Theoretical English grammar. Учебное пособие. Английский.
👉🏻👉🏻👉🏻 ВСЯ ИНФОРМАЦИЯ ДОСТУПНА ЗДЕСЬ ЖМИТЕ 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
Вы можете узнать стоимость помощи в написании студенческой работы.
Помощь в написании работы, которую точно примут!
Похожие работы на - Theoretical English grammar
Скачать Скачать документ
Информация о работе Информация о работе
Скачать Скачать документ
Информация о работе Информация о работе
Скачать Скачать документ
Информация о работе Информация о работе
Скачать Скачать документ
Информация о работе Информация о работе
Скачать Скачать документ
Информация о работе Информация о работе
Скачать Скачать документ
Информация о работе Информация о работе
Скачать Скачать документ
Информация о работе Информация о работе
Нужна качественная работа без плагиата?
Не нашел материал для своей работы?
Поможем написать качественную работу Без плагиата!
ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКАЯ ГРАММАТИКА АНГЛИЙСКОГО ЯЗЫКА
Допущено Министерством
просвещения СССР
педагогических институтов по
специальности
Орфография из амер. переведена
в брит.
кафедра английского языка
Горьковского педагогического института иностранных языков им. Н. А. Добролюбова
и доктор филол. наук, проф. Л. Л. Нелюбин.
Б70 Теоретическая грамматика
английского языка: Учебник. Для студентов филол. фак. ун-тов и фак. англ. яз.
педвузов. - М.: Высш. школа, 1983.- с. 383 В пер.: 1 р.
В учебнике рассматриваются
важнейшие проблемы морфологии и синтаксиса английского языка в свете ведущих
принципов современного системного языкознания. Введение в теоретические
проблемы грамматики осуществляется на фоне обобщающего описания основ
грамматического строя английского языка. Особое внимание уделяется специальным
методам научного анализа грамматических явлений и демонстрации исследовательских
приемов на конкретном текстовом материале с целью развития у студентов
профессионального лингвистического мышления. Учебник написан на английском
языке.
© Издательство «Высшая школа»,
1983.
Chapter I.
Grammar in the Systemic Conception of Language.
Chapter II.
Morphemic Structure of the Word
Chapter III.
Categorial Structure of the Word
Chapter IV.
Grammatical Classes of Words
Chapter IX.
Noun: Article Determination
Chapter XI.
Non-Finite Verbs (Verbids)
Chapter XII.
Finite Verb: Introduction
Chapter
XIII. Verb: Person and Number
Chapter XX.
Syntagmatic Connections of Words
Chapter
XXII. Actual Division of the Sentence
Chapter
XXIII. Communicative Types of Sentences
Chapter
XXIV. Simple Sentence: Constituent StructureXXV. Simple Sentence: Paradigmatic
Structure
Chapter
XXVI. Composite Sentence as a Polypredicative Construction
book, containing a
theoretical outline of English grammar, is intended as a manual for the
departments of English in Universities and Teachers' Colleges. Its purpose is
to present an introduction to the problems of up-to-date grammatical study of
English on a systemic basis, sustained by demonstrations of applying modern
analytical techniques to various grammatical phenomena of living English
speech.
The suggested
description of the grammatical structure of English, reflecting the author's
experience as a lecturer on theoretical English grammar for students
specialising as teachers of English, naturally, cannot be regarded as
exhaustive in any point of detail. While making no attempt whatsoever to depict
the grammar of English in terms of the minutiae of its arrangement and functioning
(the practical mastery of the elements of English grammar is supposed to have
been gained by the student at the earlier stages of tuition), we rather deem it
as our immediate aims to supply the student with such information as will
enable him to form judgments of his own on questions of diverse grammatical
intricacies; to bring forth in the student a steady habit of trying to see into
the deeper implications underlying the outward appearances of lingual
correlations bearing on grammar; to teach him to independently improve his
linguistic qualifications through reading and critically appraising the
available works on grammatical language study, including the current materials
in linguistic journals; to foster his competence in facing academic controversies
concerning problems of grammar, which, unfortunately but inevitably, are liable
to be aggravated by polemical excesses and terminological discrepancies.
In other words, we
wish above all to provide for the condition that, on finishing his study of the
subject matter of the book, under the corresponding guidance of his College
tutor, the student should progress in developing a grammatically-oriented mode of
understanding facts of language, viz. in mastering that which, in the long run,
should distinguish a professional linguist from a layman.
The emphasis laid
on cultivating an active element in the student's approach to language and its
grammar explains why the book gives prominence both to the technicalities of
grammatical observations and to the general methodology of linguistic
knowledge: the due application of the latter will lend the necessary
demonstrative force to any serious consideration of the many special points of
grammatical analysis. In this connection, throughout the whole of the book we
have tried to point out the progressive character of the development of modern
grammatical theory, and to show that in the course of disputes and continued research
in manifold particular fields, the grammatical domain of linguistic science
arrives at an ever more adequate presentation of the structure of language in
its integral description.
We firmly believe
that this kind of outlining the foundations of the discipline in question is
especially important at the present stage of the developing linguistic
knowledge - the
knowledge which, far from having been by-passed by the general twentieth century
advance of science, has found itself in the midst of it. Suffice it to cite
such new ideas and principles introduced in the grammatical theory of our
times, and reflected in the suggested presentation, as the grammatical aspects
of the correlation between language and speech; the interpretation of
grammatical categories on the strictly oppositional basis; the demonstration of
grammatical semantics with the help of structural modelling; the
functional-perspective patterning of utterances; the rise of the paradigmatic
approach to syntax; the expansion of syntactic analysis beyond the limits of a
separate sentence into the broad sphere of the continual text; and, finally,
the systemic principle of description applied to the interpretation of language
in general and its grammatical structure in particular.
It is by actively
mastering the essentials of these developments that the student will be enabled
to cope with the grammatical aspects of his future linguistic work as a
graduate teacher of English.
Materials
illustrating the analysed elements of English grammar have been mostly
collected from the literary works of British and American authors. Some of the
offered examples have been subjected to slight alterations aimed at giving the
necessary prominence to the lingual phenomena under study. Source references
for limited stretches of text are not supplied except in cases of special
relevance (such as implications of individual style or involvement of
contextual background).
The author pays
tribute to his friends and colleagues - teachers
of the Lenin State Pedagogical Institute (Moscow) for encouragement and help
they extended to him during the years of his work on the presented matters.
The author's
sincere thanks are due to the staff of the English Department of the
Dobrolyubov State Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages (Gorky) and to
Prof. L. L. Nelyubin for the trouble they took in reviewing the manuscript.
Their valuable advice and criticisms were carefully taken into consideration
for the final preparation of the text.
CHAPTER I.
GRAMMAR IN THE SYSTEMIC CONCEPTION OF LANGUAGE
Language is a means
of forming and storing ideas as reflections of reality and exchanging them in
the process of human intercourse. Language is social by nature; it is
inseparably connected with the people who are its creators and users; it grows
and develops together with the development of society.*
Language
incorporates the three constituent parts ("sides"), each being
inherent in it by virtue of its social nature. These parts are the phonological
system, the lexical system, the grammatical system. Only the unity of these
three elements forms a language; without any one of them there is no human
language in the above sense.
The phonological
system is the subfoundation of language; it determines the material
(phonetical) appearance of its significative units. The lexical system is the
whole set of naming means of language, that is, words and stable word-groups.
The grammatical system is the whole set of regularities determining the
combination of naming means in the formation of utterances as the embodiment of
thinking process.
Each of the three
constituent parts of language is studied by a particular linguistic discipline.
These disciplines, presenting a series of approaches to their particular
objects of analysis, give the corresponding "descriptions" of
language consisting in ordered expositions of the constituent parts in
question. Thus, the phonological description of language is effected by the
science of phonology; the lexical description of language is effected by the
science of lexicology; the grammatical
description of language is effected by the science of grammar.
Any linguistic
description may have a practical or theoretical purpose. A practical description
is aimed at providing the student with a manual of practical mastery of the
corresponding part of language (within the limits determined by various factors
of educational destination and scientific possibilities). Since the practice of
lingual intercourse, however, can only be realised by employing language as a
unity of all its constituent parts, practical linguistic manuals more often
than not comprise the three types of description presented in a complex. As for
theoretical linguistic descriptions, they pursue analytical aims and therefore
present the studied parts of language in relative isolation, so as to gain
insights into their inner structure and expose the intrinsic mechanisms of
their functioning. Hence, the aim of theoretical grammar of a language is to
present a theoretical description of its grammatical system, i.e. to
scientifically analyse and define its grammatical categories and study the
mechanisms of grammatical formation of utterances out of words in the process
of speech making.
In earlier periods
of the development of linguistic knowledge, grammatical scholars believed that
the only purpose of grammar was to give strict rules of writing and speaking
correctly. The rigid regulations for the correct ways of expression, for want
of the profound understanding of the social nature of language, were often
based on purely subjective and arbitrary judgements of individual grammar
compilers. The result of this "prescriptive" approach was, that
alongside of quite essential and useful information, non-existent
"rules" were formulated that stood in sheer contradiction with the
existing language usage, i.e. lingual reality. Traces of this arbitrary
prescriptive approach to the grammatical teaching may easily be found even in
to-date's school practice.
To refer to some of
the numerous examples of this kind, let us consider the well-known rule of the
English article stating that the noun which denotes an object "already
known" by the listener should be used with the definite article. Observe, however,
English sentences taken from me works of distinguished authors directly
contradicting
"I've just
read a book of yours about Spain and I wanted to ask you about it." -
"It's not a very good book, I'm
afraid" (S. Maugham). I feel a good deal of hesitation about telling you
this story of my own. You see it is not a story like other stories I have been
telling you: it is a true story (J. K. Jerome).
Or let us take the
rule forbidding the use of the continuous tense-forms with the verb be as a
link, as well as with verbs of perceptions. Here are examples to the contrary:
My holiday at Crome
isn't being a disappointment (A. Huxley). For the first time, Bobby felt, he
was really seeing the man (A. Christie).
The given examples
of English articles and tenses, though not agreeing with the above
"prescriptions", contain no grammar mistakes in them.
The said
traditional view of the purpose of grammar has lately been re-stated by some
modern trends in linguistics. In particular, scholars belonging to these trends
pay much attention to artificially constructing and analysing incorrect
utterances with the aim of a better formulation of the rules for" the
construction of correct ones. But their examples and deductions, too, are often
at variance with real facts of lingual usage.
Worthy of note are
the following two artificial utterances suggested as far back as 1956:
Colourless green
ideas sleep furiously. Furiously sleep ideas green colourless.
According to the
idea of their creator, the American scholar N.
Chomsky, the first of the utterances, although
nonsensical logically, was to be classed as grammatically correct, while the
second one, consisting of the same words placed in the reverse order, had to be
analysed as a disconnected, "ungrammatical" enumeration, a
"non-sentence". Thus, the examples, by way of contrast, were
intensely demonstrative (so believed the scholar) of the fact that grammar as a
whole amounted to a set of non-semantic rules of sentence formation.
However, a couple
of years later this assessment of the lingual value of the given utterances was
disputed in an experimental investigation with informants -
natural speakers of English, who could not come
to a unanimous conclusion about
the correctness or incorrectness of both of them. In particular, some of the
informants classed the second utterance as "sounding like poetry".
To understand the
contradictions between the bluntly formulated "rules" and reality, as
well as to evaluate properly the results of informant tests like the one
mentioned above, we must bear in mind that the true grammatical rules or
regularities cannot be separated from the expression of meanings; on the
contrary, they are themselves meaningful. Namely, they are connected with the
most general and abstract parts of content inherent in the elements of
language. These parts of content, together with the formal means through which
they are expressed, are treated by grammarians in terms of "grammatical
categories". Such are, for instance, the categories of number or mood in
morphology, the categories of communicative purpose or emphasis in syntax, etc.
Since the grammatical forms and regularities are meaningful, it becomes clear
that the rules of grammar must be stated semantically, or, more specifically,
they must be worded functionally. For example, it would be fallacious to state
without any further comment that the inverted word order in the English
declarative sentence is grammatically incorrect. Word order as an element of
grammatical form is laden with its own meaningful functions. It can express, in
particular, the difference between the central idea of the utterance and the
marginal idea, between emotive and unemotive modes of speech, between different
types of style. Thus, if the inverted word order in a given sentence does
express these functions, then its use should be considered as quite correct.
E.g.: In the centre of the room, under the chandelier, as became a host, stood
the head of (he family, old Jolyon himself (J. Galsworthy).
The word
arrangement in the utterance expresses a narrative description, with the
central informative element placed in the strongest semantic position in
narration, i.e. at the end. Compare the same sort of arrangement accompanying a
plainer presentation of subject matter: Inside on a wooden bunk lay a young
Indian woman (E. Hemingway).
And ever did his
Soul tempt him with evil, and whisper of terrible things. Yet did it not
prevail against him, so great was the power of his love (O. Wilde). (Here the
inverted word order is employed to render intense emphasis in a legend-stylised
narration.) One thing and one thing only could she do for him (R. Kipling).
(Inversion in this case is used to express emotional intensification of the
central idea.)
Examples of this
and similar kinds will be found in plenty in Modern English literary texts of
good style repute.
The nature of
grammar as a constituent part of language is better understood in the light of
explicitly discriminating the two planes of language, namely, the plane of
content and the plane of expression
The plane of
content comprises the purely semantic elements contained in language, while the
plane of expression comprises the material (formal) units of language taken by
themselves, apart from the meanings rendered by them. The two planes are
inseparably connected, so that no meaning can be realised without some material
means of expression. Grammatical elements of language present a unity of
content and expression (or, in somewhat more familiar terms, a unity of form
and meaning). In this the grammatical elements are similar to the lingual
lexical elements, though the quality of grammatical meanings, as we have stated
above, is different in principle from the quality of lexical meanings.
On the other hand,
the correspondence between the planes of content and expression is very
complex, and it is peculiar to each language. This complexity is clearly
illustrated by the phenomena of polysemy, homonymy, and synonymy.
In cases of
polysemy and homonymy, two or more units of the plane of content correspond to
one unit of the plane of expression. For instance, the verbal form of the
present indefinite (one unit in the plane of expression) polysemantically
renders the grammatical meanings of habitual action, action at the present
moment, action taken as a general truth (several units in the plane of content).
The morphemic material element -s/-es (in pronunciation [-s, -z, -iz]), i.e.
one unit in the plane of expression (in so far as the functional semantics of
the elements is common to all of them indiscriminately), homonymically renders
the grammatical meanings of the third person singular of the verbal present
tense, the plural of the noun, the possessive form of the noun, i.e. several
units of the plane of content.
In cases of
synonymy, conversely, two or more units of the plane of expression correspond
to one unit of the plane of
content. For instance, the forms of the verbal future indefinite, future
continuous, and present continuous (several units in the plane of expression)
can in certain contexts synonymically render the meaning of a future action
(one unit in the plane of content).
Taking into
consideration the discrimination between the two planes, we may say that the
purpose of grammar as a linguistic discipline is, in the long run, to disclose
and formulate the regularities of the correspondence between the plane of
content and the plane of expression in the formation of utterances out of the
stocks of words as part of the process of speech production.
Modern linguistics
lays a special stress on the systemic character of language and all its
constituent parts. It accentuates the idea that language is a system of signs
(meaningful units) which are closely interconnected and interdependent. Units
of immediate interdependencies (such as classes and subclasses of words,
various subtypes of syntactic constructions, etc.) form different microsystems
(subsystems) within the framework of the global macrosystem (supersystem) of
the whole of language.
Each system is a
structured set of elements related to one another by a common function. The
common function of all the lingual signs is to give expression to human
thoughts.
The systemic nature
of grammar is probably more evident than that of any other sphere of language,
since grammar is responsible for the very organisation of the informative
content of utterances [Блох,
4, 11 и
сл.].
Due to this fact, even the earliest grammatical
treatises, within the cognitive limits of their times, disclosed some systemic
features of the described material. But the scientifically sustained and
consistent principles of systemic approach to language and its grammar were
essentially developed in the linguistics of the twentieth century, namely,
after the publication of the works by the Russian scholar Beaudoin de Courtenay
and the Swiss scholar Ferdinand de Saussure. These two great men demonstrated
the difference between lingual synchrony (coexistence of lingual elements) and
diachrony (different time-periods in the development of lingual elements, as
well as language as a whole) and defined language as a synchronic system of
meaningful elements at any stage of its historical evolution.
On the basis of
discriminating synchrony and diachrony, the difference between language proper
and speech proper can
be strictly defined, which is of crucial importance for the identification of
the object of linguistic science.
Language in the
narrow sense of the word is a system of means of expression, while speech in
the same narrow sense should be understood as the manifestation of the system
of language in the process of intercourse.
The system of
language includes, on the one hand, the body of material units -
sounds, morphemes, words, word-groups; on the
other hand, the regularities or "rules" of the use of these units.
Speech comprises both the act of producing utterances, and the utterances
themselves, i.e. the text. Language and speech are inseparable, they form
together an organic unity. As for grammar (the grammatical system), being an
integral part of the lingual macrosystem it dynamically connects language with
speech, because it categorially determines the lingual process of utterance
production.
Thus, we have the
broad philosophical concept of language which is analysed by linguistics into
two different aspects - the
system of signs (language proper) and the use of signs (speech proper). The
generalising term "language" is also preserved in linguistics,
showing the unity of these two aspects [Блох,
16].
The sign
(meaningful unit) in the system of language has only a potential meaning. In
speech, the potential meaning of the lingual sign is "actualised",
i.e. made situationally significant as part of the grammatically organised
text.
Lingual units stand
to one another in two fundamental types of relations: syntagmatic and
paradigmatic.
Syntagmatic
relations are immediate linear relations between units in a segmental sequence
(string). E.g.: The spaceship was launched without the help of a booster
rocket.
In this sentence
syntagmatically connected are the words and word-groups "the
spaceship", "was launched", "the spaceship was
launched", "was launched without the help", "the help of a
rocket", "a booster rocket".
Morphemes within
the words are also connected syntagmatically. E.g.: space/ship; launch/ed;
with/out; boost/er.
Phonemes are
connected syntagmatically within morphemes and words, as well as at various
juncture points (cf. the processes of assimilation and dissimilation).
The combination of
two words or word-groups one of which is modified by the other forms a unit
which is referred to as a syntactic "syntagma". There are four main
types of notional syntagmas: predicative (the combination of a subject and a
predicate), objective (the combination of a verb and its object), attributive
(the combination of a noun and its attribute), adverbial (the combination of a
modified notional word, such as a verb, adjective, or adverb, with its
adverbial modifier).
Since syntagmatic
relations are actually observed in utterances, they are described by the Latin
formula as relations "in praesentia" ("in the presence").
The other type of
relations, opposed to syntagmatic and called "paradigmatic", are such
as exist between elements of the system outside the strings where they
co-occur. These intra-systemic relations and dependencies find their expression
in the fact that each lingual unit is included in a set or series of connections
based on different formal and functional properties."
In the sphere of
phonology such series are built up by the correlations of phonemes on the basis
of vocality or consonantism, voicedness or devoicedness, the factor of
nazalisation, the factor of length, etc. In the sphere of the vocabulary these
series are founded on the correlations of synonymy and antonymy, on various
topical connections, on different word-building dependencies. In the domain of
grammar series of related forms realise grammatical numbers and cases, persons
and tenses, gradations of modalities, sets of sentence-patterns of various
functional destination, etc.
Unlike syntagmatic
relations, paradigmatic relations cannot be directly observed in utterances,
that is why they are referred to as relations "in absentia""
("in the absence").
Paradigmatic
relations coexist with syntagmatic relations in such a way that some sort of
syntagmatic connection is necessary for the realisation of any paradigmatic
series. This is especially evident -in a classical grammatical paradigm which
presents a productive series of forms each consisting of a syntagmatic
connection of two elements: one common for the whole of the series (stem), the
other specific for every individual form in the series (grammatical feature -
inflexion, suffix, auxiliary word). Grammatical
paradigms express various grammatical categories.
The minimal
paradigm consists of two form-stages. This kind of paradigm we see, for
instance, in the expression of the category of number: boy -
boys. A more complex paradigm can be divided
into component paradigmatic series, i.e. into the corresponding sub-paradigms
(cf. numerous paradigmatic series constituting the system of the finite verb).
In other words, with
paradigms, the same as with any other systemically organised material, macro-
and micro-series are to be discriminated.
Units of language
are divided into segmental and suprasegmental. Segmental units consist of
phonemes, they form phonemic strings of various status (syllables, morphemes,
words, etc.). Supra-segmental units do not exist by themselves, but are
realised together with segmental units and express different modificational
meanings (functions) which are reflected on the strings of segmental units. To
the supra-segmental units belong intonations (intonation contours), accents,
pauses, patterns of word-order.
The segmental units
of language form a hierarchy of levels. This hierarchy is of a kind that units
of any higher level are analysable into (i.e. are formed of) units of the
immediately lower level. Thus, morphemes are decomposed into phonemes, words
are decomposed into morphemes, phrases are decomposed into words, etc.
But this
hierarchical relation is by no means reduced to the mechanical composition of
larger units from smaller ones; units of each level are characterised by their
own, specific functional features which provide for the very recognition of the
corresponding levels of language.
The lowest level of
lingual segments is phonemic: it is formed by phonemes as the material elements
of the higher -level
segments. The phoneme has no meaning, its function is purely differential: it
differentiates morphemes and words as material bodies. Since the phoneme has no
meaning, it is not a sign.
Phonemes are
combined into syllables. The syllable, a rhythmic segmental group of phonemes,
is not a sign, either; it has a purely formal significance. Due to this fact,
it could hardly stand to reason to recognise in language a separate syllabic
level; rather, the syllables should be considered in the light of the
intra-level combinability properties of phonemes.
Phonemes are
represented by letters in writing. Since the letter has a representative
status, it is a sign, though different in principle from the level-forming
signs of language.
Units of all the
higher levels of language are meaningful; they may be called
"signemes" as opposed to phonemes (and letters as phoneme-representatives).
The level located
above the phonemic one is the morphemic
level. The morpheme is the elementary meaningful
part of the word. It is built up by phonemes, so that the shortest morphemes
include only one phoneme. E.g.: ros-y [-1]; a-fire
[э-];
come-s [-z].
The morpheme
expresses abstract, "significative" meanings which are used as
constituents for the formation of more concrete, "nominative"
meanings of words.
The third level in
the segmental lingual hierarchy is the level of words, or lexemic level.
The word, as
different from the morpheme, is a directly naming (nominative) unit of
language: it names things and their relations. Since words are built up by
morphemes, the shortest words consist of one explicit morpheme only. Cf.: man;
will; but; I; etc.
The next higher
level is the level of phrases (word-groups), or phrasemic level.
To level-forming
phrase types belong combinations of two or more notional words. These
combinations, like separate words, have a nominative function, but they represent
the referent of nomination as a complicated phenomenon, be it a concrete thing,
an action, a quality, or a whole situation. Cf., respectively: a picturesque
village; to start with a jerk; extremely difficult; the unexpected arrival of
the chief.
This kind of
nomination can be called "polynomination", as different from
"mononomination" effected by separate words.
Notional phrases
may be of a stable type and of a free type. The stable phrases (phraseological
units) form the phraseological part of the lexicon, and are studied by the
phraseological division of lexicology. Free phrases are built up in the process
of speech on the existing productive models, and are studied in the lowe
Похожие работы на - Theoretical English grammar Учебное пособие. Английский.
Дипломная работа по теме Відкриття провадження у цивільній справі у суді
Классификация сект в святоотеческой литературе
Курсовая Работа На Тему Виды И Жанры Btl-Рекламы
Контрольная работа по теме Учет собственного капитала и обеспечения обязательств ОАО "Стахановский вагоностроительный завод"
Дипломный Отдел Морской Администрации Владивостока
Курсовая работа: Разработка стратегии развития предприятия. Скачать бесплатно и без регистрации
Реферат: Теория стакана воды
Учебное пособие: Методические указания и контрольные задания для студентов заочной формы обучения на базе основного общего образования ( 9 классов )
Реферат: Державна влада та посадові особи в історії України
Дипломная работа по теме Административное правонарушение как основание административной ответственности
Особенности Языка Рекламы Эссе
Контрольная Работа Показательные Уравнения Системы Неравенства
Сочинение На Тему Александр Блок
Алгоритм Понятие Представление Свойства Реферат
Положение Конкурса Сочинений Герой Моего Времени
Реферат: Метод рейтинговой оценки финансового состояния предприятия - эмитента. Скачать бесплатно и без регистрации
Роль речевого этикета во взаимоотношениях руководителя и подчиненного
Система Управление Производством Курсовая
Понятие Сумерки В Астрономии Реферат
Реферат Сущность Международного Правового Регулирования Социального Обеспечения
Реферат: Ямайка - страна туризма
Реферат: Доверенности Комментарии
Реферат: Технологическая карта на монтаж промышленного здания