The Polish word ‘niepamięć’ (oblivion) is defined by dictionaries as ‘forgetfulness’, ‘lack of remembrance’. In the last 25–30 years, its meaning has been extended and incorporated into the term ‘niepamięć zbiorowa’ (collective oblivion), which means ‘socially relevant phenomena suppressed from memory and/or not admitted to the collective memory of a community’. The author has analysed the contents of the Polish concept of ‘NIEPAMIĘĆ (zbiorowa)’ and asked whether one could find a lexical equivalent of Polish ‘niepamięć’ in Russian and an equivalent of the concept of ‘NIEPAMIĘĆ’ in Russian mentality. Providing a negative answer to these questions today, the author proposes that, instead of analysing individual words such as ‘niepamięć – забвение (zabveniye)’, one should analyse entire conceptual and lexical fields of memory in Polish and in Russian.
The theme of the article is the concept of credentials based on the data from general and terminological dictionaries. It contains a proposal for a Russian-Polish entry article with the name of this diplomatic document (entry article as a part of a translation dictionary within the project “Diplomacy and politics. Russian-Polish dictionary survey”). The author explains the history of this term in both languages, focusing on the dissimilarity of its grammatical form both in Russian and Polish monolingual and bilingual dictionaries, which is especially visible while comparing dictionary and textual data. The material derived from Russian and Polish parallel texts (autonomous, independent of each other) is described according to the recommendations adopted for translation dictionaries – providing their users with the practical information on the usage of units (their syntactic requirements and usage conditions). The analysis also devotes ample attention to the socalled undescribed translated items (equivalents not recorded so far in Russian-Polish/ Polish-Russian lexicography). The discussion of numerous bilingual dictionaries justifi es the claim that a considerable part of collected units can be regarded as undescribed translated items (undescribed equivalents).
Five years ago Vasilis Orfanos published an excellent monograph on the Turkish lexical borrowings attested in the Cretan dialect of Modern Greek (Orfanos 2014). In this paper the present authors increase the number of the possible Cretan Turkisms, providing and explaining additional items not listed in Orfanos’s book.
The author studied 40 pages (letters Д–Ж) of the Dokładny słownik rosyjsko-polski, written by the Ukrainian-born Russian P. Dubrowski and published in Warsaw in 1877. After a brief profile of the now nearly forgotten lexiographer, the author adds a few additional questions to the known critical remarks about the topic of study and discusses – in the context of the state of Polish language generally and of the Kresy in the nineteenth century – interesting findings refl ected in this dictionary in the areas of spelling, phonetics, flexion, syntax and lexis. She found that the Polish language presented in this Russian-English dictionary rather faithfully reflects the nineteenth-century instability of norms at all levels of the language, so that non-native speakers of the language were more inclined to choose recessive over expansive variants, occasionally those supported by analogous forms in Russian. In the author’s view, the prospect of a comprehensive, systematic exploration of this source is promising, especially regarding the possibility of extracting peculiar lexis from it, in particular so-called lexical agnonyms.
The science of lexicography with its focus on etymology reaches back to ancient times; the history of Tibetan dictionaries is almost as old as the written language itself. About 1,200 years ago, the wish to translate the Buddhist scriptures in Sanskrit initiated the compilation of the first bilingual dictionary. lt provides Tibetan synonyms for Sanskrit terms and is written in Tibetan script. lt was compiled and used by monks who worked as scholars and translators. Throughout the following centuries, Tibetan dictionaries have been compiled, and, as will be shown, this happened for various reasons. As the Tibetan language is not yet fully explored, new dictionaries for Tibetan are still being worked on. One of these is under preparation in Munich; it will be the focus of the main part of this article. As the paper addresses a wider audience and not specifically scholars of Tibetan studies, l will situate Tibetan lexicography within a broader context, commencing with a brief introduction into the Tibetan script and language followed by a survey on the development of Tibetan lexicography and dictionaries. Then, the paper introduces the Wörterbuch der tibetischen Schriftsprache, an ongoing long-term project at the Bavarian Academy for Sciences and Humanities in Munich.