Lietuvių ir latvių terminologija: istoriniai ryšiai ir gretinamieji tyrimai

169Terminology | 2022 | 29 doi.org/10.35321/term29-09 Lithuanian and Latvian Terminology: Historical Relations and Comparative Studies1 REGINA KVAŠYTĖ Šiauliai Academy of Vilnius University, Institute of Latvian Language of the University of Latvia ORCID id: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7247-7022 INTRODUCTION In the late 1920s and early 1930s – in Latvia in 1919 and in Lithuania in 1921 – the Terminology Commissions established began to organize the terminology of their countries and to develop the theory of Lithuanian and Latvian terminology. It is acknowledged that in this activity both Lithuanian and Latvian terminologists could benefit from the experience of the neighboring country and the data of the second Baltic language. The aim of the study is to discuss historical facts, which testify to the desire of Lithuanian and Latvian terminologists for commonality, as well as comparative studies of Lithuanian and Latvian terminology. 1) to highlight the willingness of Lithuanian and Latvian terminologists to use each other’s experience, which has been reflected in the history of terminology; 2) to systematize data on current comparative studies of Lithuanian and Latvian terminology; 3) to clarify other forms of mutual communication between Lithuanian and Latvian terminologists. Descriptive and referencing methods were applied, research sources were used – Lithuanian and Latvian scientific and popular science publications, as well as periodicals. 1. LITHUANIAN AND LATVIAN TERMINOLOGY HISTORY OF COMMUNITY The historical development of Lithuania and Latvia was determined by different factors, but there were periods when similar processes took place in them. This also applies to terminology, which “began to develop rapidly in the second half of the 19th century, along with the development of the nation and 1 The article was prepared under the project Mūsdienu latviešu valodas lietojums un attīstība (No. VPP-LETONIKA-2022/1-0001) of the 2nd phase of the State Research Programme Letonika latviskas un eiropeiskas sabiedrības attīstībai. Regina Kvašytė170 Lithuanian and Latvian terminology: historical ryšiai ir gretinamieji tyrimai development of a common language, when dawners and bell-bearers in one country, young Latvians in another, and other enlightened people, by publishing articles in periodicals and writing or translating books of scientific content, introduced the public to the achievements of science, began to publish textbooks” (Labanauskienė 2008: 39). At that time there were already works describing the relations between Lithuanian and Latvian languages. Pabrėža’s role was exceptional, because “the handwritten dictionaries of J. A. Pabrėža “Waardaa tayslyynee Augimiu” (1834) and “Taislós augimiu” (1843) contain Latvian plant names – this is the beginning of relations between Lithuanian and Latvian manuscript terminology” (Labanauskienė 2008: 39) (for more on Latvian plant names in spoken dictionary see: Labanauskienė 2004, 2006). Atis Kronvalds (publisher, linguist and educator) and Juris Alunāns (poet, publisher and linguist) used Lithuanian language resources to expand the Latvian language vocabulary. “In the second half of the 19th century, the formation of terminology and the knowledge of languages are extended by manuscript translation dictionaries: the Lithuanian–Latvian Languages Dictionary (1872, not preserved) by Latvian social figure, linguist and writer A. Dyrikis (A. Dīriķis), the Latvian–Lithuanian–Polish Languages Dictionary (about 1875) by Lithuanian ethnographer, priest and linguist A. Juška, who was in close contact with him, and the Lithuanian–Latvian–Polish Languages Dictionary (1894) by linguist, priest M. Miežinis” (Labanauskienė 2008: 42–43) (about Mykolas For more information, see the dictionary. Labanauskienė 2014; for all three dictionaries see. Zemzare 1961). This is part of the work that the Terminology Commissions established in Latvia and Lithuania in the 20th century could rely on for the purposes of researching and managing scientific terminology2. The example of Latvia became an incentive to establish a similar commission in Lithuania (for more on the activities of the first TCs see: Auksoriūtė 2011, 2021; Kvašytė 2021a, 2021b; Kvašīte 2020b). Jonas Jablonskis made a significant contribution to this in the monthly magazine of the Ministry of Education, “Švietimo Darbas”, in December 1920, even before the establishment of the TK, when he presented the latest issue of the Latvian periodical publication Izglītības Ministrijas Mēnešraksts (IMM; the monthly magazine of the Ministry of Education)3, writing: There [in Latvia – aut. past.] is a Terminology Commission, which sets the terms for various ends of science; These commissions are several sections (nature, trade, philosophy, 2 Hereinafter abbreviated respectively LT TK and LV TK or TK. 3 Monthly publication of the Ministry of Education of Latvia published in 1920–1939. 171Terminology | 2022 | 29 case-law, etc.). People who care about these things of society are gathering around Shviet. Min-jo – works in various sections of its terms <...>“ (Jablonskis 1933a: 225)4. Furthermore, J. Jablonskis explains in detail for what purpose and by whom the commission was set up, how it works, how and where the considered terms are published: “In the newspaper, in his notebooks, certain terms are written in Russian, German and Latvian” (Jablonskis 1933a: 225). Although there is a distinction, it should be said that kraščiu pavadintas kalbamasis mėnraštis, kur skelbiami terminų projektai, this was also done in the official newspaper Valdības Vēstnesis (Government Gazette)5. J. Jablonskis also draws attention to the way in which the suitability of the terms adopted by the commission is verified: “When the commission publishes the draft of terms, it appeals to people with knowledge of the subject through the educational newspaper [IMM – aut.] and asks them, if they do not agree with one of the commission’s terms, to give it, instead of another commission’s term, their own terms, more suitable for the ‘lists of terms’ dedicated to the public cause. After receiving observations from the parties up to a certain time (the commission indicates this time in the article of the body), the commission again decides the matter of the disputed terms and finally publishes them for the public interest” (Jablonskis 1933a: 225). J. Jablonskis encourages people to get acquainted with the work of the commission, so that the experience can be taken over in Lithuania: “We can use the Latvian example. Some of you might need to go to Latvia – to get to know this their Shviet on the spot. Min-jo's work" (Jablonskis 1933a: 225-226). The article was published in the magazine even before the establishment of the TK. The importance and meaning of such activities are emphasized (especially education is emphasized): “Where this is done in the young state, there can be no ‘disorder’ of terms, with which various textbook writers have to deal now” (Jablonskis 1933a: 225). Also noteworthy is the fact, later somewhat modified in the work of the TC, – the proposal and the need to use the results of Latvian work: “N. B. We should keep a few copies of all the publications that the Latvians have published for the school in the Commission of our licenses or in the warehouse of the Min-ja...” (Jablonskis 1933a: 226). Later, on February 27, 1921, in the social and political newspaper Lietuva (No. 46), J. Jablonskis recalls that the idea of forming a CT was publicly raised in 1920: “In the Christmas issue of “Lietuvos”6 was printed this tu4 All quotations are presented in their original form, spelling has not been corrected, only various technical highlighting, thinning, etc., have been abandoned. 5 The official newspaper of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Latvia was published between 1919 and 1940. Lietuva 282(564), 1920-12-24, 6 (Jablonskis 1933c). Regina Kvašytė172 Lithuanian and Latvian terminology: historical rinio already ryšiai ir gretinamieji tyrimai one article. Now, two months later, we have to talk about the same thing again: nothing has been done so far..." (Jablonskis 1933b: 226). It is emphasized that "before Christmas this was already done: at the Light. There was a term commission, which, as was expected at the time, would finally really take care of our terminology. Those institutions, or those branches of science and work, which are concerned with the subject of their own terms, were asked to make among themselves, as was written in “Lietuva”, separate commissions for terms <...>“ (Jablonskis 1933b: 227). Furthermore, the article continues the dissemination of Latvian experience: "The Ministry of Education, by entrusting this matter of terms to a certain commission of its own and by engaging in this work other commissions of working people, is or would be conducting Latvian education. min-jos takais: there at the light. The ministries are working, as far as I can see from Latvian newspapers and hear from people who write to them, and the “terminology commission” is working, let’s say, successfully and very extensively. The main terminology commission is in contact with various other termology commissions of the state apparatus… The work of these commissions is published there every month or almost every month, and in Shviet. It is notified to the various branches of the state and in the main state newspaper7. There seems to be no mixture of terms: the terms of those commissions, established with Shviet. The Min-ya Commission, there are obligatory for all branches of the state apparatus, the term work there is interested in the teaching society and school, and that work there, as you can see, bears quite good fruits... " (Jablonskis 1933b: 227–228). From the very beginning, there have been observations about the work of Latvian terminologists and terminology management in the LT TC activities, which have been recorded in the meeting minutes (MMP)8. For example, after almost two years of the TK’s activity, in the minutes of the meeting of 4 January 1923, No. 51, an entry appears on how terms should be published and how to prepare lists of terms submitted for consideration: “It was decided to continue publishing, giving priority to Lithuanian terms and interpreting them in foreign languages, and where it does not cause difficulties, at least in several. To announce in the newspapers that persons who provide terms for the work of the Commission should, wherever possible, provide terms in at least a few foreign languages in addition to Lithuanian terms.” The verbal protocol also recorded the wish “to acquire for work purposes Latvian [emphasis my – aut.] and other language dictionaries of terms” (TKP 1923). 7 The daily newspaper Valdības Vēstnesis, cited above. 8 The protocols of the first LT TK (TKP No. 1–80) are stored in the Terminology Centre of the Lithuanian Language Institute. 173Terminology | 2022 | 29 It can be assumed that Lithuanian terminologists might have been interested in the result of the work of LV TK – the dictionary Zinātniskās terminoloģijas vārdnīca (Dictionary of Scientific Terminology) published in 1922. It is a significant work, which appeared after the Commission had ceased its activities in Latvia (due to lack of funds in September 1921). The glossary contains terms from 20 fields (19 of which are not included in the content – veterinary medicine), divided into thematic (sometimes combined) sections of different scope: linguistics, philosophy, law, economics and finance, music, painting, sculpture and construction, natural sciences, forestry, chemistry and chemical technology, mathematics, geometry and drawing, physics, mechanics and resistance of materials, machine and metal processing, electrical and electrotechnical engineering, military, maritime, book industry, veterinary medicine. In total, the dictionary contains 8,398 heading terms (Baltiņš 2013: 426). However, even before that, specialized collections of Latvian and international vocabulary were published in Latvia, for example: dictionaries of maritime (1902, 1908), military (1914), construction (1922) terms (LILVV 1995). In general, it can be said that the establishment of the first TCs and their role in each of the countries should be evaluated similarly. In the words of the current chairman of the Terminology Commission of the Latvian Academy of Sciences, Māris Baltiņš, the transition from individual (one person), private (without a certain obligation and duties) and spontaneous (according to the understanding and immediate needs of a specific specialist) terminology to collective (many experts in a particular field), planned (in an effort to cover the entirety of the field’s terms, rather than creating isolated terms for separate publications) and institutionalized (with a clearly defined obligation to act under the direction of a certain institution) activity (Baltiņš 2013: 426) (about the contribution of the LT TK to the development of Lithuanian terminology, see more: Auksoriūtė 2011, 2021). The existence of the TC was not long either in Latvia (until 1921) or in Lithuania (until 1926), but it is obvious that Lithuanians and Latvians continued to be concerned with terminology theory and terminology management (see more: Grabis 2006; Keinys 2012; Skujiņa 2002 and others). While in the 20th century Lithuania viewed Latvia as an example to follow in terms of terminology management, in Latvia there were opinions that Latvian and Lithuanian terminologists cooperated too little. For example, Janis Endzelynas (Jānis Endzelīns), who was actively involved in the organization of Latvian terminology, although he did not prepare publications specifically dedicated to terminology (Skujiņa 1972; see also Labanauskienė 2012), in an article in the magazine Latvju Mēnešraksts in 1942 Regina Kvašytė174 Lithuanian and Latvian terminology: historical ryšiai ir gretinamieji tyrimai (Latvijas mēnesis)9 stated that it is regrettable that Lithuanians and Latvians did not cooperate and coordinate their activities when creating scientific terminology – this would have been an opportunity to create many terms common to both nations (Endzelins 1942: 547). The Lithuanians and Latvians, as well as the Estonians, maintained mutual contacts in exile. Their activities also contributed to the promotion of terminology – in Germany, where the Baltic University (in Latvian Baltijas universitāte) operated in Hamburg and its suburb Pineberg from 1946 to 1949, a dictionary of economics (it would be more accurate to call it a dictionary) Dictionary to Meyer’s Elements of Modern Economics (EME 1946) was published. The 20-page rotaprinted publication contains both terms and words of other parts of the language (verbs, adjectives) used in the field of economics in English, German, Estonian, Lithuanian and Latvian. The linguist Velta Rūķe (later Rūķe-Draviņa), who published the article “Valodu tuvināšana Baltijā” (Approximation of Languages in the Baltic States) in the monthly publication of the Latvian diaspora, Ceļa Zīmes (Road Signs)10, emphasized that when creating names for new concepts, one should take into account the experience of the related language and choose or create similar terms, because the dictionary is precisely the part of the language that is easiest to influence in a targeted way. It is easy to create new words and names for modern concepts in terminology commissions, and it is not necessary to standardize the old nomenclature, which is rarely used (Rūķe 1951: 280). By the way, Pranas Skardžius11 had already spoken about these issues in the monthly Izglītības Ministrijas Mēnešraksts almost 20 years ago, and he also mentions the existence of common terms as one of the factors of the Lithuanian and Latvian linguistic rapprochement (Skardžus 1934: 356). It must be acknowledged that the development of mutual relations between Lithuanian and Latvian terminologists has not yet been properly studied. Both the purpose of the study and the volume of the article do not allow for a more detailed study of the history, but even a few insights discussed in the article give reason to believe that both Lithuanians and Latvians positively assessed the need to rely on a second Baltic language. 10 The monthly was published abroad from 9 Literatūros ir meno žurnalas buvo leidžiamas 1942–1944 m. 1948 to 1987: in Sweden until 1952, then in Great Britain In Britain. 11 The author of the article is named Francis, although the Lithuanian name Pranas should be translated into Latvian (latvinti) French. 175Terminology | 2022 | 29 2. CONCERNING LITHUANIAN AND LATVIAN TERMINOLOGY STUDIES A positive attitude to the interrelationships of Baltic languages is still in existence today – various studies of comparative Lithuanian and Latvian terminology have been carried out (published) in Lithuania and Latvia, which could be considered as a hint of comparative terminology. Some of the publications published in both Lithuanian and Latvian in Lithuania and Latvia12 are devoted to general terminology issues and terminography, while others are dedicated to terminology in specific fields. Of the general researches, mention should be made of the article by Solvita Labanauskienė (2008) on parallels in terminology formation in Lithuania and Latvia in the 19th century, as well as articles on the root terminology system in Lithuanian and Latvian, published in Lithuania (Kvašytė 2013) and in Latvia (Kvašīte 2016), and articles on the first LV TK and LT TK (Kvašytė 2021a, 2021b; Kvašīte 2020a). The article on terminology reviews the dictionaries of terms published in Lithuania and Latvia after the restoration of independence in 1990 (Kvašīte 2004b). Attention was drawn to the dictionaries of Lithuanian and Latvian language didactics terms, which appeared almost at the same time – the authors of the study, Anna Vulāne and Regina Kvašīte, discuss the principles of preparing dictionaries, the structure, the sampling and selection of terms, as well as the similarities and differences of terminology systems (Vulāne, Kvašīte 2018). Inga Znuotinia (Inga Znotiņa) examines the diversity of textbook linguistic terms referring to foreign language learners’ textbooks (the Latvian equivalent is valodas apguvēju korpuss) and seeks the most appropriate term for comparative studies (Znotiņa 2014). With regard to terminology, we would like to point out that there are cases when Lithuanian and Latvian terms are included in the current multilingual dictionaries of terms, for example, the translation dictionary of terms compiled on the nesting principle Krievu-latviešu-lietuviešu jūrniecības13 juridisko terminu vārdnīca, published in Riga, which in Lithuanian is called by the author Russian-Latvian-Lithuanian language dictionary of maritime activity law terms (Bergholcs 2004). In Latvia there is also a dictionary of economic terms prepared by authors’ collectives, where among the seven languages there is also Lithuanian (ETV 1992), and, probably, of the Latvian Agricultural University (publisher not specified in the bibliography, 12 In systematizing the material, data were also collected on conference reports and their published theses, however, the description of the study is based on articles, because naming all the reports and / or their theses would take up too much space, and moreover, articles are often prepared on the basis of reports. 13 Literally seafaring. Regina Kvašytė176 Lithuanian and Latvian terminology: historical but such ryšiai ir gretinamieji tyrimai assumption arises from the fact that published in Jelgava) publication – the dictionary of livestock technology Lopkopības tehnoloģijas terminu vārdnīca: vācu-angļu-lietuviešu-latviešu (LTTV 2001)14. In Lithuania, a publication has been published that includes terms from both Baltic languages – the Environmental Protection Dictionary EnDIC 2004 published by the Ministry of Environment (for Lithuanian and Latvian plant names in the spoken dictionary see: Labanauskienė 2009, 2010). A dictionary-like methodological tool for terminology students, published by Šiauliai University, presents the equivalents of heading terms in Latvian (Kvašytė 2005b). From the specific fields of science, the Lithuanian and Latvian linguistic terms have received much attention in the comparative aspect so far. Articles devoted both to the comparison of terms of a more general nature in linguistics and to terms of one of the branches of linguistics – dialectology – have been published in Lithuania (Балоде 1985; Kvašytė 2005a), while articles published in Latvia have discussed in detail grammar terms for naming parts of speech and conjugated verbs (Kvašīte 2019, 2020a). However, the main subject of study are stylistic terms. Some of the spoken language studies appeared in the 2006 collection of articles Issues of Comparative Stylistics of Lithuanian and Latvian, which brought together Lithuanian and Latvian scholars to study the comparative stylistics of both Baltic languages (Kvašytė 2004a, 2006; Kvašytė, Župerka 2006), as well as in publications published in Latvia (Kvašīte 2004a, 2007, 2013). Stylistics (one of the functional styles – subjective) is attributable to the approximation of terms used in economics borrowed from the English language, although colloquial could also be treated as a study of the English in the field of economics (Kvašytė 2004b). Both Lithuanian terminologists Stasys Keinys and S. Labanauskienė and Latvian terminologist Linda Pietė (Linda Piete, now – Kurminia) examined botanical terms, mainly plant names, fixed in various sources at different periods from a comparative point of view (Labanauskiene 2006; Labanauskienė 2004, 2009, 2010, 2014; Keinis, Labanauskiene 2004; Pieminologijos srityje rezultatas – monograph te 2007; Kurmiņa 2010). Domėjimosi dar viena aktualia dabartinės terLietuviškos informatikos ir kompiuterijos terminijos tyrimai published a chapter dedicated to the analysis of Lithuanian and Latvian computer terms (author S. Labanauskienė) (Auksoriūtė et al. 2018: 352–407). 14 Data on dictionaries from the study Vārdnīcu izstrāde Latvijā (1991–2010) (Šmite 2012). 177Terminology | 2022 | 29 Current comparative studies of Lithuanian and Latvian terminology cover both general scientific issues and terminology, and terminology of specific fields or subfields – botany (plant names), economics, information technology. Linguistics (dialectology, grammar, stylistics), as well as language didactics and textual linguistics have received particular interest. In Lithuania and Latvia there are also dictionaries of terms, which record terms in both languages. 3. LITHUANIAN AND LATVIAN RELATIONS BETWEEN TERMINOLOGS I would like to highlight a few more works not directly related to the rapprochement of Lithuanian and Latvian terminology, but reflecting the relations between terminologists, which have already become part of recent history. The aim of all of them is to introduce the achievements of the terminologists of the second Baltic nation and the terminology topics. Until now, they have been more prominent in Lithuania, for example, the reviews of Latvian terminologists’ publications: Valentina Skujiņa’s monograph Latviešu terminoloģijas izstrādes principi (Principles of Latvian terminology management) (Keinys 2005)15, the reviews of the 2007 dictionary Valodniecības pamatterminu skaidrojošā vārdnīca (Explanatory dictionary of basic terms in terminology) (Kvašytė 2008, 2009), as well as an overview of Latvian terminologists’ work and bibliographies of term dictionaries published in Latvia in 1990–2000 (Kvašytė 1996, 2001). In the journal Gimtoji kalba (Native Language) was published an interview with Juris Baldunčiks, then Chairman of the Latvian Language Committee, about the need for harmonious terminology in both languages (Kvašytė, Urnėžiūtė 2015). Some personal information published in terminologists’ publications also reflects the relationship between the terminologists – a congratulatory letter on the occasion of V. Skujinė’s anniversary (Labanauskienė 2007) and an In memoriam (Keinys 2015). Articles by Latvian terminologists are published in Lithuania, providing an overview of Latvian terminology and terminology management and how terminology is studied and managed in various fields. The main publication for this purpose is Terminology (started as Terminologijas vagos in 1994). In 1998–2012, V. Skujinia (1937–2015) was a member of the editorial board of the journal, and in 2013–2021, J. Baldunčikas (1950–2022). Latvia does not have such a scientific terminology publication, so Lithuanian 15 The first edition of the monograph was published in 1993 (second edition in 2002). The review was published in 1994 in the journal Terminologijos vagos (reprinted in 2005).