A comparative study of content and context of Vrednic (Romanian) and ВРЕДЕН/Vreden (BULGARIAN)
Abstract. A linguistic issue with particularly vital importance for translation studies as defined and analysed in the present article is the holistic understanding of the Bulgarian influences on the contemporary Romanian language and how they impact the transmission of meaning in the process of translation between these two languages. The argument’s methodological development is provided through a focused historical overview and comparative analysis of the relevant texts with a semantic examination of the selected words. A historical overview of the relationship between Romanian and Bulgarian languages is being offered before a comparative study of content and context of vrednic (Romanian) and вреден/vreden (Bulgarian) is carried out. Special consideration is given to the format and meaning of the word vrednic and вреден/ vreden by their significant occurrences in the most relevant literary sources and finally an evaluation of the translation difficulties related to the format and meaning of the word vrednic and вреден/vreden in their original sources is presented. Therefore through the comparative analysis an argumentative critique is established for the immense value of an adequate knowledge and understanding to be possessed by the translator of the historical interactions leading to semantic tensions between the aforementioned languages. Significant texts that incorporate the presence of identical word usage but with modified semantic value across these two languages are to be considered carefully through the degree of difficulty and ambiguity that such occurrences could bring to the translating process and therefore could considerably affect the quality of the translated text.
INTRODUCTION
The Slavic and afterwards Bulgarian language influence on the development of Romanian was acknowledged to various degrees throughout the history of the Romanian language. However there is rather considerable ambiguity in regard to this influence on contemporary Romanian and even more on the specific translation difficulties that the translator between these two languages has to deal with when engaging in translating a text that incorporates the presence of identical word usage but with modified semantic value across these two languages. Therefore I consider that a holistic understanding of how these influences had been implemented into contemporary Romanian language and how they relate to Bulgarian contemporary language is paramount for a translator who is dealing with translation of texts between these two languages.
In order to draw attention to this matter I will attempt a comparative study of content and context of vrednic (Romanian) and вреден/vreden (Bulgarian) presenting a historical overview of the relationship between the Romanian and Bulgarian languages. In extending my comparative study I will take in consideration the format and meaning of the word vrednic and вреден/ vreden by their significant occurrences in the most relevant literary sources and finally I will evaluate the translation difficulties related to the format and meaning of the word vrednic and вреден/vreden in their original sources.
1. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ROMANIAN AND BULGARIAN LANGUAGES
1.1 The influence of Old Bulgarian on Romanian language
It is supposed that before the separation of dialects around 1000 AD in the Common Romanian the “oldest stratum” of South Slavic loan words were around 70 words but some of these words in the process of borrowing were modified through supplementation of Latin prefixes. As a result, the Slavic words suffered formal and semantic alteration. Such an example could be the South Slavic vrteti which means to turn, to twist and through addition of the Latin prefix in became învârtesc, in this case preserving its original meaning.
However, the most powerful influence on the Northern Romanian dialect was manifested between 7th century to the end of 12th century when the two populations and therefore the two cultures had strongly interacted. At that time Vlachs (the name used to describe the forefathers of today’s Romanians) were living together in the Bulgarian state . Therefore, the Old-Bulgarian language influenced the Romanian at such a high scale that this language was used in the church organizations and other socio-cultural institutions. As Donka Petkanova claims, at that time the overall nature of the Old-Bulgarian literature can be characterised as religiously defined.
In line with this theory Du Nay concludes that the two ethnic groups lived in close contact for a long period of time. Supporting this presupposition Petkanova states that the Old Bulgarian language was the official literary language and the church service the language of the Romanian principalities during the 15th to 17th centuries while the vernacular language of the common people was a Non-Slavic one. However it seems that the oral influence of Old-Bulgarian cannot be denied, even though the common people continued to speak the Non-Slavic language, Romanian which at that time was considered vernacular. The duality of language presence in Romania, namely, the official Slavic language of the church and the state and the Romanian vernacular spoken by the common people, was a usual phenomenon for the middles ages in Europe.
Maria Cvasni Cătănescu maintains that the Slavic influence continued to spread orally and in written form even though the assimilation of some of the Slavic terms was temporary. However after the 18th century the Slavic influence continued through the loaning process from Bulgarian, Ukrainian and Serbo-Croatian language.
1.2 Contra influence towards Old Bulgarian in the Romanian language
The strongest process of clearing the Slavic element from the Romanian language took place at the end of the 18th century through the Latinist movement that had started in Transylvania. This movement led to the use of the Roman instead of the Cyrillic alphabet in which most of the literature was written at that time. The other primary effect of this movement was the ‘re-Latinizing’ of the vocabulary. The effects of this movement had materialized in the 19th century through the strong French influence on both the Romanian language and also the cultural life and according to Deletant, French language was and continues to constitute the favourite source of neologisms for the Romanian language.
The opinions on how many Slavic elements entered the Romanian language were often controversial as Rosetti points out in his preface to the History of Romanian Language. He evaluates Cihac’s study on the 5,765 words, a study that was strongly contra-attacked by Haşdeu whose argument in favour of widely Latin spread words was supported by his claim that the phrases could not only be composed by Slavic elements. Cihac claimed that, 2,361 words of his material that is 2/5 were of Slavic origins compared to the 1,165 meaning 1/5 of Latin origin.
However, despite the trial to eliminate the words of Slavic origin from Romanian during the modern times, Du Nay emphasises the remarkable effect of South Slavic on the Northern Romanian language which he underlines that can be concluded form various statistics and stands. To further support his point of view, Du Nay provides an additional example of how beside the trial of eliminating the Slavic origin words, in the process of Latinizing the language, some of the Slavic origin words remained in the Romanian vocabulary but modified by Latin prefixes as in Slavic pleti which means to plait or to braid. Through the addition of the Latin prefix in, the Slavic pleti became împleti in Romanian.
1. 3 The contemporary presence of Bulgarian language in Romanian
Contemporary Romanian is acknowledged as a Romance language that had developed from Latin about two thousands years ago and as Deletant maintains its grammar is almost entirely Latin. However due to the fact that it is the only Romance language in Eastern-Europe, its isolation from the constant contact with other Romance languages had led to the development of specific features which makes Romanian distinctive among other Romance languages. Two of these distinctive features mentioned by Deletant are the post positioning of the definite article and a three-case system with forms for the nominative/accusative, vocative, and genitive/dative. Even though Deletant acknowledges the immense Slavic influences in Romanian language he maintains that the basic vocabulary is Latin . Furthermore, Graur emphasises the Slavic influence the contemporary Romanian claiming that in addition to the Slavic elements new words were added to the Romanian vocabulary mostly from Bulgarian by oral format and among those that are part of the Romanian vocabulary is the word vrednic.
The Romanian vrednic has generated from the Slavic verb вредити/vrediti which means to injure or to harm and has been initially used in Romanian language with the very same original negative connotation as a vătăma/ to injure or to harm. Supporting the continuity of the Slavic verb вредити/vrediti in Bulgarian, in 1909 Arbure provides the declinations of вредити/vrediti and their Romanian correspondents in his Bulgarian-Romanian dictionary.
However, today in the contemporary Romanian vrednic which had generated from the Slavic as seen above and the Bulgarian вреден/vreden, has the opposite meaning and we can consider them as ‘polar opposites’ as Nida refers to similar pairs of words and therefore we can consider this pair namely вреден/vreden-vrednic as being in a ‘semantic tension’.
2. CONSIDERATION OF THE FORMAT AND MEANING OF THE WORD VREDNIC AND ВРЕДЕН/ VREDEN BY THEIR SIGNIFICANT OCCURRENCES IN THE MOST RELEVANT LITERARY SOURCES.
2.1 Establishing the meaning and the format of the word vrednic on the bases of some examples of its usage.
In order to visualise vrednic’s usage in the context I will present a few examples of its use in two of its forms vrednic and its derivate vrednicie . Even though used in different contexts its major usage is represented through religious texts. Therefore I will present here these texts in parallel with their Bulgarian and English translations when essential for contrast and for underlining its ‘semantic tension’ with the Romanian equivalent.
In 1 Timothy 1:15 “O, adevărat şi cu totul vrednic de primit este cuvîntul, care zice: ‘Hristos Isus a venit în lume ca să mîntuiască pe cei păcătoşi’, dintre cari cel dintîi sînt eu.” 1 Timothy 1:15 “Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners - of whom I am the worst.” 1 Timothy 1:15 “Вярно е това слово и заслужава пълно приемане, че Христос Исус дойде на света да спаси грешните, от които главният съм аз.” One can notice that in this text vrednic is translated as trustworthy but in the Bulgarian text it loses its correspondent, its meaning being surrounded somehow by Вярно/ vearno, which means true but the presence of vrednic is lost here. A similar example is the following text which includes a repetitive usage of vrednic: Philippians 4:8 “Încolo, fraţii mei, tot ce este adevărat, tot ce este vrednic de cinste, tot ce este drept, tot ce este curat, tot ce este vrednic de iubit, tot ce este vrednic de primit, orice faptă bună, şi orice laudă, aceea să vă însufleţească.” Philippians 4:8 “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable - if anything is excellent or praiseworthy-think about such things.” Philippians 4:8. “Най-после, братя, всичко, що е истинно, що е честно, що е праведно, що е любезно, що е благодатно,- ако има нещо добродетелно, и ако има нещо похвално,- това зачитайте.” In the above Romanian version of the text we can notice the repetitive presence of vrednic meaning worthy which is also present in the English version but only attached to praise + worthy and in Bulgarian version the translation of vrednic is lost, the adjective supplied such as любезно/liubezno meaning lovely, not requiring the additional support of such devices as in the Romanian version.
In order to offer another perspective on the meaning of vrednic I will provide two other examples where its declination vrednicie is being used with the meaning of diligence providing beneath the original text my translation of the Romanian version into English. Bulgarian translation is not essential in these contexts where the term used is different. We can notice that vrednicie is used in this news report in a more religious context and with an archaic nuance in the second example. “Distincţii de vrednicie acordate cu prilejul resfinţirii altarului Catedralei mitropolitane din Iaşi. Cu acest prilej, a fost scoasa in evidenta vrednicia persoanelor care au fost cel mai mult implicate in aceasta lucrare, PF Sa acordand distinctii de vrednicie[...]”. Distinctions of diligence awarded on the occasion of re-sanctification of the Metropolitan Cathedral of Iasi. On this occasion was emphasised the diligence of the persons who were the most involved in this ministry, His PF had awarded diligence distinctions. The second example is taken from an archaic Romanian text. [...] “lucru mare, pentru căci fiind secerişul mult, trebue şi lucrători mulţi; şi pentru căci iaste turma mare, un păstor singur, măcar că iaste mare în vrednicie [...].” My translation of this extract is the following: […] a great deal, because having a great crop, many workers are needed; and because there is a large flock, only a shepherd, even though there is high diligence. […] One can notice the use of vrednicie representing diligence in both the contemporary news report and the archaic Romanian text.
2.2 Establishing the meaning and the format of the word вреден/vreden on the bases of some examples of its usage.
In order to observe the opposing meaning of the terms вреден/vreden and vrednic which is only used today with a positive connotation, we will now look at some of the examples including derivates of вреден/vreden used with a negative connotation with the exception of its limited vernacular usage which bears a positive meaning. As in the case of vrednic for the purpose of visualising the contrast between the terms I will provide the translation of my examples in English and Romanian when essential. The first example is from Acts 25:10 “А Павел каза: Аз стоя пред Кесаревото съдилище, гдето трябва да бъда съден. На юдеите не съм сторил никаква вреда, както и ти твърде добре знаеш.” Acts 25:10 “Paul answered: "I am now standing before Caesar's court, where I ought to be tried. I have not done any wrong to the Jews, as you yourself know very well.” Acts 25:10 “Pavel a zis: ,,Eu stau înaintea scaunului de judecată al Cezarului; acolo trebuie să fiu judecat. Pe Iudei nu i-am nedreptăţit cu nimic, după cum ştii şi tu foarte bine.” In the above example one clearly can notice that вреда/vreda, which is a declination of вреден/vreden, is being used with the meaning of wrong or to do wrong as in the Romanian version. We will now look at a similar example this time with вредни/vredni, using the plural form of вреден/vreden but in this context with the meaning of harmful in all the three languages. 1 Timothy 6:9 “А които ламтят за обогатяване, падат в изкушение, в примка и в много глупави и вредни страсти, които потопяват човеците в разорение и погибел.” 1 Timothy 6:9 “People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction”. 1 Timothy 6:9 “Cei ce vor să se îmbogăţească, dimpotrivă, cad în ispită, în laţ şi în multe pofte nesăbuite şi vătămătoare, cari cufundă pe oameni în prăpăd, şi pierzare.”
Finally we are going to look to three other examples of the usage of вреден/vreden in a legal and financial context providing this time the translation in English only for clarity of my explanations. The Romanian translation in these examples is not essential for contrasting purposes and the term used for вреден/vreden is not presenting a similar format.
“Депутати от ‘Коалиция за България’ изненадващо скочиха срещу въвеждането на плоския данък по време на дебатите около Закона за облагането на доходите на физическите лица. ‘Плоският данък е вреден!’ Това заяви народният представител Георги Близнашки (БСП) от парламентарната трибуна и подчерта, че в партията му имало ‘псевдо консенсус’ по въвеждането на единната ставка от 10%. Решението да се въведе плосък данък от 10% без необлагаем минимум беше взето преди месеци от съвета на тройната коалиция.” The following is my translation of the above citation and reflects the use of вреден/vreden as harmful. “MP’s from the ‘Coalition for Bulgaria’ surprisingly raised up against the introduction of the flat tax rate during the debates around the Law of Taxation of the income of the individuals. ‘The flat rate is harmful/damaging (вреден)!’ This is what has been announced by the MP’s Georgy Bliznashki (BSP) from the parliamentary platform and underlined that in his party there was ‘pseudo-consensus’ for the introduction of the united tax rate of 10%. The decision to introduce flat tax rate of 10% without untaxed minimum was taken few months ago by the counsel of the triple coalition.”
The next example is from Bulgarian Post and we can further notice the use of вреден/vreden as harmful, this time as its derivate вреда/vreda. “По мнението на ПГ на ДСБ проектът за създаване на Българска банка за развитие нанася сериозна вреда на свободния пазарен принцип в банковата система на страната.” Its translation is the following: “According to the opinion of PG of DSB the project for establishing the Bulgarian Bank for development causes serious damage (вреда) to the free market principle of the bank system of the country”. The last example extends the use of вреди/ vredi to the financial damages. “Разследването срещу седем души от ТЕЛК - Ловеч, е приключило в националното следствие, стана ясно по време на вчерашния му отчет. С уреждане на фалшиви документи за инвалидност те са нанесли на държавата 1 154 366 лв. вреди, изчислили от следствието. ” In the translation we notice that damages is linked to the financial damages. “The investigation against seven persons of TELK – Lovech, has been completed in national inquest, became apparent during his yesterday’s report. With the settlement of the false documents for disability they have caused to the country 1,154,366.00 lv. damages (вреди), have calculated the investigation authorities”.
2.3 A comparative analysis of vrednic and вреден/vreden in regard to their meaning and format.
Through the examples that were provided both in support of the Romanian vrednic and the Bulgarian вреден/vreden and through their formats one could notice that these terms are contrasting even though their format is similar. After having presented the historical overview of how the Romanian vrednic has developed its contrasting meaning, even though having the same root in Slavic as the Bulgarian вреден/vreden one can understand the importance of being aware of such cases in other languages whose interaction through history had led to drastic semantic changes.
Looking in retrospect over the study of вреден/vreden and vrednic I can say that the actual comparative analysis performed on these examples and together with the historical overview constitute a contextual meaning analysis pointing out the way these terms function in their specific situation/context. Bearing in mind the development of vrednic which has generated from the Slavic vrediti and initial was perceived in the Romanian Slavonic as synonym to the verb to damage, I can conclude that vrednic had undergone a polysemy development but whose initially or “usual” category as Retsker refers to such cases had become “occasional” and as is the case in the contemporary Romanian, had got a new value, worthy, opposite to the вреден/vreden which means harmful.
It is worth to summarise that all the forms of the word вреден/vreden except its vernacular/non-literary meaning has negative connotation (partial destruction, mischief, harm, injury, damage, lost in something). The antonym of this literary meaning bears very positive connotation (useful, of use, of benefit; efficient, beneficial, healthy, wholesome; good for one). The vernacular/non-literary meaning of the word comes closer to its antonym’s meaning and emphasizes person’s ability, skill, talent, gift, cleverness or the place’s well arranged and settled outlook. The literary meaning of вреден/vreden is very well contrasting to the positive connotation of vrednic whose English correspondent is worthy.
3. TRANSLATION DIFFICULTIES RELATED TO THE FORMAT AND MEANING OF THE WORD VREDNIC AND ВРЕДЕН/VREDEN IN THEIR ORIGINAL SOURCES.
In this section I will highlight a few points on the importance of historical context for producing relevant translations and to the importance of understanding the continuity and discontinuity of format and meaning of similar word usage in source and target texts. Having used in my study the pair vrednic - вреден/vreden I will use them in my illustrations when mentioning translation difficulties between Romanian and Bulgarian languages. Even though I do not intend to defend Nida’s claims on the priority of meaning over the structure of the text , I would like to draw attention to the risk of overlooking the translation choices in such cases as in the pair vrednic - вреден/vreden having in minds its meaning continuity and discontinuity in Romanian language. Even more, the term vrednic is often used in religious texts in Romanian and from there appears the risk of using it inadequately in translation into Bulgarian due to its format similarities. Therefore one needs to be aware of the context differences in which he/she uses vrednic so that the meaning in that particular text does not receive a contrastive connotation which would lead to inaccuracies in translation. Therefore, in line with Resker, I would suggest that in such cases as in the pair vrednic - вреден/vreden, the translator evaluates his/her choice in the wider context, looking for clues in the sentences surrounding the term in question, and based on the meaning dependant to these sentence, the translator can identify and eventually decide which synonym expresses better its correspondent in the other language within the context.
However, because of the historical background in relation to the strong Slavic and latter Bulgarian influences on Romanian language, the translator engaging in translation of texts between these two languages, has to posses a good knowledge of the Romanian/Bulgarian language interaction within the history, being prepared to meet many other pairs like vrednic - вреден/vreden which will pose further challenges in the process of translation and which along with the case vrednic - вреден/vreden have suffered semantic and format changes.
CONCLUSION
My purpose with this present article was to raise awareness of the difficulties that the translator between Romanian and Bulgarian languages is likely to face when engaging in translating similar occurrences in the texts as is the case of vrednic - вреден/vreden. Therefore in my study I had presented significant points related to the historical relationship between Romanian and Bulgarian languages and how the latter had influenced the contemporary Romanian. Further on, I have extended my comparative study taking into consideration the format and meaning of the word vrednic and вреден/ vreden by their significant occurrences in the most relevant literary sources. Finally I have evaluated the translation difficulties related to the format and meaning of the word vrednic and вреден/vreden in their original sources and proposed an adequate awareness of the languages’ historical interactions.
FOOTNOTES
André Du Nay, The Origins of The Rumanians: The Early History of The Rumanian Language (Toronto-Buffalo: Matithias Corvinus Publishing, 1996), 100.
Ibid., 101.
According to Silviu Dragomir, Romanian historians have failed to properly address the subject of Vlachs population in Balkan Peninsula during the Middle Ages. He considers this failure as the consequence of the limited knowledge of the Slavic languages and prejudice. Silviu Dragomir, Vlahii din nordul peninsulei balcanice in evul mediu (Bucureşti: Comisia pentru studiul formãrii limbii şi poporului român, Edit. Acad. RPR, 1959), Prefaţă.
Донка Петканова argues that the overall nature of the Old-Bulgarian literature can be characterised as religiously defined. Some of the literature has been produced to serve the needs of the church for its ceremonies, liturgy, celebrations, ethical and dogmatic instructions. Other literary works have not been directly related to the church practices but expressed deep Christian motives. Part of the literature has been devoted to tackle different Christian heresies and other religious teachings. Significant numbers of writings have been devoted to Christian themes for the large public. Some of the literary pieces demonstrated annals characteristics related to the history of the church. Even in writings with the more secular character Christian motives and influences could be clearly detected. Донка Петканова, Обхват и характер на старобългарската литература, [online], Available at http://www.libsu.uni-sofia.bg/slavica/literatura.html, Accessed on 24 March 2008.
A. Du Nay, The Origins of The Rumanians, 111.
Д. Петканова, Обхват и характер на старобългарската литература.
Examples of such language duality may be given with Germany which had Latin as the language of church and state and German as being used by the common folk and England which maintained French as the official language and ancient Anglo-Saxon as the vernacular of the masses. Constantin C. Giurgescu, The Making of the Romanian People and Language, trans. Virgiliu Ştefănescu – Drăgăneşti (Bucharest: Meridiane Publishing House, 1972), 156.
Maria Cvasni Catănescu, Limba romană – origini şi dezvoltare: Studiu antologie de texte româneşti vechi, explicaţii, glosar si bibliografie (Bucureşti: Humanitas, 1996), 86.
However it took longer for the switch to the Roman alphabet which happened in 1860. Kenneth Katzner, The Languages of the World (London: Routledge, 2005), 94.
Dennis Deletant, Colloquial Romanian (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Plc, 1983), 1.
Alexandru Rosetti, Istoria limbii române: Limbile slave meridionale, vol.3, sec. VI-XII (Bucuresti: Ediţia a 5-a revizuită şi adăugită, 1964), 27.
A. Du Nay, The Origins of The Rumanians, 106.
Ibid., 100.
D. Deletant, Colloquial Romanian, 1.
“The Romanian definite article, like that of Bulgarian and the Scandinavian languages, is suffixed to the noun e.g rege, regele.” K. Katzner, The Languages of the World, 94.
D. Deletant, Colloquial Romanian, 1.
However Katzner claims that there are rather few words from the Latin that the Romans had brought to the descendants of Romanians. K. Katzner, The Languages of the World, 94.
According to Graur’s statistics, more than 20% words of the contemporary Romanian vocabulary are of Slavic origin. He considers this percentage as enormous taking into account that it is a long process for a language to be transformed. Alexandru Graur, Tendinţe actuale ale limbii române (Bucureşti: Editura Ştiinţifică, 1968), 274.
Ibid., 274.
Gheorghe Mihăilă, et al., Slava veche şi slavona românească (Bucureşti: Editura didactică şi pedagogică, 1975).
These declinations are Вреда/vreda, Вредение/vredenie, Вреденъ (Вредителенъ)/vredeny (vrediteleny (вредно/vredno), Вредителность/vreditelnosty, Вредитель/vreditely(Вредителка/vreditelka), Вредно/ vredno, Вредность/vrednosty, Вредоносень/vredonoseny (Вреденостворенъ/vredenostvoreny), Вредъ/vredy, and Вредя/vredya. Zamfir C. Arbure, Dictionarul Bulgaro-Roman (Bucuresti: Tipografia Curtii Regale, 1909), 61.
Racai gives the following definition acknowledging its root in the Slavic vredinu: “VRÉDNIC, -Ă, vrednici, -ce, adj. 1. Harnic, iute, cu rost la treabă. Capabil, destoinic. 2. Demn de..., care merită să..., căruia i se cuvine pe drept ceva. Expr. (Reg.) A fi vrednic = a valora, a preţui. (Urmat de un conjunctiv sau un infinitiv) Care este în stare, care posedă însuşirile necesare pentru a săvârşi ceva. – Din sl. Vrĕdinu.” Racai, DEX online: Dicţionare explicative ale limbii române, [online], Available at http://dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=vrednic, Accessed on 7 April 2008.
Anwar S. Dil, Language Structure and Translation: Essays by Eugene A. Nida (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1975), 122.
Two other derivates of vrednic as provided by Dicţionare explicative ale limbii române are vrednici and vrednicie. Racai, DEX online: Dicţionare explicative ale limbii române, [online].
Vrednicie is the derivation of vrednic whose English correspondent is diligence or hard work. Luiza Seche şi Mircea Seche, Dictionarul de sinonime al limbii române (Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1982), 10909.
CNS (Romanian Bible, Cornilescu Version, 1921).
NIV (The New International Version, 1984).
BUL (Bulgarian Bible, 1938).
CNS.
NIV.
BUL.
Distinctii de vrednicie acordate cu prilejul resfintirii altarului Catedralei mitropolitane din Iasi, Available at http://www.noutati-ortodoxe.ro/2007/10/11/distinctii-de-vrednicie-acordate-cu-prilejul-resfintirii-altarului-catedralei-mitropolitane-din-iasi/, Accessed on 12 April 2008.
Antim Ivireanul, Scara aceştii cărticele, extract, Resurse lingvistice pentru limba română, Available at http://www.archeus.ro/lingvistica/CautareTextWikisource?query=vrednicie&lang=ro, Accessed on 14 April 2008.
Very rarely the term is used in some rural areas of Bulgaria with a positive meaning “useful, of use, of benefit; efficient, beneficial, healthy, wholesome; good for one” but the official meaning is the contrasting one “somebody who brings or causes damage, harmful”. Л. Андрейчин, et al., Български тълковен речник, 4 изд. Допълнено и преработено от Димитър Попов (София: Наука и Изкуство, 1995).
BUL.
NIV.
CNS.
BUL.
NIV.
CNS.
“Депутати от БСП: Плоският данък е вреден! (MP’s of BSP: The Flat Tax Rate is Harmful/Damaging!),” Експрес.БГ, 22 Ноември 2007, [online], Available at http://expres.bg/story/21624, Accessed on 17 April 2008.
“ДСБ: Държавната банка за развитие вреди на свободния пазар (DSB: National Bank for Development Damages the Free Market),” Bulgarian Post, Четвъртък, 17 Април 2008, [online], Available at http://news.bpost.bg/story-read-16333.php, Accessed on 17 April 2008.
Доротея Дачкова, “1.15 млн. лв. вреди от фалшиви документи на ТЕЛК (1.15 mil. lv. Damages From False Documents of TELK )” СЕГА, 24.2.2006, [online], Available at http://www.segabg.com/online/article.asp?issueid=2156§ionid=2&id=0000504, Accessed on 17 April 2008.
Jokob Resker, “The Theory and Practice of Translation,” in Translation as Social Action: Russian and Bulgarian Perspective, ed. Palma Zlateva (London: Routledge, 1993), 26.
Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden, United Bible Societies, 1982), 13.
Jokob Resker, “The Theory and Practice of Translation, 27.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Андрейчин, Л., Л. Георгиев, Ст. Илчев, Н. Костов, Ив. Леков, Ст. Стойков и Цв. Тодоров. Български тълковен речник, 4 изд. Допълнено и преработено от Димитър Попов. София: Наука и Изкуство, 1995.
Arbure, Zamfir C. Dictionarul Bulgaro-Roman. Bucuresti: Tipografia Curtii Regale, 1909.
Bulgarian Bible 1938 (BUL). The BUL text (1938) is added to the BibleWorks database by the permission of Vanio Georgiev for the support BibleWorks has given to his project.
Catănescu, Maria Cvasni. Limba romană – origini şi dezvoltare: Studiu antologie de texte româneşti vechi, explicaţii, glosar si bibliografie. Bucureşti: Humanitas, 1996.
Дачкова, Доротея. “1.15 млн. лв. вреди от фалшиви документи на ТЕЛК (1.15 mil. lv. Damages From False Documents of TELK )” СЕГА, 24.2.2006. [online]. Available at http://www.segabg.com/online/article.asp?issueid=2156§ionid=2&id=0000504. Accessed on 17 April 2008.
“ДСБ: Държавната банка за развитие вреди на свободния пазар (DSB: National Bank for Development Damages the Free Market).” Bulgarian Post, Четвъртък, 17 Април 2008. [online]. Available at http://news.bpost.bg/story-read-16333.php. Accessed on 17 April 2008.
Deletant, Dennis. Colloquial Romanian. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Plc,1983.
“Депутати от БСП: Плоският данък е вреден! (MP’s of BSP: The Flat Tax Rate is Harmful/Damaging!).” Експрес.БГ, 22 Ноември 2007. [online]. Available at http://expres.bg/story/21624. Accessed on 17 April 2008.
Dil, Anwar S. Language Structure and Translation: Essays by Eugene A. Nida. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1975.
Distinctii de vrednicie acordate cu prilejul resfintirii altarului Catedralei mitropolitane din Iasi. Available at http://www.noutati-ortodoxe.ro/2007/10/11/distinctii-de-vrednicie-acordate-cu-prilejul-resfintirii-altarului-catedralei-mitropolitane-din-iasi/. Accessed on 12 April 2008.
Dragomir, Silviu. Vlahii din nordul peninsulei balcanice in evul mediu. Bucureşti: Comisia pentru studiul formãrii limbii şi poporului român, Edit. Acad. RPR, 1959.
Du Nay, André. The Origins of The Rumanians: The Early History of The Rumanian Language. Toronto-Buffalo: Matithias Corvinus Publishing, 1996.
Giurgescu, Constantin C. The Making of the Romanian People and Language. Translated by Virgiliu Ştefănescu – Drăgăneşti. Bucharest: Meridiane Publishing House, 1972.
Graur, Alexandru. Tendinţe actuale ale limbii române. Bucureşti: Editura Ştiinţifică, 1968.
Ivireanul, Antim. Scara aceştii cărticele. Extract. Resurse lingvistice pentru limba română. Available at http://www.archeus.ro/lingvistica/CautareTextWikisource?query=vrednicie&lang=ro. Accessed on 14 April 2008.
Katzner, Kenneth. The Languages of the World. London: Routledge, 2005.
The New International Version 1984 (NIV). “Quotations designated (NIV) are from THE HOLY BIBLE: NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.” (American Edition Copyright.)
Nida, Eugene A. and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden, United Bible Societies, 1982.
Mihăilă, Gheorghe, Lucia Djamo-Diaconiţă, Emil Vrabie, Elena Linţa, Olga Stoicovici şi Mihai Mitu. Slava veche şi slavona românească. Bucureşti: Editura didactică şi pedagogică, 1975.
Петканова, Донка. Обхват и характер на старобългарската литература. [online]. Available at http://www.libsu.uni-sofia.bg/slavica/literatura.html. Accessed on 24 March 2008.
Racai. DEX online: Dicţionare explicative ale limbii române. [online]. Available at http://dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=vrednic. Accessed on 7 April 2008.
Resker, Jokob. “The Theory and Practice of Translation.” In Translation as Social Action: Russian and Bulgarian Perspective. Edited by Palma Zlateva. London: Routledge, 1993.
Romanian Bible, Cornilescu Version 1921 (CNS). From Online Bible. Used by permission from the Online Bible Foundation. Revised in 1967 to modernize orthography. Electronic version may have been prepared by Pastor Mihai Costache .
Rosetti, Alexandru. Istoria limbii române: Limbile slave meridionale. Vol.3. Sec. VI-XII. Bucuresti: Ediţia a 5-a revizuită şi adăugită, 1964.
Seche, Luiza şi Mircea Seche. Dictionarul de sinonime al limbii române. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1982.