S. Šalkauskio terminologijos teorija

LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE SPECIAL LEXICON LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE QUESTIONS, XXII (1983) K. GAIVENIS THE THEORY OF TERMINOLOGY BY S. ŠALKAUSKI 1. Introductory remarks Prof. S. Šalkauskis (1886—1941) — a famous bourgeois figure of our society and a philosopher of the neo-Scholastic direction? —terminology became interested while studying at Moscow University. He was encouraged to do this work by R. Bytautas (1886—1915), a linguist and publicist who studied at the same university in 1905—1912 and was a member of the RSDDP. Bytautas had written several important articles (published in separate books) about the Lithuanian language (e.g., How to pronounce and write foreign words, This and that from the philosophy of the Lithuanian language, etc.). S. Šalkauskis wrote about him: “This dear friend of mine (R. Bytautas. —K. G.) from the Moscow University partially infected me with his ardent love of the question of terminology, and therefore, when speaking about the matter of terminology, I cannot stand without mentioning him as my direct inspiration”. The printed legacy of S. Šalkauskas consists of 2 parts: a) the study of terminology theory” and 2) a four-language (Lithuanian—French—- German—Russian) collection of philosophy terms entitled “General terminology of philosophy”*. In addition, there are fragments of S. Šalkauskas's manuscript dictionary of pedagogical terms. Su. terminology is also partly related to S. Šalkauskas’s research on methodology. 2. Principles of terminology and standardisation 2.1.S. Šalkauskis became interested in the theoretical issues of terminology earlier than he began to standardize Lithuanian terminology in philosophy. He published a comprehensive study on the subject, in which he discussed the essence of the term, its ir characteristics, its sources, categories, and usage characteristics, and ir formulated general rules for its formation in Lithuanian. Explaining the characteristics of the term, its relationship with logical, grammatical and philosophical categories, S. Šalkauskis mainly relied on the Dunso The (1265—1308) Scotto Shop Grammatica speculativa ir by French linguists, e.g. : M. Brealio (1832 —1915) "Try the de séman-! For more on his philosophical views, see here. Plečkaitis R., Šliogeris A. Influence of Vladimir Solovyov’s Philosophy Stasys Šalkauskas' worldview in the pre-Fribourg period. !—- Lietuvos The Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Serie A, 1973, vol. 4(45); Sverdiolas A. The Problem of Culture and Religion In the works of Stasys Šalkauskas. — Idem, 1978, t. 4(65); as well as his. The concept of man In the Philosophy of Culture by Stasys Šalkauskas. — Idem, 1978, t. 1(62). * Šalkauskis S. Theory of terminology ir Lithuanian terminology of philosophy. — Logos, no. 1927, '1,p.’ }: * Ibid., No. 1935, 1; 1927, No. 1, 2; 1934, No. 1; Mother tongue, 1935, No. 4. + Šalkauskis S. General terminology of philosophy. — Logos, no. 1937, 2; 1938, No. 1. 128 tigue“, Ž. Vandrijeso (1875—1960) ‘La Language" ir kt.fS. Šalkauskas’s linguistic preparation for terminology work was not entirely be flawed, so the linguists of the to time — J. Balčikonis, A. Salys, P. Skardžius — jo have somewhat corrected the articles on theoretical terminology issues. For the same reason, some terms of elementary chemistry ji (e.g. limb, etc.) ir jo articles are used with a slightly different meaning than in linguistic literature in general. 2.2. Speaking about the subject of terminology, Šalkauskis S. emphasized that terminology is not a separate, independent scientific discipline. The term as a word belongs to the grammar science, as a concept to the science of logic. o — Through grammar, the term entered į linguistics, o through logic — į philosophy. S. Šalkauskis was one of iš the first to notice that the word terminology is ambiguous. He wrote: “Lithuanian language can use the words terminija terminologija next to each other in different meanings, whereas du other — languages it usually use — only one word of terminology in the appropriate cases. Because our language uses the ending for a set of homogeneous objects -ija, this terminology correspondingly means the term of the technical art of one of the ar sciences... nų Terminology is the science of terminology, or at least a theory.”* Terminology is a S. special part of semantics. In this sense of terminology, Šalkauskis, S. obviously, had to draw two general conclusions: that the progress of science narrows the concept of 1) the term itself, that the term is inseparable from the concepts of sign and ir 2) concept. ir In this context, the term "sign" refers to the two types of signs: natural signs (signum naturale) and conventional signs (signum arbitrarium seu conventionale). ir In other respects, signs may be formal (signum guo) in instrumental ir (signum ex guo). Finally, there are still the revealing signs ji ir (suppositional manifestation et sign). Based on this concept of signs, S. Šalkauskis gave the following definitions of language, writing, word and term: I) “Language is a system of agreed signs that serves the purpose of communication”; 2) “A scripture, or a system of scripts (Latin scriptura or sriptio), is a set of written signs for representing words”; 3) “Words are revealing signs for concepts and representing signs for objects”; 4) “A term is a word meaning a concept having a special meaning for some subject of science.” Thus, in the words of S. Šalkauskas, “a term is always a verbal sign, representing a thing and revealing a concept, although not all such words are terms. In order for such a word sign to become a term, it must enter the field of some science and be scientifically processed.- ”“* Such a concept of the term, terminology and terminology at the time was at a fairly high level. 2.3. S. Šalkauskis distinguished 3 main sources of terminology: 1) living human language; 2) an inventory of word-making tools and 3) other languages. These sources of terminology are sometimes mentioned even today, although in reality such a division is not entirely justified. It is more accurate to talk only about 2 main sources of terminology (the vocabulary of one’s own language and other languages) or to talk about the methods of terminology rather than about their sources, because: (a) terminological innovations may be made using both popular words and borrowed and international words; and b) compounds (biwords and polywords) š Šalkauskis S. Terminology theory... —Logos, 1927, No. 1, p. 1. ¢ Ibid., p. 6 et seq. 5. 1019 129 terms can be created as constant word combinations only ne of iš different words, but ir iš combinations of words and symbols. 2.3.1. The word "People's language" used as a scientific term, in S. Šalkauskas's words, “scientifically processed” or, in modern terms, terminologised. — To describe the terminology of ready-made words, Šalkauskis S. used jo 'tisso'" (extension) ir the concepts of ‘capacity’ (comprehensio). Jo In his view, “the term tysa is measured by all those individuals that are covered by the notion’s tysa, the capacity of o the term is measured by all those signs that make up the capacity of the notion”. The term tisa coincides su jo in meaning, o jo Capacity — su meaning. As the capacity increases, the tension o decreases, the meaning of the term becomes more jo complex, the meaning narrows, i.e. restricted to a smaller number of subjects. Understanding terminology in this way, Šalkauskis S. emphasized that ,,uniaprasmiy terms should not be confused with su unambiguous terms. Unequivocal is a term with respect to the concept that į lies at the base; univocal is a term in relation jo to another term in which it has an equal meaning, in other words, applies to the į same or the same things. A su single-meaning term has at its basis one concept, means in one sense a whole series of things. Unequivocal terms, meaning the same or the same things, tą express different concepts about them and therefore have different meanings. Unable to cope ir su ‘univocal’ ir with the concepts of “mononymous” S. terms, Šalkauskis used an intermediate ir concept of — analogous terms. — In discussing the latter terms, he relied on the analogies of scholastic logic: 3 analogia proportionis, analogia proportionalitatis analogia attributionis. ir These analogies were necessary for him when speaking about the terminology of ready-made words of the folk language in the following ways: the extension of the meaning of a word Terminology 3 was considered by a) Šalkauskis to be a non-ending process, because b) the content of the term is constantly ir c) supplemented with new features. In general, S. terminology passes through the following genetic stages: Formation of the term etymological basis ,,1) iš ir jo explanation in synonyms; nominal 2) discussion of the term, based on the literal basic meaning; the ir nominal subdivision of jo the term, if 3) the term has more than one meaning; refinement of the understanding of the term (precision), by defining more strictly the 4) capacity of meaning jo ir jo In general, Šalkauskas’s 5) concept of the termology of ready-made words was rather confusing, su logistically too separated from the general processes of special linguistic S. semantics. ir ir Terminology he understood only as an action did not pay attention ir į ją as an į event. Be therefore, the process of terminology cannot be successfully analyzed without linking dialectical contradiction with jo su determinology. — 2.3.2. Speaking about the terminology innovations, S. Šalkauskis distinguishes 2 jų methods of production: "inventing new words" (hydrogen) ir "word-crunching" (doors). In the case of the už prefix, the ending is more important. S. Šalkauskis also notes that the more complicated the suffix is, the more it is „konkreti7 S. Šalkauskis wrote "silent", but we šį jo adapt the term to the current spelling. * Šalkauskis S. Theory of terminology ..., p. 11 tt. * Ibid., No. 1925, 1, p. 21. 130 the concept of ji “other matters” means. He also understood the ending of the word — in his own way: the ending for him is the part of the word jo that goes from the root to the end. Complex multi-faceted suffixes are the ir most suitable for terminology. S. Šalkauskis discerningly observed that the prefix ir suffix rarely participates in the creation of new words, saying: „the prefix tends to bypass the suffix, and, be conversely, the suffix seems to coexist badly with the prefix“. su That is a wise observation. Following A. The Leskyno shop ‘The Formation of the Nomina im Litauischen“ (1891), S. Šalkauskis is the first to examine the categories of terms ir jų ways of expression. He gives the following definition of the category of terms: “A category of terms is something else for us ne than a group of terms, typical by their gender, usually by their adverbs. — ga ir corresponding to a group of concepts having some commonality.’ Following Aristotelian logic, he distinguishir es between substance and subject, and — substance ir and object. — Classifying in more detail, in both cases he distinguishes po 4 categories: substance — subject action — subject, event determination subject, quality — subject relationship subject; object of ir action of the substance object, — secondary — material, tool-means container object. ir S. Šalkauskis described in detail the inventory of the means of production of these categories of terminology. As a result of the strict iš application of the principle of analogy, ir Šalkauskis criticized some of the terms of the time. S. to He particularly disliked the Lithuanian names of the lions. Šalkauskis wrote S. about them as follows: “On this occasion, it is necessary to state that our su -nik is formed quite unsuccessfully. First of all, the ending -nik is used in them in an untypical way. ku In the most typical sense of this ending, the noun should mean the name of a person who cares about the name; a person who cares about ancestry; a ar man who cares about — his own benefit; a man who occupies a powerful position; a person who — performs the function of a servant; a person who lives in a place for a long — time, who takes someone else's place; shouter a person who expresses — himself by shouting, who only cares to shout. — — These terms could mean the word "slang" at least by analogy with the underwear crew. su ar It is clear that this terminology, based on a highly dubious analogy, goes against the natural tendency typical of ir our ką language. Be therefore, those things according to which the funny acquire their pronouns in this case, namely: name, origin, benefit, end, ending, place, shout, in the greatest part of them, except for the place, are for the funny an occasional occasion ar to be called so differently. Only the pronoun is named according to the general and essential verb mark. All other pronouns are purely random. Nevertheless, calling the vowels nominal, adjective, noun, final, indefinite, local, vocal would be better than calling them noun, adjective, etc.” These critical jų remarks of S. Šalkauskas ir were only partially correct, because the names of the possessors of noun characteristics — derived from the adverb -ininkas — are not only names of persons, but also names of inanimate objects. ir Be therefore, -nik suffixes are made not only from nouns, but also from verbs, adjectives, numerals. 10 Ibid., No. 1934, 1, p. 6. 11 In addition, the first two p. 35. 3 131 S. Šalkauskis wrote not quite correctly about the term tartis: “The tarnish that has taken hold among artists is not justified at all. This word could only have an analogy with gyvena and rietenos (in the sense of eating), which also do not mean concrete objects. But if the tarena should mean the way of pronunciation, then it usurps in a completely unjustifiable way the entirely legitimate and typical dialect, which by analogy with running, walking, writing should mean the way of pronunciation. The proposed conjunction here cannot replace the conjunction, because being a conjunction of the named verb to communicate, communicate designates a pure action, saying nothing about the way; and when you want to express the moment of diction, it is important to emphasize the way of pronunciation. Thus, diction in Lithuanian is called only the dialect Word"*! ?, In modern linguistics, however, the term pronunciation is used. The -tis adverbs are usually more specific than the -imas or -ymas adverbs in the abstract. There are derivatives of this suffix that have acquired a very specific meaning (e.g. station, obstacle, etc.). From all these observations it can be concluded that S. Šalkauskas’s separation of categories of terms and adaptation of means of word formation to represent them was a new word in terminology at the time, but he: 1) did not cover and systematize neither the variety of terms nor the variety of simple word formation; 2) did not examine the cases of specialization of means of production according to individual fields of science, which was already clearly tangible in the production of terms at that time. Word formation examines 3 closely related but still different things: word composition, the relationship of related words and the creation of new words. ir ir Su subjects are mainly dealt with by teachers of higher education, the ir third must be of particular concern to o terminologists and language cultivators. ir Although S. Šalkauskas- 's terminology theory focused on uses, he did not write much about creation, mainly jų discussing the semantic relationships between o related words. ir 2.3.3. Borrowing terms from iš other languages is — an inevitable necessity. There ir can be no single nė language that is completely pure. S. Šalkauskis says that the borrowing of words from a iš language į into another is as common in the history of languages as the migration of peoples in ir world history. Speaking about borrowings in terminology, Šalkauskis quite rightly S. distinguishes between the following 2 cases: the replacement of established borrowings with own words, the ir introduction of foreign new į words into the language. In the first S. case, Šalkauskis is a cautious ir jZvaldus. He writes in: “Therefore, particularly rich in their content terms, which have long traditions in the international communication of mankind, meet near relationships in many close concepts, do not have to be ir replaced by new į ones, which usually only suggest su content as much as etymologically can have such creating semantic origins as root, suffix prefix”! *, In the second case, it is superficial, because it states that a foreign word should be jo borrowed then, “when the required term cannot be obtained either by adapting a word of the common language of the People, or by forming a new term by drill or ir drawing from a word of the common language of the People.” — “13, This is a shallow opinion, because there iš are no cases where the means of production are incapable of producing an equivalent to a term in another language. Another thing is that it is ne always advisable to change a new word with a new word. This depends not only on linguistic, ne but on extralinguistic circumstances, ibid., No. ir 1 1934, 1, p. 45. 13 Ibid., No. 1927, 1, p. 25. 132 2.4. Words that have ir į entered the terminology of the scientific language do not become rigid in semantic terms, they continue to o change. In terminology, all the main semantic processes polysemy, synonymy, antonymy, — etc. are expressed specifically. ir ŠalkauskaS. s’ interesting idea that the meaning of a term depends on the context (contrary to 1959 m. A. Reformatsky's opinion, but coinciding su 1977 m. V. Danilenko's opinion). When discussing the use of the term in a particular context, Šalkauskis introduces S. the term of supposition, defining it as follows: jį “The supposition of a term is its jo use in place of the thing for which it is a substitute”! *, He distinguishes several types of supposition, first of all the material formal supposition — (suppositio materialis ir formalis). et These assumptions cannot be substituted for each other. The second assumption is į divided ir into a more logical real (suppositio realis et logica). Reasoning when a real assumption is replaced by a logical one (or vice versa), cannot be correct. The real supposition in turn is divided into the singular į common ir supposition (suppositio singularis et communis) o and the latter — į into the ir absolute relative or personal et supposition (suppositio absoluta relativa sive personalis). The comparative general supposition can be a universal (suppositio universalis) ir partial (suppositio particularis) ir t.t. Such a detailed division of the subspecies of the proposition did not adequately explain the characteristics of contextual S. use of the term, even more so that Šalkauskis illustrated them with logical statements, ne considering as terms only general but ir precise Words. 2.5. Šalkauskas's S. great contribution to our terminology was that he was the first to attempt to formulate the basic principles of term making. He formulated these principles on the basis of the aforementioned theoretical studies of the term features of the term sources. ir Not to see that, in drawing up these principles, he had used J. Emphasis, J. Grinius, F. Butkevičius ir et al. works of authors, which also formulated the principles of terms management in individual fields of science. S. Šalkauskis tried to establish common principles for the creation of terms in all branches of science, į 3 groups: 1) ancient principles, 2) principles of ir 3) innovation, principles of evolution. The principles of the first group concern the past of the language. They are two: it is not appropriate a) to borrow a foreign term, nor to produce a new one of its own, if it is possible to satisfactorily adapt a word of human language for the purpose of science ir b) no word established in language may be removed for clearly justified iš reasons of scientific be circulation. The first prinHe called the €cip the principle of maximum utilization, the second o the principle — of traditional empowerment. There are three principles of the second group: a) iš of two newborns or borrowed ones, the one that allows more derivative sexes to be made is more acceptable, all other things being equal; each novelty taken in the scientific term must be composed according to b) the typical features of the category of the relevant concepts; of two new words or borrowings, the one that better meets the aesthetic requirements of the c) iš language is more acceptable, all other things being equal. The first of these principles S. Šalkauskis called the principle of maximum utility, the second the — principle of typicality, the third the principle of — aesthetics. The principles of the third group are two: gi categorical termination, a) i.e. the use of typical endings for the production of terms according to the respective categories of concepts, must be kept alive in the language circulation consistently ir developed to the limits of its right; necessarily when necessary b) words meaning- © M Ibid., No. 1927, 1, p. 29 tt. | 133 , both in their new application and in a separate context, must be altered in ir ways that can be justified by the laws of the science of linguistic logic. ir The first principle of this group Šalkauskis S. called the principle of categorical ending, the second the principle of o changing — the meaning and meaning of words. These S. principles of Šalkauskas were significantly original ir at the time. Some of them, especially the first (ancient) group principles, have not lost relevance to today's ir terminology. 3. General terminology of philosophy 3.1. Lithuanian terms of philosophy began to be collected by prof. V. Sezeman 1935 m. At the time Lithuanian language societies (LKD) Terminology Section (TS) Philosophy "its terminology was entrusted to Prof. S. Šalkauskis. He was very close to Prof. Dr. Th. V. Sezeman's collection, ir this work was jo considered during the 35 LKD TS meetings with the participation of to famous linguists of the time J. Balčikoniui, A. Saliui ir P. To the coffin. 1937 m. considered terms were systematized printed in ir the journal ‘Logoes’ (No. 2), o subsequently issued ir with a separate stamp. S. The work of Šalkauskas "General Terminology of Philosophy" iš 2 consists of 1) parts: quadrilingual (Lithuani- — an — French German —Russian) dictionary and the German version published in jo the ‘Logos’ 1938 m., ir 2) a set of ir example explanations, where groups of ar terms are discussed 302 in more detail (in his own terms, semantic families), Šalkauskas’ dictionary S. contains only Lithuanian terms of philosophy, so many special names of concepts of this field of science are not found in it. All English terms are P. In addition to the commonly o used forms, there are some more important forms: noun singular ir possessor, noun plural possessor, — present past tense of ir verbs. — ir Terms are presented in significant groups according to alphabetical order, but this is always strictly ne observed. Most of the terms in this glossary are terminological words of — literary language, but there are some new ones. ir Šalkauskis S. says in the draft agreement that the rų new J. Vabalas-Gudaitis ir A. Warns. It seems that ir ŠalkauskS. is himself has created jų a lot. For example, the following terms are considered to be novelties: passionate (passionnė, leidenschaftlich, cmpacmuwii), supernatural, -čio (surnature, Ūbernatur, ceepxsecmecmeennas o6aacmy), aftlaikis, -io (surtemps, Uberzeit, céepxepems), aritsąmonė (sourconscience, Urberbewusstsein, ceepxcosunanue), atdaira, -0s (égard, respect, Riicksicht, Achtung, yeankenue,), atpareigdjimas (dispėnse, exemption, Dispensation, Entbindung, oceo6ooxdenue obazannocmu), gyvėnžiūra (conception vie, Lebensanschauung, om »cu3neco3epyanue), išmana, -os de (intelligence, Verstūndnis, nonumanue, pasymenue), madness, -čio (conclusion, syllogisme, Vernunftschluss, ymo3axmouenue), mąstinys (0bjekt pensée, Denkgegenstand, de npeomem mvuusenusn), pažinys (object connaissance, de Erkenntnisgegenstand, npedmem nosuanus), knowledge, -io (pleasure, Lust, yoosoascmeue) kt. ir Many of the innovations mentioned here have not been adopted either in the terminology of philosophy or in our literary language. Some of the other terms presented by S. Šalkauskas were novelties, but not created by him, or words of human language, e.g.: atveika, -Gs (réaction, Reaktion, Gegenwirkung, peaxyus, npomusodeiicmeue) 134 — J. Baron or P. Oatmeal remaking, substance (matiere, substance, Stoff, Materie, sewecmso) — J. Jablonski- 's remaking, being (étre, Sein, Selende, cywee, Gbimue) word, used by — Širvydas, Basanavičius, K. Kudirka, J. pavadinimas V. (object sensation, de sensation object, npedmem owywenun) — A. Vireliūno novadaras, ndokrypa (déclinaison, Abweichung, ykion, omkaonenue) — P. Oatmeal remaking ir etc. The second part of Šalkauskas’s “Terminology S. of General Philosophy” is more significant for the theory of terminology, in which he examines groups of related terms. Here S. Šalkauskis indicates what this or that term or word should mean, how it can be translated into other languages, gives examples of contextual use of terms. ti į However, some of the reasoning is jo contradictory. For example, he writes: 165 p. "From the lo ir objective, two equally abundant semantic stems are obtained, namely, of one side: scholarly, scholarlyness, iš scientific, scientific, scientificity, sciences, scholarship, of the other side: purposeful, purposefulness, o iš purposeful, purposeful, purposefulness, precise precision. ir Scientific ir purposeful means the abundance ir of the purpose of science. Scientific ir objective indicates belonging to the field of ir scientific objective; scientific ir objective characterizes the subject-obar ject according to the ar inherent correspondence of the scientific ir objective; science iš objectives refers to one side's į preference for science, o iš the other side — į objective’. 205 p. we find: “Science is one of man’s iš goals. Targeted scientific research requires a system approach. ir In general, in the field of science, the system ir method is the condition of purposefulness. The question of purpose, or objective, is mandatory for every human action. Purposeful is work that has its purpose. The artist deliberately sculpts the shape of a tree. iš The risk of the work of bees is very high. To clarify is to establish the correspondence between the subject ir jo of the objective or norm. In general, the objective is to identify the truth of a statement. ir The objective is a thing inclined to the object, from į the undeviating. jo One can know exactly. są "Awareness is the key to success". iš The second quotation is more accurate. For example, the iš adjective purposeful actually means ne “ampleness of purpose”, but “suitable for purpose, precisely made” etc. ir S. Šalkauskis in this work tried to terminology some folk words to make new ones ir iš jų (e.g., omė, omingas, omingumas, ominis, omiškas, omiškumas; túlas, túleriopas, túleriopumas:; žiūra, žiūrus, žiūrumas etc.), but they have not been ir adopted in the scientific language. Explanatory ir comments cover more terms than are presented in the glossary, e.g.: eternity, definition, jų co-mathematical, basic, sensual, adaptable, etc. ir In regulating the terminology S. of philosophy, Šalkauskis generally took the word, o ne a concept, a lexicon, o ne semem. He classified terminological concepts according to word forms. In this regard, one can even see a contradiction between the concept of terminology categories jo (see section 4.4). 2.3.2.) ir method, on the basis of which he examines the semantic word families of the terminology of general philosophy. 4. Conclusions 4.1. S. Šalkauskis, a — philosopher of the neoscholastic — direction, was interested in terminology while studying the most significant (1905—1911), o works in this field at the Moscow University. (Theory of terminology ir Lithuanian terminology of philosophy, m., 135 "General terminology of ir philosophy" etc.) published by 1925— 1938 teaching Kaunas University. 4.2. Šalkauskis developed the S. theory of terminology, based on the works of ir ancient medieval logicians of the modern times. ir (XX pr.) a. French linguists (M. Brėal, J. Vendryes ir et al.) studies. He was helped by also famous of our to time linguists J. Balčikonis, A. Salys, P. Skardžius. 4.3. S. Terminology theory is a branch of linguistic terminology. Ji touched on all the most important aspects of terminology: the essence of the term, its ir characteristics, its sources, categories, usage characteristics, the basic principles of ir terminology. Originality ir Depth of scientific thought ši jo theory at the time was the European level of science. 4.4. S. The theory of terminology of Šalkauskas is — controversial. Ji has a ir strong, a ir weak side. Its strength is this: 1) S. Šalkauskis correctly distinguished ‘terminology’ ir “terminology” concepts, adequately described the object of terminology and ir its relationship with other related branches su of science; highlighted the main sources of terminology and 2) some important features of its use; formulated the most ir important principles of term creation and standardization; correctly 3) understood the significance of international words for terminology of this kind of terminology 4) relations Lithuanian lexicon etc. ir su ir The weakness of this theory is the following: Šalkauskis did not distinguish between one-word terms and real names 1) composed of logical statements; he S. considered only nouns as terms, but verbs, adverbs; he understood terminology unilaterally, without o mentioning the — dialectical determination of its opposite; due to be remaining unclear terminological relationships in the lexicon of literary ne language; paid too little attention to the specialization of working instruments ir related to the classification of 2) terminological concepts, etc. — to su 3) ir su ja ir Be therefore, the practical activities of S. Šalkauskas in terms management contradict the published theoretical ne principles of nu terminology, TEPMHHOJIOTHUECKAS, jo TEOPUS C. INAJIKAVCKHMCA Pe3iome C. Mankayckuc (1886—1941) — nurosckuii Gypxya3HbIiė OOinecTBeHHbIN aeaTens H (inoco — TEMPERATURE 3aHHTEpecOBAJICA emie roabl y4eObi B B MOCKOBCKOM YHHBEPCHTETC (1905—1911). A B 1925— 1938 rr., yxe Gymyuu npodeccopom KayHacCKOro yHHBepcHTETa, OH ONyO/MKOBaJI CEpHIO HAyYHBIX CTaTelf MO TEOPHH JIHTOBCKON TEPMHHOJIOIHH. B ocroBy csoeii Teopun C. IllankayCKuc MOJIOXHJI YYCHHS AHTHYHBIX M CPEAHEBEKOBHIX OhJIOCOËOB JIOTHKOB H ĒpaHIY3CKHX s3bikoBens Havana XX B. (M. Bréal, J. Vendryes x 11p. ). Tepmuuonoradeckas Teopas C. Illankayckuca xacajach BCX OCHOBHBIX BONPOCOB JIHTOBCKOH TEPMHHOJIOTHH: CATEGORY, CBONCTBA H MCTOMHHKHM TEPMMHOJICKCHKM, ynorpebienue TepMHHOB, OCHOBHBIC FUNCTIONS TEPMHHOTBOPYECTBA H T.J. OpHrHHAILHAA H Hay4HO OOOCHOBAHHASA, now TEODpHA HMEeT ChoonMbInOe 3HAYCHWE KaK UIA JIATOBCKON TEDpMHHOJIOTHH, TaK H JŪIA HCTOPHH TEDMHHOJIOTHH BOOOIme. OnHako OHa npoTHBOpeunsa. C ONHOM CTOPOHSI, B Hell NpaBHJIbHO ONpeJieJIeH 0OBJECT TEDMHHOJIOTHH, He OTOXKIECTBIIAIOTCA SECURITY H TEPMHHOJICKCHKA, NIPABHIbHO OIEHHBAIOTCA WHOCTpaHHBIE CJIOBA H T.J. C Jpyro# CTOPOHEI, €€ aBTOP TEpMHHAMH RETRACT HC TOJILKO MOUTHHHBIE TEPMHHBLI, HO H HMEHA COOCTBEHHBIE, Nake HEKOTOPHIC JIOTHYECKHE TE3HCbI, CBO6€06pa3HO H Y3KO HOSTING TEPMHHOJIOTH3ALAIO, MAY BHHMAHHS YVJIEJISJI KAACCHPUKALMH NoHATHH H T... 136