent language prototype of the phenomena which is valid only for the comparative method. The Slavonic languages, being genealogically related, display a number of structures (zones and objects) which can be studied not only comparatively but also contrastively and typologically. Thus, for example, a number of contrastive studies of languages in contact during the post- Proto-Slavonic period, such as the Byelorussian and Russian akan’e, the Polish mazurzenie etc. differ from the typological interpretation of phenomena such as the system of obligatory՛ open syllables in the Proto-Slavonic period, the appearance of the genus virile in some Slavonic languages, the Bulgarian citational forms, etc. A potential relationship and interdependence are assumed to exist between descriptive, comparative and historical linguistics. The reliability of the contrastive method is enhanced by соmparison, while it sometimes loses validity if the historical principle is neglected. The typological method is becoming increasingly reliable since it applies to the essential parameters and universal categories of language and facilitates its dynamic characterology.</p>10aContrastive Studies10aсъпоставителни изследвания1 aЛеков, Иван  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/bg/biblio/lekov197800513nam a2200097   4500008004100000245015100041210012700192260001500319100002500334856005600359       1968                        eng d00aКратка сравнително-историческа и типологическа граматика на славянските езици0 aКратка сравнителноисторическа и типологическа граматика на славя  aСофия1 aЛеков, Иван  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/bg/biblio/lekov196800512nam a2200097   4500008004100000245012000041210012000161260005200281100002500333856005600358       1941                        eng d00aХарактеристика на общите черти в български и източнославянски0 aХарактеристика на общите черти в български и източнославянски  aСофияbДържавна печатница1 aЛеков, Иван  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/bg/biblio/lekov1941