This investigation focuses on the modern Ukrainian surnames derived from a person’s appearance. The author analyzed different approaches to the systematization of such surnames that were applied in onomastic research, finding some differences in these classifications. For example, there is some controversy as to the scope (content) of this group. For example, some investigators do not include surnames derived from proper names of persons on the basis of their strength, health, clothing and so on as a part of this group surnames. On the other hand, some other researchers believe that it is necessary. Doubts have also been expressed as to the appropriacy of including some surnames which are derived from the names that described the gait of the person or their gender. Developing our approach to the classification of surnames derived from the proper names of persons on the basis of appearance, the author used the achievements of gabitology that uses characteristics of human appearance for the identification of the person. Fixed surnames were distributed according to the semantics of lexemes in the following subgroups: general physical (they can characterize the appearance of the person in general), anatomical (they can characterize body type, organs of the human body) and functional (characteristics of human appearance that are seen in motion). Surnames were also differentiated within each subgroup. For example, the author identified the surnames derived from the proper names whose meaning are connected with the features of human growth, body type (skinny build, slim build, chunky, fat), unusual shape, size, and color of organs of the human body. The important thing to note is that the namegivers focused on those characteristics of human appearance that were original, relatively constant, and helped to identify a person.
The author presents the thesis that the referent of the dative noun phrase is ‘a second human participant’ of the event ‒ referent of the proposition in question. The same applies to the referent of the genitive noun phrase. The two constructions differ only in their syntactic distribution ‒ dative is an adverbal case, while genetive is adnominal, which is the result of their semantic roles ‒ ‘recipient’ for dative and ‘possessor’ for genetive.
W artykule konfrontuję koncepcję osoby Petera Strawsona z koncepcją osoby Paula Ricoeura, traktując je jako reprezentatywne ilustracje podejścia semantyczno-ontologicznego i pragmatyczno-egzystencjalnego (lub hermeneutycznego) zarazem do problemu języka i do problemu bytu zwanego osobą. Zaznaczam różnice między tymi podejściami, ale wskazuję także na ich punkty wspólne. Zgodnie z przedstawioną interpretacją, Ricoeur w swojej próbie przezwyciężenia ograniczeń semantycznej teorii osoby rozwija i uwypukla wątki, które w sposób marginalny były obecne już w teorii Strawsona, a skądinąd docenia znaczenie tych, które w tej teorii były pierwszoplanowe, chociaż je relatywizuje. Stosunek Ricoeura do Strawsona pokazuje złożoną relację między tzw. filozofią kontynentalną i tzw. filozofią analityczną.
In the article I present and criticize the view of classical compatibilism on freedom, i.e. the view according to which free subjects and free actions can exist in the world ruled by universal, exceptionless causality. I claim that compatibilism does not solve the problem of freedom and determinism, but avoids and disregards it. Compatibilism pretends to accomplish the task by playing with semantic tricks that create a misleading impression of ‛compatibility’.
The review covers Ruselina Nicolova’s The Bulgarian Grammar. This is a revised version of Bǔlgarska gramatika. Morfologiia (Sofiia 2008) edited in English by Frank & Timme (Berlin 2017). This outstanding achievement is appraised highly by the review author. The review compares the new work with an earlier academic morphology of Bulgarian (Gramatika na sǔvremenniia bǔlgarski knižoven ezik, t. 2: Morfologiia, Sofiia 1983). It concludes that the Grammar of R. Nicolova makes important progress in semantically and functionally oriented type of Bulgarian linguistic description as well as that publication of this study translated to English is important because it provides a widened reception of the work.
The author states that there are in our vocabulary three, and only three, classes of semantic units: a) predicates, i.e. generic concepts – the result of our conceptualization of the world; they represent more than 90% of the vocabulary; b) operators of reference – a small, almost closed set bounding predicates to their concrete denotates; c) proper names, which are by defi nition referentially bound and are object of research of a specialized linguistic discipline. Thus, the main tasks of our grammar are (1) to defi ne and to describe the scope of the grammaticalization in the language in question and (2) to present the semantic classification of predicates, the description of their – bound and/or free – functioning in the text included.
en
pl
