This paper is an attempt to answer the question: can the process of historical source construction be a way of responding to national catastrophe?
The primary meaning of the word catastrophe is the unexpected but logical conclusion of a play. Although the word "catastrophe" has changed its meaning, it still retains its connotation. It is not a meaningless ending. History cannot be the cure for catastrophe in the classical sense. Its effects are well described by the idea of Pharmakon, which we can find in Plato. Pharmakon is both a medicine and a poison. A person suffering a catastrophe is not cured, but rather is inebriated by history. It is what gives one the strength to survive the trauma of catastrophe. Historians are no exception.
The second half of the article is a concrete example (case‑study) of how, under the guise of objective studies of historical documents, historians create realities that help them to relive (but not cure) the trauma of catastrophe. Often the historical source is perceived as an immutable, natural basis for the construction of a historical narrative. A historical source has no nationality, but it can obtain it. The most popular and simple way is the publication of new (or first) historical sources edition as "nationals" This article examines a specific example of the race between Polish and German historians (after 1945) on the issue of publishing historical sources concerning mediaeval Silesian history. Since the very same documents had to be published, the primacy in publication of new editions had to determine its "nationality".

The article focused on the place of feminized job/activity titles in the modern Ukrainian language, their perception and use. In particular, it contains analysis of lexicographical works which show the gradual increase in the number of such language units during the 20th – early 21st century within Ukrainian. This process has happened against the background of increased educational and professional opportunities for women. During that time feminized job/ activity titles have become so regular in the speech practice of Ukrainians that eventually they were introduced in dictionaries. However, for a long time these language units remained stylistically marked as ‘colloquial’ or ‘vernacular’. Scrolling through social networks shows that even today they are sometimes perceived as mocking or contemptuous words. The results of a poll illustrate that speakers associate them with feminist movements or political factors, but mostly recognize feminized job/activity titles as a manifestation of the synchronization of social and linguistic processes. Today, the main issues regarding feminized job/activity titles in Ukrainian are their further standardization and the possibility of neutralizing any stylistic colouring.