00875nas a2200121   4500008004100000245010500041210010500146300001000251490000700261520035000268100003700618856009800655       1991                        bul d00aОсобен поглед върху чешкия и българския консонантизъм0 aОсобен поглед върху чешкия и българския консонантизъм  a5–90 v163 aThe article presents a new approach to palatal and affricate consonants in Czech and Bulgarian.A table of the consonants of the two languages is presented, followed by a discussion. This article by prof. S. Ivanchev is published posthumously and is supplemented with notes and comments by Bozhil Nikolov, Nadеzhda Kуtova and Miroslav Yanakiev.1 aИванчев, Светомир  uhttps://naum.slav.uni-sofia.bg/en/librislavici/%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B2199100464nas a2200133   4500008004100000245004400041210004100085300001400126490000700140653001600147653003000163100003700193856010000230       1991                        bul d00aЮрий С. Маслов (1914–1990)0 aЮрий С Маслов 1914–1990  a126–1280 v1610ain memoriam10aЮрий С. Маслов1 aИванчев, Светомир  uhttps://naum.slav.uni-sofia.bg/en/librislavici/%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B21991-000433nas a2200133   4500008004100000245003400041210003200075300001400107490000700121653001600128653002000144100003700164856009800201       1990                        bul d00aЯн Петър (1931–1989)0 aЯн Петър 1931–1989  a115–1160 v1510ain memoriam10aЯн Петър1 aИванчев, Светомир  uhttps://naum.slav.uni-sofia.bg/en/librislavici/%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B2199001385nas a2200121   4500008004100000245020500041210012300246300001200369490000600381520074100387100003701128856009801165       1983                        bul d00aПо повод на статията „Една типологична особеност на българския и унгарския език“ от Александър Александров0 aПо повод на статията Една типологична особеност на българския и   a47–530 v83 aSome further comments are made on the problem discussed in A. Aleksandrov’s paper A typological peculiarity of Bulgarian and Hungarian as regards the fixed position on the dative possessive pronominal clitic in Bulgarian and its typological and etymological characteristics. It has been assumed that the phenomenon must have originated in three ways: it might have developed independently; it might have been the result of Turkic influence, prior to the contact established by Bulgarian Slavs with the Greek language. The influence of Hungarian cannot be generally excluded in the areas north of the Danube. Later on the phenomenon was influenced by Greek and much later there was Turkic influence again (this time of Ottoman Turkish)1 aИванчев, Светомир  uhttps://naum.slav.uni-sofia.bg/en/librislavici/%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B2198300557nas a2200109   4500008003900000245012800039210012500167300001400292490000600306100003700312856009800349       1982                          d00aКъм въпроса за съчетанията РЪ/РЬ, ЛЪ/ЛЬ в старобългарските текстове0 aКъм въпроса за съчетанията РЪРЬ ЛЪЛЬ в старобългарските текстове  a103–1070 v61 aИванчев, Светомир  uhttps://naum.slav.uni-sofia.bg/en/librislavici/%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B2198201601nas a2200121   4500008004100000245014000041210012500181300001000306490000600316520102200322100003701344856009801381       1981                        bul d00aКласически и екзотичен, българският език – постар от българската държава0 aКласически и екзотичен българският език постар от българската дъ  a5–90 v63 aIn this article entitled „Bulgarian, a language classical and exotic, older than the Bulgarian state“, the author presents his viewpoint on the importance of Bulgarian for the study of Slavic and Balkan languages. He discusses the criteria for establishing the beginnings of a language (the appearance of a literary form as distinct from the pre-literary stage, the foundation of the respective state, the use of a distinct name for the language, the settlement on a given territory, the emergence of specific linguistic characteristics, etc.). He focuses on the beginnings of the language, its specific linguistic features and especially on the development of the Proto-Slavic sound combinations *tj,*dj, *tl, *dl, *pj, *bj, *vj, *mj, *kv, *gv and the expression of possession. The linguistic situation at the time of the establishment of the Bulgarian state 1300 years ago and subsequent language contacts are touched upon and the role of Old Bulgarian as a literary language of the Slavic world is highlighted.1 aИванчев, Светомир  uhttps://naum.slav.uni-sofia.bg/en/librislavici/%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B2198100541nas a2200109   4500008003900000245012000039210011700159300001200276490000600288100003700294856010000331       1981                          d00aРазвоят на *tj, *dj в шт и жд и етногенетичният процес на Балканите0 aРазвоят на tj dj в шт и жд и етногенетичният процес на Балканите  a27–470 v51 aИванчев, Светомир  uhttps://naum.slav.uni-sofia.bg/en/librislavici/%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B21981-001156nas a2200121   4500008004100000245018100041210012600222300001200348490000600360520053300366100003700899856009800936       1980                        bul d00aНякои аспекти на синтактичната характеристика на българския език при съпоставката му с полския0 aНякои аспекти на синтактичната характеристика на българския език  a38–420 v53 aartial syntactic characterisation is discussed in the context of the common characteristics of the contrasted languages. As regards Bulgarian these characteristics are Slavic (in terms of origin and language contacts), Balkan (in terms of contacts and spontaneous development) and a reflection of the earliest contacts of Bulgarian with the Turkic languages. As regards Polish, these characteristics are common West Slavic, exhibiting genetic and contactual features which have arisen spontaneously in their natural development.1 aИванчев, Светомир  uhttps://naum.slav.uni-sofia.bg/en/librislavici/%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B2198000420nas a2200133   4500008004100000245002400041210002400065300001400089490000600103653001600109653002400125100003700149856010000186       1979                        bul d00aИван Леков0 aИван Леков  a114–1160 v410ain memoriam10aИван Леков1 aИванчев, Светомир  uhttps://naum.slav.uni-sofia.bg/en/librislavici/%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B21979-001005nas a2200121   4500008004100000245018500041210012600226300001200352490000600364520037800370100003700748856009800785       1979                        bul d00aНай-обща съпоставка на основната (безпрефиксална) глаголна лексика в българския и белоруския език0 aНайобща съпоставка на основната безпрефиксална глаголна лексика   a50–590 v43 aA tentative comparison between the non-prefixal verbs in Bulgarian and Byelorussian is made. Itt shows that though closely related, the two languages have their own specific character which is partly common to the respective larger language divisions (South Slavic and East Slavic) and is partly due to the differences which are unique and typical of a given language only.1 aИванчев, Светомир  uhttps://naum.slav.uni-sofia.bg/en/librislavici/%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B2197900538nas a2200133   4500008004100000245008100041210007500122300001200197490000600209653001600215653003800231100003700269856009800306       1978                        bul d00aБохуслав Хавранек (30 януари 1893 – 2 март 1978)0 aБохуслав Хавранек 30 януари 1893 2 март 1978  a92–940 v310ain memoriam10aБохуслав Хавранек1 aИванчев, Светомир  uhttps://naum.slav.uni-sofia.bg/en/librislavici/%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B2197801188nas a2200121   4500008004100000245016800041210012700209300001200336490000600348520057700354100003700931856009800968       1976                        bul d00aЕдин неописан семантико-словообразователен глаголен модел в съвременния български език0 aЕдин неописан семантикословообразователен глаголен модел в съвре  a19–300 v13 aulgarian reflexive verbs have not been researched in great detail. What we find on the subject is scattered in studies on related topics and in various grammar books. Even less attention has been paid to the reflexiva tantum verbs. Polish reflexive verbs were described in a special monograph as early as 1966. The similarities and differences between Polish and Bulgarian in this sphere cannot be exhausted in such a brief text so I will concentrate on a verbal type belonging to the reflexiva tantum, which has no parallel in Polish and has to be rendered descriptively.1 aИванчев, Светомир  uhttps://naum.slav.uni-sofia.bg/en/librislavici/%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B2197601235nas a2200121   4500008004100000245019700041210012600238300001400364490000600378520059300384100003700977856009901014       1976                        bul d00aЕдин сравнително нов семантико-словообразователен тип глаголи в съвременния български и белоруски език0 aЕдин сравнително нов семантикословообразователен тип глаголи в с  a111–1150 v13 aince ancient times Slavic languages have used nouns, adjectives and adverbs with the prefixed element само-, a calque of Greek auto-. Byelorussian has 8 verbs with this element and almost all of them have correspondences in Russian. Compared to Bulgarian this is a non-productive type in Byelorussian. Various ways of rendering the relevant meanings and functions in the two languages are discussed together with factors determining various choices. Since this verbal type is more economical and convenient in special terminology, we can expect that it will become more widely spread.1 aИванчев, Светомир  uhttps://naum.slav.uni-sofia.bg/en/librislavici/%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B21976a