Search Results
Irodalom 1. Champagne G. 2004 . The Economic Value of Terminology – An Exploratory Study . Guy Champagne Inc. (2004) 1–54., http
of National and Borrowed Terminology in Hungarian . Terminologija (Vilnius) , in press. 17 Hempel, , C. 2005 . A taxonómia alapjai. In: Bertalan 19 – 48
Magyar Terminológia 3 1 41 51 . ISO/TC 37/ SC 1/CD 704.2 N 133 95 EN. 1995 Terminology Work — Principles and Methods
I Ties 2006 Corpora e Terminologia: Applicazioni Pratiche in Bistro H Picht Modern approches to terminological theories
. Kageura , K. 1998/1999 . Theories of terminology: A quest for a framework for the study of term formation . Terminology 5 ( 1 ), 21 – 41 . 5. Kontra M
.) 1995 . Manual of specialised lexicography . Amsterdam/Philadelphia : John Benjamins . 4. Cabré M. T. 1999 . Terminology. Theory, Methods and
-RKK . Bessé , B. de - Nkwenti-Azeh. B. - Sager , J. C. 1997 . Glossary of terms used in terminology . Terminology. 4 ( 1 ), 117 – 156 . Cabré , M. T
References 1 Fogarasi K. Terminological problems of types and descriptions of injuries in accident surgical diagnostic reports. In: Silye M. (ed.) Porta Lingua
The article deals with the specific character of the initial elaboration stage of the Belorussian scientific terminology in the 1920s. The members of the 1921 Scientific-terminological committee are listed here for the first time. A conclusion is made that the terminology of the 1920s was not created out of nowhere, but to a considerable extent rested upon the achievements of the terminological practice of the previous period. The factor that in the early 1920s publishers of Vil'nia, rather than that of Minsk had the priority to publish Belorussian-speaking educational literature left a certain mark on the terminology of the 1920s. It is symptomatic that compilers of the East-Belorussian terminologies did not accept in some cases usual international terms which were in usage in West Belorussia, but suggested neologisms, Polonisms or migratory calques instead.
Turkic kinship terminologies have been diversely classified as Turco-Mongolic, Siberian Generational, Omaha etc. by anthropologists as well as by linguists in previous studies. Obviously, it is difficult to claim an invariable kinship system covering all Turkic languages, since modern Turkic kin systems differentiated from not only the Proto-Turkic or Old Turkic system, but also within themselves over time. This paper presents an attempt to trace changes in the kinship systems from Proto-Turkic to the present as far as possible based on surviving well-attested kinship cognates.
