О латышской и литовской лингвистической терминологии (сходство и различия)

MOKSLO KALBOS KULTŪROS IR TERMINOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXIV(1985) LAIMUTE BALODE ON LATVIAN AND LITHUANIAN LINGUISTIC TERMINOLOGY (SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES) The first grammars of Latvian and Lithuanian (17th–18th centuries) used Latin linguistic terms. The first attempts to create terms in the native language date to the beginning of the 19th century. Several Latvian linguistic terms have been found in K. Elferfeld’s book «Līksmības grāmata» (1804), for example: jumis ‘diphthong’, neskanis ‘consonant’, skandinieks ‘vowel’; however, these neologisms found no acceptance in linguistics and were not used by subsequent authors. One should also mention A. Stender’s book «Vācu valodas un vārdu grāmata» (1820), in which we already find such a widely known term as locīšana ‘inflection, conjugation’. J. Neikens can be considered the founder of Latvian morphological terminology (Vācu valodas mācība priekš latviešiem, part 1—1850, part 2—1859); he coined such terms as celms ‘stem’, īpašības vārds ‘adjective’, līdzskanis ‘consonant’, patskanis ‘vowel’, vienskaitlis ‘singular’, among others. In Lithuanian, the beginnings of grammatical terminology likewise date to the first half of the 19th century, although to a somewhat later period. In his Lithuanian grammar (1832), K. Kasakauskas uses terms still widely known today, such as aukštesnis laipsnis ‘comparative degree’, aukščiausias laipsnis ‘superlative degree’, balsis ‘vowel’, doibalsis ‘diphthong’, among others. In the 1850s–1870s, Latvian terminology began to develop relatively rapidly. During this period, the Young Latvians and other progressive figures published many original and translated articles and books. J. Alunāns, A. Kronvalds, K. Biezbārdis, M. Kaudzīte, and A. Stērste should be mentioned. A. Stērste coined a particularly large number of successful terms (Latviešu valodas mācības sistemātisks kurss, part 1—1879, part 2—1880), for example: tagadne ‘present tense’, pagātne ‘past tense’, nākotne ‘future tense’, uzruna ‘address’, pakārtojums ‘subordination’, among others. A. Stērste was the first to devote considerable attention to syntactic terms. In the development of Lithuanian linguistic terminology in the second half of the 19th century, the scholarly works of S. Daukantas, 11 I. Juška, A. Baranauskas, and K. Jaunius played an important role. For example, S. Daukantas coined such successful terms that remain in use today as būdvardis ‘adjective’, daiktavardis ‘noun’, trumposios balsės ‘short vowels’, among others; I. Juška coined terms such as galūnė ‘ending’, šaknis ‘root’, skiemuo ‘syllable’, įvardis ‘pronoun’, skaitvardis ‘numeral’, among others; A. Baranauskas coined raidė ‘letter’, rašyba ‘orthography’, sakinys ‘sentence’, tarmė ‘dialect’, žodynas ‘dictionary, vocabulary’; K. Jaunius coined kamienas ‘stem’, priesdėlis ‘prefix’, priesaga ‘suffix’, šnekta ‘subdialect’, patarmė ‘subdialect’, particularly in accentology, for example: kirtis ‘stress’, priegaidė ‘syllable intonation’, among others. During this period, in both of the compared Latvian and Lithuanian systems, it was characteristic for numerous variants of terms denoting the same concept to coexist, for example, Latvian patskanis, pašskanis, vienskanis, balsskanis, vokālis ‘vowel’. Until the beginning of the 20th century, Latvian terminology developed gradually, whereas in Lithuanian, owing to historical circumstances, this process was delayed; at the beginning of the 20th century, however, there was something of an explosion in linguistic terminology. The scholarly works of J. Jablonskis and K. Būga played an enormous role in the subsequent rapid development of linguistic vocabulary. J. Jablonskis’s grammars (1901, 1911, 1919, and others) deserve particular mention. J. Jablonskis coined almost all terms in syntax and punctuation, for example: papildinys ‘object’, pažyminys ‘attribute’, tarinys ‘predicate’, veiksnys ‘subject’; kablelis ‘comma’, klaustukas ‘question mark’, šauktukas ‘exclamation mark’. K. Būga laid the foundations for terminology in lexicology, etymology, onomastics, and toponymy, for example: skoliniai ‘loanwords’, svetimybės ‘foreign words’, asmenvardžiai ‘personal names’, vietovardžiai ‘place names’. In the 1920s, a Terminology Commission was established in Latvia, which for several years worked on standardizing Latvian scholarly terminology. Lists of linguistic terms were also compiled under the commission’s leadership. However, since the commission existed for a relatively short time, the development of terminology was mainly left to individual scholars. The scholarly works of K. Mühlenbach and J. Endzelīns played a major role in unifying and stabilizing Latvian linguistic terminology. Systematic and continuous work on the linguistic terminology of Latvian and Lithuanian has been carried out during the Soviet period. The terminological commissions of the academies of sciences of both republics oversee its systematization and standardization. The discussion of Latvian grammatical terminology held in 1951 in the pages of the newspaper «Skolotāju avīze» should be noted. It involved many scholars, teachers, and university lecturers. One of the ten- 12 One trend in this discussion was the defense of generally accepted international terms. In 1961, A. Balšaitis defended his candidate’s dissertation in Lithuania, entitled “The History of Lithuanian Linguistic Terminology.” A similar study is sorely lacking in Latvian linguistics. In 1963, a dictionary of Latvian linguistic terms was published (Valodniecības terminu vārdnīca; compiled by R. Grābis, Dz. Barbare, and A. Bergmane). A dictionary of Lithuanian linguistic terms is still awaiting its turn. Such, in the broadest outline, are the main milestones in the history of linguistic terminology in Latvian and Lithuanian. Modern methods of term formation are the same in both Latvian and Lithuanian, although the proportions in which they are used differ: 1. International terms, e.g.: Latvian, Lithuanian gramatika, Latvian fonētika — Lithuanian fonetika, homonimi — homonimai. 2a. Neologistic terms independently formed from elements of the native language through affixation, compounding, or the formation of phrases, e.g.: Latvian piedēklis “suffix,” divdabis “participle,” vajadzības izteiksme “debitative”; Lithuanian skyryba “punctuation,” veiksmažodis “verb,” tiesioginė nuosaka “indicative mood.” It is often very difficult to distinguish neologistic terms that arose independently within the native language from calque terms. 2b. Neologistic calque terms: 2b1) from German, e.g.: Latvian lietvārds — Dingwort (in Lithuanian, calquing from German is considerably less common); 2b2) from Russian, e.g.: Latvian saskaņojums — agreement, ciešamā kārta — passive voice; Lithuanian prokalbė — proto-language, kiekiniai — cardinal (quantitative), Latvian atgriezeniskie — Lithuanian sangražiniai — reflexive; 2b3) from Latin, e.g.: Lithuanian laipsnis — gradus, dalyvis — participium, priegaidė — accentus. Most calques, like lexical internationalisms, can be called an international stratum of terminology, since the same word-formation and semantic model (most often originally Latin) is repeated in many languages. A comparison of contemporary linguistic terms in Latvian and Lithuanian 1 reveals the following patterns. 1 The comparative analysis is based on material from the following dictionaries: Valodniecības terminu vārdnīca (Rīgā, 1963.—256 lpp.); Balkevičius J., Kabelka J. Latvių-lietuvių kalbų žodynas (V., 1977.—760 p.), as well as various books and articles on linguistics. 13 1. As might be expected, many terms in both languages have an international basis, e.g.: Latv. afrikata — Lith. afrikata, Latv. and Lith. baltistika, leksika, Latv. terminoloģija — Lith. terminologija. The overwhelming majority of international linguistic terms belong to general linguistics and phonetics. In both languages, international terms follow general phonetic and morphological rules, e.g.: Latv. bilingvisms — Lith. bilingvizmas, Latv. indoeiropiestika — indoeuropeistika. Often, in both languages, a term has the same international stem but different suffixes, e.g.: modalitate — modalumas; diakritiskā zīme — diakritinis ženklas, matemātiskā lingvistika — matematinė lingvistika (in adjectives with an international stem, the Latvian suffix -isk- usually corresponds to Lithuanian -in-). 2. A large group of loan terms in Latvian have native-language equivalents in Lithuanian, e.g.: Latv. defise — Lith. brūkšnelis, nomens — vardažodis, partikula — dalelytė, semikols — kabliataškis. This group includes, in particular, all the names of the grammatical cases, e.g.: Latv. nominatīvs — Lith. vardininkas, Latv. genitīvs — kilmininkas. In Lithuanian, the names of the cases were coined by J. Jablonskis. An attempt was also made to coin such names in Latvian (G. Tauriņš, K. Mühlenbach), e.g.: vārdotājs, saķulis “nominative case,” devējs “dative case,” attiecūlis “instrumental case,” but these neologisms did not become established in linguistic vocabulary. Although there are cases in which a native Latvian word is used alongside an international term, e.g.: Latv. adjektīvs, īpašības vārds — Lith. būdvardis; Latv. labials, lūpu — lūpinis; Latv. prefikss, priedēklis — priešdėlis, the Latvian language nevertheless has far more international linguistic terms than Lithuanian. 3. Lithuanian has almost no international linguistic terms for which Latvian has a non-borrowed equivalent. Only one example can be given: Latv. jauninājums — Lith. inovacija, although recently the international loanword inovācija has also been used increasingly often in Latvian. 4. Many terms in Latvian and Lithuanian are based on material from their own languages. These include words transferred into terminology unchanged from the general lexicon, e.g.: Latv. galotne — Lith. galūnė “ending,” skaņa — garsas “sound,” as well as specialized affixal formations—prefixal: Latv. prevārds — Lith. prielinksnis “preposition”; suffixal: Latv. teikums — Lith. sakinys “sentence,” Latv. pakārtojums — Lith. prijungimas “subordination.” Terms formed from native vocabulary also include compounds: Latv. divskanis — Lith. dvibalsis “diphthong,” personvārds — asmenvardis “anthroponym,” as well as multiword terms: Latv. apgriezta vārdu kārta — atvirkštinė žodžių tvarka “inverted word order,” lielais burts — didžioji raidė 14 “capital letter,” and so on. As the examples cited show, Latvian and Lithuanian have many identical and partially identical linguistic terms (that is, terms that coincide in both internal and external form, or only in internal form). From a semantic standpoint, the following are identical, for example: Latv. atvērta zilbe — Lith. atviras skiemuo, ciets lidzskanis — kietasis priebal-sis, izsaukuma zīme — šauktukas, jautājuma zīme — klaustukas. There is a group of terms expressing the same concepts but formed using different semantic units, e.g.: Latv. domuzīme (literally, in Lithuanian, minties ženklas) — brūkšnys, lāpāmais vokālis (literally, in Lithuanian, lopomasis balsis) — pridedamasis balsis. Several more distinctive cases of correspondence between linguistic terms include, for example: Latv. sakne corresponds to Lith. šaknis (terms of the same semantic origin), cf. Latin radix, Russian корень, German Wurzel, French racine, Italian radice, English root, Icelandic rot, and others; but Lith. celms — Lith. kamienas “stem” (the terms are based on names for different parts of a tree: in Latvian, the stump; in Lithuanian, the trunk). Latv. celms corresponds, for example, to Polish pień, and Lith. kamienas to German Stamm and English stem. The Russian term основа (“stem”) can be compared with Greek thema “basis,” French thème, and Italian tema. One more example: Latv. pēdinas and Lith. kabutės “quotation marks” arose from native-language material, but the Latvian word is based on the noun pēda “foot, sole,” while the Lithuanian term is based on the verb kabėti “to hang.” The relationship between the terms Latv. kols — Lith. dvitaškis “colon” and Latv. divpunkte — Lith. praleidimo ženklas “ellipsis” is unusual. Lith. dvitaškis and Latv. divpunkte are identical in their internal form, but denote different concepts (although the term divpunkte was formerly also used in Latvian linguistic terminology to mean “colon”). Neither Lithuanian nor Russian has a general term like the Latvian term locīt (which subsumes Latv. deklinēt — Lith. linksniuoti, and konjugēt — asmenuoti) meaning “to decline and conjugate.” It can be compared, in particular, with Lith. kaityti “to change, to inflect,” although this term has a broader meaning. Lithuanian has three terms: dalyvis, pusdalyvis, padalyvis, corresponding in Latvian to lokāmais divdabis, daļēji lokāmais divdabis, nelokāmais divdabis “participle, adverbial participle,” but Lithuanian has no general term equivalent to divdabis. Parallel terms (an international term and its native-language equivalent) are used in both languages, but much more frequently in Latvian, e.g.: Latv. adverbs, apstākļa vārds — Lith. prieveiksmis; Latv. akc entēt, uzsvērt — Lith. kirčiuoti; Latv. saiklis, konjunkcija — Lith. jungtukas. 15 In such cases, when parallel terms exist, derivative words are generally formed from the term with an international base, e.g.: Latvian verbs, darbības vārds — Lithuanian veiksmāzodis ‘verb’, but Latvian verbals — Lithuanian veiksmāžodinis ‘verbal’, Latvian verbalizēties — Lithuanian veiksmāžodėti. As can be seen, Latvian and Lithuanian linguistic vocabularies have much in common. The main difference is the greater proportion of internationalisms in Latvian. This can be explained, first, by the long-standing, established traditions of creating national terminology in both languages. Second, the contribution of outstanding linguists (J. Jablonskis, K. Būga) to the development of Lithuanian terminology was greater. In J. Endzelīns’s field of interest, questions of linguistic terminology were far from central, while the terminological proposals of some less authoritative linguists failed to take root. Over the past decade, an increasing number of international linguistic terms have appeared in both Latvian and Lithuanian. This tendency is particularly pronounced in the terminology of modern syntax (Lithuanian agentas, beneficientas, abetantas) and phonetics (Lithuanian intonologija, dispersija, apofonija), but many international terms are also emerging in other areas of linguistics (Latvian okazionālismi; Lithuanian kontinuumas, sintopija, diatopija, prozodema). New terms formed from elements of the native language are much rarer (Lithuanian dūrinys ‘compound word’, gatvėvardis ‘street name’), and it seems that, in this respect, Lithuanian terminologists continue to be more active. СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ Balašaitis A. Lietuvių dialektologijos terminai.— Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai. A serija, 1959, t. 2, p. 205—222. Balašaitis A. Lietuvių kalbos akcentologijos terminai.— Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai. A serija, 1960, t. 1, p. 199—209. Balašaitis A. Lietuvių kalbos fonetikos terminai.— Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai. A serija, 1961, t. 1, p. 183—205. Debates per gramatisko terminoloģiju.— Skolotāju Avīze, 1951, 2. martā—25. maijā. Strautiņa V. Valodniecības terminoloģijas attīstība 19. gadsimta 50.—70. gados.— In: Latviešu valodas teorijas un prakses jautājumi. Rīga, 1967, 103.—107. lpp. Valodniecības terminu vārdnīca / Sast. R. Grabis, Dz. Barbare, A. Bergmane.— Rīga, 1963, 256 lpp. Балашайтис А. История литовской лингвистической терминологии: Автореф. дис.... канд. филол. наук.— Вильнюс, 1961. Грабис Р. О развитии и разработке латышской терминологии.— Тр. Ин-та яз. и лит-ры АН ЛатССР, 1953, т. 2, с. 171—186. Грабис Р. Разработка научной терминологии и составление терминологических словарей в Латвийской ССР.— В кн.: Вопросы разработки научно-технической терминологии. Рига, 1973, с. 5—22. Крупопас И., Гайвенис К. Терминологическая работа и подготовка терминологических словарей в Литовской ССР.— В кн.: Вопросы разработки научно-технической терминологии. Рига, 1973, с. 23—36. 16