The translator of the first Ukrainian version of Plato’s Cratylus (see above, p. ..) indicates the difficulties in translating the dialogue, emphasizing the external and internal aspects of those difficulties. The external aspect consists in the different etymology of Greek and Ukrainian words, and the internal one lays in the problem of choice between “Latinization” and “Ukrainization” of the translated text. The author made one of his translation principles to avoid excessive Latinization and justifies his decision.

The phenomenon of language, being so familiar to us, still possesses unknown nature, origin, and, as we may say, function. For Plato, language was the way to cognition of the Universe. The phi- losophy of language, which was primarily initiated by Plato in his “Cratylus”, still has not ob- tained answers to the questions settled by great Greek thinker. In fact, it just acquired various solutions among different approaches during all four ages of understanding, namely Ancient, Scholastic, Modern and Post-modern (...) periods. The article is supplemented with excerpts from the first Ukrainian translation of Proclus’ “Commentary on Plato’s “Cratylus”. The specifics of the style and vocabulary of the work is emphasized in the context of interpretation into Ukrainian. Historical and cultural context of Proclus’ works in general and particularly its “Commentaries” is addressed, and the main terminological system of his works is analyzed. Ukrainian equivalents are suggested. Some common features as well as discrepancies in Neoplatonist and Peripatetic approach are considered in the context of solutions to the same questions. Contrastive analysis of the “Commentary on Plato’s “Cratylus” with prior mythological context as well as with fol- lowing scholastic teaching is conducted in philosophical and linguistic aspects. The importance of problems placed by Plato in the field of epistemology and philosophy of language is addressed. Analogies with contemporary approach to linguistic and philosophical questions are considered in the scope of nativism and empiricism. Immutability of questions and mutability of generations and approaches is shown. The importance of previous works for the next development of con- temporary thought is emphasized. (shrink)