Any literary work appears on the national ground, reflects national problems, features and at the same time the problems common to all mankind. Passing from one nation to another literature enriches and extends the notion of peoples about each other.

At first he must know and understand the individuality, unique of figures. Every artistic figure is unique according to its nature and irrespective of its national origin.

Secondly he must know and understand the essence of figures and ideas of works of social class.

It makes us consider coloring a part of connotative meaning of a realia.

So they had to substitute the word “crane” for the word “stork”.

Some exotic words can be adopted by language and lose their exotic character.

It seems that international and regional realias are to lose their status of realia at first owing to their wide-spreadness. Many international realias go around the world without losing their national originality. For example, the names of money. There is another case with regional realias. Their national coloring is almost equal to national but it is limited by its regional belonging. For example, “the eastern coloring” is close to Syrian, Turkish and Egyptian etc. All above-mentioned regarding to proper realias is equal for national and regional realias.

Often the realias can have an extended meaning in the context.

3. Sometimes a realia can be used in a text not in the direct but in the figurative meaning. For example щербет can be used in Bulgarian language as an adjective in the meaning of something oversweet and it is almost similar with Russian сироп.

The same with “stone jungles” and “cowboys of cold war” etc.

Some adjectives derived from mentioned realias can be literary comparisons and metaphors. Using such words as богатырский, стопудовый, аршинный, саженный at first we look at their figurative meaning, certain signs but not on their sign as a realia: for example, пудовый means very heavy, грошовый means very unimportant, cheap.

4. Among these examples there were phraseological units and set expressions as well, where realias lose their status more often than in the mentioned cases.

Влахов С., Флорин С. Непереводимое в переводе. Реалии. "Министерство Перевода". Сборник статей. 1969. М., "Советский писатель", 1970.

Лилова А. Введение в общую теорию перевода. "Высшая школа" М., 1985.

Бархударов Я. С., Рецкер Я. И. Курс лекций по теории перевода. М., Изд-во I МГПИПЯ, 1968.

Комиссаров В. Н. Слово о переводе. М., "Международные отношнния". 1973.

Комиссаров В., Рецкер Я., Тархов В. Пособие по переводу с английского языка на русский. Часть I М., Изд-во литературы на иностранных языках, 1960; Часть II М., "Высшая школа", 1965.

Левицкая Т.Р., Фитермян А. М. Пособие по переводу с английского языка на русский. М., "Высшая школа", 1973.

Толстой С.С, Основы перевода английского языка на русский, М., 2957.

Фёдоров А.В. Русские писатели и проблемы перевода. Л., 1960.

Левик В. "Мастерство перевода", М., 1959.

Гачечиладзе Т. Художественный перевод и литературные взаимосвязи. М., "Советский писатель", 1972.

Бархударов Л. С. Язык и перевод. М., 1975.

Комиссаров В. Н. Теория перевода. М., "Высшая школа", 1990.

Фёдоров А. В. Основы общей теории перевода. – М., 1983.

Швейцер А.Д. Теория перевода. – М., 1988.

Латышев Л.К. Курс перевода (эквивалентность перевода и способы её достижения). – М., 1981.