Semantiniai vertiniai ir motyvacijos pamokos

MOKSLO KALBOS KULTŪROS IR TERMINOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXIV(1985) JONAS KLIMAVIČIUS SEMANTIC CALQUES AND LESSONS IN MOTIVATION The strict distinction between loanwords and calques is based on an onomasiological approach to the lexicon: the processes of borrowing and calquing are quite different, and their results are entirely dissimilar. From a semasiological perspective, however, the cause and origin of both phenomena are the same: the content of both groups of neologisms—loanwords and calques—is (usually) not of indigenous origin. The borrowing of foreign-origin sememes together with the corresponding foreign-origin lexemes is called word borrowing, or lexical borrowing, and the results of this process are borrowed words, or lexical (dictionary) loans. But foreign-origin sememes can also be named (renamed) by indigenous lexemes—as calques: derivational calques (lexical, dictionary neologisms) or semantic (meaning) calques (semantic, meaning neologisms). Thus, the cause and starting point of both processes—1) borrowed sememe → borrowed lexeme, 2) borrowed sememe → indigenous lexeme—are shared: semantic (meaning) borrowing. We would call the first process material borrowing. The second process is not homogeneous, and its results vary. Therefore, the concept of semantic induction probably describes it most broadly and accurately: the semantics of another language induces (stimulates) the semantics of the native language, bringing about 1) the emergence of a new meaning for an already existing corresponding word (a semantic calque), or 2) the naming of a new foreign-origin meaning by means of a neologism (a derivational calque). In the latter case, semantic induction is accompanied by derivational induction. The terms semantic induction and inducts have been used to some extent by various linguists for quite some time, but rarely, with little explication and without specifically raising the question of terminology or attending to a system of terms. Since they have not yet attained conceptual unambiguity and definiteness, much less textbook triviality, the principle “I call it” would, it seems, hardly count as a breach of terminological discipline or a claim to reject other conceptions. It would merely be an arbitrary agreement to seek a more adequate account of the phenomenon, at least no worse than the principle “I agree,” as if that obliged one to give a mandatory answer under the authority of some authority (or authorities) chosen by who knows what means. A. Kaulakienė, for her purposes, makes use only of the narrow concept of inducts, or relative calques, and describes it as an intermediate stratum between true calques and indigenous neologisms (lexical or semantic)—not exact calques, but certain analogues: in her view, semantic inducts are of the type tauras “bridge support” (← бык; although бык: jautis, while tauras: aurochs), and derivational inducts are of the type tarpmatis 197 (← щуп, neologisms (or new meanings) modeled on bangomatis ← волномер), although she is inclined to call inducts even cases that would attest to a much broader conception of them: galvutė (← головка and: galva), vinių-traukis (← гвоздодёр and: гвоздодёр)1. The author does not aim to criticize the different conceptions that have arisen for different purposes—broader conceptual aims or narrower descriptive and classificatory ones—or to argue for one of them: “The meaning of a term depends on the general conception, on the whole system. As the point of view changes, the meaning of the term will also change, to a greater or lesser extent” (J. Girdzijauskas)2. A single conception and unambiguous terms can prevail only when the subject has been comprehensively studied in the broader context of phenomena, and when a school or at least a group has formed. For now, “what matters is not defining the term unambiguously, but encouraging the person to think” (J. Girdzijauskas)3. In general, the aim of the article is not theoretical construction, though such construction cannot be ignored. But to be satisfied with theory—especially theory that merely discovers, describes, and classifies a phenomenon but does not indicate its causes or explain its place and relation to other similar phenomena, particularly in the ordering of terminology and in language culture—is to sever theory’s connection with living practice, and thus to betray, to some extent, not only practice but science itself. Here we adopt the broadest conception of semantic induction, encompassing not the residue that others cannot fit into the concept of calques, but the entire process of calquing, since the primary concern is not so much the slightly different formal results as their common cause. “<…> it is often much easier to discover the truth than to determine the place that belongs to it” (F. de Saussure)4. Through similarities and differences, we seek to locate semantic induction; first of all, as already noted, we would place it alongside borrowing. Material borrowing is simpler and clearer; the only difficulty (though by no means a small one!) lies in distinguishing loanwords (usually older ones) from lexical commonalities among related languages—cognates. Calques are a kind of immaterial loan, while semantic induction is the influence of inner forms, models, and categories. Alongside borrowing and induction, there is also interference—a certain material and immaterial influence of one language on another. A semasiological approach to calques and loanwords, and their association, which, incidentally, is more characteristic of general lexicology (and general linguistics) than of specialized lexicology, is not at all new even in Lithuanian linguistics. Almost half a century ago, in the article “Calques and Semantic Loans,” P. Skardžius wrote: “But foreign words are not all alike: in some cases both the linguistic form and the content have been borrowed, while in others only the content has been borrowed. The former are usually called 1 A. Kaulakienė, Calques in Contemporary Lithuanian Technical Terminology: Abstract of a dissertation... for the degree of Candidate of Philological Sciences.—Vilnius, 1983, pp. 7–8. 2 Literatūros tyrinėjimų pamatas.— Pergalė, 1983, Nr. 7, p. 162. 3 Ibid., p. 163. 4 Mintis ir ženklas.— V., 1983, p. 130 (vertimas B. Savukyno). 198 loanwords, and the second as calques5. Speaking of calques, he notes that not all of them are translated in the same way; for example, Greek diametros is not *skersmatis or *kiaurmatis, but skersmuo. “Calques of this kind are in fact not translated loanwords, but simply peculiar substitutes or semantic calques. For example, aumuo, gaminys, imlus, įstaiga, nesąmonė, etc., are not translations made word for word from intelektas (<…>), produktas, receptyvus, sugestija, absurdas, but are taken from the living language or newly coined for a special purpose on the basis of examples from that language6. Incidentally, while describing the phenomenon quite adequately, P. Skardžius did not avoid inconsistency in terminology—reikšminiai skoliniai (‘semantic borrowings’) in the heading and reikšminiai vertiniai (‘semantic calques’) in the text. But is this really a shortcoming, if two different terms express two perspectives on the same phenomenon, albeit from different angles: after all, we name a concept, not an object—two concepts of one object, and therefore two terms.” Calques are hidden loanwords (R. Budagov). Therefore, one must agree both with the view that literary language is poor and unacceptable when polluted by elements whose foreignness everyone readily notices (which is why, of two loanwords, the language itself chooses the covert, invisible one—for example, šuogūną, rather than cibulį, trešnę rather than čerešnę, triušį rather than kraliką, spintą rather than šėpą, kėtu rather than špižių, and so on), and with the view that calques that are defective in word formation and semantically unsuitable, and in which foreign-language patterns show through, are no less foreign than material borrowings. Thus, one might suppose that if calques are hidden loanwords, the more perfect and acceptable ones are those that are more concealed. But such a purely formal approach to concealment is not enough. Semantic calques are formally the most concealed, because they are not even material neologisms (as derivational calques are). Understanding the source motivation (inner form) is very important in calquing, and in semantic calquing it is simply decisive. Failure to understand or heed it, like internal corrosion, damages the semantics of the native language and distorts the meaning of the neologism. A defective semantic calque is the most concealed loanword of all (but now in the negative sense of the word), because its concealment is invisible to language users (in a language-contact situation): it is not in the body of the language, nor in its clothing, but in its spirit. Therefore, when regulating calques, one must consider not only the source meaning but also the motivation, even tracing motivation that once existed but has since faded or disappeared altogether. Only in this way can one determine whether it is adequate to the calque’s motivation, or inadequate, and in the latter case find analogues among the native language’s motivational patterns (or tendencies). This much theoretical discussion is probably necessary and sufficient to carry out and understand a detailed survey of one field of semantic induction. Not all parts of that field are equally affected by induction. But what is needed is a systematic analysis: semantic induction usually takes place not individually but in groups; although 5 Gimtoji kalba, 1938, p. 145. 6 Ibid., p. 147. For the relationship among the terms skolinys, vertinys, induktas, see also K. Kaulakienė A. Semantic calques in Lithuanian polytechnic terminology.— Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai. A series, 1981, vol. 4 (77), p. 99. 199 within a group there are often also separate, somewhat differing directions and tendencies, and thus dissimilar results, but the induction process of the group as a whole follows a common course—from the model of one language to that of another. It seems obvious that Russian завод is gamykla in Lithuanian. Yet even a blind person can see that птичий завод cannot be paukščių gamykla. Nor does it essentially change anything that the inexplicably established птицефабрика (although alongside it there is конный завод!) suggests paukščių fabriką: only superficial reasoning could suggest that, if fabrikas is a synonym of gamyklos, but the former, unlike the latter, is unmotivated, then paukščių fabrikas does not grate on the ear. Fabrikas is indeed unmotivated, but the phrase paukščių fabrikas is just as “motivated” as paukščio (glūbės, gerklės) pienas… The semantic motivation of Russian завод is quite different from that of Lithuanian gamykla (: gaminti). Завод comes from завести—3. to establish, set up [cf. įstaiga, ‘institution’—J. K.], to breed, produce [cf. pramonė, ‘industry’ (respectively Russian промышленность and промысел ‘business; trade’—J. K.)—like įmonė: į(si)manyti]: завести хозяйство—to establish, set up a farm; завести сад—to establish an orchard; завести пчёл—to start keeping, breed bees, BŽ I; cf. обзавести pш.—apg” 200 vininkystė ‘fish farming, the raising of fish’ DŽ₂—1. рыболовство, 2. рыбоводство, 3. рыбопромышленность, рыбный промысел LŽ (žuvivaisa—‘fish breeding, fish farming’ DŽ₂). These components can be used not only with animal names, but also with plant names and the names of places where they grow or are cultivated: растениеводство — crop growing and лесоводство — forestry and полеводство — field crop cultivation. When the names of a plant (or group of plants) and its growing place share the same root, for example, vegetable and vegetable garden, their derivatives also differ: vegetable grower “one who grows or sells vegetables” DŽ₂ — овощевод LŽ, vegetable growing 1. “vegetable farming, business,” 2. “the science of growing vegetables” DŽ₂ — овощеводство LŽ and gardener 1. “one who tends a garden or engages in growing vegetables” DŽ₂ — огородник LŽ, gardening “a gardener’s occupation or the science of gardening” DŽ₂ — огородничество LŽ. However, this distinction between the terms is rather difficult, and sometimes polysemy is used to manage it: овощевод — gardener, vegetable grower; овощеводство — gardening, vegetable growing. Russian has fewer (as checked against ОС) derivatives in -ininkas, -ininkystė than Lithuanian, with -вод, -водство formed from names of animal products or plant parts, for example: плодовод СРЯ, СССРЛЯ IX—vaisininkas ‘fruit grower or seller’ DŽ₂; плодоводство СРЯ, СССРЛЯ IX—vaisininkystė ‘fruit growing; fruit farming’ DŽ₂; семеноводство СРЯ, СССРЛЯ XIII—sėklininkystė ‘an agricultural branch concerned with growing seed plants and producing seeds’ DŽ₂ (sėklininkas—‘seed grower; plant breeder’ DŽ₂). In Lithuanian, it is more customary to express this concept, which can roughly be described as ‘business’ (not ‘craft’, but in the general sense of ‘occupation, work’), by means of the more characteristically Lithuanian synthetic model exemplified by žirgininkystės, paukštininkystės: pienininkystė ‘dairy farming; the science of milk processing’ DŽ₂—молочное хозяйство BZ I, молочное дело LŽ (Nainys J. Pienininkystė ir pieno higiena, 1950—Молочное дело и гигиена молока), grūdininkystė ‘grain growing, grain farming’ DŽ₂, kiaušininkystė ‘egg farming’ LKŽ V (rš). It does not matter that alongside these synthetic names analytical ones are also used (dairy farming, dairy and beef cattle breeding Šv 1976 18 25, dairy and meat livestock farming T 1975 291 6, meat and dairy cattle breeding LTE III; cf. also meat poultry farming T 1974 23 3), while some others have no synthetic equivalents at all (bacon-pig farming T 1975 291 6, Šv 1976 18 25, Šv 1976 20 9, raising fur sheep ŽŪZ, raising wool sheep ŽŪZ, raising fine-wool sheep ŽŪZ, even fine-wool sheep farming T 1977 221 4); nor does it matter that similar words, apart from the meaning ‘business of raising or producing’, often have the meanings ‘industrial or commercial business’ and other meanings (pienininkas ‘milk-processing specialist; milk receiver at a dairy or milk seller’ LKŽ I 407, mėsininkas ‘someone who works in the meat industry or trade’ DŽ₂; 1. ‘someone who deals in meat’ Ilprk., ‘predator’; 2. ‘someone who likes meat’ (SD 75 also ‘meat shop, butcher’s shop’) LKŽ VIII, kailininkystė ‘fur-processing industry’ DŽ₂, LKŽ V), or that the series is not fully realized (there are no words 201 *wool production, *down production, *bristle production, or *manure production, while plunksnininkas means only 1. “one engaged in the trade of feathers,” 2. “writer”||“scribe” LKŽ X). It is important that this is a characteristic pattern. K. Sirvydas, author of the first Lithuanian dictionary, made effective use of it: SD¹¹²¹ Polish piekarz, Latin pistor — bread-maker, SD247 Polish piekarz, Latin pistor, pinsor — bread-maker, Polish piekarstwo, Latin furnaria, panificium — bread-making “baking bread (as a business)” LKŽ II. That this is at least somewhat characteristic, rather than sporadic, is perhaps indicated by the fact that duonininkas 2. “bread baker” LKŽ II is also used by two other authors of early Lithuanian writing, J. Bretkūnas and S. Vaišnoras, from another area as well, and in texts: And the baker (baker, pastry maker) sinned against the lord BB1Moz40, 1. They [gave] a piece of bread, baked by the bakers. <...> [for a] time MTP 29. The old pattern is alive: as expected, alongside dairy farming we find meat production: meat and dairy complexes T 1976 283 2; the former meanings of meat production—1. LTIII272 (Bs) “butchering,” 2. KI444, obsolete “slaughterhouse”—do not hinder this at all. In Russian, instead of -водство, хозяйство: зерновое хозяйство — grain farm BZ I, ZŪŽ, EkŽ, молочное хозяйство — dairy farm BZ I, ZŪŽ, EkŽ, мясное хозяйство — meat farm EkŽ, is quite commonly used here. The meaning of ūkis requires a longer discussion here. Bilingual dictionaries—both general ones (BZ II, LŽ) and terminological ones (ZŪŽ, EkŽ, PolŽ)—do not provide the meanings: хозяйство — farm. DZ₂ distinguishes 5 meanings of ūkis: 1. “an agricultural unit, an area of cultivated land with its appurtenances”: collective farm (kolūkis); 2. “a social form of production, the totality of production relations of a social formation”: socialist economy (ССРЛЯ XVII also includes коллективное хозяйство under this meaning, but this means “collective farming,” not “collective farm”); 3. “production, economy”: national economy, agriculture; 4. “equipment, inventory, buildings and other supplies”: factory facilities, hospital facilities; 5. “household and domestic work”: household. СРЯ distinguishes the meanings of the word хозяйство almost identically, only in a somewhat different order (хозяйство 5.— ūkis 1.), and there is also a VI meaning. But it is not easy to arrange the whole set of compounds according to those 5 meanings. II and V are of no concern to us here. For IV, it is necessary only to note the expansion and proliferation of compounds—railcar and garage facilities PolŽ, port, warehouse, and housing facilities EkŽ, even financial management EkŽ, tool facilities EkŽ, power-plant fuel-oil facilities T 1983 254 2, bathhouse facilities Bt 1983 7 17, antenna facilities KV 1981 27 6—and to touch on the differentiation of specific names for the meaning III related to IV: even ССРЛЯ XVII, which provides a detailed division into 5 meanings and numerous submeanings, illustrated with a wealth of compounds, cannot always help here. For example, путевое хозяйство (: road facilities EkŽ) and хозяйство города are assigned to meaning IV, while <...> (ССРЛЯ XVII numbering: 1. “...”)—“branch of production of the economy”—is assigned to III: коммунальное хозяйство and городское хозяйство, as well as водное, топливное хозяйство. But the greatest difficulties arise in assigning specific names to meaning I of ūkis (ССРЛЯ XVII хозяйство 3.) and meaning III (ССРЛЯ XVII хозяйство 1.). For example, зерновое хозяйство is listed under both—in the sense of “branch of agricultural produc- 202 «sector of agricultural production» and «a production unit (usually agricultural) with implements and means of production». In Lithuanian, the meaning “industry” in СССРЯ XVII — “production, economy” in D₂₂ would be grain farming, that is, grain production; the meaning “production unit” in СССРЯ XVII — “agricultural unit” in D₂₂ — would be a grain-farming enterprise. But in ŽŪŽ and EkŽ, зерновое хозяйство is only grain farming. Perhaps there are no specialized, separate grain-farming enterprises? Or perhaps it has simply not been possible to make that distinction? Let us look at other compounds: лесное хозяйство — miškų ūkis in ŽŪŽ, EkŽ; рыбное хозяйство — žuvų ūkis in ŽŪŽ, EkŽ; пушное хозяйство — kailinių žvėrelių ūkis in ŽŪŽ; животноводческое ir скотоводческое хозяйство — gyvulių ūkis in ŽŪŽ, EkŽ; овцеводческое хозяйство — avių ūkis in ŽŪŽ; пчеловодное хозяйство — bičių ūkis in ŽŪŽ; садоводческое хозяйство — sodų ūkis in ŽŪŽ; only огородовоощное хозяйство — daržininkystės ūkis in EkŽ; племенное хозяйство — veislininkystės ūkis in ŽŪŽ. It would appear that the first are branches, the second names of units. But is that really so? In usage there are also forestry enterprises T 1974 155 4, fur-farming enterprises T 1974 155 4, a goat-breeding state farm P 1974 3 102, and a game farm T 1981 77 1, flower farms KB 1976 4 44, a medicinal-herb farm T 1974 186 4, a tea state farm S 1974 101 3, a trout farm MG 1975 8 11, and both variants — Aukštadvaris fishery and Aukštadvaris fish farm M ir G 1976 9 20; also beekeeping farms MG 1975 9 15, a fish-farming complex MG 1976 8 30 and “fish ‘farms’” T 1981 163 2, a dairy-farming complex LTE IV 120, meat- and dairy-farming complexes T 1976 283 2 and a dairy complex T 1978 245 2, a meat-and-dairy complex T 1978 164 1, inter-farm livestock- and poultry-rearing complexes T 1977 28 2, a livestock-rearing complex T 1974 274 2 and a beef-cattle fattening complex T 1974 274 2, a dairy-cow complex T 1974 274 2, a breeding-heifer complex T 1974 274 2, a cattle-youngstock fattening complex LTE III 596, a pig-farming complex T 1974 274 2, and the Širvintos inter-farm pig complex T 1978 115 4. Leaving aside rare, unsettled compounds, for example: marine farming MG 1975 3 25, a fishers’ cooperative P 1975 7 144, a fish-processing combine Šv 1974 17 12, mushroom farms MG 1977 10 19, frog farms M ir G 1977 2 45, a mushroom-growing complex T 1983 31 1, and so on, we should also discuss breeding stock and breeding farms. D₂₂ lists the compound breeding farm under sense 3, “production, economy.” This is semantically correct, but in practice the sense “branch of the economy” is usually expressed simply as breeding: Breeding is a set of measures for improving a breed (herd) Galv 145. In the sense “economic unit,” two names are used: breeding farms and breeding stations Šv 1975 21 6, breeding farms, breeding stations Šv 1977 2 5. Their use side by side already prompts the inference that these units are similar, though it is unclear how they differ—quantitatively or qualitatively. Here is what the specialists say: The task of cattle-breeding farms and breeding stations is to rear and improve cattle of the relevant breed and to distribute animals of high breeding value Galv 148. Their difference is quantitative: Cattle-breeding farms and 203 farms with breeding facilities Galv 149. Therefore, S. Keinys reasons correctly: „A breeding farm indicates that animals or birds are raised for breeding on that farm and perhaps their breeds are improved. Thus, in this sense, breeding farms cannot be replaced by a breeding farm, just as the established names beekeeping and horticultural farms could not be replaced by bee or orchard farms. Moreover, instead of a breeding farm or holding, the word breeding establishment, which is recorded in dictionaries, would of course be very suitable“ 7. The situation is similar to that with хозяйство and Russian дело (: делать) — sense 6, colloq. company, firm; enterprise, business, trade [LZ biznis — (коммерческое) дело], commerce, commercial undertaking BŽ I [journalistic calques include the Beirut *business* activity (Beiruto d a-l y k i n i s (=verslinis) aktyvumas and the b u s i n e s s (=business, entrepreneurial) world VN 1983 275 7], more narrowly, specialty, field PolŽ; sense 4, specialty, craft, profession LmŽ I. Lithuanian equivalents for names of particular fields: dairy farming — молочное дело LŽ, breeding — племенное дело, животноводство LŽ, инструментальное дело — toolmaking, красильное дело — dyeing, литейное дело — foundry work, мельничное (мукомольное) дело — milling, торфяное дело — peat production PolŽ; similarly, кузнечное дело — blacksmithing, слесарное дело — locksmithing, плотничное дело — carpentry, woodworking PolŽ; пожарное дело — firefighting, строительное дело — construction PolŽ, монетное дело — coin minting EkŽ, горное дело — mining, военное дело — military affairs, warfare BŽ I; ткацкое дело — weaving, токарное дело — turning PolŽ. Thus, it seems, we could confidently state here the first partial conclusion: of the corresponding models in the two languages — Lithuanian -(inin k)ystė/-yba/-imas||ūkis: Russian хозяйство/дело||-водство — synthetic model elements, namely -(inin k)ystė/-yba/-imas, are much more characteristic of Lithuanian, while analytic elements, namely хозяйство/дело, are also quite characteristic of Russian. Now let us return once again to Russian завод. Завод (: завести) has the derivational variant заведение — sense 2, colloq., “a commercial establishment, tavern, etc.” (and увеселительное заведение), sense 4, colloq., “a separate part, branch of a large хозяйство” CCPЛЯ IV; sense 2, colloq. enterprise (: Russian предприятие, Latvian uzņēmums. — J. K.), undertaking BŽ I, cf. verslamonė — colloq. предприятие, промышленное заведение LŽ. Now заведение also means sense 1, “an institution, primarily an educational and training one” CCPЛЯ IV; sense 1, institution (учебное заведение — educational institution, school) BŽ I. Here it should also be recalled that 7. Keinys S. Veislinė ferma ar veislininkystės ferma? — Kalbos kultūra, 1979, sąs. 37, p. 44—45. As the agricultural encyclopedia and terminology dictionary are being prepared, these names, as well as state breeding stations Galv 147, are being reconsidered (see: Kuosa J., Gaivenis K. Veislininkystės ūkis, o gal veislynas. — Žemės ūkis, 1983, Nr. 12, p. 27. Then there will be an opportunity to find a place in this group and refine the meaning and form of similar names: Rudaminos veislinis reprodukcinis paukštynas ŽŪ 1976 11 13, Zaporozės veislinės paukštininkystės tarybinis ūkis-reproduktorius T 1977 261 3, tarpūklinis reprodukcinis blokas T 1976 283 2, one selection farm and several larger duck breeding and reproduction farms M ir G 1981 6 18, Vilniaus tarprajoninė veislininkystės įmonė TAS. 204 обзаведение 2. colloq. “that with which one furnishes oneself; things necessary for life, хозяйство, trade, etc.” СССРЯ VIII; sense 2, colloq. “equipment, belongings, furnishings, things, apparatus” BŽ II. Thus, the primary, more general meaning of Russian завод is much broader than that of gamyklos, “a manufacturing enterprise”; it is closer to sense 1 of Russian предприятие, enterprise; undertaking BŽ II. With respect to a factory and a plant, factory and plant are not synonyms of enterprise but hyponyms. The situation is somewhat different in Russian: завод and фабрика are hyponyms of предприятие, but at the same time завод in its primary meaning is a synonym of предприятие. Therefore, a factory is завод, but завод is not only a factory but also an enterprise, and in many cases neither a factory nor an enterprise, but something else entirely. Конский завод was translated as “stud farm” as early as 1926 in *Veterinary Zootechnics*; immediately afterwards, in 1929, žirgynas appeared in A. Šolcas and J. Talmantas’s *German–Lithuanian Dictionary* as the equivalent of German Gestüt (data from LKŽ K). Žirgynas is defined in DZ₂ as “a farm for breeding horses” and in DZ₁ as “a place where horses are kept, a horse farm”; it is included in general bilingual and terminology dictionaries: žirgynas — конный завод; коннозаводство, коннозаводское хозяйство LZ, конный завод — žirgynas BŽ I, конный завод ir коневодческое хозяйство — žirgynas ŽUŽ, коннозаводское хозяйство — žirgynas EkZ, завод рысистых лошадей — ristūnų žirgynas EkZ. The history of Paukštynas and its adoption with the meaning of Russian птицефабрика is long and curious. LKŽ IX shows it to be considerably older than птицефабрика. In the sense of “bird zoo,” paukštynas was used as early as 1906 in S. Mečius’s *A Brief Description of the Earth*, translated from Russian by J. T. (=J. Tūbelis) and R. J. (=Rygiškių Jonas): They hoped to sell the eaglets to some bird park or zoo (V., p. 42); it was probably coined by J. Jablonskis⁸. The word žvėrynas is of roughly the same age: alongside the folk-language form žvėrinčius and the hybrid žvėrinyčia (zveriu-darz, zwierzęniec) in A. Juška’s Latvian–Lithuanian–Polish dictionary of about 1875, žvėrynas has apparently been in use since around 1912: LL zwier-zyńiec — žvėrynas, and in the book *Zoology for Country Folk*, published in Sejny and written by J. Gerutis after Brehm: he arrived alive at the London zoo (vol. 1, p. 68). In sense 1, “a place for keeping domestic birds; a poultry farm,” LKŽ IX records paukštynas as already used in J. Balčikonis’s translations of H. C. Andersen’s fairy tales. The examples in LKŽ IX were probably taken from the 1923 edition; here I give sentences from the 1966 edition: A sizeable flock of hens lived in the poultry yard; among them was a large rooster, who strutted about grandly, 67. Cluck! cluck! follow me, children, I will show you the wide world and lead you to the poultry yard 222. LKŽ IX gives one more sentence with this meaning: Poultry yards and reed beds (=medelunus LKŽ K) are enclosed by a wire fence. It is from the weekly *Žemaičių prietelius* (Telšiai, 1939, No. 15, p. 6). LKŽ K also has: the poultry yard consisted of good breeds of hens (*Jaunasis ūkininkas*, 1937, No. 21). Farmer 8 Jablonskis’s writings.— K., 1933, vol. 2, p. 144. 205 <…> had a large poultry farm (Ūkininko patarėjas, 1938, No. 10). This is no longer a tale, nor a translator’s wording, nor an occasionalism, but a genuine, official name. In his article “Duck Farming in Lithuania,” B. Valenta, Candidate of Agricultural Sciences, reports: In 1922, the Lithuanian Society for the Raising of Domestic Fowl and Small Livestock was established under the Chamber of Agriculture M ir G 1981 6 17. In 1927, the Chamber of Agriculture began registering breeding poultry farms <…>. In 1930–1931, only poultry farms that kept no more than two breeds and at least 10 birds of each breed were registered ibid. In 1927 <…> provided subsidies to the owners of registered poultry farms <…>. In 1932, these subsidies were discontinued and the poultry farms were no longer registered ibid. But, as we have seen, the word continued to be used even afterward, as late as 1939, because the work continued: From 1934, the organization of breeding-poultry farms began; <…> MLTE II 796. In 1934, a chicken-hatching station was established in Panevėžys LTE VIII 514. Thus, those poultry farms were not on the scale of today’s, but the word paukštynas had already acquired the status of a name. Even in the postwar years, before modern poultry farms emerged, the word paukštynas was not uncommon in periodicals and elsewhere, though its meaning—“poultry-raising farm,” “poultry farm,” or “poultry house”—is difficult to determine. Using examples from the LKŽ K, LKŽ IX distinguishes the meaning “poultry house”: Two collective-farm cowsheds were built (= Pasta- tys LKŽ K), <…>, two poultry houses, etc. (Valstiečių laikraštis, 1946, No. 28). LKŽ K contains more examples: Conditions are favorable for establishing poultry farms on collective farms (Panevėžio tiesa, 1949, No. 54). At present, we still have few mechanized poultry houses. This is a serious reproach to the designers, the staff of the Institute of Mechanization and Electrification, who pay very little attention to mechanizing poultry farms (Tiesa, 1963, No. 258). Quite a number of different mites breed in poultry farms: <…> (Danilevičius E., Šarkūnas V., Vinkevičius M. Veterinarinė parazitologija.— V., 1966, p. 180). As an equivalent of птицедвор, paukštynas is given in PolŽ (1959), BŽ I, II (1967). In the Soviet Union, modern industrial poultry enterprises—Russian птицефабрика БСЭ₃ XXI—emerged in 1930–1932. In Lithuania, the first such enterprise was in Vievis; it began producing in 1967 (LTE VIII). However, the naming tradition was not sufficiently respected. MLTE II (1968) made apt use of the word paukštynas: Industrial poultry farming is managed by the Poultry Trust of the Ministry of Agriculture (est. 1966), which includes 25 (out of 33) specialized Soviet poultry farms and 2 large poultry enterprises (1967). Yet not only the native-language tradition (or at least the model) was at work, but also the influence of Russian птицефабрика—in many places paukščių fabrikas (“bird factory”) kept cropping up. Linguists were quick to respond—in 1970 A. Vidugiris wrote: “The name paukščių fabrikas arose from an uncreative translation of the Russian word завод, whose meaning is much broader than that of fabrikas (“factory”)—it can mean an enterprise where things are not only mechanically manufactured but also bred and raised. Instead of paukščių fabrikas, one should say and write paukš- 206 tynas, cf.: daigynas, uistynas, žirgynas” ⁹. ZŪŽ (1971) does not yet have the word птице-фабрика, only птичник—1. paukštidė, paukštynas. In DZ₁ (1954), paukštynas means only “a place where birds are kept”: kolūkio paukštynas (“collective-farm poultry house”); DZ₂ (1972)—1. “a place for keeping domestic fowl; their farm”: kolūkio paukštynas; 2. “an enterprise that raises and breeds domestic fowl for meat and eggs and produces poultry products”: Several million eggs are obtained annually at the state poultry farm. LŽ gives paukštynas as птицедвор; птицефабрика. It is a pity that LKŽ IX (1973), like ZŪŽ, did not manage to include this meaning of paukštynas. In usage, especially in newspapers, paukštynas, as far as is known, was not easily established by linguists and editors as a standard form—this required overcoming the inertia of journalists and certain translators, as well as their lack of linguistic competence. Even now, paukščių fabrikas is like the little devil: driven out through the door, it sneaks back in through the attic window. Semantic calquing failed; interference continues and persists. Thus the official name is distorted in TAS, which writes Vilniaus paukščių fabrikas 95. Presumably this was translated from Russian (although Vilniaus valstybinis žirgynas 265 is given correctly in Lithuanian). It is not uncommon to find a Kaišiadorių paukščių fabriką in the press, Šv 1977 22 2. In the regular television program “Where Our Parents Work,” children are told, “Excursion to the Vilnius Bird Factory” KV 1983 41 9. It is not only non-specialists who find it hard to get used to paukštynas, but also otherwise educated people who seem comfortable with the language, for example, literary figures: paukščių fabrikas L ir M 1974 41 2, P 1981 1 101, KV 1983 43 3. No better is paukštininkystės fabrikas T 1974 23 3. This rampant “factory-ization” also stems from the general, misguided and dangerous tendency to avoid simple, clear words and a desire to be affected. If the poultry farm is not called a paukščių ar paukštininkystės fabrik u (“bird” or “poultry factory”), then alongside the name paukštynas it is described as a kompleksas (“complex”), T 1980 47 1; hence paukštyno kompleksas (“poultry-farm complex”), T 1977 229 4, and paukštininkystės kompleksas (“poultry-farming complex”), L ir M 1974 39 12. A report entitled “The Poultry Farm Fell into Formation” states: At the Daugai fish farm in Alytus district, construction workers commissioned (=handed over) the largest duck-rearing complex in the republic T 1978 7 1. A stud farm, too, is described as a complex: The Vilnius State Stud Farm in Riešė—about a half-hour’s drive from the city—is a large horse-breeding complex with an indoor riding arena, a hippodrome, and various facilities for breeding and sport horses T 1980 180 4. The fashion for calling things complexes is even more widespread, but that is another matter. Sometimes it is enough to describe many things with the word fabrikas<…> livestock complexes are peculiar meat and milk factories in the countryside Šv 1975 7 21. When constructing livestock complexes—actual milk and meat factories—it is likewise impossible to do without support from scientific institutions L ir M 1974 41 2. Once I invited board members, specialists, and the best farmers to look around the complex. There they saw a huge meat factory ZŪ 1976 9 5. At the Butuvydiškės soviet farm-technical school, more than 300 hectares are planted with— ⁹ V i d u g i r i s A. Paukščius auginame ar gaminame? — Kalbos kultūra, 1970, sąs. 18, p. 42. 207 words in open and covered ground. We can only be glad to have such a fine vegetable factory on the outskirts of the capital T 1982 190 2. A well-known Soviet scholar, N. Yelagin, called forests “factories of pure, clean air” T 1983 251 2. And ordinary people sometimes describe a cow as a factory. But do we not too often, insistently, and banally describe an organism as a factory in our writing and, conversely, a factory as an organism? Have we not become overenthusiastic about calling the same thing both a maternity ward and a factory: Our institute is a scientific research institution specializing in applied breeding and technology. New varieties of agricultural plants are born there M and G 1983 10 2 and: A true factory of new varieties — visitors marvel after visiting our breeding center, ibid. 4. A sense of proportion is also an important indicator of linguistic competence and linguistic conduct. It is hard to get rid of poultry factory, partly because along with similar factories, the words to produce, production—of meat, milk, eggs, grain are also used in Lithuanian in ways that are not entirely appropriate. This is a separate, extensive topic, which we will outline here only briefly. This production is an unsuccessful translation of Russian производство. The motivation behind Производство is not “production,” not “fabricatio”—it is an exact equivalent (or even a calque) of the Latin productio, “bringing forth, issuing.” Производство means not only 1. making, (pro)cessing, production (of steel, automobiles) BZ II, but also creation: производство национального дохода — creation of national income EkŽ. Hence this should be corrected: the ESPT countries now produce (=create) a quarter of the world’s national income <...> LO 1975 12 377. Производство also has other Lithuanian equivalents, for example, горное производство — mining BZ II, quite unlike, for instance, строительное производство — construction EkŽ; further meanings are 2. performance (of work), carrying out (of experiments) BZ II [производство наблюдений — conducting observations MetŽ, производство съёмки — geod. carrying out (=making) a survey PolŽ, о производство услуг — provision of services EkŽ], 3. judicial proceedings, process (legal), case, 4. promotion (to a higher rank) BZ II. Cf. also воспроизводство — reproduction, restoration; репродукция BZ I, производитель — 1. producer, maker; executor (of work), 2. (in livestock breeding) sire, производительный — 1. productive; yielding, fruitful; продуктивность, fertility, 2. production-related, производительность — 1. productivity (of labor), capacity (of a factory), 2. productivity, производная — math. derivative, производное — 1. ling. derivative, derived word, 2. chem. derivative, derivative compound BZ II, словопроизводство — 1. ling. derivation of words BZ II, делопроизводство — office administration, <...> BZ I, произведение — 1. (the act of) making, carrying out, 2. (the act of) producing, 3. causing, making (an impression), 4. giving birth, 5. promotion (to officer rank), 6. derivation, 7. product (печатное произведение — printed work), product, article; work (of art); derivative, 8. math. product BZ II, воспроизведение — 1. reproduction, 2. restoration; репродукция, reproduction, 3. biol. breeding, multiplication BZ I. That is why in Russian the word производство is often further qualified by the modifier материальное. In Lithuanian, such qualification—production, material production LTE III—is unnecessary. 208 For quite some time, on several occasions and in various contexts, it has been suggested, though not too boldly, that gamyba, gaminti not be used here. For example, A. Vilutytė makes this correction: More milk could be produced (=milked) <...>10. The issue is addressed consistently and appropriately: in an article intended for specialists, K. Gaivenis, albeit with minimal argument, made a direct and well-founded proposal to use obtaining milk and meat11. The logic is simple and ironclad: a person gives to an animal, the animal gives to a person (We give the cow green hay, the cow gives us white milk); therefore, the person gets it. This logic is even being put into practice in written language: Milk yield is an animal’s capacity to give milk. It is measured by the amount of milk obtained from an animal over a given period LTE VIII. Animal scientists <...> are developing lines of fast-growing hybrid pigs that provide better-quality meat L and M 1974 41 4. Cattle provide high-quality meat: veal and beef Galv 3. A great deal of meat is obtained from culled cows Galv 54. Lithuania’s blackhead sheep provide good wool and tasty mutton VGP 16. <...> the sheep yield 7.3 kg of wool apiece JG 1976 10 28. The finest hides come from calves and heifers Galv 55. This usage comes from folk speech: LKŽ III gauti 2. “to earn, to benefit”: Last year we got some honey Drsk. We got quite a lot of honey this year Jnšk, 1. “to acquire, to win”: <...> ||Did you get any mushrooms? Nj. We only got wet, and got no fish Pn (here, something is obtained without giving anything in return—from nature). This use of gavyba has been in circulation for quite some time, albeit to a limited extent. For instance, DŽ₂ lists, under gavyba, “organized acquisition of something,” alongside coal extraction, milk production. The press has examples such as large-scale pork, beef, and milk production complexes M and T 1977 7 35, grain production JG 1974 11 24, and: More meat, milk, eggs, cotton, and other products were obtained T 1980 279 1. In meat and milk production per 100 hectares of farmland, we surpassed Latvia M and G 1980 6 5. An output of 172 centners of meat and 748 centners of milk will be obtained per 100 hectares of agricultural land T 1974 297 2. Thus gavyba means not only extraction, добыча LŽ, but also производство. The term gavyba is spreading elsewhere too, for example: In the twentieth century, information became a strategic raw material, and its extraction, processing, and use became an important direction of domestic and foreign policy L and M 1983 45 4. Admittedly, the gavyba that concerns us is gaining acceptance only with difficulty. The reason is interference. And, of course, carelessness. This is indicated by unjustifiable fluctuations in usage: gauti: meat <...>, milk <...>, eggs <...> LTE IV 119 and beef production ibid. 120. A poultry farm is an enterprise that produces poultry products (eggs, poultry meat) on an industrial basis LTE VIII 513, and annually (in 1976) about 17 billion eggs are obtained and about 0.5 million tonnes of poultry meat are produced ibid. 514. Cattle provide abundant, good-quality manure, which is why in the past cattle were kept to produce manure 10 Vilutytė A. Dėl „Valstiečių laikraščio“ kalbos.— Kalbos kultūra, 1968, sąs. 15, p. 41. 11 Gaivenis K. Tuščiai skambantys žodžiai.— Žemės ūkis, 1974, Nr. 3, p. 39. 14 Užsak. Nr. 1007 209 Galv 4. There is still a long way to go before victory in production—there are plenty of all kinds of translated, non-Lithuanian productions (and factories). The modern farm, with its snow-white, gleaming washing facilities, showers, and rest rooms, bears no resemblance to the old, smoke-blackened barn covered in cobwebs. Nowadays it looks more like a small milk-production factory (=like a small milk-production factory) TM 1974 11 11. In the tenth five-year plan, large broiler-production complexes will be established T 1976 283 2. A poultry farm with 700,000 hens “produces” 250 kg of ammonia and 150 kg of dust every day T 1979 81 4. This is from the press. But even a technical-school textbook is not immune to meat production Galv 4, 5. Journalist S. Kašauskas writes ironically: If production reaches such a degree of specialization that one factory produces only wings, a second only legs, and then a special assembly department at the central, main factory takes care of putting all these parts together into one chicken, we can expect the most thunderous surprises L and M 1974 39 12. Jokingly, one also comes across raising meat: A scientifically planned animal ration is an excellent thing for both animal and human. One gets optimally fatter, while the other saves time. I only say this: nowadays the peasant really raises only meat for our table. The distinction between “meat” and “dairy” animals does little to cultivate or refine his feelings L and M 1978 2 10. But the word raise is sometimes used in a similarly serious sense: In freedom, bread is more filling and water purer, and soon we will raise plenty of meat Šv 1974 12 8. These lands are called deserts only in the geographical sense <...>. They produce about 99 percent of the raw cotton and all the karakul T 1975 244 4. It will be possible to build very powerful seawater desalination plants, irrigate today’s deserts with the desalinated (=desalinated, de-salted) water, and grow food there for millions of people M and G 1978 5 6. This usage has some basis in folk speech, too: Now the pig will start growing fat, while he wants to slaughter it Jrb. Living well makes your belly grow Gs. Apparently you’ve got good bread already, if you’re growing a scruff of fat Gs (LKŽ I). That sheep is no good; it’s only growing meat Skr (LKŽ VIII). There was more bread for everyone this year Ktk (LKŽ II). But one should not be too enamored of “raising meat” in writing, and it is especially undesirable to overuse the now increasingly common phrase “growing bread.” Nor should we put up with the production of production goods: <...> linked vegetable and livestock-product production complexes [=vegetable and livestock] will spring up in the suburban village of Pagiriai T 1974 293 4. And the greenhouse owners <...> have already supplied consumers with several hundred tons of fresh cucumbers and tomatoes. In the coming years, output (=obtained) will exceed that of the republic’s largest vegetable supplier at present—the Tauralaukis state farm in Klaipėda District T 1974 293 4. This usage, too, is unsuccessful: A good plant variety can yield ten percent more under production (=agricultural) conditions T 1983 57 1. This is a trial production (=commercial) marine farm in Posj eto. It was the first in the country to undertake the cultivation of mollusks—scallops T 1983 187 2. 210 A production farm, to distinguish it from a breeding farm, might be suitably called a commercial or agricultural farm ¹². The inordinate use of production and factory is apparently encouraged in part by the mistaken idea that industry, even agro-industry, necessarily means production. But not everything that is industry is production. Industry is not only mechanical production; it also includes extraction, processing or refining, synthesis, and even servicing and services, for example, the leisure industry T 1983 274 4. It is pleasing to find mineral extraction in the press VN 1983 275 7. But entirely inappropriate phrases such as oil extraction T 1973 207 3, 267 3, 269 3, 288 3, 302 4, M ir G 1973 9 5, 11 22, gas extraction M ir G 1973 9 5, T 1973 290 3 compete in the press with oil production VN 1973 246 3, Šv 1976 9 27. It is sheer linguistic carelessness and irresponsibility to use gas extraction, but oil production T 1973 206 2. One need not put it vividly— the world’s oil-pumping countries VN 1974 90 3—but oil-producing Arab countries T 1973 264 3, 273 3 is indefensible. Nobody thinks of saying oil countries, although industrial country, wine country and the like are quite usual. The oil and gas production industry T 1973 248 3 should be corrected to the oil and gas extraction industry. In EkŽ, PolŽ, LŽ, BŽ I, II, LTE I 276, gavybinė pramonė (добывающая промышленность) LTE I 276 should be transformed into the extraction industry LTE IV, IX; compare ore-extraction industry EkŽ, oil-extraction industry EkŽ. Extractive industry BŽ I, like processing industry EkŽ, LTE I, IX, has less chance of becoming the norm than processing industry PolŽ; compare metal-processing industry PolŽ, wood-processing industry PolŽ, EkŽ. Perhaps the position of extraction in usage is weakened by the fact that, owing to semantic calquing from other languages, Lithuanian has not developed a larger word family around the root gav-—*gavūbininkas, *gavūkla, *gavūklininkas—while A. Vireliūnas’s coinage gavūnys (like Ergebnis, a calque from German) means ‘result’ (although it is bookish and rare). Replacing the calqued production of milk and meat with the Lithuanian extraction does not put an end to the problems and complications: the meat industry promotes itself as engaged in industrial meat production LTE VII 422, T 1976 26 2, while dairy combines call themselves milk producers Šv 1980 21 11. Thus, what some have already produced is produced again by others: In terms of meat and milk production [=(industrial) output], Lithuania ranks among the top places per capita TSRS LTE VII 180. Apart from the meat and dairy industries=, expansion was somewhat greater in the confectionery, bread, baking, milling, spirits, beer, and tobacco industries LTE VII 180. Growth in dairy-industry output is shown in Table 4. In terms of milk produced per inhabitant (=dairy output per inhabitant), (768 kg in 1979), the LTSR ranks second in the TSRS (after the ETSR) and fourth in Europe (after Denmark and Finland), well ahead of the USA LTE VII 599. In the interwar period, meat-industry enterprises were called meat facto- 12 Plg. Kuosa J., Gaivenis K. Min. str.— Žemės ūkis, 1983, Nr. 12, p. 27. 211 … LTE VII 422, at the end of 1940 they were renamed meat-processing plants ibid. 423. They contain mechanized minced-meat production (=meat-grinding) lines, which produce minced meat (=grind meat) M and G 1973 7 1. Meat-industry enterprises or meat-processing enterprises LTE VII 422 have also had the simple names slaughterhouses, sausage workshops, sausage factories LTE VII 422, but from the heights of our industry they look primitive LTE VII 422, which is why their names have fallen out of favor too. Understandably, meat and dairy enterprises not only process (each of these meat-industry enterprises could process an average of 400–500 bacon pigs per day LTE VII 422), transform (about 95% of all livestock and poultry are industrially processed LTE VII 422), but also produce: The meat industry—<…>. It includes the slaughter of livestock and poultry, and the production of meat, sausages, canned meat, semi-finished products, and other culinary goods. In addition, meat-industry enterprises produce dry feed, medicinal preparations (insulin, heparin, lipocain), adhesives, gelatin, and feather and down products LTE VII 422. A dairy is an enterprise where milk is processed (separated, pasteurized, cooled) and transformed (butter, cheese, kefir, curd, sour cream, and canned milk are produced) LTE VIII. Leaving aside for another occasion details less relevant here—the production of kefir, butter, and the like, as well as the production of feather and down products—and without considering how much better the term making might be here, while not denying the element of production in the meat and dairy industries, we nevertheless tend to think that processing is more a matter of making than of production. This is already suggested by usage data: alongside a dried skim milk plant Šv 1974 11 6, S and A 1975 2 2, there is also milk-making: Milk is made from milk powder and condensed milk (reconstituted milk) LTE VIII 598. Reconstituted milk is made industrially from powdered milk as follows: <…> LTE X 55. Industry, too, can make, not only produce! Besides agro-industrial and industrial milk and meat production, the former of which would be better termed extraction in Lithuanian and the latter industry or industrial output, two other kinds of milk and meat production still need to be discussed—substitute or synthetic, and organic, natural. The first is generally called manufacturing: In some countries (e.g., Japan and the United States), a milk substitute is made from plants. Its composition is similar to that of natural milk LTE VIII 598. Not only cedar wood is very valuable <…>, but so are the seeds—cedar nuts, which contain 56–79% fat, protein, carbohydrates, salts, and vitamins. Cedar milk, sour cream, and butter are made from these nuts M and G 1973 11 22. In our country, the first synthetic food product was artificial caviar. The Institute of Elemento-Organic Compounds of the USSR Academy of Sciences began developing it in 1963 and has already completed the work. A pilot-production unit for making caviar has been constructed M and T 1975 8 29. After fifteen years, the United States became interested in soybeans again, but more sensibly this time—beginning to make meat from them, or, more accurately, meat substitutes. Articles about “soy meat” and “soy chic- 212 “kens,” and so on, are often published not only in promotional publications but also in authoritative scientific journals. Chemists and technologists are trying to eliminate the specific taste and smell of soy proteins and give them a fibrous structure and the taste and aroma of natural meat. As many as ten years ago, six U.S. companies produced meat substitutes from soy. Now there are twice as many. In 1970, soy-meat production reached 20,000 tons M and G 1977 5 10. Meat imitations are made in various ways ibid. But it is not impossible to produce such food; cf.: Three types of protein products are made from soy: concentrates, isolates, and structured products that imitate meat. Concentrates are obtained by removing non-protein substances from defatted flour ibid. Milk is naturally produced by the organism: A group of American scientists led by Professor Pirie studied the natural milk-producing process in various animals for twenty years. They succeeded in creating a “milk machine.” This apparatus processes green plants and extracts protein. Then about 50 different substances are added: sugar, amino acids, vegetable fats, hormones, and others. In nutritional value and taste, synthetic milk hardly differs from natural milk Šv 1974 21 31. Scientific workers have differing views of science. For some, as Stiller puts it, it is a little goddess, sacred and untouchable; for others, a good little cow producing butter… M and G 1973 10 4. Of course, one should not think that production is the only possible way to name these things. There are other alternatives too, for example, meat-making and milk-making (cf. hematopoiesis). Microbiological industry is a special case: it is an industrial branch whose production processes are based on the microbiological synthesis of economically valuable products from non-food raw materials (hydrocarbons from oil and gas, wood hydrolysates), as well as from sugar beets, corn, and waste from the industrial processing of oil-bearing and cereal crops LTE VII. There are industries for feed yeast, antibiotics, enzymes, and lysine, as well as hydrolytic feed-yeast enterprises ibid. Natural, spontaneous microbiological synthesis takes place in the cells of organisms: complex compounds are formed from simple ones ibid. Biosynthesis is the formation of organic substances in living organisms or in an artificial medium from simple compounds acted upon by enzymes LTE II. But does industrial microbiological synthesis produce—and if so, does it only produce? First, it should be noted that natural biosynthesis—the production of various substances by nature, organisms, and organs—is described not only with the verb create (which is the only suitable and necessary choice in another case, in the sense of “creare”: These enzymes, found in living cells, were created by living nature itself M and G 1983 10 5), but also with produce, as well as give and obtain, and even accumulate: Biological productivity is the intensity of organic matter (biomass) accumulation in nature. It indicates how much biomass (<...>) an ecosystem, biocoenosis, or part of one can produce per unit of time. Primary production is given by plants <...>. <...>The organic matter accumulated in plants is used through various food chains to create new production—that is, animal biomass LTE II 156. The landscape is changing very rapidly; the aim of this work is to obtain as many food products as possible <...>. 213 The greater and more varied the vegetation, the more solar energy is used and the greater the biomass p r o d u c e d. Thus, in a new landscape, better conditions than in a natural one must be created for using solar energy and o b t a i n i n g greater biomass. Biomass is c r e a t e d not only by plants <…> MG 1974 6 7. Metaphorical but natural are descriptions such as: Nature is the oldest yet most perfect factory: it works without waste N 1977 9 59. Natural zones are factories of organic matter with varying productivity LK 12. Thus the microbiological industry also produces: The principle of biosynthesis is used in producing vitamins, hormones, amino acids, antibiotics, and other biologically active compounds LTE II 157. [The microbiological industry] Produces protein preparations and vitamin concentrates, amino acids, vitamins, enzyme preparations, as well as products from the comprehensive processing of plant raw materials (furfural, xylitol) LTE VII 483. Only this kind of production is such that people compel nature to produce what they need: In the near future, it will be worthwhile to make microorganisms produce purely chemical products—various alcohols, acetone, propylene oxide, etc. Until now, petroleum has been the raw material for producing these substances, and to a lesser extent, coal and natural gas M ir G 1983 10 4. Various microorganisms have therefore also been employed to produce enzymes of animal and plant origin and certain amino acids M ir G 1975 2 7. The point is that the microbial cell itself produces a whole complex of various substances M ir T 1975 2 7. Microbiological industry enterprises are called factories: In 1970, the Kėdainiai Biochemical Factory and the Vilnius Enzyme Preparations Factory began operating in Lithuania LTE VII 483. Nevertheless, a biochemical factory differs to some extent from a chemical factory. A biochemical factory might also have come into being—*gauti* ‘to obtain’ is used here as well: <…> technical, or industrial, microbiology [studies] the role of microorganisms in fermentation and their use to obtain amino acids, vitamins, and antibiotics <…> LTE VII 482. There is protein production (M ir T 1974 10 18), obtaining feed proteins (M ir T 1974 10 18). Indeed, obtaining can also differ from industrial production; cf. The laboratory, pilot-scale, and production technology for obtaining fungi and technical enzymes for the Vilnius Enzyme Preparations Factory is being developed by the All-Union Institute of Applied Enzymology (in Vilnius) LTE VII 483. Microbiology (or its industry itself), it seems, can also create, *creare*: The microbiological industry has acquired a particularly powerful method for creating strains of highly productive organisms, which can greatly increase output M ir G 1983 10 5. Alongside production, cultivation is sometimes used here as well: Yeast began to be cultivated industrially in 1914 <…> In the Soviet Union, the first workshop producing fodder yeast was built in 1935 at the Verkhnyodniprovsk experimental plant. The nutrient substrate for cultivating yeast was prepared from straw hydrolysate M ir G 1978 2 8. Another way of harnessing living nature for the benefit of industry is not the synthesis of biologically active substances (enzymes, vitamins, hormones) LTE II 214 149, but the industrial breeding of organisms, for example algae, trichogramma wasps, and insects, at certain breeding facilities: Japan’s first industrial enterprise to produce chlorella has begun operating. This undemanding alga <...> is grown under the light of an “artificial sun” <...> T 1976 27 3. In Crimea we are building a biofactory where we will breed apple fruit moths in large quantities KV 1983 48 14. There are several factories producing insects in the Soviet Union MG 1976 2 7. Such production and factories (even bio-factories!) are utter nonsense. The second partial conclusion would be this: the Russian words производство and завод, through strong, broad induction, encountered a Lithuanian language possessing many possibilities for equivalent expression (it is not the aim of this article, nor within the author’s power, to resolve definitively every case of optimal choice among them), but not all were used appropriately, and some were entirely overlooked at first, obscured by interference. The Russian word завод, by induction, had an adverse effect on the fate and functioning of paukštunas, whose history we outlined earlier. Paukštynas is formed with the productive suffix -ynas; compare, in addition to those already mentioned, bitýnas (Russian пчельник), skruzdėlynas (Russian муравейник) and others. The naturalness of such formations in Lithuanian is well illustrated by knygynas (not ‘book shop’!), rankraštynas (Russian рукописный отдел), vardynas (Russian именной указатель), žūrynas (Russian карьер гравия), šiukšlynas (Russian сорная куча), sąšlavynas (Russian мусорная куча), skudurynas Plv, Jrb ‘a place for buying rags; a collection point for recyclable materials’ LKŽ XII. Returning to animals and birds, a few points should be noted. First, popular speech has quite a few similar rare words: varlynas DŽ₂, lapynas LKŽ VII, musynas LKŽ VIII. Many are unrecorded in dictionaries (katynas, šunynas, vaikynas). Quite a few similar occasionalisms occur in writing: balandynas LKŽ I, karvelynas LKŽ V, kralikynas, kalakutynas LKŽ V, barsukynas LKŽ I, šunynas Šv 1975 24 27, P 1982 9 187, L ir M 1983 24 16. A folk-language occasionalism may sometimes be independently coined in an individual workshop, perhaps without even realizing it is already a heading. The wedding-gift song’s kiaulyną LKŽ V was once again hauled out by the writer V. Misevičius (Šv 1975 21 4). Sometimes it is difficult to tell whose work it is. Second, similar words often have, or can have, the status of scientific or folk terms: stumbrynas MG 1971 2 5, fazanynas (not recorded in dictionaries), veislinis šunynas N 1975 5 48; lapynas Plv ‘a fur-farming enterprise’ (not recorded in dictionaries). Third, they are quite good substitutes for international words: žolynas Mt—herbar(ium)as, rožynas LKŽ XI (SD320)—rozariumas, roplynas KV 1980 24 13—terariumas, gyvatynas LKŽ III—serpentariumas, vabzdynas DŽ₂—insektariumas. These are distinctive, living Lithuanian words. One more point concerns greater precision in naming. At present, poultry farms and new poultry facilities specialize mainly in raising chickens M ir G 1981 6 18. So why are they not vištynai? Vištynas appeared occasionally during the interwar years (Šalčius M. Svečiuose pas 40 tautų. — K., 1935, t. 2, p. 225; Ruokis V. Per Europos ir Afrikos kraštą. — K., 1933, p. 159). Now it is also recorded in lexicography: vištynas — купу- 215 a farm, a poultry factory; poultry yard LZ. Chicken farm is already in DŽ₁. It is strange to read: 700 thousand chicken poultry farm (=chicken farm) T 1979 81 4. Niandamos broiler farm (=broiler farm) VN 1983 237 3. If specialized Lithuanian poultry soviet farms keep no ducks at all M ir G 1981 6 18, then why are they not chicken soviet farms? Why is only a chicken farm called a poultry farm? The periodical press also uses duck farm: A duck farm yields 200,000 rubles in profit per year T 1976 171 2. Meteliai duck farm MG 1977 10 15. Productive duck farms T 1983 268 1. A duck farm is not a separate official designation, only a unit: Waterfowl are raised by fish farms M ir G 1981 6 18, for example, the duck farms in the villages of Muižė and Ventė belonging to the Kintai fish farm M ir G 1976 6 22. The press also uses complex: In the Daugai fish farm in Alytus District, builders commissioned (=handed over) one of the largest duck-rearing complexes in the republic. Its seven workshops are equipped with modern incubators and mechanized poultry-feeding lines, and automatic microclimate and lighting controls have been installed T 1978 7 1 (the news item’s headline is characteristic — P o u l t r y F a r m entered the ranks). LKŽ K records duck farm from colloquial speech: As we drove along, we saw a large duck farm near the road Prn (probably Išlaužas.— J. K.). For people, the shorter word is more convenient — duck farm. And more obvious — fish cannot be seen. Incidentally, there is also fish pond MG 1975 8 31. BŽ II (рыбный пруд). <…> there is only one goose farm in the Bukta poultry soviet farm in Kapsukas District M ir G 1981 6 18. The word for geese, known from J and Skr according to LKŽ K data (J. Balčikonis’s recording), was unfortunately not used here either. Since paukštunas also corresponds to the older птичий двор, a few words must also be said about other Russian equivalents of двор in Lithuanian. Although двор (besides rūmai and dvaras) means 1. yard, courtyard and 2. farm (and хозяйство), yard BŽ I, these words do not convey the full semantics of Russian двор: гостиный двор — rows of shops, a trading yard (with separate shops) BŽ I, trading house EkŽ, trading house [hall], shopping quarter, rows of shops (in a special building) LmŽ I, товарный двор — goods station, yard BŽ I, постоялый двор — inn BŽ I, inn yard EkŽ, лесной двор — timber and firewood depot BŽ I, арматурный двор — reinforcement yard BŽ I, литейный двор — foundry BŽ I, монетный двор — mint BŽ I, coin mint (palace) EkŽ, скотный двор — cattle yard, livestock yard, stockyard, cattle pen BŽ I, barn, cattle yard ŽŪŽ, barn, barns LmŽ I, скотопрогонный двор — cattle enclosure, cattle yard ŽŪŽ, выгульный двор — cattle yard ŽŪŽ, LmŽ I, лаидараѕ ŽŪMŽ. (LTE VI — cattle yard, cattle pen). Although the Lithuanian equivalents show some variation, from the perspective of semantic calquing Russian двор has produced here mostly clear, non-deforming designations. Among the more important ones, mention should be made of the calquing and interference involving товарный двор, e.g.: Paneriai station freight yard VN 1983 177 1, station freight yards and open storage areas VN 1983 250 1. The most relevant case is the calquing of машинный двор in Lithuanian. ŽŪŽ, LmŽ I 216 that is machine yard, ZUMZ — machinery yard. Specialists also call it a machinery yard: It is impossible to operate a fleet of machines and tractors properly without a suitable site or premises<...>. This site, together with the buildings on it, is called the farm machinery yard Ekspl 309. The machinery yard contains parking areas for agricultural machinery, garages, repair workshops, warehouses, a wash station, petroleum-product tanks, and a fire station ibid. It is clear from this that calling machine yard something whose only component part is a parking area is neither accurate nor practically convenient. The second variant — machinery yard — is now the one most commonly used (ŽŪ 1974 2 20, 1975 8 5, T 1973 285 1). Yard is questionable here too: a yard includes parking areas and buildings! The use of the word machinery is now spreading uncontrollably, becoming metaphorical and pluralized. For this reason, we would also object to machinery park T 1973 271 4, ŽŪ 1974 2 13. Neither machine park T 1973 295 3 nor mechanization yard S and A 1973 9 5 is precise. Thus, the three designations that competed with machinery yard even after the publication of the above-mentioned book (Ekspl) in 1972 are all unsatisfactory. The overly widespread, polysemous word farm would not work here either. Station, again, would undesirably evoke the still-remembered machine and tractor stations as well as many other kinds of stations. But the very title of the book — Operation of the Machine-Tractor (=Machine and Tractor) Fleet — itself raises the simplest question: why was the most natural designation not used here, namely machine and tractor fleet? After all, a fleet is not only 4. “a set of vehicles,” but also 3. “a place for parking and repairing vehicles (<...>)” DŽ₂! But the calquing of машинный двор took effect, and we became confused… Russian завод in the sense of “an enterprise engaged in production or extraction, a workplace” has numerous Lithuanian equivalents besides gamyklos — darykla (завод, мастерская LŽ): brewery (пивоварный завод), cf. aludaris (пивовар→Pivoras), brewing; winery (винодельческий, винный завод, винозавод), cf. vynudarys, winemaking, degintdaris; meadery (мёдодельческий завод), cf. midudaris; yeast factory (дрожжевой завод); butter factory (маслодельный завод, маслозавод); cheese factory (сыродельный, сыроваренный завод); soap works (мыловаренный завод), cf. Muldaris (<muildaris); varykla (2. перегонный завод LŽ): distillery (винокуренный завод, винный завод); oil refinery (нефтеперегонный завод); virykla (2. завод для варки чего-л. LŽ): soap works (мыловаренный завод); lydykla (smelting plant): steelworks (сталеплавильный завод); foundry (литейный завод): steel foundry (сталелитейный завод); cast-iron foundry (чугунолитейный завод); ore works (горный завод); deg ykla: lime kiln (известковый завод); dairy (молочный завод, маслозавод); cheese dairy (сыродельный, сыроваренный завод); brickworks (кирпичный завод); gasworks (газовый завод); limeworks (известковый завод); sawmill (лесопильный завод). Russian also has synthetic designations. They are used alongside завод, e.g.: сыроварня, плавильня, литейная, лесопильная, or exist only on their own, 217 e.g.: маслобойня — oil press, oil mill, воскобойня — wax-melting works, солеварня — salt-boiling works, evaporation works, смолокурня — tar works, дегтярня — tar works, tar works. Taking only a brief look at Polish, we see perhaps even greater syntheticity: конный завод — stud farm, пивоваренный завод — brewery, сахарный завод — sugar factory, цементный завод — cement plant, нефтеперерабатывающий cf. нефтеперегонный завод — oil refinery, брикетная фабрика — briquette factory, трикотажная фабрика — knitting mill, бумажная фабрика — paper mill, paper factory Słow tech. Although there are many Lithuanian equivalents for Russian завод, semantic induction has a leveling effect. Leveling affects almost equally both new, emerging names and older ones. The recommendations of linguists and specialist terminologists are disregarded, and linguistic intuition is ignored. Although as early as 1959 PolŽ translated нефтеперегонный завод as naftos varykla, and although the linguist K. J. Ambrasas-Sasņava used naftos valykla L ir M 1974 6 12, it failed to take hold. The more humane naftos perdirbimo įmonė T 1973 164 2, 181 3, 248 1, 257 2, 269 2, 271 3, 286 3, 289 2, Šv 1973 19 11, M ir T 1974 5 18, naftos valymo įmonė T 1980 32 3, lasted a little longer, but was overshadowed by naftos perdirbimo gamykla T 1973 44 2, 153 1, 159 4, 248 3, 269 2, 281 3, 289 2, 1983 274 4, Šv 1973 18 3, 22 5, 1974 5 7, 11 6, M ir T 1974 6 31, 1975 3 42, 45, MG 1973 6 11 (interweaving with naftos perdirbimo įmone in increasingly variable and inhumane ways — T 1973 127 2, L ir M 1973 22 5, and being further muddled by naftos produktų perdirbimo įmonės T 1973 204 2), naftos valymo gamykla Šv 1975 7 24, LŪ 1975 10 319, naftos destiliavimo gamykla LŪ 1975 2 62, simply naftos gamykla T 1973 131 1, naftos perdirbimo kombinatas T 1973 192 4, 269 2, 278 3, naftos perdirbimo kompleksas VN 1975 207 3, T 1978 190 3, 205 1, 1979 14 4, 1980 202 1, P 1981 2 10. There is even naftos perpy­limo gamykla (alongside — įmonė) Šv 1974 2 14, dujų perdirbimo gamykla T 1973 290 3, dujų suskystinimo gamykla LŪ 1975 4 123. Семеочистительный завод is translated as sėklų valymo fabrikas in ŽUMŽ, but we cannot come up with sėklų valykla. Plytinė is replaced by plytų gamykla Šv 1974 23 2, M ir T 1974 10 11, 1976 9 23, keramikos gamykla: Palemono keramikos gamykla T 1973 239 3, Šv 1974 11 7, M ir T 1974 5 18, 6 14. Drenažo vamzdžių gamykla T 1973 273 2, Šv 1974 8 14, 16 is likewise translated as keramikos gamykla: Tauragės keramikos gamykla T 1973 285 1, Šv 1974 8 14, 11 7. Thus keramikos (or even keraminė T 1973 246 2) gamykla becomes an unclear, imprecise name (only dailiosios keramikos gamykla M ir T 1974 5 21 is understandable). It is difficult to convince certain language users (and even those who determine official usage) that хлебозавод in Lithuanian is not duonos gamykla M ir T 1974 6 14: after all, even a university textbook cannot avoid duonos gamyba ŽUPT 13 (also miltų gamyba ibid. 99, krupų gamyba ibid. 123), while newspapers keep producing duoną or baking duonos ir pyrago gaminiai VN 1983 274 1. What does this look like against the duonos augintojų, duonutės žydėjimo fo­ne? Хлебозавод should simply be kepykla. It is wrong to think that kepyk- 218 la means only (хлебо)пекарня, whereas хлебозавод is a mechanized bakery ZŪZ. The name “bread bakery” is redundant LP 1978 7 4. Modifiers are equally unnecessary for a carding works, felting works, pickling works, and so on. A specifying modifier is needed only when absolutely necessary: (weaving) loom, (spinning) wheel. Along with this, the names of the corresponding occupations and specialists are also leveled and transformed. Kepėjas is translated as duonos ir pyrago gaminių kepėjas T 1973 159 4 (one wonders what sort of term for a virėjas will be invented in the future). As sūrinė T 1973 66 2 and sūrių darykla Šv 1978 9 30 become less common, so too do sūrininkas, “cheese maker, specialist,” LKG I 407, and sūrininkystė ibid. 310. Plytininkas, “brick maker,” LKG I 407, is translated as keramikas T 1973 285 1. As vėlykla dwindles, it is no longer vėluba that emerges, but even vėlinių gamyba (валяльное производство) ZŪZ; with no cukraus viryklos, сахароварение is only “sugar production” ZŪZ. Nevertheless, words such as darykla, varykla, virykla are now experiencing a slight revival and gaining currency, and are somewhat holding back the expansion of gamykla. They are also supported by other derivatives with the suffix -ykla that function more firmly: skalbykla, valykla, valgykla, although some—siuvykla, mezgykla, audykla, verpykla—themselves need support and cultivation, especially in official usage and administrative names. Today this is done more by ethnography and the history of technology than by industry: There are already windmills, a wool-cloth fulling mill, an oil press, a wool carding mill, and so on in the museum. But many technological objects are still waiting to be transferred to the museum. These include brickworks, lime kilns, tar works, and various other devices and machines KB 1983 3 48. Today it is difficult to say exactly who built Kaunas’s very first “factory,” and when. Perhaps it was a wax-melting workshop, recently excavated in Town Hall Square? Maybe some enterprising craftsman had set up a pottery or a sword forge in the castle’s lower town N 1973 8 6. In the seventeenth century alone, 1,500 people worked at the salt-boiling works here <...> KB 1983 3 68. Sugar beet cultivation was nothing new in those days. The list of domestic sugar factories in Zigmanto Pšyremblio’s book “Dzieje cukrownictwa na Litwie” (“The History of Sugar Production in Lithuania”) includes the localities of Plungėnai and Vaitkuškiai M ir G 1983 11 30. Bread bakeries operated in the villages of Paliepis, Macevičiai, and Pertakas M ir G 1977 9 13. One hundred years ago: the Russian Empire newspapers “Nowoje wremia” (“New Times”) and “Nowosti” (“News”) published complaints by Vilnius residents, who wrote that, besides the numerous vodka distilleries in the city, which were bringing hardship to families, several more had appeared VN 1983 275 6. Most importantly, the people’s sense of the living language has not yet grown dull. For example, the Kazlų Rūda Experimental Wood Products Combine is widely called plokštynas (“plate works,” from plokštė ‘board’) in the town and surrounding area. A more unusual case is remonto gamykla (← ремонтный завод) T 1973 198 2, T 1974 185 2: automobilių remonto gamykla T 1973 296 2, autore m on to gamykla T 1973 49 2, 198 2, S 1974 68 4, M ir T 1974 6 26, 27, remonto mechaninė gamykla T 1973 64 1, 86 1, 180 4, laivų remonto gamykla T 1973 205 2, S ir A 1973 9 12, 13. The essential point is not changed by the fact that in them 219 some details are also being manufactured: Such clamps are planned to be manufactured in the future at the Kuršėnai Mechanical Repair Plant T 1973 202 2. In Lithuanian, this is remonto įmonė. Remonto dirbtuvė (← ремонтная мастерская) has the defect of semantic incongruity: мастерская (: мастер, cf. also мастерить) is motivated differently from dirbtuvė (: dirbti). Мастерская means dirbtuvė, but ремонтная мастерская is better rendered in Lithuanian as taisykla. There are now many taisyklių; the younger generation may not even know that they appeared only two decades ago, following the urging of linguist V. Grinaveckis13. It may now even seem strange that there was a word taisyti (although it was being displaced by the international word remontuoti), but there was no taisyk-los; why the productive pattern (-ykla:-ti) did not work; why the semantic absurdity remonto dirbtuvė was tolerated. Is it not time to hope for more? It is difficult to predict, but language must also be nurtured. If there are diminutive forms įmonėlė, gamyklėlė, dirbtuvėlė, we should not be surprised if taisyklelė also appears, and taisykla acquires the meaning ‘large repair enterprise’. A needed word, an apt neologism, does not always appear in time; it often comes somewhat late. Are we late this time? According to the data in LKŽ K, an attempt was made to use taisykla with a similar meaning 50 years ago: The repair shop in Alexandria, to which I drove my car to have it checked, belonged to a European (Salius M. Among 40 Nations as a Guest.— K., 1935, vol. 2, p. 4). Motor repair shop (ibid., vol. 1, p. 169). A new word is an event in the history of thought (V. Zhukovsky). Unfortunately, not always in the history and present of the thing itself. The age of the international (auto)service has arrived—how could that Lithuanian taisykla possibly keep up… The third partial conclusion is similar to the first: of the corresponding models in the two languages—Lithuanian -ynas/-ykla/-inė//ūkis/kiemas and Russian завод/двор//-(ар)ник/-(ар)ня—the synthetic model elements -ynas/-ykla/-inė are incomparably more characteristic of Lithuanian, while analytic elements завод/двор predominate in Russian. An analysis of numerous examples of the small-scale model and a synthesis of the partial conclusions make it possible to draw the following general conclusions: 1. Under the broad induction of Russian производство, завод, as well as хозяйство, дело, двор (reinforced by interference), the much more analytic Russian-language model (phrases and derivatives) is sometimes transferred rather mechanically into Lithuanian, for which the synthetic model (suffixal derivatives) is much more characteristic here. Thus, the naming of reality in another language collides with the categorization of reality already grounded in one’s own language. 2. The collision between the external form of another language and the internal form of one’s own language, which has not been without painful lessons—in plain terms, serious calquing errors—confirms the importance of a thorough, subtle understanding of the semantics of both the source language and the native langu- 13 Grinaveckis V. Dirbtuvė ir taisykla.— Kalbos kultūra, 1965, sąs. 8, p. 35—36. Kita reikšme taisykla dar 1937 m. yra siūlęs P. Skardžius: knygrišykla (geriau būtų knygų rišykla; bet ir šis žodis nėra geriausias: knygas paprastai ne rišame, bet taisome, apdarome, tad dar geriau būtų: knygų taisykla, darykla (Gimtoji kalba, 1937, p. 159). Knygų taisykla neprigijo, ją bandė vartoti tik S. Dabušis (Faradiejus Mykolas. Populiarioji chemija.— K., 1939, p. 8.). 220 age, of understanding the motivation of induced names, and of having a feel for both languages. 3. In seriously undertaking the regulation of names affected by induction and interference (and monitoring their use), one must proceed from the concept, from the internal form to the term, rather than from a foreign-language term, from its external form to the Lithuanian one. The extent of the danger of the latter approach can be demonstrated by the name for a ‘deciduous forest’: in Russian it is чернолесье, in Lithuanian baltmiškis. A letter-for-letter translation of чернолесье as juodmiškis would be a travesty: Lithuanian juodmiškis actually means ‘coniferous forest’ 14. ABBREVIATIONS БСЭз XXI— Большая Советская Энциклопедия. 3-е изд.— М., 1975, т. 21. Bt — Domestic Life. BZ I and II — Russian–Lithuanian Dictionary / Compiled by V. Baronas, V. Galinis.— V., 1967, vols. 1 and 2. DŽ₁ — Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas.— V., 1954. DŽ₂ — Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas.— V., 1972. Ekspl — A s t r a u s k a s J. et al. Operation of the Machine and Tractor Fleet.— V., 1972. EkŽ — Rusiškai lietuviškas ekonomikos terminų žodynas.— V., 1966. Galv — Š l e i v a J., S a v u k y n a s A. Cattle Breeding.— V., 1970. JG — Ranks of Youth. KB — Cultural Forums. KV — Vilnius Speaks. L and M — Literature and Art. LK — B a s a l y k a s A. Landscape of the Lithuanian SSR.— V., 1977. LKG I — Lietuvių kalbos gramatika.— V., 1965, t. 1. LKŽ — Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language.— V., 1941—1981, vols. 1—12 (and its abbreviations). LKŽ K — Card index of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. LmŽ I — Russian–Lithuanian Dictionary / Compiled by Ch. L e m c h e n a s.— V., 1982, vol. 1. LP — Lithuanian Pioneer. LTE — Lithuanian Soviet Encyclopedia.— V., 1976—1983, vols. 1—10. LŪ — People's Economy. LŽ — L y b e r i s A. Lithuanian–Russian Dictionary.— V., 1971. MG — Our Nature. M and G — Science and Life. M and T — Science and Technology. MLTE II — Mažoji lietuviškoji tarybinė enciklopedija.— V., 1968, t. 2. N — Nemunas. ОС— Обратный словарь русского языка.— М., 1974. P — Victory. PolŽ — Rusų—lietuvių kalbų politechninis žodynas.— V., 1959. S — Sports. S and A — Construction and Architecture. Slow tech — Wielki słownik techniczny rosyjsko-polski.— Warszawa—Москва, 1973. 14 After the presentation on this topic, delivered at the 1983 Vilnius Regional Theoretical and Methodological Seminar (Symposium), I learned from colleagues (V. Vitkauskas and others) that Professor J. Balčikonis used to like to work with this example (unfortunately, I never attended his lectures myself). 221 СРЯ— Ожегов С. И. Словарь русского языка.— М., 1973. ССРЛЯ— Dictionary of the Modern Russian Literary Language.— M.—L., 1948—1965, vols. 1—17. Sv — Svyturys. T — Tiesa. TAS — Directory of subscribers to the Vilnius city telephone network. Telephone numbers of institutions, enterprises, and organizations.— V., 1979. TM — Soviet Woman. VGP — Respublikinė veislinių gyvulių paroda.— V., 1971. VN — Evening News. ŽŪ — Agriculture. ŽŪŽ — Anskaitis V., Kilas M. Dictionary of Russian–Lithuanian Agricultural Terms.— V., 1971. ŽŪMŽ — Dictionary of Russian–Lithuanian Agricultural Mechanization Terms / Compiled by V. Gerulaitis, S. Lukėnas.— V., 1983. ŽŪPT — Kuzmienė G., Pažarauskienė J. Žemės ūkio produktų technologija.— V., 1969. In the text, the numerals indicate book volumes and pages, and the years, issue numbers, and pages of newspapers and journals. SEMANTIC CALQUING AND LESSONS IN MOTIVATION Summary A systemic analysis of one field of semantic induction (in the broad sense of this term) leads to the conclusion that, in the process of induction, the receiving (calquing) language displays activity just as it does in the process of borrowing. This is not a mechanical transfer of source-language models (which is characteristic of interference), but a search for adequate models in the native language. In the process of induction, Russian production, factory (as well as economy, business, yard)—a more analytic model of Russian (phrases and compound words)—is quite often mechanically transferred into Lithuanian, where a more synthetic model (suffixal formations) is characteristic. The collision of the external form of Russian with the internal form of Lithuanian, which occurs not without painful lessons and gross calquing errors, confirms the importance of a thorough, nuanced knowledge of the semantics of both the source language and the native language, of observing the motivation of induced words (names), and of a feel for both languages. When seriously engaged in standardizing names that are under the influence of induction (and interference), and observing how they function, one must proceed from the concept and internal form to the name, rather than from a foreign-language word and its external form to the name. The scale of the danger of the latter approach can be illustrated by the name for a deciduous forest—in Russian this is чернолесье, in Lithuanian baltmiškis (literally, “white forest”). A literal translation of Russian чернолесье as juodmiškis is sheer profanation: Lithuanian juodmiškis means “coniferous forest.” Calques are concealed borrowings (R. Budagov). Exposing their “concealed” nature helps avoid such dangers.