Janio Endzelyno terminologinės įžvalgos

173Terminologija | 2012 | 19 Terminological Insights by Janis Endzelynas SOLvITA LABANAUSKIENė Institute of Lithuanian Language KEY WORDS: Baltic languages, Latvian terminology, Lithuanian language, terminology principles 140th anniversary of the birth of Janis Endzelynas <...> As a bee sucks honey, So I speak a little. I put the word flowers, Like little flowers in a wreath <...> (from Latvian folk song)1 Janis Endzelins (Jānis Endzelīns, born on 22 February 1873 in Kuoknese, famous Latvian of the 20th century. He was destined to become one of died on 1 July 1961 in Valmiera) was an Indo-Europeanist and the most the greatest Latvian linguists more than half a century ago. This article briefly presents J. Endzelyno scientific activity, linguistic dispositions, with special attention paid to his terminological views. The Latvian giant2, as most scholars describe him, J. Endzelynas studied linguistics in Estonia (at the time at Dorpat University, now Tartu University) and in Ukraine (at Kharkov University, then part of the Russian Empire). His first scientific publications appeared during his student years under the pseudonym Kaugurietis (after his place of birth in Kaugurų valsčius) (Zīriņae 2012). In 1920 he moved to Riga and began working at the Latvian State University. In 1920, he founded the Department of Baltic Philology, which he headed all the time. J. Endzelynas taught Latvian, Lithuanian and Polish. The words about the language are taken from one of J. Endzelynas’ favorite songs. 2 The first to call J. Endzelynas this way was K. Būga. 174 Solvita Labanauskienė | Janis Endzelynas' terminological insights into the SOV, ancient Germanic languages, Sanskrit and other subjects of comparative linguistics. His lectures were characterized by extraordinary systematicity, abundance of facts, precision (Sabaliauskas 1962: 305). J. Endelynas made free use of facts from various languages, linking them into a logically clear, precise system. No other Latvian scholar has been elected as a member of so many institutions and organizations as J. Endzelynas – he was not only an honorary member of the European (Czech, Estonian, Dutch, Finnish, Swedish, German, etc.), but also of the American Linguistic Society (EL 1972: 155). During his more than sixty years of intensive scientific activity, the linguist published more than 300 works in Latvian, Russian, German, Lithuanian, Italian, French and Polish. Among the most important works of J. Endzelynas on Baltic studies are: Slavyano-baltiyskie etyudy (Slavic and Baltic Etüdes), 1911; Old Prussian Language, 1943; Baltu valodu skaņas un formas (Sounds and Forms of the Baltic Languages – published in Lithuanian in 1957), 1948; It is important to mention Latviešu valodas gramatika (Grammar of the Latvian language), published in Riga for the second time in 19513, in which, in explaining the history of the facts of the Latvian language, J. Endzelynas often also relied on the Lithuanian language. “In a certain sense, this work can be considered the first grammar of the Baltic languages, where the facts of the Latvian language are presented in the first place” (Sabaliauskas 1982: 109). From 1921 to 1940 J. Endzelynas edited the journal Filologu biedrības raksti (Articles of the Philosophical Society, published 20 issues). Most of the linguist’s works are included in the fourth collection of works Darbu izlase, dedicated to discussing issues of Baltic studies, comparative historical linguistics, Latvian ethnogenesis, dialectology, toponymy, language contacts, current issues of Latvian language culture, lexicography, etc. In the words of Daina Nytiņa, the theoretical views of J. Endzelynas can be systematized based on the various researches of the scientific legacy (Nītiņa, 2006). 1972: 12). Together with another prominent Latvian linguist, Kārlis Mīlenbahs, J. Endzelynas developed and established the basic principles of Latvian language standardization. Following the Leipzig school of linguists, the scientist scrupulously examined every detail of the language at various stages of its development3. In 1958, J. Endzelyn – the first scientist in Latvia – was awarded the Lenin Prize for this work. 175Terminologija | 2012 | 19 puose. He was interested not only in the historical data of the Latvian language – in order to achieve an objective assessment, he proposed to undertake comparison, i.e. to compare the phenomena of his language with related languages (Porīte 1973: 70). “Among the most important principles of language standardization J. Endzelynas mentions selection. Such a principle itself means certain losses – when choosing one of the two, we have to give up something. So even simple selection is a responsible job, it is important to take what is most suitable and valuable, and to give up the worse and unnecessary options. The normative work is not limited to selection alone, it is necessary to create completely new phenomena that are not present in language or that are not directly taken from it” (Kniūkšta 2001: 142). Like his father, John Bennett was a native speaker of the English language. Openly and strictly, critically raised language errors, irregularities. The professor was characterized by external accuracy (Ādamsons 1999: 5), linguistic correctness: respect for the meaning of words, grammatical correctness and soundness (Celmiņa 1999: 36). He demanded this of every speaker and writer. The Latvian linguist Tamara Puorytė (Tamāra Porīte) lists the following criteria for the standardization of J. Endzelyno language: 1) the antiquity of word forms or constructions, 2) the tradition and prevalence of the use of word forms or constructions, 3) analogy, 4) the semantic role of word parts, 5) language economy, 6) clarity, 7) regularity (Porīte 1973: 71–74). In creating common language norms, J. Endzelins attached great importance to Latvian folk songs (Endzelīns I: 31). In his opinion, old folk songs are the only pure source of Latvian language, the language spoken in the past by Latvians who knew neither foreign languages nor communicated in a language containing Germanisms and Slavisms (Endzelīns III2: 236–237). The scientist emphasized the importance of neighbouring languages. J. Endzelynas used Lithuanian as an example of the Latvian language and often used Lithuanian facts in his research (Nītiņa 1972: 11). This can be seen in the book Professor J. Endzelīna atbildes. Rīgas latviešu biedrības valodniecības nodaļas sēžu protokoli 1933–1942 (Professor J. Endzelīna answers. Minutes of the meetings of the Riga Latvian Society’s Linguistics Section 1933–1942), published in the United States of America, e.g. : How to correctly call “baldness” (Die Glatze, плешь)? Atb. : The word „pleĩķis” is found in Glika’s text, but with its ķ sound it is not Latvian. It would be appropriate to introduce a new word „pleîce“, which would correspond to lš. ‘pleĩkė’ (Endzelins 2001: 23). 176 Solvita Labanauskienė | Terminological Insights of Janio Endzelynas Is it correct – “esamība” (das Sein)? Answer: in this sense it is better to say „esme“ (as in lš. esm) and „ira“. The meanings of these two words could be distinguished (Endzelins 2001: 24). Instead of the word „Ateljē“, which has no Latvian ending, one could use the word „dirbīkla“ (compare with lš. dirbyklà) and a verb known in Priekulē „piedirbt“ = to make) (Endzelins 2001: 32)4. The meetings of the Latvian Society of Riga discussed syntax, stylistics, spelling, terminology and other areas. Lithuanian representatives – Petras Jonikas and Jonas Kabelka – also participated in them. J. Endzelynas learned Lithuanian independently and it became not only an aid to his study of other languages, but also a direct object of his research (Sabaļausks 1959: 23). He wrote articles for Lithuanian magazines (Lietuvių tauta, Archivum Philologicum) and was interested in Lithuanian cultural life. J. Endzelynas always mentioned with great sincerity the linguists – the Lithuanian Kazimieras Būga and the Estonian Paul Ariste (BitīteMurele 1999: 25). The Latvian scholar encouraged K. Būga to follow the path of a dictionary writer (Vosylytė 1956: 88). J. Jablonski was not forgotten either. Endzelynas mentioned him as a teacher who taught him theoretical subjects and helped him to organize the terminology. In J. Endzelyno reviews, written both before the Second World War and in the post-war years, the language dispositions are particularly revealed. In writing about translations of texts, he suggested respecting the original as much as possible, but not harming his own language (Endzelīns I: 656). According to him, one must empathize with the spirit of the language, its vitality. In order to create a new word form, J. Endzelynas drew inspiration from writers. Valentina Skujinia (Valentīna Skujiņa) emphasized that J. Endzelynas held the view that language is a living organism that changes and develops along with society. Therefore, often what is considered correct in one period may not be valid after some time (Skujiņa 1972: 27–28). 4 Translation: How to correctly call a "bald part of the head" (Die Glatze, плешь)? Ats. : In Glik’s text we find the word “pleĩķis”, but it, which contains the sound ķ, is not Latvian. The new word „pleĩce“ should be added, which would correspond to Lithuanian „pleĩkė“ (From the meeting of the Kalbarijos section, held on 7 December 1933, chaired by J. Endzelynas). Is the word "being" (das Sein) correct? Answer: This meaning is better to call "esme" (as in Lithuanian esmėų) and "ira". The meanings of the two words should be distinguished (From the meeting of the 21, which was led by J. Endzelynas). Instead of the word “ateljē”, which does not have the ending characteristic of Latvian, it would be better to use the word “dirbīkla” (cf. lit. dirbyklà) and the verb “piedirbt” = to adapt, which is well known in Priekule) (From the meeting of the Kalbotyra section, held on 27 September 1934, chaired by J. Endzelynas). 177Terminologija | 2012 | 19 J. Endzelynas began his practical work in the field of terminology at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, i.e., at a time when individual unregulated words created by Latvian authors prevailed. At that time, according to Latvian terminologist V. Skujinia, the principles of term creation were not yet established in Latvia (Skujiņa 1972: 17). V. Skujinia has written about the merits of the famous Latvian linguist for terminology. According to her, J. Endzelynas has not published a separate study on terminology problems, but his opinion on this subject can be formed by reading the book Dažādas valodas kļūdas (Various language errors) (1st edition 1928, 4th edition 1932), as well as individual articles from books edited by him (P. Ozoliņa Valodas prakses jautājumi (Questions of language practice) (1935) and V. Rūķe Valodas un rakstības jautājumi (Questions of language and spelling) (1940)) (Skujiņa 1972: 23). J. Endzelynas has written articles on terminology issues, which have been published in periodicals such as Dzimtenes Vēstnesis (The Homeland’s News), Latvijas Sargs (The Guardian of Latvia), Latvis, Latvju Mēnešraksts (Latvian Monthly), Skolotāju Avīze (Teachers’ Newspaper) and others. He contributed to the terminology of the Latvian language through his terminology work. In early 1919, the first Latvian terminology commission – Latvju terminu komisija (Latvian Terms Commission) was formed in St. Petersburg. In the summer of the same year, at the suggestion of the Ministry of Education, a terminology commission was established in Riga, which was divided into sections and managed terms in various fields. It operated until World War II. The terminology commission was subordinated to a special linguistics commission, which consisted of 7 members: J. Endzelynas (joined the work in 1920), Ernestas Blese, Paulius Pauls Dāle, Vilis Plūdonis, Linards Laicens and others – the task of this commission was to check the linguistic part of the work done in the sections (Skujiņa 2002: 16). J. Endzelynas was appointed as a consultant. In 1922, the commission published Zinātniskās terminoloģijas vārdnīca (Dictionary of Scientific Terminology), in which the terms were presented in Russian, German and Latvian. It contains more than ten fields of terms: linguistics, philosophy, law, finance, art, chemistry, mathematics, etc. The terminology dictionary contains terms of Latvian origin (folk terms, modern terms) and foreign words. However, there is no lack of purism in the dictionary: artificially created incomprehensible terms were submitted to the 1922 dictionary alongside international words (Grabis 2006: 224), e.g.: inerce – kutrība, klients – klients. 178 Solvita Labanauskienė | JanioEndzelynoterminologinėsįžvalgos pienāksnieks, koeficients–reizulis,koridors– starpeja,signalizācija– ziņdošana,temperatūra– siltkāpe,tēze–dētsir kt. As can be seen, the Latvian terminology commission tried to eradicate most of the international words (which J. Endzelynas still called modern foreign words) by replacing them with new words. Surveys were published in the press – in this way the public was also involved in the creation of terminology. After the terminology dictionary appeared, it was sharply criticized in the media. J. Endzelynas published three letters addressed to one of the critics, Hermanas Budulis, a doctor of medical sciences, who called the dictionary “very superficial” in terms of terminology (see Endzelīns iii2: 127–133). The Latvian linguist wrote a stern reply in which he opposed the unfounded and absurd criticism. In his letters in the form of a reply, he not only indicated the reasons for choosing the terms criticized by H. Budulis, but also defined the principles of creating terms. Three-word terms are not considered by J. Endzelynas as terms, but as definitions, for example, elpas rīkles vāks (anthrax). In his opinion, it is important to first collect all the words used in the folk language, and only after that can word making be started (Skujiņa 1972: 22). In his opinion, the cooperation of specialists and linguists is extremely important. In the 1920s and 1930s there was a fairly intensive work on the creation of terms in Latvia, but this was done in a non-systematic manner, without harmonizing and coordinating the terminology of various fields (Skujiņa 2002: 18). J. Endzelynas regretted that when creating terms, Lithuanians and Latvians did not agree with each other – so it was possible to create a number of terms common to both nations (Endzelīns III2: 373). In his opinion, over time, the terminology needs to be corrected, updated, supplemented. The Latvian linguist has edited several dictionaries, including several dictionaries of terms. In 1939 a bilingual dictionary of terms was published Vāciski-latviska elektrotechniskā vārdnīca5 (Latvijas Elektrotechniskās biedrības terminoloģijas komisijas apkopojums. [Red. J. Endzelīns]. Riga, 1939) (German-Latvian dictionary of electrical engineering), the terms of which were revised by J. Endzelynas. It was the first dictionary dedicated to electrical engineering, which included Latvian terms (about 5000 terms) in addition to German ones. According to 5 Latv. ‘electrotechnical dictionary’. According to J. Endzelynas, according to Latvian language traditions, the correct name would be elektrotehnikā vārdnīca (electrotechnical dictionary), because the noun form means belonging, and the -inis derivative of the prefix denotes species relationships, nature. It is in such cases that the adjective is used in Russian and German (Skujiņa 1999: 104–105). 179Terminologija | 2012 | 19 According to V. Skujinina, the 1939 dictionary confirmed that the activities of the Latvian intelligentsia at that time had given good results – most of the terms are still used in the present language. These are, first of all, short and convenient terms – derived from the ending -e, and secondly, enriched terms. It should be noted that some of the Latvian terms are based on the German example (Skujiņa 1999: 101). Several dictionaries edited by J. Endzelynas are mentioned, in which he checked not only the proofreading, but also corrected terms, nomenclatural names and definitions (Bibliografija 1958: 11): Dictionary of Latin Grammar and Grammar of the Latin Language. Get it right. Ed. Ozoliņš. Red. J. Endzelīns, Riga, 1924. Foreign Languages Dictionary (2nd ed.). Get it right. Ed. Ozoliņš. Red. J. Endzelīns, Riga, 1926. Dictionary of Economics (Tautos ūkio žodynas). 1.–4. [Unfinished]. Editor-in-Chief: E. Dunsdorfs. Editors: A. Aizsilnieks, K. Bērziņš, L. Šulcs. Language editors: J. Endzelīns, E. Hauzenberga-Šturma. Russian language editor N. Sinaiska-Lapa. Riga, 1943-1944. Auziņš A., Kleinbergs F. and Plostnieks F. Vāciski-latviski grāmatrūpniecības termini (German-Latvian terms of the book industry). Red. A. Augstkalns. [The book was reviewed by Prof. J. Endzelis and he made some suggestions and remarks]. Riga, 1940. Latvian, German and Russian Book Industry Dictionary (Latvių, vokiečių ir rusų kalbų knygų pramonės žodynas). Get it right. A. Auziņš, (nomenclature of the dictionary edited by prof. J. Endzelins), Riga, 1942. These dictionaries can be used to determine the linguistic views of the Latvian scholar, as well as the criteria for the creation of terms. Most of the terms models provided in them are productive today. Together with K. Mulenbach, J. Endzelynas did a huge job in preparing one of the largest Latvian dictionaries Latviešu valodas vārdnīca (1923–1932) (Latvian Dictionary). The dictionary is rich in dialects, which provide an opportunity to use and supplement the current terminology (see Skujiņa 1972: 30). This dictionary is also important because it contains a lot of etymological material useful for the Lithuanian language. While working on practical terminology, J. Endzelynas drew attention to word formation. He emphasized the unambiguity of the means of word formation (Skujiņa 1972: 24), i.e. the need to take into account the semantic role (function) of each word part. When creating derivatives of abstract meaning, J. Endzelynas considered the most productive suffix -ība (for naming more intense or stable characteristics), e.g.: agrīnība “earlyness”, dīdzība “sprouting”, nodarbinātība “employment; Employment”, J. Endzelynas added 180 Solvita Labanauskienė | Terminological insights of Janio Endzelyno in the field of “permanence” and others. He used the derivatives of the suffix -ums to name a characteristic or a state. This type of derivative has a more specific meaning, they are used to name a particular case or a temporary state, for example: nopietnums "seriousness", patiesums "righteousness", etc. J. Endzelynas proposed to make new terms with the ending -e: such derivatives have a shorter form and a more generalized meaning, i.e. they can name both the process of activity and the result (Saule-Sleine 1972: 11), e.g.: aizdedze “ignition”, bīde “shear”, slīde “sliding”, etc. The Latvian linguist also called for not to leave aside the punching, which is convenient to use, because it allows to express in one word composite concepts (complies with the requirement of shortness of terms) (Skujiņa 1972: 11), e.g.: darbietilpība “work capacity”, sausumizturība “drought resistance”, ziemcietība “winter resistance”, etc. many new words to the terminology of the Latvian language, without which it is not possible to do without the current terminology. Many of his terms, especially those with prefixes and endings, have become established in the modern Latvian language, such as: aptumsums "eclipse", attieksme "relationship", dārzeņi "vegetables", dotumi "data", dzinējrats "wheel", izvirdums "eruption; outbreak”, victory “victory”, preposition “prepositional”, representative “representatives”, environment “environment”, ointment “ointment”, etc. J. Endzelynas paid particular attention to analogy. In order to create new words, he used models of similar words already existing in Latvian (Porīte 1973: 71–72). The Latvian linguist did not rule out word formation according to examples from other languages. According to J. Endzelynas, the means of enriching the language are the borrowing of words from dialects, as well as from Lithuanian or Prussian languages, or the making of own words. Stasys Šalkauskis, the creator of Lithuanian terminology theory, has also emphasized the vocabulary of his own language as the most important source of terminology (see Šalkauskis 1991: 24–60). After the Second World War, in 1946, a Terminology Commission was established under the Latvian (then still SSR) Academy of Sciences (it was first called Latviešu valodas terminoloģijas un pareizrakstības komisija (Latvian language terminology and spelling commission), later the name was shortened and renamed Latviešu valodas terminoloģijas komisija (Latvian language terminology commission) (Skujiņa 2007: 5)). J. Endzelynas became the scientific director of the Language Department of the Institute of Language and Literature. In addition to his extensive research on the Latvian language, J. Endzelynas also found time for topical questions of language practice and terminology. Latvian SSR 181Terminologija | 2012 | 19 The Academy of Sciences began publishing the newspaper Zinātņu akadēmijas vēstis (News of the Academy of Sciences) and as a separate supplement – the Bulletins of the Terminology Commission (over 30 years, 42 term bulletins were published). They contained Latvian terms in various fields, examined and approved by the commission, as well as the equivalents of Russian terms. From 1946 to 1955 J. Endzelynas worked in the Latvian Language Terminology Commission of the Latvian Academy of Sciences, writing reviews on terms in the fields of science, art and technology, correcting them and creating new words. He has given valuable advice on terminology to many specialists (Skujiņa 1972: 30). After the establishment of the Institute of Language and Literature of the Latvian Academy of Sciences in 1946, J. Endzelynas headed the language department, and later, until his death, the dictionaries sector. CONCLUSIONS J. Endzelynas is not only one of the most famous Latvians, but also one of the Baltists. He is one of the founders of the Latvian language standardization. The essence of J. Endzelyno principles is to strictly adhere to the facts of language history, to compare with related languages, to select what is most appropriate and valuable, to adhere to language purity, grammatical correctness, sonority and to respect the meanings of words. Through his theoretical and practical work, he contributed to the development of Latvian terminology. His theoretical views on terminology problems are reflected in the book Various language errors, articles published in various Latvian newspapers and magazines, edited terms, foreign words and spelling dictionaries and books. Valuable material for Lithuanian terminology can be found in the Latvian language dictionary prepared by J. Endzelynas and K. Muulenbach. He was a prominent scholar in the field of linguistics, and was considered one of the most influential linguists of the 20th century. He suggested creating new creations only when there is no word used in the people. In Latvian, he considered -ība and -ums to be the most productive suffixes, suggested that new terms be made with the ending -e and avoid punches (shortness criterion). The Latvian linguist did not recognise long, descriptive terms – he considered three-word terms as definitions. He emphasized the cooperation between linguists and specialists from different fields. Thanks to J. Endzelynas, Latvian terminology was developed, supplemented and organized, and many of the terms he created are still used today.