2 2 7

-; -

.

1. . . 2- . .: , 1986.2. . . : . . …

. . ., 1999.3. . . , , , , -. .; .: , 2004.4. : : . . . : . . , 1998. . 1.5. . . – . . .: , 1988.6. . . : – – . -

. : , 1999.7. Holder R. W. A Dictionary of Euphemisms. OUP, 2003.8. Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture. Longman Group UK Limited, 1992.

7. , -, -

.

,, - , [5]

(1)

. .

, . – , . .

,, -

, .

The algorithm of summary assessment of ecological and economical damage caused by a stationarysource of pollution to agriculture and assessment of economical damage from annual emissions of pollutingadmixture on water surface is proposed in the article.

n

iiiiii

n

iii

n

iiiii

qq

qqy

11

1

,),(

,

– -, ,

./ ; –

, ,

./ ; –

y

...

2 2 8

, -, ./ ;

– -; –

--

, – i

; qi – ( ) .

(1) -:

(2)

i

– , -; – i, ; n – -

. ,

, - ,

-, -

, -, -

(1), -

-. -

-,

.

, --

, [5]

, (3)

y – , -

; y1– ), ./ ; y2 – -

-, -

n

i

n

iiiiiiii

n

ii

n

iiiiiii

qq

qq

y

1 11

1

,),(

,

-, ./ ; y3 – -

-

; y4 – --

. [5], y1, y2, y3, y4

: ,

– ,./ ; – -

-; – -

; – -

; – - ( -

, -),

;

r – ; –

( );

,

NPK – , , , ; – -

iiq

)( iii qq

i

i

i

4321 yyyyy

y1

1)1()1(

T

T

rrr

CNPKCGy2

C

2 2 9

1 , ./ ; –

;

, ,

yi – i -

, -, ; i –

i, ./ ;

, ,

yi – i -

, .-

, ---

, .

1. --

«DODS» [2, 3].2.

, (2), (3).

-

, ---

, ,

-.

, -

«Ecological economy damage», ----

, .

.

.

, ( . ), -

( , .,). (2), (3)

: ../ ( 3, 1

[1]); ( , -);

[4]); =1 ( - 3, 3 [1]); , ,

, i = 1, ..., 30, - 1, , -

, -, -

2, . 2 [1]; =1,4 -, -

.

iii yy3

i

iyy 33

iii yy4

i

iyy 44

( , i , i , i , i ),

327

6,15,0

iq ii

iq i

ii

...

,-

i

iq i i0,144 52 20

0,0577 6,2 20

0,0133 1,2 20

3E–05 21 1

0,063 21 3,5

0,0032 11,2 0,05

0,0082 52 1

0,0024 293 0.05

0,177 7,5 0,05

0,0061 1,2 20

(2), (3), --

y1=261,6 . ./ , , . ,

365,12 . ./ .y

y

2 3 0

, - (2),

, - (

(1)).

, (2) - ; -

1. . ., . ., . . -. ., 1999. . 57.

2. . ., . . , - // -

. ., 2007. . 42–46.3. . . « -

» , :, -

(DODS). . : 9293. :14.11.2007.

4. . ., 1995. . 42.5. . . . .:

»; : « ». 2003. . 224.

, , -

( . ).--

, --

, , -.

y

y

y

i

. .

. – , . .

. --

. , -

.: , , , -

, , .

The article is devoted to the problem of periphrasis nomination. The linguistic nature of the consideredphenomenon is analysed from the point of view of structural semiotics and semantic aspects. The researchshows that periphrasis represents a complex and dynamic unit of the language system and at the same timeis an integral element of real communications.

Key words: multiword sign formation, old knowledge, new knowledge, complex knowledge, senseactualisation, communication.