scholarly journals Ἀναγωγή in Ancient Greek Exegetical Literature

2021 ◽  
pp. 256-283
Author(s):  
Борис Тимофеев
Keyword(s):  
Individual Case ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Figurative Meaning ◽  
Figures Of Speech ◽  
Metaphorical Meaning ◽  
Ancient Monuments ◽  
Modern Russian

Термин ἀναγωγή довольно часто употребляется в древних памятниках христианской богословской и экзегетической литературы в разных значениях, что во многом затрудняет понимание этого слова в каждом отдельном случае. В рамках экзегетической процедуры ἀναγωγή употребляется в метафорическом значении и обозначает переносный смысл, а иногда и переносное понимание текста, когда речь идёт о метафорическом содержании фигур речи или о присутствии мистического аллегорического смысла. Современная отечественная библейская наука склонна видеть в ἀναγωγή определённый духовный метод/смысл интерпретации Священного Писания (чаще всего имеется в виду эсхатологическое толкование). Когда эта модель переносится на почву древней экзегетической литературы, то неизбежно возникает противоречие между современным определением и своеобразием языка древних авторов. В рамках данной статьи предпринимается попытка рассмотреть основные значения ἀναγωγή в древних экзегетических памятниках. Ἀναγωγή is quite often used in ancient monuments of Christian theological and exegetical literature in different meanings, which greatly complicates the understanding of this word in each individual case. Within the framework of the exegetical procedure, anagoge is used in a metaphorical meaning and denotes a figurative meaning, and sometimes at the same time a figurative understanding of the text, when it comes to the metaphorical content of figures of speech, or the presence of a mystical allegorical meaning. Modern Russian biblical science tends to see in ἀναγωγή a certain spiritual method/meaning of the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures (most often it means the eschatological interpretation). When this model is transferred to the soil of ancient exegetical literature, then a contradiction arises between the modern definition and the originality of the language of ancient authors. Within the framework of this article, an attempt is made to consider the main meanings of ἀναγωγή in ancient exegetical monuments.

scholarly journals Dynamics of russian cultural meanings

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 449-456
Author(s):  
Olga Nikolaevna Ivanishcheva
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Meanings ◽  
Figurative Meaning ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Modern Russian

The article deals with the change in the semantic spectrum of the zoonym 'parrot'. The purpose of the study is to show the dynamics of cultural meanings in modern Russian usage in speech (on the example of using animalistic images in speech), which can be identified through the methodology for analyzing the text environment of lexemes which involves the following parameters: the function of the lexeme in the text and the features of functioning of the lexeme in the text. The author interprets modern speech usage as the usage of a lexeme in fiction and journalistic literature of the 20th–21st centuries. The analysis of examples of zoonym usage in speech demonstrates how the figurative meaning of the word is becoming more positive. The study of the functioning of the zoonym 'parrot' in different types of contexts revealed the neutralization of the animalistic features of the object and the strengthening of the anthropological ones.

Cultural-historical psychology and the cognitive view of metonymy and metaphor

2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 288-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladimir Glebkin
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Linguistics ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Cognitive Mechanism ◽  
Figures Of Speech ◽  
Complex Thinking ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Semantic Evolution ◽  
Intense Debate

Metonymy and metaphor are commonly taken as cognitive phenomena in modern cognitive linguistics rather than as mere figures of speech. However, the correct cognitive demarcation between metonymy and metaphor is the subject of intense debate; there are also different attitudes to the cognitive basis of metonymy. The main contribution of this paper is to identify the cognitive mechanism called complex thinking, which is well-known in psychology but hardly applied in linguistics, as the cognitive basis for metonymy; the difference between complex and conceptual thinking is also highlighted in order to distinguish between conceptual metonymy and conceptual metaphor. Using a cultural-historical approach, we can conjecture that metonymy dominates in pre-theoretical cultures, whereas metaphor emerges in theoretical cultures alongside abstract conceptual domains. In order to illustrate these points with a brief case study, the semantic evolution of the ancient Greek word Ûlh (matter) is considered.

scholarly journals Introduction: The Natural Turn in Early Modern Russian History

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Anna Graber ◽  
Clare Griffin ◽  
Rachel Koroloff ◽  
Audra Yoder
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Natural World ◽  
Basic Question ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Early Christian ◽  
New Methods ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Rich ◽  
Western Historiography ◽  
Modern Russian

This introduction to the Vivliofika special issue, Animal, Vegetable, Mineral, illuminates the rich scholarship examining ideas about nature in the early modern Russian context. Starting with the basic question of how early modern Russians conceived of the natural world, the authors explore the numerous ways in which this question has been asked and answered by Russian historians and historians of science from the mid-twentieth century on. Acknowledging that these questions have recently been treated differently, the authors argue for a ‘natural turn’ in the scholarship. This introduction brings together Anglophone and Russophone literature to sketch the state the field before offering a relatively brief but nuanced history of the concept of the ‘Three Kingdoms of Nature’ (Tria Regna Naturae) which frames the project as a whole. The authors show how the early eighteenth-century articulation of the Tria Regna Naturae sat at the confluence of ancient Greek, early Christian, and more modern, cameralist attempts to classify and divide, and thereby understand the natural world. Muscovite and early modern Russian approaches to the question of the natural world were influenced by this Western historiography, and yet they stood apart from those traditions in interesting ways detailed by the essays in this volume. Ultimately the authors here advance new methods for understanding how early modern Russians understood the natural world, methods which focus on the practices of knowledge making in general, and those of transcription, translation, and illustration in specific.

Ethnics as Personal Names

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. M. Fraser
Keyword(s):  
Historical Development ◽  
Individual Case ◽  
Pure Form ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Personal Names ◽  
Greek Society ◽  
European Languages ◽  
Foreign Origin

This chapter does not provide a list of ethnics used as personal names. Rather, in the same manner as in earlier chapters, it presents indications of the probable range of factors, material and abstract, that may have contributed to the practice, and how and why it was first put into effect in individual locations and families. There is no single explanation for the use of ethnics as personal names, and in any individual case it can only be speculative unless explicitly stated. It may be presumed that any bestowal of a local name in ancient Greek society implied some association with the place or the ethnic in question, since, unlike in modern European languages, the name is used in an etymologically pure form, direct or derivative, and not in a condition modified by centuries of linguistic and historical development and change, deriving from obsolete forms of common nouns, often of foreign origin.

scholarly journals Syntactic Organisation of A. D. Kantemir’s Poems

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 131-152
Author(s):  
Natalja V. Patroeva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
18Th Century ◽  
Line Length ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Close Connection ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Literary Traditions ◽  
Figures Of Speech ◽  
Long Line ◽  
Russian Poetry ◽  
Rhetorical Questions

The purpose of this article is to identify and characterise the typological features of the “syntactic portrait” of A. D. Kantemir in the aspects of identification of the “average” poetic syntactic norm of the epoch, as well as in close connection of the grammar of an individual verse with the features of genre differentiation, architectonics of poetic works, and versification. The article refers to the data of the first volume of the Syntactic Dictionary of 18th-Century Russian Poetry. Revealing the syntactic dominants of Antiochus Kantemir’s style, including the background of the general literary norm of the era, as well as in the aspect of the connection between the “syntactic portrait” of the reformer poet and the peculiarities of the genre differentiation of the versification and architectonics of his poetic works, sheds light on the essence of Kantemir’s linguistic programme. His syllabics is particularly complex from the point of view of its construction: on average, 80 percent of sentences are polypredicative. The long line length of the syllabic texts requires the verse to be filled with various distributors and complicators of the sentence, including participle clauses. The verse of the satires tends to include definite-personal, generalised-personal, and indefinite-personal one-member sentences, imperative, and interrogative statements. Kantemir introduces constructions that originate in living speech into the structure of the verse: the nominative of the theme and infinitive of the theme, insertion, and introductory modal and connecting syntagmata. Referring to antique and French classic patterns, Kantemir the rhetorician often uses such figures of speech as rhetorical questions, periods, inversions, repetition, and amplification. Kantemir’s grammar formed under the influence of various literary traditions — Ancient Greek, Latin, Old Church Slavonic literature, European Baroque, and Western Russian syllabics — and is synthetic in its origin and a very complex and strictly organised system, intended primarily for the embodiment of educational ideas and the construction of polemical discourse. The logically complex course of the author’s reflection naturally mirrors the equally logically “difficult” syntax.

Конструкции с предлогом О со значением ‘основания деятельности, средства’: инновация или индоевропейское наследие?

2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 279-291
Author(s):  
Людмила В. Братухина ◽  
Александр Ю. Братухин
Keyword(s):  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Old Russian ◽  
Slavic Languages ◽  
Bible Translations ◽  
Slavonic Language ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Instrumental Case ◽  
Biblical Texts ◽  
Modern Russian

The paper is devoted to analyzing examples of the use of constructions “O + locative”, which have the meaning of “basis of activity, instrument”. Our interest in these examples is due, firstly, to the fact that this meaning of the preposition O is completely absent in modern Russian. Secondly, in some cases, this construction found in Old Slavonic texts is replaced in Church Slavonic by the construction “ВЪ + locative”, which is a calque from the ancient Greek construction “έν + dative” (often having the meaning of “a tool”) but this substitution is inconsistent. Thirdly, the constructions “O + locative” and “BЪ + locative” appear in the Old Slavonic manuscripts in parallel. The main aim of the study is to identify the shades of meaning that the creators of Old Slavonic texts distinguished in the ancient Greek construction “έν + dative”, choosing “O + locative” as a variant of translation; and to determine whether the indicated meaning of the preposition O was original in the Slavic languages or this preposition was acquired in the process of translating Biblical texts.The research is based on the Sinai Psalter, the Zographic and Ostromir Gospels, the Ostroh and Elizabethan Bibles as well as the examples (contained in the dictionaries of the Old Slavic, Old Russian, and Church Slavonic languages) from the Mariinsky Four Gospels, Assemaniev’s Gospel, Savin’s book, Euchology of Sinai, and Supralsky manuscript.The construction “έν + dative” is translated not only by “O + locative”. The former is also regularly translated by constructions of the instrumental case without a preposition (in Old Slavonic and Church Slavonic texts). The possibility of forming of the meaning of the action source under the influence of the construction “OTЪ + genitive” is also considered. In general, the dynamics of evolution of the meaning of “O + locative” is traced in the paper. It is concluded that the analyzed “O + locative” construction acquired the meaning of “basis of activity, instrument” at the time of the creation of Old Slavonic Bible translations. This is due to the process of reflection on the text, which became possible with the appearance of the written Slavonic language and the comparison of this construction with a simple instrumental case, combinations of “OTЪ + genitive” and “BЪ + locative”, which in some cases acted as synonymous and could be chosen by translators either spontaneously or with the aim to express nuances of meaning. This is demonstrated with the elimination of ancient Greek tracing, as well as the reverse replacement of “O + locative” by “BЪ + locative”. The instrumental case without a preposition was similar to “O + locative” in the expression of the causal meaning as well as in indicating the source of the action; the con- struction of “OTЪ + genitive”, in addition to the similarity of meaning, in terms of spelling and phonetics also resembled “O + locative”. The construction “O + locative” turned out to be more stable in the cases of indicating an animate source or basis of activity.

Shoulder Pain at Work: Causation Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-16
Author(s):  
Joel Weddington ◽  
Charles N. Brooks ◽  
Mark Melhorn ◽  
Christopher R. Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Epidemiological Data ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Individual Case ◽  
Shoulder Injury ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Causation Analysis ◽  
Injury Causation ◽  
Relevant Factors

Abstract In most cases of shoulder injury at work, causation analysis is not clear-cut and requires detailed, thoughtful, and time-consuming causation analysis; traditionally, physicians have approached this in a cursory manner, often presenting their findings as an opinion. An established method of causation analysis using six steps is outlined in the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Guidelines and in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Disease and Injury Causation, Second Edition, as follows: 1) collect evidence of disease; 2) collect epidemiological data; 3) collect evidence of exposure; 4) collect other relevant factors; 5) evaluate the validity of the evidence; and 6) write a report with evaluation and conclusions. Evaluators also should recognize that thresholds for causation vary by state and are based on specific statutes or case law. Three cases illustrate evidence-based causation analysis using the six steps and illustrate how examiners can form well-founded opinions about whether a given condition is work related, nonoccupational, or some combination of these. An evaluator's causal conclusions should be rational, should be consistent with the facts of the individual case and medical literature, and should cite pertinent references. The opinion should be stated “to a reasonable degree of medical probability,” on a “more-probable-than-not” basis, or using a suitable phrase that meets the legal threshold in the applicable jurisdiction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document