Lietuvių ir latvių terminologija: istoriniai ryšiai ir gretinamieji tyrimai

doi.org/10.35321/term29-09 Lithuanian and Latvian Terminology: Historical Links and Comparative Research1 REGINA KVAŠYTĖ Šiauliai Academy of Vilnius University, Institute of the Latvian Language of the University of Latvia ORCID id: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7247-7022 INTRODUCTION In the late 1910s and early 1920s—1919 in Latvia and 1921 in Lithuania—Terminology Commissions were established and began standardizing the terminology of their respective countries and developing the theory of Lithuanian and Latvian terminology. It is acknowledged that in this work both Lithuanian and Latvian terminologists could benefit from the experience of the neighboring country and data from the other Baltic language. The aim of this study is to discuss historical facts that attest to the aspiration of Lithuanian and Latvian terminologists to work together, as well as comparative studies of Lithuanian and Latvian terminology. To achieve this aim, the following objectives were set: 1) to highlight the desire of Lithuanian and Latvian terminologists, reflected in the history of terminology, to draw on one another’s experience; 2) to systematize data on current comparative studies of Lithuanian and Latvian terminology; 3) to identify other forms of interaction between Lithuanian and Latvian terminologists. Descriptive and referential methods were applied. The research sources used were scholarly and popular-science publications from Lithuania and Latvia, as well as periodicals. 1. COMMON FEATURES IN THE HISTORY OF LITHUANIAN AND LATVIAN TERMINOLOGY The historical development of Lithuania and Latvia was shaped by different factors, but there were periods when similar processes took place in both countries. This also applies to terminology, which “began to develop rapidly in the second half of the 19th century alongside the nation and 1 The article was prepared on the basis of the second-stage project of the State Research Programme Letonika latviskas un eiropiskas sabiedrības attīstībai Mūsdienu latviešu valodas lietojums un attīstība (No. VPP-LETONIKA-2022/1-0001). Terminoloģija | 2022 | 29 169 the development of the standard language, when the Aušrininkai and Varpininkai in one country, the Young Latvians in another, and other enlightened figures, by publishing articles in periodicals and writing or translating books on scholarly subjects, familiarized the public with scientific achievements and began publishing textbooks” (Labanauskienė 2008: 39). Even at that time, works describing the relations between Lithuanian and Latvian existed. Jurgis Ambraziejus Pabrėža played an exceptional role, since “in the manuscripts, J. A. Pabrėža’s dictionaries ‘Waardaa tayslyynee Augimiu’ (1834) and ‘Taislós augimiu’ (1843) contain Latvian plant names—this marks the beginning of connections between Lithuanian and Latvian manuscript terminography” (Labanauskienė 2008: 39) (for more on Latvian plant names in the dictionary in question, see Labanauskienė 2004, 2006). The publicist, linguist, and educator Atis Kronvalds made use of Lithuanian-language resources to expand the Latvian vocabulary ( Atis Kronvalds), as did the poet, publicist, and linguist Juris Alunanas (Juris Alunāns). “In the second half of the 19th century, the development of terminology and knowledge of languages was continued by manuscript bilingual dictionaries: the ‘Lithuanian–Latvian Dictionary’ (1872, no longer extant) by A. Dyrikis (A. Dīriķis), Latvian public figure, linguist, and man of letters; the ‘Latvian–Lithuanian–Polish Dictionary’ (c. 1875) by A. Juška, Lithuanian ethnographer, priest, and linguist, who had close ties with him; and the ‘Lietuviszkai–latviszkai–lenkisz kai–rusiskas žodynas’ (1894) by M. Miežinis, linguist and priest” (Labanauskienė 2008: 42–43) (for more on Mykolas Miežinis’s dictionary, see Labanauskienė 2014; for all three dictionaries, see Zemzare 1961). This is part of the groundwork on which the Terminology Commissions established in Latvia and Lithuania in the 20th century could draw for the purposes of researching and standardizing scientific terminology2. The Latvian example prompted the establishment of a similar commission in Lithuania (for more on the work of the first TCs, see Auksoriūtė 2011, 2021; Kvašytė 2021a, 2021b; Kvašytė 2020b). Jonas Jablonskis contributed significantly to this, writing in the monthly journal of the Ministry of Education, Švietimo Darbas, in December 1920, before the TC was established, while introducing the latest issue of the Latvian periodical Izglītības Ministrijas Mēnešraksts (IMM; monthly journal of the Ministry of Education)3: “At the Ministry of Education there [in Latvia – author’s note] there is a Terminology Commission that establishes terms for various branches of science; the commission has several sections (natural sciences, commerce, philosophy, 2 Hereafter abbreviated respectively as LT TC and LV TC, or TC. 3 The Latvian Ministry of Education’s monthly journal was published from 1920 to 1939. 170 Regina Kvašytė Lietuvių ir latvių terminologija: istoriniai ryšiai ir gretinamieji tyrimai jurisprudence, etc.). People concerned with these public affairs gather at the Ministry of Education—they also work in its various terminology sections <...>” (Jablonskis 1933a: 225)4. J. Jablonskis goes on to explain in detail the purpose for which the commission was formed and by whom, how it works, and how and where it publicizes the terms it has discussed: “In the newspaper, in its issues, certain terms are written down in Russian, German, and Latvian” (Jablonskis 1933a: 225). Although the periodical in question, referred to as a newspaper, is the monthly journal where draft terms are published, it should be noted that this was also done in the official daily newspaper Valdības Vēstnesis (Government Gazette)5. J. Jablonskis also draws attention to how the suitability of terms adopted by the commission is verified: “When publishing a draft of terms, the Commission appeals through the educational newspaper [IMM – author’s note] to people knowledgeable about the subject, asking them, if they disagree with one or another of the Commission’s terms, to submit in its place their own terms, which would be more suitable for the ‘lists of terms’ intended for public use. Having received comments from outside parties by a specified time (the Commission indicates that time in an article in the periodical), the Commission again considers the disputed terms and finally publishes them for public use” (Jablonskis 1933a: 225). J. Jablonskis urges readers to visit and learn about the Commission’s work so that its experience may be adopted in Lithuania: “We too can follow the Latvian example. Someone ought perhaps to go to Latvia—to learn about their work at the Ministry of Education on the spot” (Jablonskis 1933a: 225–226). The article was published in the journal before the TC was established. The importance and significance of such work are emphasized (with particular focus on education): “Where this is done in a young state, there cannot be the kind of ‘disorder’ in terminology that various authors of our textbooks have to contend with now” (Jablonskis 1933a: 225). Also noteworthy is a proposal and need later adapted somewhat in the TC’s work: making use of the results of Latvian work: “N. B. Our Publishing Commission or the Ministry’s warehouse should keep several copies of all those publications that the Latvians have published for schools...” (Jablonskis 1933a: 226). Later, on February 27, 1921, in the daily newspaper of public and political affairs Lietuva (No. 46), J. Jablonskis reminded readers that the idea of establishing a TC had been publicly raised in 1920: “In the Christmas issue of ‘Lietuva’6 this pro- 4All quotations are reproduced in their original form, with spelling unchanged; only various technical forms of highlighting, letter spacing, and the like have been omitted. 5The official daily newspaper of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Latvia was published from 1919 to 1940. 6See Lietuva 282(564), 1920-12-24, 6 (Jablonskis 1933c). Terminologija | 2022 | 29 171 already one article. Now, two months later, we have to speak about the same matter again: nothing has been done so far...” (Jablonskis 1933b: 226). It is emphasized that “before Christmas, at least something had already been done: a terminology commission was being formed at the Ministry of Education; as was expected at the time, it would finally take proper care of our terminology. The institutions or branches of science and work concerned with their own terminology were asked to form separate terminology commissions among themselves, as had also been written in „Lietuvoje“, <...>” (Jablonskis 1933b: 227). The article goes on to disseminate the Latvian experience: “By assigning this matter of terminology to a special commission of its own and mobilizing other commissions of working people for this task, the Ministry of Education is following—or would be following—the path taken by the Latvian Ministry of Education. There, as can be seen from Latvian newspapers and heard from their writers, a ‘terminology commission’ works at the Ministry of Education, and works, let us say, successfully and on a very broad scale. Various other commissions dealing with terminology in the state apparatus communicate with that central terminology commission... The work of these commissions is published there every month or almost every month in the Ministry of Education’s organ [IMM – author’s note], and it is reported on to various branches of state work and in the state’s main newspaper7. There seems to be no mixture of terms there: the terms established by those commissions together with the Ministry of Education’s commission are mandatory for all branches of the state apparatus; the scholarly community and schools have an interest in terminology work, and that work, it appears, yields very good results...” (Jablonskis 1933b: 227–228). From the very beginning, the activities of the Lithuanian Terminology Commission involved observations concerning the work of Latvian terminologists and the organization of terminology, which were recorded in the meeting minutes (TKP)8. For example, almost two years after the Commission began its work, an entry appears in the minutes of meeting No. 51, held on January 4, 1923, concerning how terms should be published and how lists of terms submitted for consideration should be prepared: “It was decided to continue publishing Lithuanian terms first and explaining them in foreign languages, in as many as possible where this presents no difficulty. It should be announced in newspapers that people submitting terms for the Commission’s work should, wherever they can, provide terms in at least several foreign languages alongside the Lithuanian terms.” The minutes in question also record the wish “to acquire, for the purposes of the work, Latvian [emphasis added – author’s note] and terminology dictionaries published in other languages” (TKP 1923). 7 The daily newspaper mentioned earlier Valdības Vēstnesis. 8 The minutes of the first meetings of the Lithuanian Terminology Commission (TKP Nos. 1–80) are kept at the Terminology Centre of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. 172 Regina Kvašytė Lietuvių ir latvių terminologija: istoriniai ryšiai ir gretinamieji tyrimai It may be assumed that Lithuanian terminologists were interested in the results of the Latvian Terminology Commission’s work—the dictionary published in 1922, Zinātniskās terminoloģijas vārdnīca (Dictionary of Scientific Terminology). This is a significant work, published after the Commission had ceased operating in Latvia (due to a lack of funds in September 1921). The dictionary contains terms from 20 fields (19 are listed in the table of contents; veterinary medicine is omitted), arranged in thematic sections of varying scope, sometimes combining fields: linguistics, philosophy, law, economy and finance, music, painting, sculpture and construction, natural sciences, forestry, chemistry and chemical technology, mathematics, geometry and drawing, physics, mechanics and strength of materials, machinery and metalworking, electricity and electrical engineering, military affairs, navigation, the book industry, and veterinary medicine. The dictionary contains 8,398 headwords in all (Baltiņš 2013: 426). However, specialized collections of native-language and international terms had already been published in Latvia, for example, dictionaries of navigation (1902, 1908), military affairs (1914), and construction terminology (1922) (LILVV 1995). In general, the establishment of the first terminology commissions and their role in each country can be assessed similarly. To quote Māris Baltiņš (Māris Baltiņš), the current chair of the Terminology Commission of the Latvian Academy of Sciences, this marked a transition from individual (carried out by one person), private (without a specific mandate or assigned duties), and spontaneous terminology creation (based on an individual specialist’s understanding and immediate needs) to collective (involving many experts in a given field), planned (seeking to cover the full terminology of a field rather than creating isolated terms for individual publications), and institutionalized activity (with a clearly defined mandate to act under the direction of a particular institution) (Baltiņš 2013: 426) (for more on the contribution of the Lithuanian Terminology Commission to the development of Lithuanian terminology, see Auksoriūtė 2011, 2021). The Terminology Commission existed only briefly, both in Latvia (until 1921) and in Lithuania (until 1926), but it is clear that Lithuanians and Latvians continued to be concerned with terminology theory and the organization of terminology (see in more detail: Grabis 2006; Keinys 2012; Skujiņa 2002, among others). If, in the 20th century, Lithuania looked to Latvia as an example to follow in organizing terminology, voices were also heard in Latvia suggesting that Latvian and Lithuanian terminologists cooperated too little. For example, Jānis Endzelynas (Jānis Endzelīns), who actively participated in organizing Latvian terminology, although he did not publish works specifically devoted to terminology (Skujiņa 1972; see also Labanauskienė 2012), wrote in a 1942 article in the journal Latvju Mēnešraksts Terminoloģija | 2022 | 29 173 (Latvian monthly)9stated that it was regrettable that Lithuanians and Latvians had not communicated and coordinated their efforts when creating scientific terminology—a missed opportunity to create many terms shared by both nations (Endzelīns 1942: 547). Lithuanians and Latvians, as well as Estonians, maintained ties with one another in the diaspora. Their activities also contributed to the cultivation of terminology—in Germany, where the Baltic University operated in Hamburg and its suburb of Pinneberg from 1946 to 1949 (in Latvian Baltijas universitāte), an economics dictionary (more accurately, a small dictionary) was published: Dictionary to Meyer’s Elements of Modern Economics (EME 1946). This 20-page rotaprint-printed publication includes both terms and words from other parts of speech used in economics (verbs, adjectives) in English, German, Estonian, Lithuanian, and Latvian. In the Latvian diaspora publication, the monthly Ceļa Zīmes (Road Signs)10, linguist Velta Rūķe (later Rūķe-Draviņa) (Velta Rūķe-Draviņa), who published the article “Valodu tuvināšana Baltijā” (Bringing Languages Closer in the Baltic Region), emphasized that when creating names for new concepts, one should take the experience of a related language into account and choose or create similar terms, since vocabulary is precisely the level of language that is easiest to influence deliberately. Neologisms, names for modern concepts, are easy to create in terminology commissions; moreover, there is no need to standardize the old nomenclature, which is already rarely used (Rūķe 1951: 280). Incidentally, Pranas Skardžius11 had already expressed views on these issues in the monthly Izglītības Ministrijas Mēnešraksts almost 20 years earlier; he too identified the existence of common terms as one of the factors bringing Lithuanian and Latvian closer linguistically (Skardžius 1934: 356). It must be acknowledged that the development of ties between Lithuanian and Latvian terminologists has not yet been adequately studied. Neither the research objective nor the scope of this article allows for a more thorough exploration of the history; nevertheless, even the few observations discussed in the article provide grounds for believing that both Lithuanians and Latvians viewed positively the need to draw on the other Baltic language. 9 The journal of literature and art was published from 1942 to 1944. 10 The monthly was published abroad from 1948 to 1987: in Sweden until 1952, and thereafter in Great Britain. 11 The article’s author was named Francis, although the Lithuanian name Pranas should be rendered in Latvian (Latvianized) as Prans. 174 Regina Kvašytė | Lietuvių ir latvių terminologija: istoriniai ryšiai ir gretinamieji tyrimai 2. COMPARATIVE STUDIES OF LITHUANIAN AND LATVIAN TERMINOLOGY A positive attitude toward relations between the Baltic languages persists to this day—various comparative studies of Lithuanian and Latvian terminology have been conducted (and published) in Lithuania and Latvia, and could be considered the beginnings of comparative terminology. Some publications12 published in both Lithuanian and Latvian in Lithuania and Latvia address general issues of terminology and terminography, while others focus on the terminology of specific fields.12 Among general studies, mention should be made of Solvita Labanauskienė’s (2008) article, already cited in the historical overview, on parallel developments in the formation of terminology in Lithuania and Latvia in the 19th century; articles on the termin- root system in Lithuanian and Latvian, published in Lithuania (Kvašytė 2013) and Latvia (Kvašīte 2016); and articles on the first LV TK and LT TK (Kvašytė 2021a, 2021b; Kvašīte 2020a). An article devoted to terminography surveys terminology dictionaries published in Lithuania and Latvia after the restoration of independence in 1990 (Kvašytė 2004b). Attention has been drawn to Lithuanian and Latvian dictionaries of linguodidactic terms that appeared at almost the same time: the authors of the study, Ana Vulanė (Anna Vulāne) and Regina Kvašytė (Reģīna Kvašīte), discuss the principles of dictionary compilation, their structure, the range of terms and their selection, as well as similarities and differences between the terminological systems (Vulāne, Kvašytė 2018). Inga Znotiņa (Inga Znotiņa) examines the variety of corpus-linguistics terms denoting a corpus of foreign-language learners (Latvian equivalent valodas apguvēju korpuss) and seeks the term best suited to comparative studies (Znotiņa 2014). With regard to terminography, it is worth noting that Lithuanian and Latvian terms are sometimes included in contemporary multilingual terminology dictionaries. For example, a translation dictionary of terms compiled according to a nested-entry principle and published in Riga is entitled Krievu–latviešu–lietuviešu jūrniecības13 juridisko terminu vārdnīca; the author gave it the Lithuanian title Rusų–latvių–lietuvių kalbų jūrinės veiklos teisės terminų žodynu (Bergholcs 2004). A translation dictionary of economics terms compiled by a team of authors has also been published in Latvia, including Lithuanian among its seven languages (ETV 1992), as well as, presumably, one by the Latvian University of Agriculture (the publisher is not indicated in the bibliography, 12 When systematizing the material, data were also collected on conference presentations and their published abstracts; however, the research account relies on articles, since listing all the presentations and/or their abstracts would take up too much space and, moreover, articles are often based on presentations. 13 Literally seafaring. Terminologija | 2022 | 29 175 however, this assumption arises because the publication issued in Jelgava—the Dictionary of Animal Husbandry Technology Lopkopības tehnoloģijas terminu vārdnīca:vācu–angļu–lietuviešu–latviešu (LTTV 2001)14—has appeared. A publication incorporating terms from both Baltic languages has appeared in Lithuania: the Environmental Protection Dictionary, published by the Ministry of Environment, Aplinkos apsaugos žodynas EnDIC 2004 (Lithuanian and Latvian plant names are discussed in the dictionary; see Labanauskienė 2009, 2010). A methodological resource prepared in dictionary form and published by Šiauliai University for students of terminology provides Latvian equivalents for its headword terms (Kvašytė 2005b). Among specific fields of science, Lithuanian and Latvian linguistic terms have so far received considerable attention from a comparative perspective. Articles devoted both to the comparison of more general linguistic terms and to terms from one branch of linguistics—dialectology—have been published in Lithuania (Балоде 1985; Kvašytė 2005a), while articles published in Latvia discuss in detail grammatical terms for parts of speech and reflexive verbs (Kvašytė 2019, 2020a). Nevertheless, stylistic terms have been examined most extensively. Some of these studies appeared in the 2006 collection of articles Lietuvių ir latvių gretinamosios stilistikos klausimai, which brought together Lithuanian and Latvian scholars to study the comparative stylistics of the two Baltic languages (Kvašytė 2004a, 2006; Kvašytė, Župerka 2006), as well as in publications issued in Latvia (Kvašytė 2004a, 2007, 2013). The comparison of terms borrowed from English and used in economics may be assigned to stylistics (to one of its functional styles—the administrative style), although it could also be treated as a study of Anglicisms in economics (Kvašytė 2004b). Both Lithuanian terminologists Stasys Keinys and S. Labanauskienė and Latvian terminologist Linda Pietė (Linda Piete, now Kurminia) examined, from a comparative perspective, botanical terms documented in various sources and periods, primarily plant names (Labanauskienė 2006; Labanauskienė 2004, 2009, 2010, 2014; Keinis, Labanauskienė 2004; Pietė 2007; Kurmina 2010). An outcome of interest in another topical area of contemporary terminology is a chapter published in the monograph Lietuviškos informatikos ir kompiuterijos terminijos tyrimai, devoted to an analysis of Lithuanian and Latvian computing terms (author: S. Labanauskienė) (Auksoriūtė et al. 2018: 352–407). 14 Data on dictionaries are from the study Vārdnīcu izstrāde Latvijā (1991–2010) (Šmite 2012). 176 Regina Kvašytė Lietuvių ir latvių terminologija: istoriniai ryšiai ir gretinamieji tyrimai Current comparative studies of Lithuanian and Latvian terminology encompass both general issues in science and terminography, as well as the terminology of specific fields or subfields—botany (plant names), economics, and information technology. Linguistics (dialectology, grammar, stylistics) has attracted particular interest, as have language teaching methodology and corpus linguistics. Dictionaries recording terms in both languages are also available in Lithuania and Latvia. 3. TIES BETWEEN LITHUANIAN AND LATVIAN TERMINOLOGISTS It is worth highlighting several further works that are not directly related to the comparison of Lithuanian and Latvian terminology but reflect ties between terminologists and have already become part of recent history. Their common aim is to introduce readers to the achievements of terminologists from the other Baltic nation and to current issues in terminology. So far, such works have been more prominent in Lithuania. Examples include reviews of publications by Latvian terminologists: Valentīna Skujiņa’s (Valentīna Skujiņa) monograph Latviešu terminoloģijas izstrādes principi (Principles of Latvian Terminology Development) (Keinys 2005)15; reviews of the dictionary published in 2007, Valodniecības pamatterminu skaidrojošā vārdnīca (Explanatory Dictionary of Basic Linguistic Terms) (Kvašytė 2008, 2009); and an overview of Latvian terminologists’ work and bibliographies of terminology dictionaries published in Latvia in 1990–2000 (Kvašytė 1996, 2001). The journal Gimtoji kalba published an interview with the then chair of the Latvian Terminology Commission, Juris Baldunčiks (Juris Baldunčiks), about the need—shared by both languages—for coherent terminology (Kvašytė, Urnėžiūtė 2015). The ties between terminologists are also reflected in some personal notices published in terminological journals: a congratulatory tribute to V. Skujiņa on her jubilee (Labanauskienė 2007) and an In memoriam dedicated to her (Keinys 2015). Articles by Latvian terminologists are published in Lithuania, providing insight into current issues in Latvian terminology and its management, and into how terminology in various fields is studied and standardized. The principal publication devoted to this subject is Terminologija (first published as Terminologijos vagos in 1994). V. Skujiņa (1937–2015) served on the journal’s editorial board from 1998 to 2012, and J. Baldunčiks (1950–2022) from 2013 to 2021. Latvia does not have a scholarly terminology publication of this kind, so Lithuanian 15 The first edition of the monograph, published in 1993, was reviewed (the second edition appeared in 2002). The review was published in 1994 in the journal Terminologijos vagos (reprinted in a collection in 2005). Terminologija | 2022 | 29 177 Terminologists’ publications are printed in various collections, most often serial and one-off volumes compiled on the basis of conference papers, for example, in the journal Linguistica Lettica of the Institute of Latvian Language at the University of Latvia and in the publication Valoda: nozīme un forma (Language: Meaning and Form) of the Faculty of Humanities of the University of Latvia. Articles based on papers presented at the Congress of Lettonics appear in Valodniecības raksti (Linguistics Articles), while Vārds un tā pētīšanas aspekti (The Word and Aspects of Its Study) and Valoda dažādu kultūru kontekstā (Language in the Context of Various Cultures) contain conference proceedings from the universities of Liepāja and Daugavpils, respectively. Lithuanian and Latvian terminologists participate in international conferences organized by one another. In Lithuania, conferences devoted to terminology are regularly organized by the Terminology Centre of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, while in Latvia terminologists take part in annual conferences commemorating the birthdays of J. Endzelīns and Arturs Uozuols (Arturs Ozols), as well as conferences at the University of Liepāja, Daugavpils University, and elsewhere. Numerous facts attest to the mutual ties between Lithuanian and Latvian terminologists. Scientific articles on Latvian and Lithuanian terminology and the organization of terminology are published in Lithuania and Latvia, papers are presented at conferences, and other forms of cooperation also exist. CONCLUSIONS The study showed that the history of terminology in Lithuania and Latvia includes instances of terminologists taking an interest in one another. At J. Jablonskis’s initiative, a Terminology Commission was established in Lithuania in 1921, following the Latvian example; in its work, he urged that Latvia’s experience be drawn upon, while Latvian linguists J. Endzelīns and V. Rūķe emphasized the need to bring the Baltic languages closer together. It must be acknowledged that the history of relations between Lithuanian and Latvian terminologists has not been sufficiently researched; nevertheless, several observations discussed in this article suggest that terminologists in both countries regarded it as worthwhile to draw on one another’s experience in terminology creation. Current comparative studies of Lithuanian and Latvian cover general issues in terminology, terminography, and the terminology of specific fields or subfields—botany (plant names), information technology, linguistics, language teaching, and corpus linguistics. The authors of comparative studies (L. Baluodė, S. Keinys, R. Kvašytė, S. Labanauskienė, L. Pietė 178 Regina Kvašytė Lietuvių ir latvių terminologija: istoriniai ryšiai ir gretinamieji tyrimai (now Kurminia), A. Vulane, I. Znuotinia) publish articles in both Lithuania and Latvia, mainly in Lithuanian and Latvian, and less often in English and Russian. Multilingual dictionaries recording terms from both Baltic languages are available in Lithuania and Latvia. In 1946, such a glossary of economics was published in Germany, where the Baltic University was operating. Communication between Lithuanians and Latvians also takes the form of reviewing terminology works, publishing articles devoted to research on terms in their own languages, participating in conferences held in Lithuania and Latvia, and publishing conference abstracts and materials. In Lithuania, Latvian terminologists most often publish articles in the journal Terminologija, whose editorial board included V. Skujinia as Latvia’s representative from 1998 to 2012, and J. Balduņčikas from 2013 to 2021. Latvia has no comparable publication devoted exclusively to terminology; therefore, articles by Lithuanian terminologists are published in the journal Linguistica Lettica, the Congress of Lettonics publication Valodniecības raksti, and elsewhere. LITERATURE AND SOURCES Auksoriūtė Albina 2011: Terminologijos komisijos (1921–1926) veiklos apžvalga. – Terminologija 18, 80–91. Auksoriūtė Albina 2021: Terminologijos komisijos įkūrimo šimtmečiui. – Gimtoji kalba 3, 3–9. Auksoriūtė Albina ir kt. 2018: Auksoriūtė Albina, Gaivenytė-Butler Jolanta, Labanavičienė Solvita, Mitkevičienė Asta, Stunžinas Robertas, Umbrasas Alvydas, Zemlevičiūtė Palmira. Lietuviškos informatikos ir kompiuterijos terminijos tyrimai: monografija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Baltiņš Māris 2013: Terminādes process un principi. – Latviešu valoda, red. A. Veisbergs, Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds, 415–433. Bergholcs Jons 2004: Krievu-latviešu-lietuviešu jūrniecības juridisko terminu vārdnīca, Rīga: Avots. EME – Dictionary to Meyer’s Elements of Modern Economics, compiled by E. Vērzemnieks, E. Järvesso, E. Gabris, Textbook No. 38, Hamburg: Baltic University, 1946. Endzelīns Jānis 1942: Valodnieka vērojumi. – Latvju Mēnešraksts 6, 01.01.1942., 545.–547. ETV – Dictionary of Economic Terms in Latvian, Russian, English, German, French, Lithuanian, and Estonian, comp. J. Porietis, Riga: Zinātne, 1992. Grabis Rūdolfs 2006 [1953]: Par latviešu terminoloģijas attīstību un izstrādi. – Darbu izlase, Rīga: Latvijas Universitātes Latviešu valodas institūts, 221.–229. Jablonskis Jonas 1933a [1920]: Education Ministry Monthly, No. 11, Riga, 1920 (p. 96), 4 rb. – Jablonskis’s Writings I. Articles on Society, ed. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas: Ministry of Education, 224–226. Jablonskis Jonas 1933b [1921]: On the terminology of our language. – Jablonskis’s Writings I. Articles on Society, ed. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas: Ministry of Education, 226–228. Jablonskis Jonas 1933c [1920]: The matter of terminology. – Jablonskis’s Writings II. Educational Matters, ed. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas: Ministry of Education, 211–212. Keinis Stasis, Labanauskienė Solvita 2004: Latviešu augu nosaukumi Lietuviešu botānikas vārdnīcā. – Linguistica Lettica 13, 129.–139. Keinys Stasys 2005 [1994]: Latvių terminologijos tvarkymo principai. – Dabartinė lietuvių terminologija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 262–264. Keinys Stasys 2012 [1967]: Lietuvių terminologijos kūrimo apžvalga (iki 1940 metų). – Lietuvių terminologijos raida, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 29–56. Keinys Stasys 2015: Valentinai Skujiniai atminti. – Terminologija 22, 232–235. Terminologija | 2022 | 29 179 Kurminą Linda 2010: Eponiminiai augalų pavadinimai latvių ir lietuvių kalbose: darybos būdai. – Leksikografija ir leksikologija 2, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 355–367. Kvašytė Regina 1996: Terminologija Latvijoje. – Terminologija 3, 70–78 [1990–1995 metų žodynų bibliografija]. Kvašytė Regina 2001: 1996–2000 m. Latvijoje išleistų terminų žodynų bibliografija. – Terminologija 8, 152–157. Kvašytė Regina 2004a: Apie lietuvių ir latvių stilistikos terminiją. – Terminologijos istorijos ir dabarties problemos, Kazimierui Gaiveniui atminti, sud. A. Auksoriūtė, ats. red. S. Keinys, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 240–249. Kvašytė Regina 2004b: Lietuvių ir latvių ekonomikos terminijos anglybės. – Terminologija 11, 31–51. Kvašytė Regina 2005a: Lietuvių ir latvių tarmės: terminija ir žodynai. – Baltų kalbų tarmės: rašytinis palikimas, sud. J. Švambarytė-Valužienė (ats. red.), R. Kvašytė, A. Stafecka, Šiauliai: Discens, 112–123. Kvašytė Regina 2005b: Mokomais terminologijos žodynėlis, Šiauliai: VšĮ Šiaulių universiteto leidykla. Kvašytė Regina 2006: Lietuvių ir latvių stilistikos terminija gretinamuoju aspektu. – Lietuvių ir latvių gretinamosios stilistikos klausimai. Lietuvièšu un latviešu sastatāmās stilistikas jautājumi, sud. ir ats. red. R. Kvašytė, Šiauliai: VšĮ Šiaulių universiteto leidykla, 54–63. Kvašytė Regina 2008: Valodniecības pamatterminu skaidrojošā vārdnīca. Sastādījis autoru kolektīvs V. Skujiņas vadībā. – Terminologija 15, 242–248. Kvašytė Regina 2009: Valodniecības terminu skaidrojošā vārdnīca [apžvalga]. – Gimtóji kalba 3, 23–24. Kvašytė Regina 2013: Lietuvių ir latvių kalbų terminų su šaknimi termin- mikrosistema. – Terminologija 20, 123–139. Kvašytė Regina 2021a: Apie pirmąsias terminologijos komisijas Lietuvoje ir Latvijoje. – Mokslo Lietuva 7(672), 2021-04-14, 11, 12. Kvašytė Regina 2021b: Apie pirmąsias terminologijos komisijas Lietuvoje ir Latvijoje. – Mokslo Lietuva 8(673), 2021-04-28, 6, 7. Kvašytė Regina, Urnėžiūtė Rita 2015: Baltų kalboms svarbu darni terminijos raida [pokalbis su Ventspilio aukštosios mokyklos profesoriumi, Latvijos mokslų akademijos Terminologijos komisijos pirmininku Juriu Baldunčiku; kalbino Regina Kvašytė ir Rita Urnėžiūtė]. – Gimtóji kalba 12, 11–18. Kvašytė Regina, Župerka Kazimieras 2006: Lietuvių ir latvių funkcinių stilių terminai. – Lietuvių ir latvių gretinamosios stilistikos klausimai. Lietuvièšu un latviešu sastatāmās stilistikas jautājumi, sud. ir ats. red. R. Kvašytė, Šiauliai: VšĮ Šiaulių universiteto leidykla, 65–83. Kvašytė Regina 2004a: Internacionālie lietišķie termini latviešu un lietuviešu vārdnīcās. – Linguistica Lettica 13, 140.–152. Kvašytė Regina 2004b: Lietuviešu un latviešu terminogrāfijas jaunumi. – Valoda–2004: Valoda dažādu kultūru kontekstā, Zinātnisko rakstu krājums XIV, Daugavpils, 121.–126. Kvašytė Regina 2007: Terms of the Latvian and Lithuanian Stylistics in Comparative Aspect. – Contrastive and Applied Linguistics, Research papers XIV, ed. Andrejs Veisbergs, Rīga: Faculty of Modern Languages, 33–42. Kvašytė Regina 2013: Lietišķais stils latviešu un lietuviešu valodā: terminoloģiskais aspekts. – Aktuālas tendences terminoloģijas teorijā un praksē: rakstu krājums, sast. I. Pūtele, Rīga: LU Latviešu valodas institūts, 6.–16. Kvašytė Regina 2016: Sakne termin- latviešu un lietuviešu terminoloģijā. – Terminrade Latvijā senāk un tagad: Latvijas Zinātņu akadēmijas Terminoloģijas komisijas 70 gadu jubilejas konferencei veltīts izrakstu krājums, Rīga: Zinātne, 71.–76. Kvašytė Regina 2019: Latviešu un lietuviešu atgriezeniskie darbības vārdi: terminoloģiskais aspekts. – Valoda: nozīme un forma 10. Latvijas gramatiskā doma gadsimta gaitā, sast. A. Kalnača, I. Lokmane, Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds, 92.–104. Kvašytė Regina 2020a: Latviešu un lietuviešu gramatikas termini: vārds, vārdšķira un to nosaukumi. – Valoda: nozīme un forma 11. Gramatika un valodas normēšana, sast. un red. A. Kalnača, I. Lokmane, Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds, 93.–117. Kvašytė Regina 2020b: Pirmās Terminoloģijas komisijas Latvijā un Lietuvā. – Zinātniskie raksti VI (XXVI). Latviešu terminoloģija simts gados, Rīga: Latvijas Nacionālā bibliotēka, 74.–92. Labanauskienė Solvita 2006: Latviešu un lietuviešu augu nosaukumu sastatīšana J. A. Pabrēžas darbos. Linguistica Lettica 15, 128.–136. Labanauskienė Solvita 2004: Latvių augalų vardai Jurgio (Ambraziejaus) Pabrėžos žodynuose. – Terminologija 11, 145–155. 180 Regina Kvašytė Lietuvių ir latvių terminologija: istoriniai ryšiai ir gretinamieji tyrimai Labanauskienė Solvita 2007: Žymioji latvių terminologė Valentīna Skujiņa. – Terminoloģija 14, 216–218. Labanauskienė Solvita 2008: Lietuvių ir latvių terminologijos formavimasis XIX amžiuje. – Valodniecības raksti 2, 36.–45. Labanauskienė Solvita 2009: Lietuvių ir latvių kalbų augalų vardai Aplinkos apsaugos žodyne EnDic2004. – Terminoloģija 16, 93–115. Labanauskienė Solvita 2010: Sudurtinių lietuviškų ir latviškų augalų genčių vardų darybos ypatumai. – Terminoloģija 17, 54–67. Labanauskienė Solvita 2011: Baltijos šalių floros lietuviškų ir latviškų augalų genčių vardų vedyba. – Terminoloģija 18, 66–79. Labanauskienė Solvita 2012: Jānio Endzelīno terminologinės įžvalgos. – Terminoloģija 19, 173–183. Labanauskienė Solvita 2014: Mykolo Miežinio Lietuviszkai–latviszkai–lenkiszkai–rusiszko žodyno lietuviški ir latviški sinoniminiai bei variantiniai augalų vardai. – Terminoloģija 21, 143–159. LILVV – Latvijā izdotās latviešu valodas vārdnīcas. Bibliogrāfisks rādītājs (1900–1994), sast. M. Banga, G. Cakule, S. Kļaviņa, B. Mūrniece, S. Zariņa, Rīga: Latvijas Universitāte, 1995. LTTV – Dictionary of Livestock Technology Terms: German–English–Lithuanian–Latvian, team of authors: W. Drochern, S. Baranauskas, I. Kulpyc et al., Jelgava: [publisher not identified], 2001. Piete Linda 2007: Personvārdi latviešu un lietuviešu augu nosaukumos. – Vārds un tā pētīšanas aspekti 11, 45–53. Rūķe Velta 1951: Valodu tuvināšana Baltijā. – Ceļa Zīmes 8, 275.–282. Skardžus Francis 1934: Lietuvių un latvju valodiskās tuvināšanās iespējas. – Izglītības Ministrijas Mēnešraksts 10, 01.10.1934, 354.–356. Skujiņa Valentīna 1972: J. Endzelīna devums latviešu valodas zinātniskās terminoloģijas attīstībā. – Latviešu valodas kultūras jautājumi 8, 17.–33. Skujiņa Valentīna 2002: Latviešu terminoloģijas izstrādes principi, otrais, labotais un papildinātais izdevums, Rīga: Latvijas valodas institūts. Šmite Astra 2012: Latvijā izdotās vārdnīcas (1991–2010). Bibliogrāfisks saraksts. – Vārdnīcu izstrāde Latvijā 1991–2010, pētījums Jura Baldunčika vad., Rīga: Latviešu valodas aģentūra, 192.–247. TKP – Minutes of the Terminology Commission (Nos. 1–80), 1921–1923. Vulāne Anna, Kvašīte Regīna 2018: Latviešu un lietuviešu lingvodidaktikas terminu vārdnīcas: sastatāmais aspekts. – Linguistica Lettica 26, 93.–117. Zemzare Daina 1961: Latviešu vārdnīcas (līdz 1900. gadam), Rīga: Latvijas PSR Zinātņu akadēmijas izdevniecība. Znotiņa Inga 2014: Valodas apguvēju korpuss: lietuviešu un latviešu termins un definīcija. – Vārds un tā pētīšanas aspekti 18(II), 265.–271. Балоде Лаймуте 1985: О латышской и литовской лингвистической терминологии (сходство и различия). – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai XXIV. Mokslo kalbos kultūros ir terminologijos problemos, Vilnius: Mokslas, 11–16. Received 2022-09-05 Regina Kvašytė Vilnius University Šiauliai Academy P. Višinskio St. 25, LT-76351 Šiauliai University of Latvia Institute of Latvian Language Kalpaka Blvd. 4, LV-1050 Riga E-mail: [email protected] Terminoloģija | 2022 | 29 181