The summary of the selected article appears at the bottom of the page. In order to get back to the contents of the issue this article belongs to you have to access the link from the title. In order to see all the articles of the archive which have as author/co-author one of the authors mentioned below, you have to access the link from the author's name.

    STUDIA PHILOLOGIA - Issue no. 3 / 2001  
  Article:   PROFESSOR MIRCEA ZDRENGHEA (1914-2001).

Authors:  G. GRUIŢĂ.
  Abstract:  At the beginning of a new century and millenium, professor Mircea Zdrenghea, an outstanding representative of the Linguistic School in Cluj, left us. Together with Ion Pătruţ, Romulus Todoran, Vasile Breban etc., he belonged to the generation that, unlike the School founders, was the exclusive product of the University in Transylvania’s capital. I worked with him as a student, later as his assistant and colleague at the Department of Romanian Language, whose head he was. I had plenty of opportunities to know him as a researcher and as a teacher, but I also had the opportunity to know him in some other circumstances outside the limited domain of his profession. The specialists valued and respected him for his scientific research in Grammar and Dialectology, but the students loved and appreciated him mostly for his dedication and talent as a teacher. I would like very much to insist on this last aspect, because, unlike his written work, his teaching ability is not recorded anywhere but in the memory of his students and his colleagues, or is sometimes preserved in the university ‘folklore’. Mircea Zdrenghea was, beyond any shade of doubt, a teacher loved by his students. His popularity was not a superficial one, incompatible with his professional efficiency. On the contrary, many generations of teachers of Romanian language, most of them extremely successful in their profession, gratefully state that they had acquired the grammatical knowledge they have (especially morphology) from professor Mircea Zdrenghea. His didactic gift was expressed mainly in his ability to preserve a balance between the scientific rigour of the content of his lectures and their accessibility from a methodological point of view. He translated the difficult concepts of the new research methods into a familiar terminology, explained them in detail, clearly, made them easy to understand. A dry subject, like morphology, became accessible precisely because of the importance he gave to the methodological aspect, a fact neglected by many of his university colleagues.  
      Back to previous page