Nuo senojo prie naujojo „Kalbos praktikos patarimų“ leidimo

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XLII (2000) Rita MILIŪNAITĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius FROM THE OLD TO THE NEW EDITION OF “KALBOS PRAKTIKOS PATARIMAI” 1. On the preparatory work A new, third edition of “Kalbos praktikos patarimai” is being prepared under the State Language Use and Development Programme for 1996–2005. The first edition appeared in 1976, and the second in 1985, as a publication prepared by a collective of authors (compiled by A. Pupkis, editor-in-chief Z. Zinkevičius) for a division of the Lithuanian SSR Society for the Protection of Monuments and Local History—the then Republican Language Commission. “Kalbos praktikos patarimai” (hereafter KPP) is an authoritative work on language culture and a handbook for users of the standard language. Although various similar publications have appeared recently (including the book “Kaip nereikia kalbėti” (1991), compiled by D. Mikulėnienė; N. Linkevičienė and L. Laužikas’s “Kalbos patarimai žurnalistams” (1997); J. Šukys’s “Kalbos patarimai istorijos mokytojams” (1998) and “Kalbos patarimai matematikos mokytojams” (1998), and others), they are generally aimed at more specialized purposes and, moreover, clearly draw on KPP data. Thus, “Patarimai” is a publication intended to meet the needs of users in general and, alongside “Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas,” “Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika,” and “Lietuvių kalbos rašyba ir skyryba,” forms a collection of the principal recommendations for the use of the standard language (hereafter bk). On the other hand, more than a dozen years have already passed since the second edition—a period of silence that is far too long for a publication of this kind; it is almost the point at which the forthcoming edition can still be called the third, rather than an essentially new work. Continuity will have to be maintained, and this will presumably be ensured in part by members of the former collective of authors and editorial board from earlier editions, whose accumulated experience will be carried forward. At the same time, it is understandable that various objective circumstances have arisen during this period, making quantitative and qualitative changes to the third KPP edition likely. Two circumstances are the most important (although each could in turn be divided into more specific factors): 1) shifts in the use of the standard language (including, in the narrower sense, changes in the needs of its users); 2) changes in language standardization work (among other things, these are facilitated by the possibility of drawing on more extensive data and more systematic collections of it, as well as by the strengthened status of language-supervision institutions). These two circumstances make it possible to bring into focus the issues that arise in moving from the old to the new. 180 During the preparatory work on the third edition of the KPP, supported by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language1 (1996–1998), various matters requiring consideration arose; these had to be discussed before the authors began making specific revisions and additions to the text of the new edition (see Gairės 1998). The preparatory work proceeded along the following lines: 1) changes in current usage were monitored (use was made of the inventory of variants in current language usage compiled by the Language Culture Department of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language); 2) language recommendations published after the second edition of the KPP had been prepared (approximately from 1983 onward) were collected from sources of particular importance to language practice, organized systematically, and digitized;2 3) the second edition of the KPP (available in electronic form) was examined from a systematic perspective. 2. Quantitative changes in the KPP When preparing publications similar to the KPP, several seemingly simple questions must be answered: what to include, how to present it, and how to organize the work. In light of what has already been accomplished along the lines of work listed above, and bearing in mind the circumstances mentioned—the changes in usage and in language standardization work—these questions can be made more specific. The question “what to include?” prompts consideration of the KPP’s content, that is, the range of language phenomena assessed in the publication. Naturally, it includes what is relevant to users of contemporary standard Lithuanian. However, relevance should not be understood literally or too narrowly: contemporary usage is more than everyday usage. It also encompasses areas of standard Lithuanian (especially journalistic and literary styles) where layers of language phenomena are much thicker than the surface layer. Moreover, socially speaking, this is the usage of three generations, into which the linguistic habits of people with diverse language experience flow. First, one should not be misled by the apparent relevance or irrelevance of language phenomena as it relates to the realities of life they describe. It is rash to claim that something which has lost its importance in everyday life has thereby irreversibly 1 The preparatory work was carried out by the editorial staff of “Gimtoji kalba,” with assistance from the women staff members of the Language Culture Department of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, as well as several Lithuanian-language specialists from other institutions. 2 Discussions among language specialists, language corrections, differing opinions on specific questions of language standardization, and also more significant suggestions from language users are recorded. For example, differing views on the same language phenomenon—whether to eliminate or retain derivatives of verbs with the prefix nu-—can be seen in the following recommendations: J. Palionis (1990: 156), A. Kaulakienė (1992: 9), Z. Mačionis (1995). In addition, the most important language recommendations published since 1995 in the periodical press and specialized language literature are included in the “Language Advice Information Bulletin” (Biuletenis 1997; Biuletenis 1998). 181 abandons the word denoting it or some other means of expression, and this, being no longer relevant, should no longer be included in normative reference works3. Second, if a concept persists in the linguistic consciousness of society longer than the thing itself, even if its expression passes into passive use, the reverse process is also possible. Thus, for example, daboklė and uredas (uredija) were revived; the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language3 had still included them with the labels obsolete and historical. Thus, only linguistic phenomena that are truly obsolete, perhaps accidentally included in KPP2, or of doubtful currency should be discarded (for example, milicionierius, gazo suvirintojas, and the like). Conversely, what may have been forgotten but remains in use or has become relevant again should be included (for example, borrowings ermyderis, važnyčioti, peškom, tačka, smičius; the compound-word formation pattern -imvietė: augimvietė, perimvietė, and so on; it would also be useful to have a section on word order, etc.). What should be supplemented, what new material should be added? First of all, material already codified by language norm-setters in other works during this time, for example: anūkas, barchatas, kompromatas, kumyras, dukterinis, -ė (dukterinė įmonė), vinis (renginio vinis), volioti (“to toss about, to lie around”); the endings -abilus, -i (konkurentabilus, -i, transportabilus, -i), -menas (džiaზmenas, jachtsmenas), -ikas (kubikas, pufikas), and the attributive genitive case (šalto rūkymo kumpis), among much else. Moreover, it is not too late to assess issues to which, it seems, we still have no clear answer: imlus, -i kam ar ko? Or: are the verbs pasimesti, susimėtyti acceptable in the senses “to become confused, to be bewildered,” if those senses are neither listed as normative in the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language3 nor corrected in KPP2, and the opinions of norm-setters differ? (cf. Tarvydaitė 1990: 16; Vitkauskas 1991: 26). KPP should present as comprehensive a context as possible for the phenomena being evaluated; therefore, both the examples in the recommendations and the proposed alternatives should be expanded, for example: buvoti – not only lankytis, būti, but also viešėti, …; įsirašyti į ką – not only derintis prie ko, but also pritapti prie ko, …; išlaikytas, -a – not only santūrus, -i, mandagus, -i, but also susitvardantis, -i, …; išmislas – not only prasimanymas, but also pramanas, …; iššaukti – not only sukelti, but also sužadinti (norą), …; pavesti – not only apvilti, suvedžioti, apgauti, but also nepateisinti vilčių, lūkesčių, …; pergyventi – not only jaudintis, sielotis, sielvartauti, […], but also krimstis, … and so on. For the sake of consistency, other details in the second edition should also be revised. 3 For example, can the claim that the correction kerzavi (=kerziniai) batai (kerzos) is no longer relevant because “those shoes are no longer in the shops” be considered a serious argument? (Cf. a sentence from a letter written by a prosecutor in 1994: J. N.’s kerziniai boots were taken from the apartment. Gimtoji kalba, 1995, No. 1, p. 11.) Or how should we view the juxtaposition of these facts: when the Language Commission considered the List of Major Language Errors (1993), the phrase batai ant platformų was deleted from the examples of corrections for the preposition ant—again as no longer relevant—yet in 1996 Verslo žinios reported that women’s shoes with platform heels were once again in fashion at a footwear trade fair in Düsseldorf (1996 08 30), to say nothing of how soon they reappeared both on the street and, once again, in the language. 182 1. The growing use of undesirable forms makes it necessary to add even such sections as: atstatyti, gilus, -i, pastovus, -i, šviežias, -ia (atšviežinti should also be included); the section atmintis needs a correction concerning the phrase šviesos atminties; grubus, -i is included, but grubiai is not; turtingas kuo is included, but praturtėti kuo is not, and so on. 2. Some general sections on word formation, morphology, and syntax should be expanded. For example, there is no advice on using pronominal forms as forms of address (Gerbiami svečiai! or Gerbiamieji svečiai!). In this case, it is not so important that linguists have no consensus; language users still need some kind of answer if usage varies. 3. Some phenomena are presented in KPP2 only as concrete instances of usage—as individual corrections—but usage data show that they have sometimes developed into a more abstract pattern. For example, under the ending -istinis, -ė, only caristinis, -ė is given (listed alphabetically), though maksimalistinis, -ė, formalistinis, -ė and others could be included; under the prefix virš-, only three individual words are listed (viršsvoris, viršgam­tinis, -ė, viršpel nis); under the instrumental case, there is no instance of its being incorrectly governed by adjectives, though eight specific corrections are listed alphabetically (gera pienu, tvirtas dvasia and others)—in usage, this is a very widespread pattern (cf. vyriausias amžiumi, didelis ūžmojais, nuostabus išore and similar examples). 4. The alphabetical arrangement principle has also led to accidental inclusions in KPP2: there is a general section on adverbs in which adverbs derived from active participles are corrected to passive forms (pamokançiai – geriau pamokomai), while four words are listed alphabetically (maldaujančiai, matančiai, niekinančiai, paniekinančiai; perhaps it is no coincidence that the first and third were once included in the 1939 “Kalbos patarėjas”)—what would be wrong with raminançiai or bauginančiai? There is also a general section advising against using adverbs ending in -iniai, and, in addition, fiziniai, matematiniai and a handful of others are corrected alphabetically (why not muzikiniai, meniniai?..). Such non-lexicalized cases certainly need not be treated separately. 5. The same alphabetical arrangement principle results in a lack of system in presenting different items of the same level, for example, prefixes and suffixes. In the section for each prefix, undesirable cases are not always classified on the same basis. In some sections, derivatives not formed with that prefix are listed separately, as are prefix verbs incorrectly used with the meaning of an ongoing action; names of agents or devices incorrectly formed from prefix verbs are treated separately again (such is, for example, the section on su-, which consists of three subsections), whereas elsewhere these are lumped together (for example, under the prefix at-). Nonstandard cases involving the suffixes -ėjas, -tojas, which are usually discussed together, are also presented differently: the section on -ėjas distinguishes names of devices, machines, and materials, while the section on -tojas mentions only the meanings ‘tool’ and ‘device’, although various examples are added. Thus, the conclusion regarding changes to the content of KPP is that there are many things that need to be standardized, and the facts should be presented more consistently. A different writing principle chosen for the new edition should help achieve this: rather than alphabetical, as in previous editions, it will be organized by levels of language (the authors discuss lexicon, word formation, 183 morphology, and syntax in separate sections). It should be easier to write a coherent text organized by language levels, then arrange everything alphabetically after revising and editing it (preserving the chosen system and the order of its subsystems), than later to edit and standardize phenomena of the same type scattered alphabetically throughout the entire work. It should be emphasized, however, that the final way of presenting KPP3 data should remain alphabetical—as this seems most convenient for users. The extent to which peripheral phenomena of standard Lithuanian (bk) should be included in KPP merits separate consideration, especially those of specialized language (particularly terminology), as well as matters of slang and style (in the sense of stylistic appropriateness). KPP2 contains all kinds of things; there is no need to abandon this practice, but it should be done more consistently. Where possible, statistics should be used to determine how common a given phenomenon is in standard Lithuanian usage. For example, if we reviewed the Lithuanian terms included in the “Railway Workers’ Glossary” (GŽ 1992), we would find not only terms important to railway workers, but also language items that are more widespread and useful to the public: karjeras – liet. kašvietė, domkratas – kėliklis, dinamometras – jėgomatis and others; conversely, the second edition contains entries that would not need to appear in KPP, such as faskė (: spec. 1. nuožulna; 2. išdroža) or flanšas (: jungė). Traditionally, KPP includes lexical, word-formation, morphological, and syntactic phenomena among its language-level topics. Spelling, punctuation, pronunciation, and stress are the concern of other prescriptive publications. Nevertheless, it is worth considering whether morphology should be broadened to include advice on the use of some more frequent form variants. For example, users would find it useful to check how to regard variants such as dalinti: dalyti, žvejas: žvejys, kraujuje: kraujyje, especially since KPP2 already contains a dozen or so similar recommendations (analizas – analizė, mėgiamas – mėgstamas and others). KPP traditionally includes a list of place names in its appendix. There have been suggestions to expand it considerably (currently, it does not even include the name Lietuvos, whose stress causes difficulties for language users) and to add the most important place names of the world, as well as those of ethnic Lithuanian lands abroad. 3. Qualitative changes in KPP Changes in usage and in language standardization work also make the question of how to present the necessary information in KPP more specific. This is related to the theoretical and methodological foundations of standardization work. The concrete work of codification is carried out continuously, and publications important for language practice are issued, while over the past 15 years there have been particularly few significant theoretical shifts in language standardization4. Without going into det 4 Cf. several theses from J. Palionis’s paper “A Few Remarks on Our Work on Language Culture” (Palionis 1996: 21): “2. To date, we have not formulated and published well-considered and collectively discussed theoretical foundations for the cultivation of the culture of the Lithuanian standard language that would be suited to the current situation in which this language functions.” […] “5. Successful work on the culture of the standard language is also impeded by shortcomings in the methods of our codification activity: a) a tendency to inflate so-called ‘language errors’; b) the rigorism of language correctors; c) insufficient argumentation for proposed corrections; d) disregard for the usage of authoritative linguists; e) poor coordination of codification work […]”. 184 tesnius teorinius svarstymus (žr. Girdenis, Pupkis 1996: 1–5; Kniūkšta 1996: 28–39; Principai 1997: 1–3), žvelgtina, kas šiuo požiūriu svarbu KPP. First of all, it is necessary to review and refine the boundaries between norms and errors. Some things will need to be assessed anew—recognized as requiring stricter correction—while in other cases, conversely, the boundaries of the norm should be widened. This can be done in two ways: by changing the degree of assessment or (and) by adjusting how the error and the norm are described—the definition itself. For example, KPP2 strictly marks the preposition apie as incorrect with verbs that take the accusative liudyti, skelbti, pažymėti, prisiminti and others. Nevertheless, it has been established (Valiulytė 1995: 56–62) that these variants—the accusative and the prepositional construction—can, at least with some verbs, have certain nuances of meaning (they are not the same: laikraštis skelbia apie loteriją and laikraštis skelbia loteriją); therefore, the error needs to be described more precisely and the degree of assessment softened. The essence of standardization is probably to seek the boundary between what is suitable for the standard language and what is unacceptable or at least undesirable in it. However, alongside phenomena that exist in a pure form, there are many transitional cases, determined both by internal causes within the language itself and by various external circumstances, including the influence of other languages. Clear boundaries between norms are blurred by exceptions when they become too numerous. For example, according to V. P. Būda, gaps in the system arise when the suffix -ietis spreads too widely (Būda 1996). Cases in which the basis for distinguishing norm from error is not form but semantics are sometimes particularly difficult. In general, presenting semantic matters in KPP seems to cause the most concern. These are language phenomena that are not readily standardized: there are few clear established criteria for determining how far changes in word meaning are possible and how far they should be restrained. Lexicologists themselves acknowledge that in Lithuanian dictionaries “explanations of meanings remain highly inconsistent” (Jakaitienė 1996: 4); the systemic relations among various semantic groups of words need to be investigated thoroughly. Until such research is available, it is not easy to present corrections of meanings and explanations of normative usage appropriately in KPP. For various reasons, the boundaries between what is animate and inanimate, abstract and concrete, permanent and changeable may become blurred. For example, can neat, intelligent, intellectual, professional describe only a person, or also some inanimate object (cf.: a messy chimney, reasonable prices, intellectual products, professional knives or air conditioners)? Placing words with different semantic combinability in the same context can erase this distinction: Let us talk not about how much we and our dogs eat, but about the existing situation and order Respublika, 1992 08 04; Recently, Germans […] decorate the walls of their living rooms with original photos of loved ones, pets or birdsin frames Lietuvos rytas, 1997 03 05. Another example. We correct demtų išėmėją, rūdžių surišėją without hesitation, but pause over mechaninio virėjo ar automatinio vertėjo, because we know that the following is also possible: a medicine is a good pain reliever (not a pain-soother!), whereas unsuitable food is a life-shortener. 185 When seeking boundaries, especially when the norm has not yet clearly settled, one can still discern certain tendencies. How can they be shown? Here it would be appropriate to discuss a system of degrees for evaluating language phenomena (see Miliūnaitė 1995: 45–46). KPP2 clearly distinguishes four degrees of evaluation (cf. their description on pp. 9–10): 1) a=b; 2) a–b; 3) a||b; 4) a|b): 1) The strictest degree of evaluation indicates a clear error; it is marked n., nevart., i.e. the phenomenon on the left is recommended against: gvintas – n. foreign srėgis, srūgis; išlaikyti – nevart. for “išskaičiuoti,” and so on; in specific corrections, an equals sign is written between the variants being evaluated⁵; 2) A less strict degree of evaluation recommends avoiding the expression; it is abbreviated as geriau or geriau nevart., while a single dash is written between the variants being evaluated in corrections: kalba eina – preferably yra kalbama; faktinai – preferably faktiškai, iš tiesų, iš tikrųjų, and so on. In KPP2, expressions assigned this degree are described as not constituting language errors, but their use is discouraged because better alternatives exist (KPP2: 9); 3) Two parallel dashes between expressions indicate variants of the norm itself which, nevertheless, are not always equivalent; the expression on the right is regarded as somewhat preferable for various reasons: abažūras || lempos gaubtas; atsisakyti nuo ko || atsisakyti ko, and so on; 4) Equivalent variants of the norm (sometimes doublets, sometimes synonyms) are indicated by presenting them in parentheses (usually where standard usage is discussed): akys džiaugsmu (iš džiaugsmo) spindėjo, darbymetyje (darbymetečiu) ir akmuo kruta, and so on. KPP2 also contains descriptions that are not entirely clear (at least to readers)—“sometimes preferable,” “preferable in some cases,” “preferable in many cases,” for example: apspresti – preferable in many cases lemti, nulemti, sąlygoti; kažkas – preferable in some cases kas nors, kai kas, šis tas, etc. Similar ways of distinguishing norm from error are quite vague, leaving not so much freedom to choose one option or another as room for free interpretation. Such cases should either be evaluated according to the degrees mentioned above or, if they concern partial stylistic norms, marked with special abbreviations (indeed, this is sometimes done: klausimas – colloq., avoid elsewhere). The system of degrees of evaluation in KPP should first be improved by standardizing the evaluation of the same phenomena when they appear in different places. For example, liudyti apie ką (a=b, p. 24 and “sometimes preferable,” p. 149), atlikti with deverbal nouns (a–b, p. 34), and įvykdyti with verbal nouns of abstract meaning (a=b, p. 348), as well as vykdyti with verbal nouns (a||b, p. 349), and so on. 5Incidentally, it should be borne in mind that, following the Language Commission’s approval of the List of Major Language Errors, a further type of error has emerged: errors considered highly reprehensible and even punishable where necessary. These should be specially marked in KPP3, for example with an asterisk, as a subtype of strict corrections. 186 Second, it defines more clearly what relationship to the language norm each evaluation grade indicates, especially the two transitional ones (a–b and a||b). The very existence of evaluation grades makes it possible to view the phenomena being assessed more precisely and flexibly, and to record changes in the norm through shifts between those grades—that is, to avoid revolutionary leaps in which something is permitted today but declared a major error tomorrow. It is important to clarify and agree, for example, whether “preferable” means that skėtį is preferable to use rather than lietsargį, even though lietsargis is also acceptable (not an error), or whether lietsargio should be avoided as a minor error, an undesirable word, and skėčiui preferred instead—in other words, whether to rate the two variants a–b (p. 147), or perhaps shift to “rather better” a||b, as in DŽ₃ (lietsargis see skėtis; in this connection, cf. Keinys 1996: 11–13). It is clear that the a–b grade (“preferable”) should indicate a greater shift in the value of a phenomenon toward error, while a||b (“rather better”) should indicate a shift toward the core of the norm. These two intermediate, transitional grades should express potential error and the periphery of the norm. In general, KPP can be envisaged as a publication that reflects not a frozen state of the past (codification, one way or another, always lags behind the actual norm), but the direction in which norms crystallize and develop in a particular period, acknowledging that language itself is alive and has various tendencies in usage. Thus, KPP should show users what is viable and worth supporting in the standard language, and what can gradually be abandoned. The relationship between KPP and other normative works, especially the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian and the Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian, also merits consideration. The normative DŽ₂ was, in places, a real straitjacket for the second edition of KPP: ten years after DŽ₂ appeared, some things seemed no longer suitable, but one had to conform to entrenched, albeit outdated, norms. With a more flexible system of evaluation grades, however, the “Advice” should not, in some cases, fear half-step differences from the works mentioned above (and, in turn, from DŽ₃; cf. Danielius 1997: 14–19), if these can truly be justified by changes both in standard-language usage and in normative work. It is important to avoid fundamental clashes and contradictions, which above all undermine the authority of such works in society and foster distrust of those who regulate language norms. * * * The resolution of questions arising at the intersection of tradition and the present will, of course, depend on the authors and editors of KPP themselves. This time, the aim was to show what needs to be considered before undertaking the task of organizing specific data—to think about the publication as a whole. It should be emphasized that such an ongoing work requires a permanent working team and a systematic approach: consistent research into usage and users’ needs, and even the purposeful organization of normative work. For now, only an at- 187 tempt has been made to move in that direction, and if it proves successful even to some extent, the guidelines for future work will be clearer. Received 1998 12 04 LITERATURE AND SOURCES B i u l e t e n i s 1997: Kalbos patarimų informacinis biuletenis 1, 2, 3, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. B i u l e t e n i s 1998: Kalbos patarimų informacinis biuletenis 4, 5, 6, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. B ū d a V. P. 1996: Olympian or Olympic athlete. – Dienovidis, 1996 06 28. D a n i e l i u s M. 1997: Neteiktini žodžiai Žodyne (DŽ₂) ir Patarimuose (KPP₂). – Kalbos kultūra 70, 14–19. DŽ₂ – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius: Mintis, 1972. DŽ₃ – Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1993. G a i r ė s 1998: Kalbos praktikos patarimai: trečiasis leidimas. Darbų gairės [pokalbis]. – Gimtoji kalba 12, 1–10. G i r d e n i s A., P u p k i s A. 1996: Principles of language standardization. – Gimtoji kalba 8, 1–5. GŽ 1992: Railway Worker’s Glossary. Compiled by N. J u š k a i t ė, St. K e i n y s, Vilnius. J a k a i t i e n ė E. 1996: Current issues in Lithuanian lexicography. – Gimtoji kalba 6, 1–5. K a u l a k i e n ė A. 1992: Desalinated water? – Gimtoji kalba 4–5, 9. K e i n y s S. 1996: Skeitš ar liet­sargis bei čiaupas ar kranas – kas geriau? – Gimtoji kalba 2, 11–13. K n i ū k š t a P. 1996: The aim of language planning is to foster language. – Kalbos kultūra 68, 28–39. KPP₂ – Kalbos praktikos patarimai, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1985. M a č i o n i s Z. 1995: Why not make language more flexible? – Lietuvos rytas, 1995 11 15. M i l i ū n a i t ė R. 1995: Variantiški bendrinės kalbos vartosenos reiškiniai (fiksavimas ir vertinimas). – Kalbos kultūra 67, 39–49. P a l i o n i s J. 1990: Language culture, its theory and practice. – Pergalė 1, 141–157. P a l i o n i s J. 1996: Kelios pastabos dėl mūsų kalbos kultūros darbo. – Lietuvių kalbos tvarkyba: teorinės ir praktinės problemos. Seminaro tezės. Vilnius: Danielius. P r i n c i p a i 1997: Lietuvių kalbos tvarkybos principai, kodifikacijos kriterijai ir jų taikymas / Patvirtinta Valstybinės lietuvių kalbos komisijos. – Gimtoji kalba 4, 1–3. T a r v y d a i t ė D. 1990: Is the word pasimesti used correctly? – Gimtoji kalba 6, 16. V a l i u l y t ė E. 1995: Ar galima atsiminti, užmiršti apie ką? – Kalbos kultūra 67, 56–62. V i t k a u s k a s V. 1991: Vertinių gausa – pavojus kalbai. – Žodžiai ir prasmės 1, 24–28, Vilnius: Mokslas. GUIDELINES ON LANGUAGE USE („KALBOS PRAKTIKOS PATARIMAI“). FROM THE OLD EDITION TO THE NEW ONE Summary Guidelines on Language Use (GLU) is a collection of language corrections and recommendations. After an interval of more than ten years, its third edition is now being prepared. Therefore, there is a natural need to revise and update many of its issues. Preliminary work has been carried out in the following areas: modern usage changes have been followed; linguistic recommendations issued after the second edition was published have been collected, systematised and computerised; 188 the second edition has been analysed from the systemic point of view and on the basis of its electronic form. Quantitative and qualitative changes to be made in the third edition have been established. The volume and selection (topicality, importance of new phenomena) of the data submitted in the GLU as well as its presentation are to be discussed (it is also concerned with its computerised version, which is now in preparation). In addition, errors and norms, the relation of the GLU to other works of this type should be established, a more consistent system of evaluation should be applied. Thus an attempt is made to prepare the new edition of the GLU in a more systemic way. 189