The Terminology Commission (1945–1971)

An Overview of Its Activities

In Memory of Kazimieras Gaivenis on the 80th Anniversary of His Birth

ALBINA AUKSORIŪTĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

KEYWORDS: Terminology Commission, terms, Kazimieras Gaivenis, minutes of the Terminology Commission

The organized management of Lithuanian terminology began with the work of the first Terminology Commission (1921–1926), which lasted only five years (for more, see Palionis 1979: 268–269; Keinys 2012: 38–41; Auksoriūtė 2011: 80–91). The Terminology Commission discussed in this article began its work after the war, when “a Terminology Commission was established in 1945 under the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences to organize and coordinate terminology work in the republic; in 1951 it was transferred to the Institute of the Lithuanian Language (after the institutes were merged in 1952, it was called the Terminology Commission of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences)” (Keinys 2012: 65). The article draws on the minutes of the Terminology Commission held at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. It examines the Commission’s work from 1951 to the end of 1971, when the Terminology Council was established under the Presidium of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences. No information was found about the Terminology Commission’s work from 1945 to 1951.

The aim of the article is to discuss the activities, methods, and principles of the Terminology Commission, assess its significance for the development of Lithuanian terminology, and review the work of Kazimieras Gaivenis, the Commission’s long-serving secretary.

The first meeting of the Terminology Commission (hereafter, the Commission) took place on October 25, 1951, with Juozas Balčikonis, Jonas Kruopas, and Jonas Paulauskas in attendance. At this meeting, the Commission’s tasks were formulated,

192

Albina Auksoriūtė

Terminologijos komisijos (1945–1971) veiklos apžvalga

as stated in the first minutes, its “work will encompass: a) establishing principles for the formation of terms in various fields, b) combating the foreign bourgeois legacy in terminology, c) coordinating terminological work both within the Academy of Sciences and throughout the republic, d) popularizing terminology issues (in the press, at conferences)”¹ (TKP 1951 1²). The Commission’s areas of activity were also set out: “a) To become acquainted with the bourgeois legacy in the field of terminology; b) to become acquainted with the work being done in this field by individual institutes, state publishing houses, and other institutions, and to regulate it; c) to consider submitted proposals and answer specific questions raised; d) to write on terminology issues in the press; e) to instruct the responsible secretary, Jonas Paulauskas, to review the terms in the Lithuanian literary language dictionary currently being prepared for publication” (TKP 1951 1). It is understandable that point b) was included among the tasks set out, as the circumstances of the time called for it, while point a), listed among the areas of activity—becoming acquainted with the legacy of terminology—clearly shows that the members of this Commission sought to familiarize themselves with the work of the first Terminology Commission and envisaged continuing its work. J. Kruopas was appointed chairman of the Commission.

At the Commission’s second meeting, the question of organizing a terminology conference was discussed, and it was decided “to hold a terminology conference in Vilnius in the first half of 1952, devoted to establishing principles and guidelines for the creation and systematization of terminology, coordinating terminological work, etc. Representatives of scientific, artistic, publishing, and other institutions and organizations are to be invited to the conference” (TKP 1951 2). Another Commission meeting was held at the end of 1951, at which terms for measures and measuring instruments were considered.

In 1952, 13 Commission meetings were devoted to deliberations on the Dictionary of Legal Terms³. In addition to J. Kruopas and J. Paulauskas, already mentioned, the meetings were also often attended by the dictionary’s compiler, lawyer Alfonsas Žiurlys, Chackelis Lemchenas, Bronius Kalinauskas, and Vladas Bartusevičius. At the end of the year, consideration began of the Dictionary of Geological and Geographical Terms⁴ (5 meetings), into

¹ Quotations from the minutes are reproduced authentically, with the spelling unchanged; only examples are italicized by the article’s author. The article uses the titles of dictionaries and institutions as they appear in the minutes.

² The number of the minutes is indicated after the year.

³ The dictionary was published in 1954 – Dictionary of Legal Terms. [Lithuanian–Russian.] Compiled by A. Žiurlys; editorial board: J. Bulavas, K. Jablonskis (responsible editor), J. Žiugžda, A. Žiurlys; Institute of History and Law of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR, Vilnius: State Publishing House of Political and Scientific Literature, 1954. – 240 p.

⁴ Dictionary of Geological and Physical-Geographical Terms. [Russian–Lithuanian.] By V. Gudelis; Institute of Geology and Geography of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR, Vilnius: State Publishing House of Political and Scientific Literature, 1956. – 220 p.

Terminologija | 2014 | 21

193

Fig. 1. Minutes No. 2 of the Terminology Commission

194

Albina Auksoriūtė

Terminologijos komisijos (1945–1971) veiklos apžvalga

Its discussions were joined by its author, geographer Vytautas Gudelis, and philosopher Vincentas Žemaitis. It is also worth mentioning that the Commission had to review the terminology in Lenin’s works being translated; three meetings were devoted to this in 1952. At the meeting on March 29, coordination of terminology work was discussed. Participants included not only linguists J. Kruopas and J. Paulauskas, but also representatives of other institutes of the Academy of Sciences: Klemensas Dauta, Jonas Mazelaitis, Jonas Kazlauskas, Kostas Doveika, Elzbieta Mikalauskaitė, Jurgis Lebedys, Stasys Bizulevičius, Teodoras Čyžas, Antanas Poviliūnas, Gerardas Žilinskas, and V. Gudelis. Participants reported on terminology work in individual fields, identified its shortcomings, proposed involving more specialists, and discussed a forthcoming conference at which representatives of all specialties would report on the state of terminology work in their fields and propose measures to organize it, and explain how terminology materials were being collected and discussed, and what sources were used for terms. In 1952, the Commission’s secretaries were J. Paulauskas, Vytautas Būda, and V. Žemaitis.

At the beginning of 1953, the Commission completed its review of the Geologijos–geografijos terminų žodyną and spent practically the entire year discussing the Ekonominių terminų žodyną⁵. As the minutes record, at the meeting where discussion of the Ekonominių terminų žodynas began, “<...> an agreement was reached on the method for discussing terms: during meetings, only those terms that give rise to some doubts will be discussed. Participants will prepare for meetings in advance by familiarizing themselves with the material to be discussed” (TKP 1953 12). In 1953, 41 meetings were held; from that year, linguists Bronė Vosilytė and Napalys Grigas joined the Commission’s work.

In 1954, the Commission reviewed gymnastics and mathematics terms; representatives of the Faculty of Mathematics of Vilnius University and a representative of the State Publishing House of Political and Scientific Literature participated in the discussion of the latter. In October, discussion began of the Botanikos terminų žodynas⁶, with representatives of Vilnius University, the Pedagogical Institute, the Forestry Technical School, the Institute of Biology, and the Scientific Publishing House taking part. At the outset, the dictionary’s scope and structure were discussed, and it was decided to compile “<...> a Lithuanian-Russian dictionary of botanical terms (excluding plant names), without ter-

⁵ Russian-Lithuanian Dictionary of Economic Terms=Русско–литовский словарь экономических терминов. Editorial board: K. Meškauskas (ed. in chief), A. Poviliūnas, V. Puronas, A. Skupeika, Vilnius: Mintis, 1966. – 292 pp.

⁶ Dictionary of Botanical Terms. Compiled by the Botanical Dictionary Commission; edited by J. Dagys (chief editor), A. Lekavičius, V. Mališauskienė; Institute of Botany of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR and the Society of Botanists of the Lithuanian SSR, Vilnius: Mintis, 1965. – 664 pp.

Terminologija | 2014 | 21

195

...with explanations, supplying the Latin term where necessary” (TKP 1954 13). In 1954, the Terminology Commission met 24 times.

Discussion of botanical terms continued in 1955, when the Commission met 52 times. In addition to the aforementioned botanical terms, terms in sports (rowing, diving, swimming, boxing, water polo, fencing), medicine, and zoology were discussed. Chemistry terms came under discussion in December. In 1956, 42 meetings were held, continuing the discussion of chemistry terms; technical, zoological, anatomical, and horticultural terms were also examined. The Commission analyzed not only terms but also broader language issues. For example, the minutes of August 1956, no. 31, state: “The Commission for checking signs and notices, established by the Vilnius Executive Committee, inspected Stalin Avenue and Gorky Street over the course of three meetings and found that many signs contained Lithuanian and Russian language errors or otherwise failed to meet standards. It was decided to demand that unsuitable signs or notices be replaced. The Commission’s resolution is being sent by the Vilnius Executive Committee to the heads of the institutions or enterprises responsible for the unsuitable signs or notices” (TKP 1956 31). In 1956, linguists Antanė Kučinskaitė and Kazys Ulvydas joined the Commission’s work.

In 1957, the Commission met somewhat less often—31 meetings were held, during which the terms in the Medicinos terminų žodyno⁷ and the Fizikos terminų žodyno⁸ were discussed most extensively. The Medicinos terminų žodynas was also discussed in 1958–1959. Besides medical terms, sewing technology terms were reviewed in 1958, while in 1959 the terms in the Melioracijos terminų žodyno⁹ and the Chemijos terminų žodyno¹⁰ were examined. The Commission met 53 times in 1958 and 30 times in 1959. V. Bartusevičius served as Commission secretary from March 1953 until mid-1956; N. Grigas was secretary in 1956–1957, and Vitas Labutis from September 1957 to November 1959.

At the meeting on November 13, 1959, Kazimieras Gaivenis participated and served as secretary for the first time. Chemistry diction- was also discussed at this meeting.

⁷ The dictionary was published only in 1980 – Dictionary of Medical Terms. Authors: V. Astrauskas, S. Biziulevičius, S. Pavilo-nis, A. Vaitilavičius, A. Vileišis, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1980. – 996 pp.

⁸ Dictionary of Physics Terms. Edited by P. Brazdžiūnas; Institute of Physics and Mathematics of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR, Vilnius: State Publishing House of Political and Scientific Literature, 1958. – 124 pp.

⁹ Dictionary of Land Reclamation Terms=Словарь мелиоративных терминов. Author: J. Čeičys; Lithuanian Institute of Hydraulic Engineering and Land Reclamation Research, Vilnius: State Publishing House of Political and Scientific Literature, 1960. – 284 pp.

¹⁰ Chemistry Dictionary. Authors: K. Daukšas, Vilnius: State Publishing House of Political and Scientific Literature, 1960. – 452 pp.

196 Albina Auksoriūtė | Terminologijos komisijos (1945–1971) veiklos apžvalga

not terms, but from December onward, botanical terms were discussed, practically throughout the 1960s. In 1960, the Commission held 19 meetings, attended not only by linguists J. Kruopas, K. Gaivenis, and Antanas Balašaitis, but also by botanists Jonas Dagys, Petras Bluzmanas, Kazys Brundza, Jonas Geležėvičius, Algirdas Lekavičius, Vincentas Urbonas, Antanas Minkevčius, Valerija Mališauskienė, Marija Ivanauskienė, Vytautas Galinis, and others.

Botanical Terms Dictionary The Commission continued its review in 1961; in addition, that year another 8 meetings were devoted to additions to the Dictionary of Medical Terms, 4 meetings to the Dictionary of Economic Terms, and one to discussions of a collection of Lithuanian–Russian–English astronomy terms. In all, the Commission held 23 meetings in 1961, with K. Gaivenis as secretary. It is worth noting that, while reviewing the Botanical Terms Dictionary, the Commission also approved a list of color names used in botany.

The minutes show that the Commission was not active every year: in 1962 it met 7 times and considered botanical, literary, art, and dentistry terms. In 1963, only one meeting was held, at which art terms were examined, while in 1964, 7 meetings addressed dentistry, communications, pedagogy, forensic science, and botanical terms, as well as the names of kitchen appliances.

The years 1965–1968 were productive for the Commission: 19 meetings were held in each of 1965 and 1966; in 1967 the Commission met 16 times, and in 1968, 22 times. Most of the 1965 meetings were devoted to forensic science terms; ballet, meteorology, and botanical terms, as well as the names of types of locks and their parts, were also discussed. In 1966 the Commission continued its review of forensic science terms and approved plant and mushroom names; in 1967 it reviewed plant and mushroom names and considered some entomological and musical terms; in 1968 the Commission again reviewed plant names and approved musical and forensic science terms. On June 20, 1968, the Commission discussed how to organize the review of construction terms. “It was decided to publish collections of selected and reviewed terms in the journal ‘Statyba ir architektūra’ (‘Construction and Architecture’). Particular attention should be paid to terms that are incorrectly translated from Russian” (TKP 1968 154).

In 1969 and 1970, the Commission met only 6 times each year and considered only plant and mushroom names, except for one meeting in 1969, at which terms for a school astronomy textbook were discussed. When plant and mushroom names were considered with botanists, K. Gaivenis was the only linguist attending the meetings.

Terminologija | 2014 | 21

197

Fig. 2. Minutes of the Terminology Commission, Nos. 80–81

198

Albina Auksoriūtė

Terminologijos komisijos (1945–1971) veiklos apžvalga

In 1971, the Commission’s membership changed, and linguists Jonas Klimavičius and Angelė Kaulakienė joined its work; K. Ulvydas and Pranas Kniūkšta attended several meetings. That year, no fewer than 33 meetings were held; their secretary was J. Klimavičius, while K. Gaivenis served as secretary at only two meetings and Teresė Guogaitė at one. In 1971, terms relating to sewing-factory equipment, choreography, photographic technology, hydraulic engineering, thermal engineering, footwear materials science, acoustics, office administration, botany, sociology, and other fields were considered.

As St. Keinys writes, “[a]s terminology work in the republic expanded, the commission, composed exclusively of linguists and operating on a voluntary basis, could no longer handle all the emerging tasks of organizing and coordinating the standardization of Lithuanian terminology. Consequently, at the initiative of the Terminology Commission, preparatory work was carried out to reorganize the structure of this activity” (Keinys 2012: 66).

In the inventory of files concerning the activities of the Terminology Council, stored in file R-1034 of the Lithuanian Central State Archives, there is a one-page document entitled “Activities of the Terminology Council under the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR, 1971–1982,” signed by the Chair of the Terminology Council, Academician Vytautas Mažiulis, and its secretary, K. Gaivenis. The document states that the Terminology Council under the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR was established by Resolution No. 383 of the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR, dated December 7, 1971, pursuant to Resolution No. 451 of the Council of Ministers of the Lithuanian SSR, dated November 22, 1971 (certificate concerning LCVA file R-1034).

The Commission’s working methods and the principles it followed can be seen in the resolutions and comments recorded in the minutes. Not all minutes are detailed: those from 1951–1959 usually state how many terms, and from which fields or which dictionary, were reviewed, referring readers to separate lists, dictionary manuscripts, or card indexes. After K. Gaivenis became secretary, the minutes contained more information: they generally listed the terms discussed and adopted at meetings, and included numerous corrections and proposed terms, as well as comments related to the terms under review.

Commission members and participants had familiarized themselves with the material under consideration beforehand and, at the meeting, discussed terms that linguists thought should be corrected or refined, or that raised questions for the linguists or specialists in the field under review. When a prepared dictionary of terms was taken up for discussion, the meetings most often addressed not only general issues concerning the review of the material, but also the structure of the dictionary and matters relating to the creation and formation of terms in that field. For example,

Terminologija | 2014 | 21

199

when considering the Dictionary of Economic Terms and the letter o, “<...> it was decided to propose to the economists that they prepare a Lithuanian-Russian dictionary rather than a Russian-Lithuanian one, as had been done until then, because the task at hand was to systematize Lithuanian economic terms, providing only Russian translations” (TKP 1953 24). The minutes of December 12, 1955, state: “Having familiarized themselves with the material for the chemistry terminology dictionary being prepared for publication, the general issues were considered. It was decided that all alcohols in Lithuanian should be named with words ending in -ol, and hydrocarbons in -(n)as; benzene is an exception, benzene (since it is a hydrocarbon). Terms ending in -ide should be written with ė at the end, as is done in the terminology of other fields. It was decided not to form compound words of more than two words. It was agreed to use the suffix -uoti to denote coating, and -inti to denote converting something into something else, e.g., silver-plating, nickel-plating, alloying, but tarring, carburizing. To coat with metal: dengti, not traukti; instead of baltalas and mėlis, introduce baltasis, mėlynasis, as with other colors; nitro- should be written joined to the combining words, e.g., nitrojunginys” (TKP 1955 47). In 1964, the Glossary of Pedagogical and Psychological Terms prepared by the School Scientific Research Institute was discussed; the meeting minutes state that “some lexicographic shortcomings of the glossary were considered and noted: entries are not properly structured everywhere, attributive modifiers in compound terms are not used in the pronominal form, and there are errors in the stress placement of Lithuanian equivalents <...>. Comrade Kruopas pointed out numerous shortcomings, speaking about incorrectly formed neologisms and forms of compound-term components that are not used in literary language” (TKP 1964 83).

The Commission did not always reach decisions unanimously and by agreement; sometimes linguists and specialists argued at length and, if they reached no decision, postponed those questions to another meeting, having agreed that the linguists would check the disputed words in the dictionary index or the specialists would clarify the concept. For example, the 1953 minutes state: “Some terms were left unresolved because the representative of the Institute of Economics was unable to explain their meanings precisely. It was decided to consider them later, once the concepts had been clarified” (TKP 1953 18). Their discussions with one another were recorded in the minutes on numerous occasions, for example: “There was much argument about the word atsistatymas (tissue regeneration), Latin restitutio, Russian восстановление. Finally, the medical specialists agreed to use – audinių ataugimas” (TKP 1959 1); “There was much argument about the use of paveikslas: vaizdas: reginys, but no final agreement was reached: some proposed using образ in the sense of meninį paveikslą, others – vaizdą, and still others – atvaizdą” (TKP 1963 80).

As can be seen from the minutes, the Commission discussed international terms extensively and standardized their spelling; for example, when considering mathematical terms, it resolved—

200

Albina Auksoriūtė

Terminologijos komisijos (1945–1971) veiklos apžvalga

that: “Terms of the type abscicė, direktrisė, ekvidistantė, epicikloidė, evoliutė should be written with the ending ė, making exceptions only for a few words that have already become established with the ending a. Words of Greek origin of the type elipsė, genezė, sintaksė should be written with the ending ė, not is. Terms of the type fokusas, minusas, sinusas, pliūsas should be used with the double endings, not as fokus, minus, sinus, etc.” (TKP 1954 9); “Words of Latin origin ending in -ulla should be written in Lithuanian with the ending -ulė” (TKP 1955 44); when considering terms in the Dictionary of Botanical Terms, it was resolved: “In international words such as zoospora, akrospora, autospora and the like, retain the ending a, while in words formed in Lithuanian that have ‘-spora’ as their second component, write ė, i.e. buožiasporė, aukšliasporė, etc. Use the forms dendrariumas, alpinariumas, rozariumas in the Dictionary (cf. simpoziumas, lektoriumas, akvariumas, planetariumas, etc.), rather than dendrarijus, alpinarius, planetarijus, and the like. <...> Posekcijė (not posekcijys // posekcijis)” (TKP 1965 101). It is noteworthy that the notes to these minutes, written by K. Gaivenis, also present his opinion: “K. Gaivenis believed that changing the ending a to ė in international words of the first type is often neither an attempt to preserve the vowel of the original source (cf. Lithuanian sintaksė and Greek sinntaksis), nor an influence of Russian (cf. синтаксис). Nor is it solely an influence of German (cf. Lithuanian molekulė, German Molekül // Molekel). This tendency partly coincides with tendencies in English, French, and German, but there is nothing wrong with that” (TKP 1965 101). In addition, the minutes of another meeting, which examined the terms in a secondary-school astronomy textbook, include these corrections: “<...> apogėjus (not apogejis), albedas (not albedo), perigėjus (not perigejis)”; and K. Gaivenis wrote in the notes: “Apogėjus < Latin apogaeum < Greek Apogaion, cf. museum < Latin museum < Greek Museion, trophy < Latin trophaeum < Greek tropaion, etc.” (TKP 1969 169). Thus it is clear that, when working with specialists, K. Gaivenis provided clear arguments for his corrections.

At the meeting in October 1967, attended by participants in the Second Republican Conference of Musicologists and linguists K. Ulvydas, Kazimieras Kuzavinis, and K. Gaivenis, the following were discussed: “1. The spelling of composers’ first and last names; 2. The spelling of music-work titles; 3. The usage and spelling of certain musical terms.” It was resolved: “Everyone agreed that it should be written džiazas, not džazas, as in, for example, džiunglės, not džunglės, klavyras < German Klavier, not klaviras, etc.; mundštukas (=pūstukas), ‘Marselietė’, not ‘Mar-seljera’; repriza (=sangrąža), foršlagas (=priešgaidė), concerto for violin, not smuiko koncertas, the ballet ‘Eglė žalčių karalienė’, not the ballet ‘Eglės žalčių karalienės’, etc.” (TKP 1967 137ᵃ). As can be seen from the text provided

Terminologija | 2014 | 21

201

quotations, it was decided to replace some borrowed terms with Lithuanian ones. In the notes to this protocol, K. Gaivenis wrote: “There was much debate about adapting composers’ surnames grammatically: linguists proposed adapting the surnames, for example, Bizė, but only partially declining them, while musicologists tend to write Bize, and so on” (TKP 1967 137ᵃ).

The Commission also considered the formation of derivatives from international words and discussed principles for forming such terms, for example: “In words with sub– do not change the ending of the second component: subtropikai, subnuomininkas, subrangovas, etc.” (TKP 1952 20); “Terms of the Ambulakralinės – ambulakrinės type should be formed, if Lithuanian equivalents exist, from nouns without the suffix -al-; if no such nouns exist in Lithuanian, take them directly from other languages with -al-” (TKP 1955 45); when considering the Chemijos terminų žodyną, it was decided: “Compound terms whose first component is a foreign word (bi-, di-, poli-, etc.) should be used with the suffix -inis (cf. bimetalinis and the like). If both components are Lithuanian, take account of their role in the determinative compound and use the suffix -inis only where it cannot be omitted” (TKP 1959 29).

There is no doubt that the Commission proposed replacing unacceptable borrowings or calques with Lithuanian terms, although the protocols contain few such corrections, since they most often give lists of approved terms. Nevertheless, one or another correction can be found; for example, when considering the Ekonominių terminų žodyną, it was decided to “replace konditerinių išdirbinių fabrikas with konditerijos gaminių fabrikas, fabrikatas with gaminys, and pusfabrikatis with pusgaminis; add padirbinys as a synonym alongside falsifikato <...>” (TKP 1954 1(42)); “The lawyers would not agree to translate доведение до самоубийства as privarymas iki nusižudymo, but proposed privedimas iki nusižudymo, even though this construction is a calque and entirely foreign to our language; cf. privarė (not privedė!) iki ašarų [drove to tears]; privarė jo piktumą iki tokio laipsnio, kurį indai vadina „muč“ [his anger was driven to such a degree as the Indians call ‘muč’] (from J. Balčikonis’s translation of Hauff’s fairy tales), and so on” (TKP 1960 48); “<...> Instead of baladona use only šunvyšnė. <...>” (TKP 1961 49).

The Commission imposed both linguistic and logical requirements on the terms under consideration. One of the most important linguistic requirements for terms is “<...> correctness—that is, conformity with the rules of accentuation, spelling, grammar, word formation, grammatical adaptation, and usage” (Gaivenis 2002: 36). Some corrections concerning the requirement of correctness have already been discussed, but several more examples of corrections should be mentioned. The Commission corrected some compound terms, for example: pašalotyra (=išalotyra) (TKP 1952 26); pelkiamokslis (=pelkėtyra) (TKP 1953 3); upėmokslis (=upėtyra) (TKP 1953 6); “<...>

202

Albina Auksoriūtė

Terminologijos komisijos (1945–1971) veiklos apžvalga

in the terms vamzdžiogaudis, vamzdžiolaidis, use a rather than o as the linking vowel” (TKP 1953 11). The lists of terms approved by the Commission in the protocols show that the modifiers in multiword terms are given in the definite form, for example: slankusis vamzdelis, jungiamasis varžtelis (TKP 1965 93); paprastasis šiaudenis, puošnioji bajorė (TKP 1966 114). Only a few other corrections of this type are noted, for example: “Use the definite adjective form for the term—sausasis rūkas” (TKP 1953 11); grynieji pinigai (not gryni pinigai) (TKP 1966 113). Somewhat more often, the protocols contain corrections in which adjectival modifiers in -inis, -ė in multiword terms are replaced by the genitive case, for example: arbitražinė komisija (=arbitražo komisija), teism(in)ės psichiatrijos ekspertas (=teismo psichiatrijos ekspertas) (TKP 1952 17); prekybinis tarpininkas (=prekybos tarpininkas); techninis ekspertas (=technikos ekspertas), darbinės santaupos (=darbo santaupos) (TKP 1952 20); rutulinė išpiova (=rutulio išpiova), skaitinė ašis (=skaičių ašis) (TKP 1954 10); cheminė pramonė (=chemijos pramonė) (TKP 1959 27). A few more examples of corrections to multiword terms from the protocols: aktyvinė rinkimų teisė (=aktyvioji rinkimų teisė), individualinis užsakymas (=individualus užsakymas), neteisėtas užsiėmimas gydytojavimu (=neteisėtas gydytojavimas) (TKP 1952 17); miškui kirsti bilietas (=miško kirtimo bilietas), išimtinė būklė (=ypatingoji būklė) (TKP 1952 19); karo vedimas (=kariavimas), karinė apskaita (=karinė įskaita) (TKP 1952 20); palaikinis (=laikinis (užmokestis, atlyginimas)), padieninis (=dieninis (užmokestis, atlyginimas)) (TKP 1953 28).

The Commission also set logical requirements for the terms under consideration, drawing attention to their precision, systematicity, and motivation, as is evident from K. Gaivenis’s comments in the protocols, for example: “Doc. Ivanauskienė proposed using baltmiškis everywhere instead of the term plačialapių lapuočių m. [broad-leaved deciduous forests]. (This term is used in the section about Lithuanian forests that she wrote for “The Physical Geography of the Lithuanian SSR.”) But this term is inconvenient because 1) the term smulkialapių miškas [small-leaved forest] would still remain, and 2) baltmiškis usually means any deciduous forest (лиственный лес). Cf. p. 165 of the “Dictionary of Sports Terms,” A. Baran. “Anykščių šilelis”: “Kai balto miško lapeliai mirgėjo...” [When the leaves of the white forest shimmered...]” (TKP 1959 30); “<...> replace ilgasnapį bastutį with stepiniu bastučiu (because the first adjective does not correspond to the morphology of the plant in question)” (TKP 1960 41); “Names for kitchen appliances were considered—It was decided to use dešros pjaustytuvas instead of dešros pjaustymo mašinėlė (mašinėlė dešrai pjaustyti, dešros pjaustomoji mašinėlė). The names plaktuvas, skustuvas [mixer, peeler] and the like were also adopted, <...>” (TKP 1964 85).

Terminologija | 2014 | 21 203

The protocol materials show that the Commission also adhered to the principle of consistency in its work—not changing terms already in use without good reason; for example: “<...> The question of plokštumos and plokšmės was considered for a second time. It was concluded that both words mean the same thing, and it was decided to retain plokštumą, which has the longer-standing tradition” (TKP 1954 10); “<...> Instead of the proposed bambažolės, it was decided to use the customary linãžolės. 4. Instead of the occasional bajano, inžyro, use only figmedis, as in DLKŽ” (TKP 1961 49).

During its two decades of work, the Commission considered lists of terms from many different fields and reviewed more than ten terminological dictionaries (Dictionary of Legal Terms, Dictionary of Geological and Geographical Terms, Dictionary of Medical Terms, Dictionary of Land Reclamation Terms, Dictionary of Chemical Terms, Dictionary of Botanical Terms, Dictionary of Economic Terms, Explanatory Dictionary of Textile Terms, Dictionary of Literary Terms, Technical Terms (bulletin series), Criminalistics Handbook, and others). St. Keinys aptly assessed its work: “This commission did substantial work by encouraging specialists in various fields to devote more attention to the standardization of Lithuanian terminology, and by reviewing published terminological dictionaries from a linguistic perspective. <...> During the Commission’s years of activity, the foundations were laid for the further successful standardization of Lithuanian terminology, and the forms and methods of this work that became established then continued to be used and developed” (Keinys 2012: 65).

When assessing the work accomplished by any collective, it is important also to recognize the influence and contribution of leading figures and authorities in the field. The Commission under discussion was headed by the linguist J. Kruopas, about whom St. Keinys wrote: “In the postwar years, J. Kruopas was the most prominent organizer of Lithuanian terminology standardization and the greatest authority in this field” (Keinys 2012: 65). Another authority in this field was K. Gaivenis, executive secretary of the Terminology Commission of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature, appointed to this post by the President of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences on November 2, 1959. From August 1, 1962, to April 1, 1970, he served as the same commission’s executive editor, and later as a research fellow. He was responsible for most of the Commission’s organizational work, document management, and practical terminology work. At Commission meetings, terminological dictionaries or collections of terms prepared by specialists were considered; in addition, the Commission received various terminology-related questions from institutes, societies, publishing houses, editorial offices, factories, various organizations, and individuals that were active at the time.

204

Albina Auksoriūtė

Terminologijos komisijos (1945–1971) veiklos apžvalga

Fig. 3. K. Gaivenis’s reply to letter No. 306 of 1962

Terminologija | 2014 | 21

205

persons interested in terminology. The file of correspondence received and sent by the Terminology Commission¹¹ shows that in practice nearly all questions sent to the Commission were answered by its secretary, K. Gaivenis; in addition, he wrote comments to authors about the terminology dictionaries they were preparing—that is, reviews of those dictionaries.

As an example of the kinds of questions the Commission received, one may cite letter No. 7–2235, sent on June 10, 1961, by V. Lepšys, Deputy Head of the Canned Goods, Fats and Tobacco Industry Division of the Food Industry Directorate of the Council of the National Economy: “At the beginning of this year’s season, the canned goods industry plans to begin producing a new potato product. These will be potatoes cut into thin slices (1 mm thick), cooked in fat, and having a crisp consistency. In Russian this product is called ‘хрустящий картофель’ or ‘чипсы’. We propose calling it ‘traškučiai’. We ask for your approval or a suggestion for another name.” K. Gaivenis, Executive Secretary of the Terminology Commission of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature, replied to this letter as follows: “<...> we inform you that чипсы we suggest translating as gruzdesiai. The word traškučiai could also be suitable for this purpose, but its meaning is a little too broad.”

It should be emphasized that K. Gaivenis not only undertook practical work on standardizing terminology in the Commission and taught specialists in various fields how to create terms, but also grounded this work in scientific research, analyzed various terminological problems, and summarized the main aspects of Lithuanian terminology theory in his scholarly works. Thus, the work he accomplished is especially important and significant for Lithuanian terminology; he was one of the principal theorists of Lithuanian terminology.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The Terminology Commission (1945–1971) worked according to the same principles as the first pre-war Terminology Commission: linguists considered terminology dictionaries or collections of terms prepared by specialists in particular fields together with their compilers.

2. The Commission imposed both linguistic requirements on the terms under consideration, paying particular attention to their correctness, and logical requirements, aiming for precision and systematicity. In addition, it already used—

¹¹ This file is kept at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language.

206

Albina Auksoriūtė

Terminologijos komisijos (1945–1971) veiklos apžvalga

It did not replace long-established terms without compelling reasons, striving to adhere to the principle of consistency. The Commission did much to standardize the spelling of international terms, organize microsystems of compound terms in certain fields of science, and replace loanwords and calques with Lithuanian terms, among other things.

3. During its more than twenty years of work, the Commission undertook substantial work to organize terminology and promote and develop it: it not only considered dictionaries of terms being prepared in botany, chemistry, economics, physics, geography, criminalistics, literature, medicine, land reclamation, engineering, law, and other fields, and advised and consulted institutions and enterprises on various terminology-related matters, but also organized conferences and meetings with specialists on the creation, development, and dissemination of Lithuanian terminology.

4. The Commission’s successful work was due to its chair, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Jonas Kruopas, and Dr. Kazimieras Gaivenis, who served as the Commission’s secretary and editor from late 1959. As the Commission’s minutes show, K. Gaivenis’s well-reasoned comments on the spelling of international terms and the precision and systematicity of Lithuanian terms, together with his practical work on creating and standardizing terms and his scholarly theoretical studies, contributed to the formation of Lithuanian terminology as a distinct branch of linguistics.

LITERATURE AND SOURCES

Auksoriūtė A. 2011: Terminologijos komisijos (1921–1926) veiklos apžvalga. – Terminologija 18, 80–91.

Gaivenis K. 2002: Lietuvių terminologija: teorijos ir tvarkybos metmenys, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.

Keinys St. 2012: Lietuvių terminologijos raida, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.

Note on LCVA fond R–1034 – Note on the fond of the Council under the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR, no. R–1034. Available online: <http://www.archyvai.lt/lt/fondai/moksliniai_tyrimai/lcva_fr1034_pazyma.html> (accessed 2014-11-14).

Palionis J. 1979: Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos istorija, Vilnius: Mokslas.

TKP 1951–1971: Terminologijos komisijos protokolai Nr. 1–207, saugomi Lietuvių kalbos institute.

THE OVERVIEW OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TERMINOLOGY COMMISSION (1945–1971)

After the Second World War the Terminology Commission started its activities in Lithuania. It was established at the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences in order to organize and co-ordinate terminology work and was transferred to the Institute of the Lithuanian Language in 1951. The article deals with the activities of this Terminology Commission as well as the methods and principles of its work between 1951 and the end of 1971 when it was reorganized into Terminology Council at the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences.

Terminologija | 2014 | 21

207

The work of the Terminology Commission was organized in the same way as of the first one – dictionaries or lists of terms prepared by the specialists of a particular field were discussed by Lithuanian linguists and specialists together. Reviewed terms had to meet linguistic requirements with the particular attention given to the regularity as well as logic requirements seeking precision and systematicality. The principle of constancy was observed and terms which were in usage were not being changed without a serious reason.

In twenty years of its activities Terminology Commission performed important work in the ordering of terminology, its encouragement and development. It discussed terminological dictionaries of botany, chemistry, criminal law, economics, geography, literature, land-reclamation, law, medicine, engineering and other fields which were being compiled, provided terminology related consultations for various institutions, organized conferences and discussions with specialists in regard to Lithuanian terminology creation, development and dissemination.

A big contribution to the success of the activities of Terminology Commission was made by its chairman dr. Jonas Kruopas and its secretary from the end of 1959 as well as editor Kazimieras Gaivenis. Practical activities of term creation and ordering and scientific theoretical work of Gaivenis contributed to the development of terminology into a separate branch of linguistics in Lithuania.

Received 2014-11-27

Albina Auksoriūtė

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius

E. paštas [email protected]

208 Albina Auksoriūtė | Terminologijos komisijos (1945–1971) veiklos apžvalga