A FEW THOUGHTS ON THE INFORMATICS GLOSSARY

Informatics and Computer Equipment: An Explanatory English–Lithuanian Glossary of Terms / Comp. by V. Dagys, A. Klupsaitė, A. Žandaris. Vilnius: [Baltic Amadeus], 1993. 72 pp.

This booklet, handsomely published by Baltic Amadeus as a gift to members of the Lithuanian Computer Society who attended the sixth “Computer Days” conference, unexpectedly¹ provided an opportunity to comment briefly on the glossary and, more generally, on terminology in this field.

Interest in this subject in Lithuania dates back quite some time. A quarter of a century ago, in 1969, the Republican Institute of Scientific and Technical Information and Propaganda published A. Trečiokaitė’s Dictionary of Informatics Terms. Two years later, in 1971, the Mintis publishing house issued a substantial Russian–Lithuanian–English Dictionary of Computing Terms by engineers V. Kairys, A. Kaminskas, Ž. Kudirka, R. Kundrotienė, M. Lipšicas, A. Mačernius, J. Norkus, J. Riaubūnas, J. Stanatis, B. Stulpinas, and A. Šliavas of the Vilnius Computing Machine Factory and the Special Design Bureau for Computing Machines. This was a normative dictionary intended to “help shape and standardize” Lithuanian technical terms (p. 3). Several decades later, the Chief Editorial Board of Encyclopedias published the normative explanatory translation dictionary Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Information Terms, compiled by A. Trečiokaitė at the Institute of Scientific and Technical Information and Technical-Economic Analysis of Lithuania (Vilnius, 1983). Finally, in 1993, the Lithuanian Information Institute published a continuation of that dictionary—Dictionary of Information Terms (compiled by A. Trečiokaitė).

Thus, the explanatory English–Lithuanian dictionary of computer science and computer equipment terminology, not to mention the various Lithuanian publications in this field and terms explained in Lithuanian encyclopedias, or those included in general explanatory and bilingual dictionaries, was not prepared from scratch. Over the past decades, a tradition has developed both for creating and standardizing these terms and for their use. It is important to bear in mind that, from the very beginning, this tradition has been linked to language standardization—the aforementioned dictionaries were reviewed by linguists, especially K. Gaivenis, who proposed and refined many of the terms included in them. Practitioners, however, make little use of those dictionaries; they create their own jargon from foreign languages. Therefore, when a computer specialist who does not properly know English, Russian, or, finally, even Lithuanian itself (and there are plenty of such people nowadays!) sometimes starts proclaiming that there is no Lithuanian-

¹ This short article was written after the first proofs of this volume had been corrected.

203

As for the terms, if one considers the terms at hand unsuccessful, unsuitable, incorrect, or the like, one can only regret that even people who are not particularly well-informed have taken to communicating with those “intelligent machines.” Replacing terms suspected of being Russianisms with Englishisms is neither genuine nor serious terminological work. It should be the organization and exemplary quality of its terminology, not politics or linguistic purism, that determines what is worth continuing to rely on when creating and organizing our own terms. And blindly following any language is inappropriate. It is especially unsuitable to imitate the forms of terms in other languages. The roots of Lithuanian terminology in every field should be Lithuanian.

The thoughts expressed here about the relationship between our own terms and terms in other languages apply not to the glossary under discussion or its compilers. They may be useful to the many users of terminology, to translators of technical literature, and also to the compilers of all kinds of dictionaries, who, without linguists, are usually unable to do this at all. For terminological work (which is first and foremost language work) and for compiling dictionaries, one needs to know how, just as with any other work.

The glossary “Informatics and Computer Equipment,” compiled by V. Dagys, A. Klupšaitė, and A. Žandaris, shows that users of terminology in this field have found themselves at a crossroads. A cursory glance at how far the glossary adheres to terms previously recommended (the terms on the first 9 pages were compared) revealed quite a number of differences, many of them substantial. Not all substitutions indicate an improvement in the terminology system. For example, the word tekstinis has been inserted as the equivalent of the English adjective alphanumeric (the usual equivalent until now has been raidinis-skaitmeninis; incidentally, in A. Trečiokaitė’s new dictionary, the word simbolinis is for some reason considered better), although that word has an entirely different meaning. It is difficult to understand why simbolis is considered the sole equivalent of character—if only one equivalent is offered for this polysemous English word, then, judging from the explanation (“a separate element of a computer or language alphabet”), ženklas, recommended in earlier dictionaries, is much more appropriate.

The glossary is intended primarily for Lithuanian readers of English-language literature: it presents English terms (more than 450 of them) with Lithuanian equivalents and explanations in Lithuanian. The compilers say that they especially want to eliminate many Englishisms that mar the Lithuanian language and are used blindly by computer specialists (p. 4). In other words, the aim was to purify and Lithuanize Lithuanian informatics terminology. Such efforts are to be supported and praised. First, however, users of terminology should be encouraged to use the Lithuanian dictionaries already published. Setting out to reinvent what has already been invented, or to alter what has been approved, can make communication more difficult and increase undesirable terminological synonymy or variation. Especially since the glossary also includes some new synonymous terms, for example: intervãlas and atkarpa “range,” kreipinys and iškvieta “call,” nutylėtas and standartinis “default,” paskyra and prieskyra “account,” visas vardas and pilnas vardas “absolute pathname,” visuotinis kintamasis and globalus kintamasis “global variable,” and so on. It is unclear why such synonyms are offered. Yet, for example, the familiar and long-used term elektroninė skaičiavimo mašina could have remained at least as a synonym for kompiuterio.

As promised, the glossary includes some new Lithuanian terms (not all of them are neologisms, and not all replace previously used loanwords). Some of them, as can be seen from the preface, were probably proposed by terminologists A. Kaulakienė and K. Gaivenis, who, as far as is known, have seen

204

Only the glossary terms themselves, without explanations; some will have been taken from other dictionaries being prepared for publication. From the point of view of language, most of them cannot be faulted, for example: keitiklis “converter,” kreiptis “access,” lūstas “chip,” rinkmena “file,” sąsaja “interface,” skaitlys “scanner,” spruklys “sprite,” teiktis “message,” tvarkyklė “driver,” valdiklis “controller,” vartiklis “modem,” žymeklis “cursor,” and so on. But many loanwords that have been retained should also be removed from Lithuanian terminology, especially since some of them merely give the impression of being so-called international terms, when in fact they are not. Lithuanian substitutes should be agreed upon for the loanwords adaptėris “adapter,” argumentas “argument,” centrinis procesorius “central processing unit,” displėjus “display,” duomenų korektiškumas “data integrity,” emuliavimo režimas “compatibility mode,” inverteris “inverter,” komentāras “comment,” kompiuterinė intelektika “artificial intelligence,” korektiškumas “consistency,” magistralė “bus,” masyvas “array,” meniu “menu,” pakėtinis “batch-oriented,” piktograma “icon,” struktūrinis tipas “aggregate type,” šriftas “font,” and so on. In addition, the glossary includes words considered barbarisms in other fields of terminology (apatinis kolontitulas “footer,” viršutinis kolontitulas “header”), macaronisms (for ciklas “for statement,” while ciklas “while statement”), and some words of dubious formation (spausdinys “listing,” ženklė “marker,” etc.). Finally, even the term used in the glossary’s title, kompiuterinė įranga, should be corrected from the linguistic point of view—it should be kompiuterių įranga (cf. laivo, lėktuvo, traktoriaus įranga, rather than laivinė, lėktuvinė, traktorinė).

Many of the glossary’s definitions are unclear or inaccurate. Were the compilers unable to define and explain the meanings of the terms clearly, precisely, in the usual manner, and comprehensibly, or did they use some sources, perhaps texts written in other languages (texts translated by inexperienced translators are often difficult to understand)? Moreover, some of the terms seem unmotivated in Lithuanian on the basis of their definitions, and unjustified in terms of meaning. For example, from the definition “a control signal or message transmitted upon receipt of a message,” it is unclear why this is designated by the word pažyma “acknowledgement.” The opacity of the terms’ meanings, and the obscurity of the links between their internal semantic relations and the concepts they denote, create the impression that these are artificial terms, unsupported by the meanings of their own language. In general, the definitions have various shortcomings; some are also linguistically awkward, and there are language errors, for example: daugiaprograminė (=daugiaprogramė) sistema 82, daugiamodulinės (=daugiamodulės) programos 17, kompiuterinė (=kompiuterių) technika 29, “nevisai (=ne visai) teisingas” 28, reikšmės pernešimas (=perkėlimas) 24, teksto ruošimas spausdinimui (=rengimas spausdinti) 59, and so on.

The glossary in question shows that there are many issues in this terminology that merit consideration.

St. Keinys