Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Intercultural Approach of Professional Lexicon
.pdf
3.5. National and cultural characteristics in the motivation of
zoonotic terms in Russian and Kazakh
The theme of national and cultural characteristics plays a significant part in research
into lexis, because in every language particular national characteristics are reflected,
which form a national culture. A national picture of the world is formed by specific
factors and traditions, by verbal and nonverbal means. Terminology is a specific field of
linguistic systems, which on the one hand depends on the lexis of the native language,
and on the other relies on international specialists in different scientific, academic and
cultural spheres, as it strives towards internationalism. Epizoological terms exist within
the more or less organised system of veterinary terminology, and the functionality of
any given term is conditioned by the structural and semantic qualities of the whole
terminological system, so that it is important not only to define their meaning, but also
to establish the relationship of the term to other lexical units, both specialised and
general.
The notion of the a priori nature of specific parts rooted to the lexis of a particular
language is debatable. Objections may be raised both from the perspective of theory and
intuition. From an intuitive point of view, we cannot quite explain why zoonoses in
Russian like ящур (foot and mouth disease), оспа (variola), сап (malleus), мыт (adenitis), and
in Kazakh like оба (plague), маңқа (adenitis), күл (smallpox), топалаң (ulcer) point to a
particular cultural characteristic. But from a theoretical point of view, it is inexpedient to
include in a scientific list any zoonotic terms that do not have an operational definition.
It should be noted that in terminology there are plenty of less strict definitions, for
example in the definition of a distinctive, homogenous linguistic phenomenon like
synonymy, polysemy and homonymy. Seemingly, specific terminology cannot achieve
complete formal strictness, in line with the canon of natural science. But research on
scientific and academic language can nonetheless lead to useful concepts being brought
into use, so that the need to investigate the idea of this national picture of the world
through linguistic expression is obvious. In the opinion of H.Holmsky, linguistic
possibilities include several innate and universal meanings, with the aid of which
human beings create and understand words, and the more profound aspects of
linguistic structure and semantics have a natural or genetic basis. In order to elaborate
the nature of the national-cultural component of nosological units in epizoological
terms, we must come to an agreement on what national-cultural characteristics are.
There are two ways of looking at this problem. According to the first, the
national-cultural component can be examined only in the sense of so-called 'realia'
words, like the Russian мыт (adenitis), 'a disease of horses' (as in мытиться (to come
down with adenitis), and очищаться (to clarify, distil) - foals may мытятся in their fourth
or fifth year of life); сап (malleus), 'a disease of
horses' (from сопля (snot), сопеть (to wheeze) - сапатая, лошадь осапатела (wheezing, a
horse comes down with malleus)); чума (plague), 'a highly contagious epizoological disease'
(as in очуметь (to lose one's mind) and чумной (plague-stricken)); or the Kazakh ацбайпац
(bovine cattle plague), ж^ілан цүрт (ascariasis), кемпір (plague), having the meaning of 'an
old person', құм сірке (scabies), көбенек (infectiouspleuropneumonia). From this point of
view, nationally influenced zoonotic terms should be considered as marginal in the
subject field. The complete opposite position is to include the widest possible grouping
of linguistic phenomena in the concepts of national culture. This touches on the ideas of
von Humboldt on the internal form of words and the placing in language of 'the soul of
the people', which is to say that we think about the world only from within our own
language 'bubble'. To put it another way, language communities formulate different
conceptual pictures of the world. But Kolshansky's position is that there is only one
conceptual picture of the world, because it is not created by one people, one group of
language users alone, but by 'human beings as a species'. The characteristics of a
linguistic picture of the world are national, being characteristics of the substance of the
material world, but the characteristics of a conceptual picture of the world are not
(Kolshansky, 1990:21). This concept connects to B.A.Serebrennikov's argument on the
linguistic picture of the world. Differentiating between these two pictures of the world -
the conceptual and linguistic - Serebrennikov states that the conceptual picture of the
world is richer than the linguistic picture, in that it contains 'the elements of
commonality which come through the mutual understanding of different peoples'
(Serebrennikov, 1988:8).
Every national language articulates the world in its own way, has its own specific
way of conceptualising things. Through the use of particular words, at the heart of each
distinct language, lies a particular model or picture of the world, and language users
must arrange the substance of the things they say around this model. In looking at the
problem of the nationally specific model of the world, the role of language in the
formation of a picture of the world in the consciousness of human beings must be
examined in terms of the concept of the conceptual and linguistic pictures of the world,
because the differences between them are especially poignant in the juxtaposition of
linguistic phenomena from the point of view of motivation, and the internal form of
words.
The expression 'picture of the world' may be considered to be synonymous with
that of 'the accumulated knowledge of the world'. A summary definition of the complete
accumulated scientific knowledge of the world is essentially our philosophical
understanding of that world, a definition of the world as the material reality that
surrounds human beings, existing within spatial and temporal constraints (Burt, 1984).
Linguistic perspectives on the objective picture of the world in cognition and
language reveal a picture of the world, depicted in the consciousness of human
beings as a secondary existence of the objective world, fixed in an original material form.
This material form is language.
Human beings do not project themselves onto the world as such, but see themselves
as the world, so that we have a very human picture of the world that pervades all
humanity. The subjectivity of this world is defined by its application to human beings.
The world, in its ideal form depicted in the consciousness of human beings in
materialised, linguistic form, becomes a crucial element of the world at large.
Our perception of the world is defined by its practical acquisition. Our thinking
comes about by virtue of this perception. The essence of language as the material
manifestation of thought and the full accumulation of human knowledge introduces a
new phenomenon into the concept of the 'picture of the world'. Linguistic signs are the
realisation of conceptual reality in language. Language expresses thought, while thought
builds up a picture of reality. Language emerges as an accumulator of human
knowledge, pervading all things in its evolution. Language expresses all the different
factors which make up our knowledge of the world; the natural peculiarities of different
peoples, their histories, social patterns, and way of life. The act of motivation in the
nomination of new objects and phenomena is a linguistic fact of the peculiarly human
pursuit of pulling together all the distinctive material conditions of life. The nomination
of natural phenomena, animals, their diseases, gives us a vivid picture of the endless
variety of the pro^ erties of these phenomena captured by human beings. But we cannot
talk separately of a linguistic picture of the world without accounting for its human
nature. 'In fact language does not imposes on us one or other perception of reality, but
the contrary: reality is reflected in multiple ways in different languages on the strength
of the diversity of conditions in the mental and social life of people' (Mechkovskaya,
1983). The absence of this or that material object in a given social group may also explain
the absence of its corresponding denotatum in the linguistic signification of that object.
In the particular characteristics of motivation in the naming of animal diseases in
Russian and Kazakh, for example, indicate a system of selection by the people. The
relationship of people to a particular object or phenomenon in the world at a given stage
of perception and its acquisition by that people explains the choice of motive in its
nomination, the means of its description, depicting the practical use of the motivated
object. In all linguistic forms the human factor sneaks in, because it is humans in each
case that choose and retain one out of all the innumerable properties of objects and
phenomena and the connections between them.
Analysing the conceptual reality of human beings, studying the formation of
methods of maintaining and passing on human knowledge stands at the forefront of the
so-called 'cognitive revolution'. E.D.Suleimenov points out that 'contemporary
approaches to language and the formation of new research
paradigms has led us to the present point in linguistics where we have these complex
interactions between numerous approaches to language, among which the following are
undoubtedly the most important: language and human beings; language and national
consciousness; language as an instrument of cognition; language as human cognitive
ability; language as a secondary modelling system' (Suleimenov, 1998:80).
Contemporary linguistics has moved on to the study of the relationship between
language and thought, incorporating knowledge from the fields of psychology and
anthropology among others. Applying the principles of psycholinguistic research to
terminological motivation, based on an analysis of the linguistic and psychological bases
of active possession in language, has proved extremely fruitful.
Uncovering human creative potential in the area of motivation in naming objects
and phenomena from our surrounding reality demands a psycholinguistic approach, as
demonstrated in the works of international linguists, supporting this position on the
different kinds of transfer from thought to word (see Serebrennikov, Karaulov,
Shaimerdenova). From the point of view of psychology, information received by
language users from the external word follows a long path, which 'along with the
activity of the sensory organs also involves the activity of the individual and the
experience of previous generations, which enable him or her to escape the bounds of the
immediacy with which that information is received' (Leontev, 1976:46). This creative
perception of reality by human beings directly connected to our capacity for creating
language, allowing us to take an interesting look at the psycholinguistic bases for
motivation in creating terms in the field of veterinary medicine, and research into the
role of associative and formative thought by Russian and Kazakh language users in this
process.
Our aptitude for perceiving reality in graphic terms helps us to hold onto our more
important memories. Our memory plays a vital role in maintaining acquired knowledge,
learned skills, and communicating this accumulated knowledge.
According to N.l.Zhinkin, signification is realised in the way we search for vital
information and store this in our memories, and in the anticipation of acquiring new
information (1982:4).
ln linguistic systems, selection forms an indicative memory bank, preserving only
that which will aid our development.
The motivation of terms is an area of psycholinguistics. Motivated animal disease
names join together two pieces of psycholinguistic data: the motivational and the
motivated concept. ln this way, a terms begins its independent existence. Research into
the process of validating a motive in nomination reveals associative paths which come
together in the conscious motivational representation of one object with the
representation of another, and as a result these two things come to represent knowledge
of the new word, and together
create the term. In his work Y.D.Apresian discusses semantic association in the
consciousness of new words. Because associations are in large part defined by the
psychology of thinking human beings, analysing their surroundings and the things they
observe, and the thinking processes of people around the world are alike, we find that
the same attributes are used in the motivation of terms in veterinary medicine.
One of the first universal phenomena, against which people would measure the
things they studied, were diseases and parts of the body. They gave people these
universal classifications of existing diseases, like infectious and noninfectious, inward and
outward, psychological and physical, digestive, cardio, renal, gastric, coxofemoral, osteal, dermic,
ophthalmic, etc.
Terms essentially have an emotional foundation. So there is a lot of metaphor used
in the terminological nomination of zoonoses for the motivation of terms to demonstrate
the relationships between different named phenomena. To take one example, the
naming of the same disease with several different names depending on the animal
species in Kazakh, gives us an indication of the idiosyncrasies of the innate cognitive
make-up of a people, its creative powers, that creates a unique picture in the naming of
the same phenomena from its various aspects: 'the continuum of the surrounding world
is articulated differently by different languages. This is shown in the way that the
number of uses of a word is not uniform in different languages. This is how the
linguistic picture of the world comes into being and stores within a linguistic sign the
national and cultural characteristics of the intellectual activity of a given social group, its
errors and misbeliefs, its distinctive national character and way of life. Nevertheless
there are universal aspects of all nationally specific linguistic pictures of the world.
These universal semantic components are brought about by a shared way of looking at
the world by people from different cultures. This 'sharing' occurs at various semantic
levels of language. In all different cultures new concepts are named with reference to
previously named concepts, either constricting or broadening the semantics of that
language, as happens in terminology. The shared nature of human psychology is most
apparent in the naming of animal diseases, zoonotic terms like the Russian столбняк
and its Greek and English equivalent tetanus meaning calcification, and Kazakh сіреспе (to
calcify); the Russian белокровие (leukocytic sarcoma), Greek Leicos (meaning white), and
Kazakh ақ қан түйіршіктерінің шектен тыс көбею; the Russian понос (diarrhoea), Greek
diarrheo (meaning flowing out), and Kazakh іш өту (to dribble, run); the Russian рожа
(erysipelas), and Kazakh қызылша; the Russian парша (a scrofulous eruption on the
head), in Latin and English favus, meaning honeycomb; the Russian чахотка (phthisis),
from the Old Slavonic meaning to disappear, in Kazakh құру; the Russian глоссит
(glossitis, inflammation of the tongue) comes from the Greek glossa, meaning tongue, in
Kazakh тiлдiң қабынуы; the Russian желтуха (jaundice) and гепатит (hepatitis), the
Greek hepata, meaning liver, in
Kazakh сарыауру (lit. yellow disease; from саргаю: to turn yellow); лишай (scald head), the
Greek Хеіфооіе, meaning losing one's hair, in Latin relinquo, from lictus (I leave), etc.
The various specific national linguistic pictures of the world show themselves to be
essential to our understanding. There are as many pictures of the world as there are
observers, coming into contact with and witnessing the world through the prism of
individual experience, which is to say an individual worldview. To cite Serebrennikov,
'from the moment we appear on this earth we begin to live and immerse ourselves in the
customs of the world, and it is these that constitute our first most powerful encounter
with reality; they are sensu stricto our surrounding or social world, the society in which
we live. It is through this social world, this world of habits and customs that we see
other people, the world of objects, the universe itself' (Serebrennikov, 1988:33). It is
suggested that on the motivational level of structure, language users (in this study,
Russian and Kazakh), the national and cultural motivation of linguistic behaviour must
be looked at in connection with the way that it presents life, its own distinct experience.
Differences between languages, determined by differences in culture, can be seen in
nonequivalent zoonoses in Russian and Kazakh. There are many nonequivalent loan
words in specialist terminology with Greek and Latin roots. These not only unfold and
interpret the foreign culture, but come to symbolize it. Thus the following zoonotic
terms have become firmly entrenched in the veterinary terminological systems of both
Russian and Kazakh: бронхопневмония (bronchial pneumonia); бруцеллез (brucellosis);
ринотрахеит (rhinotracheitis); ботулизм (botulism); рак (cancer); лейкоз (leucosis),
дизентерия (dysentery); гепатит (hepatitis); полиартрит (polyarthritis); аборт (aborption,
miscarriage); грипп (influenza, grippe), гастрит (gastritis), сальмонеллез (salmonellosis),
фурункулез (furunculosis); стоматит (stomatitis); орнитоз (ornithosis); тиф (typhoid), etc.
The volume of nonequivalent vocabulary in national terminology may be judged
according to the following nosological units:
In Russian: яш,ур (foot and mouth disease), чума (plague), грыжа (hernia), кила (club
root disease), желтая немочь (yellow fever), ветры (wind), падучая немочь (epilepsy, falling
sickness), ячмень (hordeolum), мертвые жилы (dead tendons), понос (diarrhoea), антонов
огонь (St Anthony's Fire), короста (scabies), студеная лихорадка (cold fever), струп (scald
head), etc.; and in Kazakh: ақ топалаң, ылан, ұшпа, лаң, мәлік, қотыр, көнтек, сар
қолқа, сақтау, делбе, қара қаптал, су-ауру, қатпа, шошала, қорасан, мый құрт, солма,
ногала, күйдіргі, жамандат, мандам, өркен, пішу, сас,сапақ сайтан сауу, шарана, шемен,
шу, алшақтау, аңсар, бедеу, боркемік, бөгде ауру, бұраңдерт-дербез, etc.
Also, the gaps that appear when comparing terms in Russian and Kazakh highlight
the specific national and cultural characteristics of these peoples' worldview. Reasons for
these gaps vary. One gap may be caused by a cultural
difference between the Russian and Kazakh people, the absence in one of these
languages of an appropriate denotatum. But this does not happen in the naming of
animal diseases, because all animals are susceptible to all the diseases that exist in the
world, regardless of their habitat.
Most often, terminological gaps occur where one language finds no need to make
particular distinctions, while the other does.
For example, for the Russian anthropozoonosis сибирская язва (anthrax, splenic fever)
there are ten corresponding terms in Kazakh, differentiating the disease according to its
appearance in humans and domestic animals: түйнеме и күйдіргі (in humans);
жамандат (in horses); цараталац (in bovine cattle); ақшелек и царабез (in camels);
көбенек (in goats); сіреспе и цагыну (in pigs). For the Russian оспа (smallpox), Kazakh has
күл, қарасан, and шешек; for the Russian чума (plague), Kazakh has мәлік, ацбайпац, and
оба; for the Russian воспаление легких (inflammation of the lungs, pulmonitis), Kazakh has
тас өкпе, and ала өкпе; for the Russian ящур (foot and mouth disease), Kazakh has сарып
and аусыл; for the Russian сап (malleus), Kazakh has маңца, сары цолка; for the Russian
случная болезнь (covering disease), Kazakh has цара цаптал; for the Russian трипанозомоз
(trypanosomosis), Kazakh has су-ауру and цатпа; for the Russian эмфиматозный
карбункул (blackleg, black quarter, quarter evil), Kazakh has царасан and үшаяц; for the
Russian чесотка (mange), Kazakh has цотыр, көнтек, цышыма, and цыршаңцы; for the
Russian столбняк (tetanus), Kazakh has сiреспе and делбе; for the Russian язва (ulcer),
Kazakh has жауздык, кесел and арамбез; for the Russian лихорадка (fever), Kazakh has
безгек and цыздыргыш, and so on.
In this case gaps are the result of the differences between the two cultures.
According to the nomadic Kazakh way of thinking, animals are raised up to the same
level as human beings. The number of subdivisions in the Kazakh zoonoses is down to
the greater importance attached to animals in the daily life of oriental peoples as
compared with that of Slavic peoples.
From ancient times the Kazakhs have distinguished four different kinds of animals,
or төрт түлік (tort tulik). These are horse, cow, sheep, and camel. The Kazakh term мал
(cattle) is normally applied to smaller domestic animals, while its Russian equivalent
скот is applied to all animals. The relationship between humans and animals - the
devotion of humans towards animals as their loyal helpmates - is an historically
entrenched tradition that can be traced back to folktales, epic poetry, sayings and
proverbs. 'There are many different stories and fables about celebrated animals like
fleet-footed Zhelmaya, and Boz Ingen the mythical camels; stories of the tort tulik,'
writes Mukhtar Auezov in his memoirs Thoughts of Different Years (1959:56). The Kazakh
poet Ilyas Esenberlin also depicted horses in his epic poetry (1986). Another poet, Kadir
Mirzaliev epitomizes the relationship between camel and man, the man turning to the
camel as though to a friend or helpmate.
The recording and etymological exposition of infectious zoonoses is borne
out in Auezov's work. For example his use of көкшешек (1986:86), in Russian оспа
(variola); мәлік (ibid:12), in Russian чума (plague); оба (ibid:44, 48), in Russian чума
(plague); сарып (ibid:57), in Russian ящур (foot and mouth disease); секіртпе (ibid:69), in
Russian брадзот (bradsot); braxy. This way of representing the world was also present in
the medical revolution of oriental philosophy, the crowning moment of which was
Avicenna's Canon of Medicine, which postulates the worth of human and animal lives,
taking as a primary model for life that of the animals, rather than plants or other
creatures. Nomadic people keep a constant stock of food in the form of the herd. They
rear the herd and protect it, but they also depend on it; they are constantly moving along
behind the herd in search of new grazing land. This dependence gives rise to a sense of
kinship with the animals. Hence the cult of animals in folklore, especially horses.
Humans and horses share a single being in the form of the centaur. There are examples
of this across ancient literature: there was the wise centaur Chiron, who educated
Achilles, and the centaur also appears in the principal work of Al-Jahiz (775-868) The
Book of Animals.
In this way, discrepancies in the zoonoses we have looked at in the Russian and
Kazakh languages can be put down to the different sorts of economic activity of these
peoples in the pre-revolutionary period: the nomadic life of the Kazakh people and the
agricultural, settled way of life of the Russian people. Where there are discrepancies in
the taxonomies of the two languages we get these semantic 'blind spots' which are the
result of cultural differences. Those zoonotic terms in Kazakh which have no direct
equivalent in Russian, but which reflect the culture of the Kazakh people, can be
translated only by way of description. These terms can be grouped together with
common Kazakh words like аул (mountain village) and юрта (yurt), which express
something of the Central Asian culture. The contrastive value of words (a concept
introduced by V.V.Morkovkin) and in this case zoonotic terms, refers to their inherent
contrastive characteristics, which show up in comparable languages, enabling us to
identify the nationally specific portions of their meaning.
Nevertheless, we cannot say that the specific national characteristics of motivation
in zoonotic names are definitive and all-pervasive. The nature of the motivation of
names does not vary where it is conditioned by the common characteristic of natural
nomination, which the nominative systems we are analysing belong to. These 'common
characteristics' refer to those aspects of our daily lives which people around the world
share in common. They are the result of our common experiences of life on a shared
planet, and lead to the same motivation of certain objects. 'Where concepts are
conditioned by the structural characteristics of language and are in this sense
descriptive, it is impossible to have any exchange of thoughts, or intellectual
communication between people belonging to different linguistic communities'
(Apresian, 1969:235).
о.о. combining linguistic classification with the classification of
epizoological pathology according to the various criteria of
scientific data in veterinary terminology
The peculiarities of terminological research in the field of veterinary scientific
language prevent a unilateral linguistic approach. It is our contention that in defining
the terminological essence of veterinary terms, we cannot leave out scientific data on
animals: in order to elucidate the naming of diseases we must bring together data from
both linguistics and biology; linguistics and veterinary medicine. Our methodology in
the terminological investigation of zoonoses proposes combining the results of a
linguistic analysis of zoonotic terms with a study of the biology of animals, and the
characteristics of classifying animal diseases into different species in veterinary
medicine.
Every epizoological term is evolutionarily formed by a nosological item (from the
Greek nosos, meaning disease), whose specificity is defined by the causative agent, which
is to say the species of microbe. Each newly discovered disease can only be recognized
as such through convincing evidence of its own distinctive characteristics; its specificity.
This is the methodological basis used in classifying zoonoses, bacterioses and
anthropozoonoses at the WHO, the principal function of which is to solve national and
international problems of healthcare and the international classification of diseases. A
WHO committee of experts on bacterial and viral zoonoses (Geneva, 1981) defined them
as 'diseases and infections (their agents), which can be passed on to vertebrates and
people.'
The following zoonotic terms (in Russian) come under current Kazakh veterinary
legislation for the compulsory veterinary register, classified according to the species of
animal:
1. Diseases of horses: бешенство (rabies), стригущий лишай (ringworm),
ботриомикоз (botryomycosis), ботулизм (botulism), бруцеллез (brucellosis),
ринопневмония (rhinopneumonia), грипп (influenza), инфекционная анемия
(infectious anemia), инфекционный энцефаломиелит (infectious encephalomyelitis),
лептоспироз (leptospirosis), мыт (adenitis), некробактериоз (necrobacillosis),
паратифозный аборт (paratyphoid), сап (malleus), сибирская язва (splenic fever),
стахиботриотоксикоз (stachybotryotoxicosis), столбняк (tetanus), трихофития
(ringworm), микроспория (microsporia), туберкулез (tuberculosis), чума (smallpox),
эпизоотический лимфангит (epizootic lymphangitis), гетавирус (getah virus),
легионеллез (legionellosis), эрготизм (ergotism);
2. Diseases of bovine cattle: актиномикоз (Rivolta's disease), бешенство (rabies),
болезнь Ауески (pseudorabies), бруцеллез (brucellosis), фиброз (fibrosis),
вирусная диарея (viral diarrhoea), диплококковая инфекция
(uipiucoccoid), злокачественная катаральная горячка (malignant catarrhal fever),
инфекционный трахеит (bacterial tracheitis), лейкоз (leucosis), лептоспироз
(leptospirosis), листериоз (listeriosis), некробактериоз (necrobacillosis), оспа (variola),
паратиф (paratyphoid), пастереллез (pasteurellosis), плевропневмония
(pleuropneumonia), сибирская язва (splenic fever), столбняк (tetanus), тубуркулез
(tuberculosis), туляремия (tularemia), чума (plague), эмфизематозный карбункул
(emphysematous carbuncle), ящур (foot and mouth disease);
3. Diseases of small cattle: бешенство (rabies), болезнь Ауески (pseudorabies),
братзот (bradsot), бруцеллез (brucellosis), фиброз (fibrosis), дизентерия (dysentery),
диплококковая инфекция (diplococcoid), злокачественный отек (malignant edema),
инфекционная агалактия (contagious agalactia), инфекционный мастит (infectious
mastitis), инфекционная плевропневмония коз (contagious caprine pleuropneumonia),
колибактериоз (colibacillosis), контагиозный пустулезный дерматит (contagious
pustular dermatitis), копытная гниль (foot rot), лептоспироз (leptospirosis),
листериоз (listeriosis), некробактериоз (necrobacillosis), оспа коз (variola caprina),
оспа овец (variola ovina), паратиф (paratyphoid), паратубуркулуз (paratuberculosis),
сибирская язва (splenic fever), столбняк (tetanus), туберкулез (tuberculosis),
энзоотическии аборт (enzootic abortion), энтеротоксемия (enterotoxemia), ящур
(foot and mouth disease);
4. Diseases of pigs: бешенство (rabies), болезнь Ауески (pseudorabies), бруцеллез
(brucellosis), вирусный гастроэнтерит (viral gastroenteritis), везикулярная болезнь
(swine vesicular disease), грипп (influenza), дизентерия (dysentery), (diplococcoid),
злокачественный отек (malignant edema), инфекционный атрофический ринит
(infectious atrophic rhinitis), колибактериоз (colibacillosis), лептоспироз
(leptospirosis), листериоз (listeriosis), некробактериоз (necrobacillosis), оспа
(variola), пастерелез (pasteurellosis), рожа (erysipelas), чума (plague), энзоотическая
пневмония (enzootic pneumonia), ящур (foot and mouth disease);
5. Diseases of birds: аспергиллез (pneumomycosis), Болезнь Марека
(neurolymphomatosis), вирусный гепатит утят (duck virus hepatitis), грипп
(influenza), инфекционный бронхит (infectious bronchitis), инфекционный
ларинготрахеит (infectious laryngotracheitis), синусит (sinusitis), колибактериоз
(colibacillosis), лейкоз (leucosis), болезнь Ньюкасла (Newcastle disease), орнитоз
(ornithosis), оспа (variola), пастереллез/холера (pasteurellosis/cholera), пуллороз/тиф
(pullorosis/typhoid), респираторный микоплазмоз (respiratory mycoplasmosis),
сальмонеллез (salmonellosis), туберкулез (tuberculosis);
Diseases of camels: бешенство (rabies), бруцеллез (brucellosis), оспа
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]