00424nas a2200133   4500008004100000245004800041210004600089300001400135490000700149653001600156653003400172100002700206856005700233       2003                        eng d00aЕухенио Косериу (1921–2002)0 aЕухенио Косериу 1921–2002  a139–1410 v2810ain memoriam10aЕухенио Косериу1 aКънчев, Иван  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/bg/biblio/knchev200300574nas a2200109   4500008004100000245019600041210012500237300001200362490000600374100002700380856005700407       1996                        eng d00aПрофесор Еухенио Косериу – „Доктор хонорис кауза“ на Софийския университет „Свети Климент Охридски“0 aПрофесор Еухенио Косериу Доктор хонорис кауза на Софийския униве  a36–380 v21 aКънчев, Иван  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/bg/biblio/knchev199601233nas a2200145   4500008004100000245012900041210012500170300001400295490000700309520062900316653002200945653003600967100002701003856005701030       1992                        eng d00aИсторическото и функционално единство на джудезмо с испанския език0 aИсторическото и функционално единство на джудезмо с испанския ез  a112–1170 v173 a<p>The historical inquiry and the periodization of changes in the content of the traditional notion Sefarad-1–2–3, preceding the essential part of the subject chosen, is an attempt to follow chronologically the events that preconditioned the complex history and the spiritual values of Spanish Jews. At the ethnolinguistic level, attention is drawn to the difference between Ladino and Judesmo, very often confused, both in the past and today, by their speakers – Balkan Sefarads. In its immediate social context Judesmo is viewed as a specific koine and its historical and functional unity with Spanish is proved.</p>10aLanguage Contacts10aЕзикови контакти1 aКънчев, Иван  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/bg/biblio/knchev199200358nas a2200133   4500008004100000245002500041210002200066300001300088490000700101653001100108653001900119100002700138856005900165       1992                        eng d00aНебриха ’920 aНебриха 92  a99–1010 v1710aEvents10aХроника1 aКънчев, Иван  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/bg/biblio/knchev1992-000831nas a2200121   4500008004100000245015600041210012600197300001100323490000700334520028400341100002700625856005700652       1988                        eng d00aТипологични паралели на притежателните местоимения в испанския и българския език0 aТипологични паралели на притежателните местоимения в испанския и  a5–120 v133 aThe article discusses the morphological, semantic and functional similarities and differences between the possessive pronouns in Spanish and Bulgarian. The starting point of the contrastive study is the popular concept of possession as a universal category correlated with person1 aКънчев, Иван  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/bg/biblio/knchev198801900nas a2200121   4500008004100000245021500041210012500256300001200381490000600393520129500399100002701694856005701721       1978                        eng d00aЗа разстоянията между фонемите и диференциалните признаци в консонантните системи на испанския и българския език0 aЗа разстоянията между фонемите и диференциалните признаци в конс  a52–650 v33 aquantitative analysis of the Spanish and Bulgarian consonantal phonemes has been made, based on the theoretical qualitative characteristics of the two systems established experimentally by E. Álarcos, A. Gullis and J. Fernandez for Spanish and by D. Tilkov and T. Bojad{\v z}iev for Bulgarian. The average individual and common distances between the phonemes and their distinctive features have been determined in order to establish the qualitative dimensions of the degree of coherence, function and symmetry of each of the systems and to illustrate the similarities and differences between the two languages. The results of this analysis are of both theoretical and practical significance and concern general as well as applied linguistics. As far as the general linguistic aspect is concerned the data substantiate the acceptable universal features of coherence and function of the language systems which, so far, have been only of a hypothetical nature. When applied to particular cases the results prove that the inner structure of the phonological component, i. e. the phonological system is determined by the distribution of the distinctive features. As far as applied linguistics is concerned it is necessary to distinguish between the elements of the system and those of the norm.1 aКънчев, Иван  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/bg/biblio/knchev197801030nas a2200121   4500008004100000245032000041210011600361300001400477490000600491520032700497100002700824856005700851       1977                        eng d00aНякои наблюдения върху испанските глаголи ser и estar в съпоставителен план с глагола съм в българския език (Опит за приложение на теорията на Е. Косериу за система, норма и реч)0 aНякои наблюдения върху испанските глаголи ser и estar в съпостав  a160–1850 v23 a<p>n el presente art{ículo nos proponemos estudiar, en un plano eontrastiro y con especial orientación a la teor{ía de E. Coseriu obre la tripartita de Sistema, norma y habla, los puntos de contacto y las diferenoiaa semánticas, morfológicas y funcionales que ofrecen, en eu conjunto, loe verbos aer, estar y elm.</p>1 aКънчев, Иван  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/bg/biblio/knchev1977