Actualitatea sintaxei româneşti "clasice moderne":
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Book |
| Language: | Romanian |
| Published: |
Iaşi
Casa Ed. "Demiurg"
2005
|
| Series: | Colecţia Lingua
30 |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Inhaltsverzeichnis Abstract |
| Item Description: | Zsfassung in engl. Sprache |
| Physical Description: | 185 S. |
| ISBN: | 9737603192 |
Staff View
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 cb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV035631790 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20090928 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 090716s2005 |||| 00||| rum d | ||
| 020 | |a 9737603192 |9 973-7603-19-2 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)152581704 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV035631790 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a rum | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 | ||
| 050 | 0 | |a PC713 | |
| 084 | |a 7,38 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Timofte, Monica |e Verfasser |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Actualitatea sintaxei româneşti "clasice moderne" |c Monica Timofte |
| 264 | 1 | |a Iaşi |b Casa Ed. "Demiurg" |c 2005 | |
| 300 | |a 185 S. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a Colecţia Lingua |v 30 | |
| 500 | |a Zsfassung in engl. Sprache | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Romanian language / Syntax | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Romanian language |x Syntax | |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Syntax |0 (DE-588)4058779-4 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Rumänisch |0 (DE-588)4115807-6 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Rumänisch |0 (DE-588)4115807-6 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Syntax |0 (DE-588)4058779-4 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 830 | 0 | |a Colecţia Lingua |v 30 |w (DE-604)BV013463515 |9 30 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSBMuenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=017686720&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=017686720&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-017686720 | ||
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 400 |e 22/bsb |g 498 |
Record in the Search Index
| _version_ | 1804139308103237632 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | Cuprins
I.
Introducere
.......................................................5
§ 1.
Obiectul cercetării
......................................5
§2.
Conceptul de funcţie în lingvistică
...................6
§3.
Conceptul funcţie sintactică
..........................9
§4.
Funcţii sintactice
vs.
funcţii ale limbii
.............22
§5.
Premise de evaluare a generării/nongenerării
funcţiilor sintactice în limbă
........................28
§6.Repartitia
tipologică a funcţiilor sintactice după
importanţă
.............................................37
§7.Raprturi sintactice şi unităţi sintactice
.............65
II.
Incidenţa în limbă şi în teoria limbii
.....................71
§8.
Unităţi sintactice incidente
...........................71
§9.
Raportul sintactic de incidenţă
.....................93
§10.
Funcţia de comentariu.
...........................100
III. Explicaţia ca modalitate de organizare sintactică a
limbii, reflectată în teoria limbii
.............................113
§11.
Unitatea intermediară explicativă
-
raportul
sintactic explicativ
-
funcţia de explicaţie
......113
IV.Apoziţia
......................................................123
§12.
Opinii în legătură cu natura
(semantică/sintactică) raportului apozitiv şi a
funcţiei de apoziţie
.................................123
§13.
Actualizarea teoriei lingvistice privitoare la funcţia
unităţii
apózate
şi a raportului apozitiv
..............135
§14.
Funcţii semantico-sintactice intermediare
......142
V.
Concluzii..
....................................................151
Abstract (trad.
Cristina
Sturzu)
.................................159
Bibliografie
......................................................169
Izvoare
............................................................181
Indice de autori
...................................................183
Abstract
The research object of the present work is the
topicality of the classically modern Romanian syntax. By
means of its nature as a live phenomenon placed in a process
of continuous evolution, historical language (in
Coşeriu s
terms) requires, in linguistic theory, permanent actualizations
of the specialized information, so that topicality, as a feature
of the classical type of language research, becomes a
possibility of continuous actualization of the results of
previous investigations. The dynamics of this process
concerns, on the one hand, the completion of the theoretical
description of language facts
-
an approach that aims at getting
close to the never accomplishable desideratum of an
exhaustive linguistic description
-,
and, on the other hand, the
réévaluation
of the suitability of existing linguistic theory from
the perspective of meeting the requirements of non¬
contradiction of grammatical analysis.
Thus, the present work pays special attention to the
actualization of the description of the syntactic system in
·
Romanian by trying to remove some theoretical remnants
concerning the typological distribution of existing syntactic
functions contained therein. Inherently, several aspects
referring to syntactic relations and units are also critically
assessed, so that the results of this actualization may be
described from three perspectives.
* * *
From the perspective of syntactic functions, our
point of departure was the concept
oí
syntactic function, a
concept that might (and should) be understood in its evolution
from what was originally viewed only from a semantic/logic
159
Monica
TIMOFTE
point of view into a grammatically describable unit: the main
functions of subject and predicate, considered today as
syntactic functions, came from logic/semantics, having
allowed until now the possibility of reference to logic/semantic
functions, in the form of correspondences, not of equivalence;
the individualization of secondary functions, starting with the
object, also considered as syntactic functions by the present
day grammatical theory reflects the same evolution from
semantics towards grammar/syntax. The evolution of the
syntactic function concept proves to resemble, in opposition to
the concept of function of language, a slow passing from
semantics/logic towards syntax. This means that, in time, the
more a tradition is formed, the more specialized works start
theorizing all these functions as being syntactic functions,
regardless of (or such a perspective being considered one of
peripheral interest) the fact that syntactic functions were
primarily/originally semantic functions and that only in time
they became semantic altogether, that is syntactic functions.
From this point of view as well, the growth of the number of
syntactic functions in language theoretic description with the
functions of comment and of explanation (engendered by the
relations of incidency and explanation) is justified. Taking into
account the initial moment of their individualization, we may
call these functions comment and explanation semantic-
syntactic functions, considering that particularly in future
grammatical theory, they will be acknowledged as syntactic
functions. The individualization of these new semantic-
syntactic functions is possible consequently to the
acknowledgement of a melioration of the concept of
hierarchy/hierarchical relation in the more recent grammar,
a melioration supported by the theorization of explanatory
intermediate clause in the explanatory syntactic relation. More
exactly, along with the theorization of the explanatory
intermediate clause, we support with semantic and form-
related arguments the idea that dividing the syntactic units of
160
Actualitatea sintaxei româneşti clasice moderne
language according to the generalized (single) opposition in
language theory, main
-
secondary, does not allow the
description of all existing structures. This means that the
adequacy of linguistic theory in relation to language requires
taking into account an intermediary importance stage, so that
the opposition series might include three terms: main
-
intermediate
-
secondary. Reevaluating from a functional
perspective this observation, we have shown
-
also by means
of semantic and form-related arguments
-
that the (only) way
of distribution, according to the criterion of importance, of
syntactic functions in language theory: main syntactic
functions- secondary syntactic functions, gives way to a
contradictory (the function of apposition cannot be placed
uncontradictorily in any of these categories) and with rest
interpretation (what is ignored is the existence of semantic-
syntactic functions of comment and explanation, that are
characterized, like the apposition function, again by semantic
and form-related mixed features: both/neither main and/nor
secondary). Inductively acknowledging what stands self-
evident logically as well, namely that semantic-syntactic
fiinctions of apposition, explanation and comment are opposite
both to main syntactic functions and secondary syntactic
functions, we have considered as necessary to outline a new
function category, namely the category of intermediate
semantic-syntactic functions, a category that is represented
by the functions of comment, explanation and apposition.
We underline here that the term intermediate, designing the
intermediate importance of semantic-syntactic functions
{apposition, explanation, comment) in the communication act
is justified both from a grammatical and a semantic point
of view: the presence/absence of subordination markers
and the basis/mass status in the communication structure
are features specific to all these functions. Also, the omission
test can deny the intermediate importance of semantic-
syntactic functions in favor of secondary importance only
161
Monica
TIMOFTE
by an inappropriate application, that is by an application
in the communication context that doesn t take into
account the coordinates of the communication act. In
saying this, we have in view mainly the subjective axis of
human speech (because the complex organization of the
communication act is egocentric), represented by two poles:
the transmitter/locutor
(=
message encoder) and
receiver/interlocutor
(=
message decoder that must take into
account, in his decoding operation, the speaker s intention of
communication). Therefore, the assessment of the importance
of syntactic
fonctions
in the communication act must take into
account both poles of communication. But the grammar
analysis shows a focus on the locutor/enunciation act in using
the omission test, which results in the inadvertence of the
application of this test. In fact, the apposition function, for
instance, is considered omissible in every context because in
not expressing it, the enunciation stays the same, it is not de-
structured. Consequently, the apposition is considered a
secondary syntactic function. But in this way the position of
the interlocutor in the communication act is ignored, for whom
the apposition function is/may be compulsory, therefore un-
omissible; if expressing this function in the context is optional
from the
locutor
s
point of view (who does not need a
translation of the semantic information that he conveys),
then from the point of view of the interlocutor/of the adequate
reception of the message in accordance with the speaker s
intention of communication, the apposition function is/may be
compulsory. Admitting that the communication act means, on
the one hand, enunciation and on the other, reception shows
that both the expression and the non-expression of the
apposition function affects communication
-
not from the
enunciation act s perspective, but from that of the reception
act.
If we may generalize, we assess that, in the
communication process, the receiver/interlocutor sometimes
162
Actualitatea sintaxei româneşti clasice moderne
needs a supplementation of the
semantic
information:
translations Vexplanations/comments
referring to
circumstances, actants etc. that should facilitate an adequate
reception of the message conveyed by the
transmitter/interlocutor. Therefore, when encoding a message,
the
locutor
is preoccupied not only with the enunciation of the
semantic information, but also with its adequate reception.
Practically, this means that the speaker is preoccupied with
choosing linguistic signs that might refer to the concerned
„reality to the extent of maximum suitability from within the
system (according to
Coşeriu s
theory) in operative time
{cf.
Guillaume, Langage).
The dynamics of these mental
processes, of selection of code elements, could be described as
follows: during the message encoding or after its encoding, the
speaker might think that the interlocutor is not familiar with
one or several terms of the employed code or could decode the
message ambiguously, in a different way than in the
communication intention; this makes the speaker translate
the term that is considered unknown/the information that is
insufficiently decodable by apposition or explain/comment it
by means of homonymous syntactic functions. The
translation /explanation/comment will be therefore carried
out by means of code elements supposed to be familiar to the
interlocutor. The polar distribution (towards enunciation and
reception) of the speaker s attention is carried out at a
syntactic level by the selection of syntactic functions: main
and secondary syntactic functions show the priority in
preoccupation that the speaker takes in the enunciation act of
semantic information, while the intermediate syntactic
functions show the priority in preoccupation that the speaker
takes in the quality of the reception act
-
as the examples
below show, the omission of comment, explanation and
apposition functions leads not only to the distortion of the
reception of the transmitter s communication intention but
even to the impossibility of its reception.
163
Monica
TIMOFTE
„Cunosc o droaie de oameni care nu ar fi putut, nu pot şi nu
vor putea în veci-prin liberă alegere
-
să practice falaqa (tortura
prin bătaie la tălpi)
[...] -
G. Liiceanu, Uşa interzisă,
Bucharest,
2002,
p.
116.
„Singurul lucru valabil din toate „libertăţile cunoscute de
la Revoluţia Franceză încoace este dreptul de a fi liber. Drept de
care, însă, nu profită aproape nimeni. Căci a face acte
nesancţionabile nu înseamnă a fi liber.
-
M. Eliade,
Fragmentarium,
Bucharest,
1994,
p.
126.
„Un pustnic ar fi mai puţin singur în peştera sa (ar afla de el
toţi excusioniştii) decât într-un apartament aşezat pe o stradă
aglomerata
-
M. Preda, Cel mai iubit dintre pământeni,
Ш,
Bucharest,
1980,^285.
Taking into account the issue of importance in the
communication act, we consider, therefore, that the zero
commutation test permits a distinction between the following
three function categories:
-
main syntactic functions {subject and predicate):
functions characterized by the greatest importance, that is their
existence conditions the existence of the communication act
both from the enunciation and the reception perspectives; their
existence is, therefore, compulsory/necessary; the zero
commutation test is not applicable;
-
secondary syntactic functions {modifier; object;
place, time etc. object; attribute of the object): functions that
are characterized by the smallest importance in that their
existence does not condition, as a general rule, the existence of
communication neither from the perspective of enunciation,
nor from that of reception; their existence is, therefore,
optional on principle; the zero omission test is applicable with
some restrictions;
intermediate semantic-syntactic functions
{comment, explanation, apposition): functions that have
characteristics of both secondary/subordinate
-
that is, from
the perspective of the enunciation/ interlocutor for whom the
164
_____
Actualitatea sintaxei româneşti clasice moderne
expression of comment/explanation/ translation is optional;
as a transmitter, he is aware of the information data to be
transmitted (the omission test is always possible from this
perspective)
-
and main, that is, from the perspective of the
reception/ interlocutor for whom the expression of the
translation /explanation/comment is compulsory/ necessary,
their existence conditioning the adequate decoding of the
message in the locutor s communication intention, therefore
the success of the communication act (the zero commutation
test is never applicable from this point of view).
* *
From the perspective of syntactic relations (we
acknowledge seven of them: inherency, coordination,
subordination, mixed,
appositive,
explanatory, incidency), we
have considered as necessary the actualization of the
theoretical description by the acknowledgement of the
explanatory and incidency relations (along with the
subordination, inherency and apposition relations) as
engendering syntactic/semantic-syntactic functions:
explanation and comment functions. Altogether, the
actualization approach concerning syntactic relations aim at
identifying a separate category of relations, that we have called
intentional syntactic relations, a category represented by the
incidental, explanatory and
appositive
relations. This new
systematization of syntactic relations description is based on a
renovation of their conceptualization. In other words, we
consider that the incidental relation is not unique from the
point of view of the content. Its particularity consisting in the
relating of syntactic planes, not of syntactic units, it concerns a
group of syntactic relations, that is the incidental, explanatory
and appositional relations. In this situation, validated by the
linguistic structures, the dichotomy in the theory of language:
proper communication plane
-
commentary plane proves
165
Monica
TIMOFTE
to insufficient. Therefore, we also consider adequate to carry
out a terminological modification, along with the conceptual
one, of the above mentioned restrictive dichotomy, with
another one, more suggestive by its larger covered area: the
proper communication plane vs. the metacommunication
plane, the latter with threefold ways of manifestation: the
comment, explanation/justification, translation. Also, it is
necessary that we should explain the syntactic plane
—
syntactic unit distinction. In our opinion, the syntactic plane
can be defined as an abstract syntactic reality with a binary
characterization: in terms of content
-
consisting in a
characterizing
semantism,
that is a certain communication
intention (or the proper communication intention, or the
commentary intention, or the explanation/justification
intention, or the translation intention)
-
and of form- consisting
(except for the details) in the compulsory presence of
prosodie
markers that correspond, in written code, to various
punctuation marks. What follows the acknowledgement of the
above mentioned issues is that the particular identity of the
incidental relation is not defined by the establishing of
relations between different syntactic planes, but by the
speaker s particular intention of communication: that of
comment. As a general statement, we will assess that the
generic name given to these three relations, that of intentional
syntactic relations is justified by their particularity to outline a
specific identity for themselves solely on the grounds of the
semantic criterion: a particular intention of communication (or
to comment, explain, translate). Among the advantages of this
concept reorganization of the description of syntactic relations
there is also the possibility of consistent identification of all
syntactic relations within the language, in relating them to the
same (two) criteria: the importance of the related units and the
existence of the various communication planes. Thus, we state
that in considering the content of intentional syntactic
relations, the importance of related syntactic planes is basic:
166
Actualitatea sintaxei româneşti clasice moderne
on the one hand, the opposition between the distinct category
of intentional syntactic relations (incidental, explanatory,
appositional relations) and the other ones (of inherence,
coordination, subordination, mixed) is created by means of the
intermediate importance, and, on the other hand, an opposition
within this category of intentional relations is created by the
particularity of relating syntactic planes, function of the
speaker s communication intention.
Secondarily, we have shown that the anacoluthon, as a
type of discontinuity consisting in the elision of a part of the
communicated statement does not confine the development of
syntactic functions in the anacoluthon structures neither in the
direction of engendering a new syntactic function (with
Üie
explanatory relation), nor in that of the possibility of the
identification of a habitual syntactic function, engendered by
the subordination relation (with the mixed relation).
In considering syntactic units, we had in view the
semantics of incidental units that we consider more convenient
to identify with the incidental relation s meaning/content- for
which the name grammatical/syntactic modus seems
appropriate
-
and not with the lexical meaning/ content of
incidental units, a level that might be characterized as being a
semantic modus. The acknowledgement of this dissociation
allows, on the one hand, the invariable characterization of the
incidental aspect as modus, more exactly as
grammatical/syntactic modus, thus the theory of language
gaining homogeneity, by removing the heterogeneous
irrelevant description of the same reality: as a semantic modus
and dictum, and, on the other hand, it leads to a non-
contradictory interpretation of linguistic structures such as
Problema desigur că
e
dificilă, Desigur că problema
e
dificilă
—
as non-incidental structures.
167
Monica
TIMOFTE
Also, still referring to the possibility of materialization
of the incidental plane by means of syntactic units, we have
considered as necessary to compare the distinct theorization of
the same linguistic structures, under the names syntactic
substitute (and particular units), syntagm, incidental
vocatival embedding. Our opinion concerning the definition of
the substitute as a syntactic unit is that the current linguistic
theory needs a melioration of the contradiction resulting from
the disagreement between linguistic structures and their
form description; between the augmentation of the number of
syntactic units
(cf.
syntagm, incidental vocatival embedding),
differentiated only by details of form and the maintaining of
the number of five syntactic units (part of the sentence,
sentence, complex sentence, text, syntactic substitute) by the
actualization of the linguistic theory within the language, we
choose the second solution, considering the analogy with
another syntactic unit, the sentence, equally pertinent. In what
concerns the syntactic substitute, the melioration of form
description that we propose consists in acknowledging that this
unit, that cannot be developed into sentence or complex
sentence, can, however, be functional and divisible at a
syntactic level. The latter form feature allows a classification
of the substitute according to its structure, in: synthetic
substitute, represented by synthetic parts of speech
{copile,
fireşte,
oh etc.), periphrastic substitute
-
represented by
periphrases/stable embeddings
{de bună seamă,
Doamne-
fereşte
etc.) and analytical substitute
-
represented by parts of
speech with compulsory determination/embeddings with
compulsory determination
(fată harnică, onorată audienţă
etc.). In the present stage of the research, we consider that the
form differences among the three structural types of substitute
do not correspond to semantic differences able to modify the
respective unit s characterization from the point of view of its
content.
(traducere în engleza realizată de
Cristina
Sturzu)
168
|
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| author | Timofte, Monica |
| author_facet | Timofte, Monica |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Timofte, Monica |
| author_variant | m t mt |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV035631790 |
| callnumber-first | P - Language and Literature |
| callnumber-label | PC713 |
| callnumber-raw | PC713 |
| callnumber-search | PC713 |
| callnumber-sort | PC 3713 |
| callnumber-subject | PC - Romanic Languages |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)152581704 (DE-599)BVBBV035631790 |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01765nam a2200445 cb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV035631790</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20090928 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">090716s2005 |||| 00||| rum d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9737603192</subfield><subfield code="9">973-7603-19-2</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)152581704</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV035631790</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">rum</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">PC713</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,38</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Timofte, Monica</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Actualitatea sintaxei româneşti "clasice moderne"</subfield><subfield code="c">Monica Timofte</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Iaşi</subfield><subfield code="b">Casa Ed. "Demiurg"</subfield><subfield code="c">2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">185 S.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Colecţia Lingua</subfield><subfield code="v">30</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zsfassung in engl. Sprache</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Romanian language / Syntax</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Romanian language</subfield><subfield code="x">Syntax</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Syntax</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4058779-4</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Rumänisch</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4115807-6</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Rumänisch</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4115807-6</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Syntax</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4058779-4</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="830" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Colecţia Lingua</subfield><subfield code="v">30</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV013463515</subfield><subfield code="9">30</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSBMuenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=017686720&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=017686720&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-017686720</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">400</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="g">498</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| id | DE-604.BV035631790 |
| illustrated | Not Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-07-09T21:42:01Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9737603192 |
| language | Romanian |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-017686720 |
| oclc_num | 152581704 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 |
| owner_facet | DE-12 |
| physical | 185 S. |
| publishDate | 2005 |
| publishDateSearch | 2005 |
| publishDateSort | 2005 |
| publisher | Casa Ed. "Demiurg" |
| record_format | marc |
| series | Colecţia Lingua |
| series2 | Colecţia Lingua |
| spelling | Timofte, Monica Verfasser aut Actualitatea sintaxei româneşti "clasice moderne" Monica Timofte Iaşi Casa Ed. "Demiurg" 2005 185 S. txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Colecţia Lingua 30 Zsfassung in engl. Sprache Romanian language / Syntax Romanian language Syntax Syntax (DE-588)4058779-4 gnd rswk-swf Rumänisch (DE-588)4115807-6 gnd rswk-swf Rumänisch (DE-588)4115807-6 s Syntax (DE-588)4058779-4 s DE-604 Colecţia Lingua 30 (DE-604)BV013463515 30 Digitalisierung BSBMuenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=017686720&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=017686720&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract |
| spellingShingle | Timofte, Monica Actualitatea sintaxei româneşti "clasice moderne" Colecţia Lingua Romanian language / Syntax Romanian language Syntax Syntax (DE-588)4058779-4 gnd Rumänisch (DE-588)4115807-6 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4058779-4 (DE-588)4115807-6 |
| title | Actualitatea sintaxei româneşti "clasice moderne" |
| title_auth | Actualitatea sintaxei româneşti "clasice moderne" |
| title_exact_search | Actualitatea sintaxei româneşti "clasice moderne" |
| title_full | Actualitatea sintaxei româneşti "clasice moderne" Monica Timofte |
| title_fullStr | Actualitatea sintaxei româneşti "clasice moderne" Monica Timofte |
| title_full_unstemmed | Actualitatea sintaxei româneşti "clasice moderne" Monica Timofte |
| title_short | Actualitatea sintaxei româneşti "clasice moderne" |
| title_sort | actualitatea sintaxei romanesti clasice moderne |
| topic | Romanian language / Syntax Romanian language Syntax Syntax (DE-588)4058779-4 gnd Rumänisch (DE-588)4115807-6 gnd |
| topic_facet | Romanian language / Syntax Romanian language Syntax Syntax Rumänisch |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=017686720&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=017686720&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| volume_link | (DE-604)BV013463515 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT timoftemonica actualitateasintaxeiromanesticlasicemoderne |