Frugal meal синоним

Frugal meal: перевод, синонимы, произношение, примеры предложений, антонимы, транскрипция

Похожие слова: frugal meal

Синонимы & Антонимы: не найдено

LECTURE 10.
SYNONYMS AND THEIR CLASSIFICATIONS
1) Synonyms: words with the same or different meaning.
2) Criteria of Synonymy
3) Types of Synonyms. Types of Connotations
4) The Dominant Synonym
5) Euphemisms

1. Synonyms: words the same or different meaning
Synonymy is one of modern linguistics’ most controversial problems. The very existence of words traditionally called synonyms is disputed by some linguists; the nature and essence of the relationships of these words is hotly debated and treated in quite different ways by the representatives of different linguistic schools. Even though one may accept that synonyms in the traditional meaning of the term are somewhat elusive and, to some extent, fictitious it is certain that there are words in any vocabulary which clearly develop regular and distinct relationships when used in speech.
In the following extract, in which a young woman rejects a proposal of marriage, the verbs like, admire and love, all describe feelings of attraction, approbation, fondness:
«I have always liked you very much, I admire your talent, but, forgive me, — I could never love you as a wife should love her husband.»
(From The Shivering Sands by V. Holt)
Yet, each of the three verbs, though they all describe more or less the same feeling of liking, describes it in its own way: «I like you, i. e. I have certain warm feelings towards you, but they are not strong enough for me to describe them as «love», — so that like and love are in a way opposed to each other.
The duality of synonyms is, probably, their most confusing feature: they are somewhat the same, and yet they are most obviously different. Both aspects of their dual characteristics are essential for them to perform their function in speech: revealing different aspects, shades and variations of the same phenomenon.
«— Was she a pretty girl?
— I would certainly have called her attractive.»
(Ibid.)
The second speaker in this short dialogue does his best to choose the word which would describe the girl most precisely: she was good-looking, but pretty is probably too good a word for her, so that attractive is again in a way opposed to pretty (not pretty, only attractive), but this opposition is, at the same time, firmly fixed on the sameness of pretty and attractive: essentially they both describe a pleasant appearance.
Here are some more extracts which confirm that synonyms add precision to each detail of description and show how the correct choice of a word from a group of synonyms may colour the whole text.
The first extract depicts a domestic quarrel. The infuriated husband shouts and glares at his wife, but «his glare suddenly softened into a gaze as he turned his eyes on the little girl» (i. e. he had been looking furiously at his wife, but when he turned his eyes on the child, he looked at her with tenderness).
The second extract depicts a young father taking his child for a Sunday walk.
«Neighbours were apt to smile at the long-legged bare-headed young man leisurely strolling along the street and his small companion demurely trotting by his side.»
(From Some Men and Women by B. Lowndes)
The synonyms stroll and trot vividly describe two different styles of walking, the long slow paces of the young man and the gait between a walk and a run of the short-legged child.
In the following extract an irritated producer is talking to an ambitious young actor:
«Think you can play Romeo? Romeo should smile, not grin, walk, not swagger, speak his lines, not mumble them.»
(Ibid.)
Here the second synonym in each pair is quite obviously and intentionally contrasted and opposed to the first: «… smile, not grin.» Yet, to grin means more or less the same as to smile, only, perhaps, denoting a broader and a rather foolish smile. In the same way to swagger means «to walk», but to walk in a defiant or insolent manner. Mumbling is also a way of speaking, but of speaking indistinctly or unintelligibly.
Synonyms are one of the language’s most important expressive means. The above examples convincingly demonstrate that the principal function of synonyms is to represent the same phenomenon in different aspects, shades and variations.
And here is an example of how a great writer may use synonyms for stylistic purposes. In this extract from Death of a Hero R. Aldington describes a group of survivors painfully retreating after a defeat in battle:
«… The Frontshires [name of battalion] staggered rather than walked down the bumpy trench … About fifty men, the flotsam of the wrecked battalion, stumbled past them …. They shambled heavily along, not keeping step or attempting to, bent wearily forward under the weight of their equipment, their unseeing eyes turned to the muddy ground.»
In this extract the verb to walk is used with its three synonyms, each of which describes the process of walking in its own way. In contrast to walk the other three words do not merely convey the bare idea of going on foot but connote the manner of walking as well. Stagger means «to sway while walking» and, also, implies a considerable, sometimes painful, effort. Stumble, means «to walk tripping over uneven ground and nearly falling.» Shamble implies dragging one’s feet while walking; a physical effort is also connoted by the word.
The use of all these synonyms in the extract creates a vivid picture of exhausted, broken men marching from the battle-field and enhances the general atmosphere of defeat and hopelessness.
A carefully chosen word from a group of synonyms is a great asset not only on the printed page but also in a speaker’s utterance. It was Mark Twain who said that the difference between the right word and just the right word is the difference between the lightning and the lightning-bug.
2. Criteria of Synonymy
Synonymy is associated with some theoretical problems which at present are still an object of controversy. Probably, the most controversial among these is the problem of criteria of synonymy. To put it in simpler words, we are still not certain which words should correctly be considered as synonyms, nor are we agreed as to the characteristic features which qualify two or more words as synonyms.
Traditional linguistics solved this problem with the conceptual criterion and defined synonyms as words of the same category of parts of speech conveying the same concept but differing either in shades of meaning or in stylistic characteristics.
Some aspects of this definition have been criticised. It has been pointed out that linguistic phenomena should be defined in linguistic terms and that the use of the term concept makes this an extralinguistic definition. The term «shades of meaning» has been condemned for its vagueness and lack of precision.
In contemporary research on synonymy semantic criterion is frequently used. In terms of componential analysis synonyms may be defined as words with the same denotation, or the same denotative component, but differing in connotations, or in connotative components.
Though not beyond criticism, this approach has its advantages and suggests certain new methods of analysing synonyms.
A group of synonyms may be studied with the help of their dictionary definitions (definitional analysis). In this work the data from various dictionaries are analysed comparatively. After that the definitions are subjected to transformational operations (transformational analysis). In this way, the semantic components of each analysed word are singled out.
Here are the results of the definitional and transformational analysis of some of the numerous synonyms for the verb to look.
The common denotation convincingly shows that, according to the semantic criterion, the words grouped in the above table are synonyms. The connotative components represented on the right side of the table highlight their differentiations.
In modern research on synonyms the criterion of interchangeability is sometimes applied. According to this, synonyms are defined as words which are interchangeable at least in some contexts without any considerable alteration in denotational meaning.
This criterion of interchangeability has been much criticised. Every or almost every attempt to apply it to this or that group of synonyms seems to lead one to the inevitable conclusion that either there are very few synonyms or, else, that they are not interchangeable.
It is sufficient to choose any set of synonyms placing them in a simple context to demonstrate the point. Let us take, for example, the synonyms from the above table.
Cf.: He glared at her (i. e. He looked at her angrily). He gazed at her (i. e. He looked at her steadily and attentively; probably with admiration or interest).
He glanced at her (i. e. He looked at her briefly and turned away).
He peered at her (i. e. He tried to see her better, but something prevented: darkness, fog, weak eyesight).
These few simple examples are sufficient to show that each of the synonyms creates an entirely new situation which so sharply differs from the rest that any attempt at «interchanging» anything can only destroy the utterance devoiding it of any sense at all.
Used in this way, in a related context, all these words (/ like you, but I cannot love you; the young man was strolling, and his child was trotting by his side; Romeo should smile, not grin, etc.) clearly demonstrate that substitution of one word for another is impossible: it is not simply the context that firmly binds them in their proper places, but the peculiar individual connotative structure of each individual word.
Consequently, it is difficult to accept interchangeability as a criterion of synonymy because the specific characteristic of synonyms, and the one justifying their very existence, is that they are not, cannot and should not be interchangeable, in which case they would simply become useless ballast in the vocabulary.
Synonyms are frequently said to be the vocabulary’s colours, tints and hues (so the term shade is not so inadequate, after all, for those who can understand a metaphor). Attempts at ascribing to synonyms the quality of interchangeability are equal to stating that subtle tints in a painting can be exchanged without destroying the picture’s effect.
All this does not mean that no synonyms are interchangeable. One can find whole groups of words with half-erased connotations which can readily be substituted one for another. The same girl can be described as pretty, good-looking, handsome or beautiful. Yet, even these words are far from being totally interchangeable. Each of them creates its own picture of human beauty. Here is an extract in which a young girl addresses an old woman:
«I wouldn’t say you’d been exactly pretty as a girl — handsome is what I’d say. You’ve got such strong features.»
(From The Stone Angel by M. Lawrence)
So, handsome is not pretty and pretty is not necessarily handsome. Perhaps they are not even synonyms? But they are. Both, the criterion of common denotation («good-looking, of pleasing appearance») and even the dubious criterion of inter-changeability seem to indicate that.
In conclusion, let us stress that even if there are some synonyms which are interchangeable, it is quite certain that there are also others which are not. A criterion, if it is a criterion at all, should be applicable to all synonyms and not just to some of them. Otherwise it is not acceptable as a valid criterion.
3. Types of Synonyms
The only existing classification system for synonyms was established by Academician V. V. Vinogradov, the famous Russian scholar. In his classification system there are three types of synonyms: ideographic (which he defined as words conveying the same concept but differing in shades of meaning), stylistic (differing in stylistic characteristics) and absolute (coinciding in all their shades of meaning and in all their stylistic characteristics).
However, the following aspects of his classification system are open to question.
Firstly, absolute synonyms are rare in the vocabulary and, on the diachronic level, the phenomenon of absolute synonymy is anomalous and consequently temporary: the vocabulary system invariably tends to abolish it either by rejecting one of the absolute synonyms or by developing differentiation characteristics in one or both (or all) of them. Therefore, it does not seem necessary to include absolute synonyms, which are a temporary exception, in the system of classification.
The vagueness of the term «shades of meaning» has already been mentioned. Furthermore there seems to be no rigid demarcation line between synonyms differing in their shades of meaning and in stylistic characteristics. There are numerous synonyms which are distinguished by both shades of meaning and stylistic colouring. Therefore, even the subdivision of synonyms into ideographic and stylistic is open to question.
A more modern and a more effective approach to the classification of synonyms may be based on the definition describing synonyms as words differing in connotations. It seems convenient to classify connotations by which synonyms differ rather than synonyms themselves. It opens up possibilities for tracing much subtler distinctive features within their semantic structures.
Types of Connotations
1) The connotation of degree or intensity can be traced in such groups of synonyms as to surprise — to astonish — to amaze — to astound; to satisfy — to please — to content — to gratify — to delight — to exalt; to shout — to yell — to bellow — to roar; to like — to admire — to love — to adore — to worship.
Some words have two and even more connotative components in their semantic structures. In the above list the synonymic groups headed by to satisfy and to like contain words which can be differentiated not only by the connotation of intensity but by other types which will be described later.
2) In the group of synonyms to stare — to glare — to gaze — to glance — to peep — to peer, all the synonyms except to glance denote a lasting act of looking at somebody or something, whereas to glance describes a brief, passing look. These synonyms may be said to have a connotation of duration in their semantic structure.
Other examples are: to flash (brief) — to blaze (lasting); to shudder (brief) — to shiver (lasting); to say (brief) — to speak, to talk (lasting).
All these synonyms have other connotations besides that of duration.
3) The synonyms to stare — to glare — to gaze are differentiated from the other words of the group by emotive connotations, and from each other by the nature of the emotion they imply.
In the group alone — single — lonely — solitary, the adjective lonely also has an emotive connotation.
She was alone implies simply the absence of company, she was lonely stresses the feeling of melancholy and desolation resulting from being alone. A single tree on the plain states plainly that there is (was) only one tree, not two or more. A lonely tree on the plain gives essentially the same information, that there was one tree and no more, but also creates an emotionally coloured picture.
In the group to tremble — to shiver — to shudder — to shake, the verb to shudder is frequently associated with the emotion of fear, horror or disgust, etc. (e. g. to shudder with horror) and therefore can be said to have an emotive connotation in addition to the two others.
One should be warned against confusing words with emotive connotations and words with emotive denotative meanings, e. g. to love — to admire — to adore — to worship; angry — furious — enraged; fear — terror — horror. In the latter, emotion is expressed by the leading semantic component whereas in the former it is an accompanying, subsidiary characteristic.
4) The evaluative connotation conveys the speaker’s attitude towards the referent, labelling it as good or bad. So in the group well-known — famous — notorious — celebrated, the adjective notorious bears a negative evaluative connotation and celebrated a positive one. Cf.: a notorious murderer, robber, swindler, coward, lady-killer, flirt, but a celebrated scholar, artist, singer, man-of-letters.
In the group to produce — to create — to manufacture — to fabricate, the verb to create characterises the process as inspired and noble. To manufacture means «to produce in a mechanical way without inspiration or originality». So, to create can be said to have a positive evaluative connotation, and to manufacture a negative one.
The verbs to sparkle and to glitter are close synonyms and might well be favoured by supporters of the interchangeability criterion. Yet, it would be interesting to compare the following sets of examples:
A. His (her) eyes sparkled with amusement, merriment, good humour, high spirits, happiness, etc. (positive emotions).
B. His (her) eyes glittered with anger, rage, hatred,
malice, etc. (negative emotions).
The combinability of both verbs shows that, at least, when they are used to describe the expression of human eyes, they have both emotive and evaluative connotations, and, also, one further characteristic, which is described in the next paragraph.
5) The causative connotation can be illustrated by the examples to sparkle and to glitter given above: one’s eyes sparkle with positive emotions and glitter with negative emotions. However, this connotation of to sparkle and to glitter seems to appear only in the model «Eyes + Sparkle/Glitter».
The causative connotation is also typical of the verbs we have already mentioned, to shiver and to shudder, in whose semantic structures the cause of the act or process of trembling is encoded: to shiver with cold, from a chill, because of the frost; to shudder with fear, horror, etc.
To blush and to redden represent similar cases: people mostly blush from modesty, shame or embarrassment, but usually redden from anger or indignation. Emotive connotation can easily be traced in both these verbs.
6) The connotation of manner can be singled out in some groups of verbal synonyms. The verbs to stroll — to stride — to trot — to pace — to swagger — to stagger — to stumble all denote different ways and types of walking, encoding in their semantic structures the length of pace, tempo, gait and carriage, purposefulness or lack of purpose. The verbs to peep and to peer also have this connotation in their semantic structures: to peep = to look at smb./smth. furtively, by stealth; to peer = to look at smb./smth. with difficulty or strain.
The verbs to like — to admire — to love — to adore — to worship, as has been mentioned, are differentiated not only by the connotation of intensity, but also by the connotation of manner. Each of them describes a feeling of a different type, and not only of different intensity.
7) The verbs to peep and to peer have already been mentioned. They are differentiated by connotations of duration and manner. But there is some other curious peculiarity in their semantic structures. Let us consider their typical contexts.
One peeps at smb./smth. through a hole, crack or opening, from behind a screen, a half-closed door, a newspaper, a fan, a curtain, etc. It seems as if a whole set of scenery were built within the word’s meaning. Of course, it is not quite so, because «the set of scenery» is actually built in the context, but, as with all regular contexts, it is intimately reflected in the word’s semantic structure. We shall call this the connotation of attendant circumstances.
This connotation is also characteristic of to peer which will be clear from the following typical contexts of the verb.
One peers at smb./smth. in darkness, through the fog, through dimmed glasses or windows, from a great distance; a short-sighted person may also peer at things. So, in the semantic structure of to peer are encoded circumstances preventing one from seeing clearly.
The synonyms pretty, handsome, beautiful have been mentioned as the ones which are more or less interchangeable. Yet, each of them describes a special type of human beauty: beautiful is mostly associated with classical features and a perfect figure, handsome with a tall stature, a certain robustness and fine pro portions, pretty with small delicate features and a fresh complexion. This connotation may be defined as the connotation of attendant features.
9) Stylistic connotations stand somewhat apart for two reasons. Firstly, some scholars do not regard the word’s stylistic characteristic as a connotative component of its semantic structure. Secondly, stylistic connotations are subject to further classification, namely: colloquial, slang, dialect, learned, poetic, terminological, archaic. Here again we are dealing with stylistically marked words, but this time we approach the feature of stylistic characteristics from a different angle: from the point of view of synonyms frequent differentiation characteristics.
Here are some examples of synonyms which are differentiated by stylistic connotations. The word in brackets starting each group shows the denotation of the synonyms.
(Meal). Snack, bite (coll.), snap (dial.), repast, refreshment, feast (formal).
These synonyms, besides stylistic connotations, have connotations of attendant features.
Snack, bite, snap all denote a frugal meal taken in a hurry; refreshment is also a light meal; feast is a rich or abundant meal.
(Girl). Girlie (coll.), lass, lassie (dial.), bird, birdie, jane, fluff, skirt (sl.), maiden (poet.), damsel (arch.).
4. The Dominant Synonym
All (or, at least, most) synonymic groups have a «central» word of this kind whose meaning is equal to the denotation common to all the synonymic group. This word is called the dominant synonym.
Here are examples of other dominant synonyms with their groups:
To surprise — to astonish — to amaze — to astound.
To shout — to yell — to bellow — to roar.
To shine — to flash — to blaze — to gleam — to glisten — to sparkle — to glitter — to shimmer — to glimmer.
To tremble — to shiver — to shudder — to shake.
To make — to produce — to create — to fabricate — to manufacture.
Angry — furious — enraged. Fear — terror — horror.
The dominant synonym expresses the notion common to all synonyms of the group in the most general way, without contributing any additional information as to the manner, intensity, duration or any attending feature of the referent. So, any dominant synonym is a typical basic-vocabulary word. Its meaning, which is broad and generalised, more or less «covers» the meanings of the rest of the synonyms, so that it may be substituted for any of them. It seems that here, at last, the idea of interchangeability of synonyms comes into its own. And yet, each such substitution would mean an irreparable loss of the additional information supplied by connotative components of each synonym. So, using to look instead of to glare, to stare, to peep, to peer we preserve the general sense of the utterance but lose a great deal in precision, expressiveness and colour.
Summing up what has been said, the following characteristic features of the dominant synonym can be underlined:
1) High frequency of usage.
2) Broad combinability, i. e. ability to be used in combinations with various classes of words.
3) Broad general meaning.
4) Lack of connotations. (This goes for stylistic con
notations as well, so that neutrality as to style is
also a typical feature of the dominant synonym.)
5. Euphemisms
There are words in every language which people instinctively avoid because they are considered indecent, indelicate, rude, too direct or impolite. As the «offensive» referents, for which these words stand, must still be alluded to, they are often described in a round-about way, by using substitutes called euphemisms. This device is dictated by social conventions which are sometimes apt to be over-sensitive, see «indecency» where there is none and seek refinement in absurd avoidances and pretentiousness.
The word lavatory has, naturally, produced many euphemisms. Here are some of them: powder room, washroom, restroom, retiring room, (public) comfort station, ladies’ (room), gentlemen’s (room), water-closet, w.c. ([d0blju:’si:]), public conveniences and even Windsor castle (which is a comical phrase for «deciphering» w.c.).
Pregnancy is another topic for «delicate» references. Here are some of the euphemisms used as substitutes for the adjective pregnant: in an interesting condition, in a delicate condition, in the family way, with a baby coming, (big) with child, expecting.
The apparently innocent word trousers, not so long ago, had a great number of euphemistic equivalents, some of them quite funny: unmentionables, inexpressibles, indescribables, unwhisperables, you-mustn’t-men-tion ’ems, sit-upons. Nowadays, however, nobody seems to regard this word as «indecent» any more, and so its euphemistic substitutes are no longer in use.
There are words which are easy targets for euphemistic substitution. These include words associated with drunkenness, which are very numerous.
The adjective drunk, for instance, has a great number of such substitutes, some of them «delicate», but most comical. E. g. intoxicated (form.), under the influence (form.), tipsy, mellow, fresh, high, merry, flustered, overcome, full (coll.), drunk as a lord (coll.), drunk as an owl (coll.), boiled (sl.), fried (sl.), tanked (sl.), tight (sl.), stiff (sl.), pickled (sl.), soaked (sl.), three sheets to the wind (sl.), high as a kite (sl.), half-seas-over (sl.), etc.
Euphemisms may, of course, be used due to genuine concern not to hurt someone’s feelings. For instance, a liar can be described as a person who does not always strictly tell the truth and a stupid man can be said to be not exactly brilliant.
All the euphemisms that have been described so far are used to avoid the so-called social taboos. Their use, as has already been said, is inspired by social convention.
Superstitious taboos gave rise to the use of other type of euphemisms. The reluctance to call things by their proper names is also typical of this type of euphemisms, but this time it is based on a deeply-rooted subconscious fear.
Superstitious taboos have their roots in the distant past of mankind when people believed that there was a supernatural link between a name and the object or creature it represented. Therefore, all the words denoting evil spirits, dangerous animals, or the powers of nature were taboo. If uttered, it was believed that unspeakable disasters would result not only for the speaker but also for those near him. That is why all creatures, objects and phenomena threatening danger were referred to in a round-about descriptive way. So, a dangerous animal might be described as the one-lurking-in-the-wood and a mortal disease as the black death. Euphemisms are probably the oldest type of synonyms, for it is reasonable to assume that superstitions which caused real fear called for the creation of euphemisms long before the need to describe things in their various aspects or subtle shades caused the appearance of other synonyms.
The Christian religion also made certain words taboo. The proverb Speak of the devil and he will appear must have been used and taken quite literally when it was first used, and the fear of calling the devil by name was certainly inherited from ancient superstitious beliefs. So, the word devil became taboo, and a number of euphemisms were substitutes for it: the Prince of Darkness, the black one, the evil one, dickens (coll.), deuce (coll.), (Old) Nick (coll.).
The word God, due to other considerations, also had a great number of substitutes which can still be traced in such phrases as Good Lord!, By Heavens/, Good Heavens!, (My) goodness!, (My) goodness gracious!, Gracious me!
Even in our modern emancipated times, old superstitious fears still lurk behind words associated with death and fatal diseases. People are not superstitious nowadays and yet they are surprisingly reluctant to use the verb to die which has a long chain of both solemn and humorous substitutes. E. g. to pass away, to be taken, to breathe one’s last, to depart this life, to close one’s eyes, to yield (give) up the ghost, to go the way of all flesh, to go West (sl.), to kick off (sl.), to check out (sl.), to kick the bucket (sl.), to take a ride (sl.), to hop the twig (sl.), to join the majority (sl.).
The slang substitutes seem to lack any proper respect, but the joke is a sort of cover for the same old fear: speak of death and who knows what may happen.
Mental diseases also cause the frequent use of euphemisms.
A mad person may be described as insane, mentally unstable, unbalanced, unhinged, not (quite) right(coll.), not all there (coll.), off one’s head (coll.), off one’s rocker (coll.), wrong in the upper storey (coll.), having bats in one’s belfry (coll.), crazy as a bedbug (coll.), cuckoo (sl.), nutty (sl.), off one’s nut (sl.), loony (sl.), a mental case, a mental defective, etc.
A clinic for such patients can also be discreetly referred to as, for instance, an asylum, sanitarium, sanatorium, (mental) institution, and, less discreetly, as a nut house (sl.), booby hatch (sl.), loony bin (sl.), etc.
In the story by Evelyn Waugh «Mr. Loveday’s Little Outing» a clinic of this kind, treating only very rich patients, is described as large private grounds suitable for the charge of nervous or difficult cases. This is certainly the peak of euphemistic «delicacy».
The great number of humorous substitutes found in such groups of words prove particularly tempting for writers who use them for comical purposes. The following extracts from a children’s book by R. Dahl are, probably, not in the best of taste, but they demonstrate the range of colloquial and slang substitutes for the word mad.
«He’s gone off his rocker!» shouted one of the fathers, aghast, and the other parents joined in the chorus of frightened shouting.
«He’s crazy!» they shouted.
«He’s balmy!»
«He’s nutty!»
«He’s screwy!»
«He’s batty!»
«He’s dippy!»
«He’s dotty!’*
«He’s daffy!»
«He’s goofy!»
«He’s beany!»
«He’s buggy!»
«He’s wacky!»
«He’s loony!»
«No, he is not!» said Grandpa Joe.
(From Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by R. Dahl)
… «What did I tell you!» — cried Grandma Georgina. «He’s round the twist! He’s bogged as a beetle! He’s dotty as a dingbat! He’s got rats in the roof!…»
(Ibid.)
All the above examples show that euphemisms are substitutes for their synonyms. Their use and very existence are caused either by social conventions or by certain psychological factors. Most of them have stylistic connotations in their semantic structures. One can also assume that there is a special euphemistic connotation that can be singled out in the semantic structure of each such word. Let us point out, too, that euphemistic connotations in formal euphemisms are different in «flavour» from those in slang euphemistic substitutes. In the first case they are solemn and delicately evasive, and in the second rough and somewhat cynical, reflecting an attempt to laugh off an unpleasant fact.

Словосочетания

Примеры

Примеры, ожидающие перевода

Другие формы слова:

-  frugal