01356nas a2200145   4500008004100000245016200041210012600203300001200329490000700341520071100348653002201059653003601081100003301117856006001150       1989                        eng d00aΒουργαροχωρια. Из словното богатство на неописван български диалект в Северна Гърция0 aΒουργαροχωρια Из словното богатство на неописван български диале  a40–560 v143 a<p>A lexicological and a lexicographical interpretation of 147 lexemes typical of an unknown and so far undescribed Bulgarian idiom of a group of villages in Aegean Macedonia is given. The material was extracted from Y. V. Evangelopulos’ dialectological work Лексические особенности новогреческого языка в Западной Македонии (1974). The lexical material in question was expressly defined by Y. V. Evangelopulos as belonging to the Βουργαροχωρια villages, whose idiom is set apart as something independent of the rest of the Northern Greek idioms. Careful reading of the material shows that this, in fact, is a Bulgarian dialect.</p>10aLanguage Contacts10aЕзикови контакти1 aМладенова, Олга  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/bg/biblio/mladenova198901474nas a2200121   4500008004100000245014900041210012600190300001200316490000700328520092400335100003301259856006001292       1987                        eng d00aБългарски лексикални заемки чрез арумънско посредничество в новогръцкия език0 aБългарски лексикални заемки чрез арумънско посредничество в ново  a19–260 v123 aThe paper is about twenty six Bulgarian loanwords in New Greek dialects, commonly cited to have been borrowed through Aromanian, viz., αστριάχα, βιρβιρίτσα, γρέντα, ζιάρι, ζμπόρος, μπαζντραβίτσα, μπίμ(η)τσα, νήλα, ρουγαίζω, μολίτσα, καστραβέτς, κοζόκα, κλακατίζω, μπιστιρή, μπέλα, γκάλιος, γκόλ’ους, γκουστερίτσα, ζαδούχαβ, κόσα, λιάσα, μοθσίτσα, πολίτσα, ρουγκόζ, γκαρλίτσα, ρόποτος. The following criteria of Aromanian mediation are established: phonological (the Bulgarian loanwords acquired in New Greek bear some traces of the Aromanian phonetic system), semantic (pastoral terminology), chronological (archaic Bulgarian borrowings in Daco-Romanian and Aromanian, features of which re-appear in New Greek), and areal.1 aМладенова, Олга  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/bg/biblio/mladenova198700441nas a2200133   4500008004100000245005200041210005000093300000800143490000700151653001600158653003800174100003300212856006200245       1987                        eng d00aВладимир Георгиев (1908–1986)0 aВладимир Георгиев 1908–1986  a1240 v1210ain memoriam10aВладимир Георгиев1 aМладенова, Олга  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/bg/biblio/mladenova1987-000583nas a2200133   4500008004100000245014500041210012500186300000800311490000700319653001100326653001900337100003300356856006000389       1985                        eng d00aЗлатна докторска диплома на Виенския университет за акад. Владимир Георгиев0 aЗлатна докторска диплома на Виенския университет за акад Владими  a1280 v1010aEvents10aХроника1 aМладенова, Олга  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/bg/biblio/mladenova198501658nas a2200133   4500008004100000245007000041210006900111300001400180490000600194520119500200100003701395700003301432856005901465       1981                        eng d00aБългаро-румънски езикови отношения0 aБългарорумънски езикови отношения  a161–1800 v63 aThe article is a review of the linguistic phenomena, common to Bulgarian and Rumanian, which are the result of the centuries-long interference between the two languages. The review consists of two parts with a view to the conditions (oral and cultural contacts) which engendered the common features of the two languages. The first part deals with the phonetic, morphosyntactic, word-formative, lexical, onomastic, semantic and phraseological features of Rumanian, which are considered to be the result of the interaction between the languages of the Slav-Bulgarian and Rumanian population during the long period of their living together north of the Danube. The lexical, onomastic, word-formative, semantic and phraseological features of Bulgarian, which are to be accounted for by the influence of Rumanian, are also considered. The second part deals with elements of the Bulgarian language which penetrated through literary sources into standard Rumanian during the period of its formation as a result of the Bulgarian cultural influence. It also considers the lexical elements borrowed from Rumanian during the period when the lexical norms of modern standard Bulgarian were established.1 aАлексова, Василка1 aМладенова, Олга  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/bg/biblio/aleksova198100523nas a2200133   4500008004100000245010300041210010100144300001400245490000600259653001100265653001900276100003300295856006100328       1981                        eng d00aВтори българо-румънски симпозиум. Секция лингвистика0 aВтори българорумънски симпозиум Секция лингвистика  a137–1390 v610aEvents10aХроника1 aМладенова, Олга  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/bg/biblio/mladenova1981a00548nas a2200145   4500008004100000245009200041210009200133300001200225490000600237653001100243653001900254100003700273700003300310856005900343       1980                        eng d00aСеминар по славянска Палеография и дипломатика0 aСеминар по славянска Палеография и дипломатика  a94–950 v510aEvents10aХроника1 aАлексова, Василка1 aМладенова, Олга  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/bg/biblio/aleksova198001040nas a2200121   4500008004100000245018300041210012600224300001200350490000600362520045700368100003300825856006000858       1979                        eng d00aЕдна структурно-граматична успоредица в българския и румънския език {(тип нов-новеничък, nou-nou{\c t})}0 aЕдна структурнограматична успоредица в българския и румънския ез  a35–370 v43 aBulgarian constructions of the нов-новеничък type, meaning an absolute superlative, and their Rumanian parallels are considered. The constructions are analysed from a semantic and structural point of view. The examples excerpted from fiction illustrate the colloquial character of the construction, as well as its positive and emotive meanings. Some suggestions about the archaic nature of the constructions in both languages are made, too.1 aМладенова, Олга  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/bg/biblio/mladenova197900925nas a2200121   4500008004100000245017100041210012500212300001100337490000600348520035500354100003300709856006100742       1979                        eng d00aСравнителен анализ на една лексико-семантична група глаголи в българския и румънския език0 aСравнителен анализ на една лексикосемантична група глаголи в бъл  a7–110 v43 aCulinary terminology, with its clear structure and relatively archaic terms is the object of study of the present paper. The presence of a number of lexico-semantic parallels between the verbs designating culinary processes has been shown. The detailed comparative semantic analysis of the verbs belonging to the subgroup, most typical of the process1 aМладенова, Олга  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/bg/biblio/mladenova1979a