Janis Endzelīns’s Terminological Insights

SOLVITA LABANAUSKIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

KEYWORDS: Baltic languages, Latvian terminology, Lithuanian language, principles of terminology

On the 140th anniversary of Janis Endzelīns’s birth

<...> Kā bitīte medu sūca, Tā es ļaužu valodiņu. Es saliku vārdu ziedus, Kā puķītes vainagā <...> (from a Latvian folk song)¹

The Indo-Europeanist Janis Endzelīns (Jānis Endzelīns), the most famous Latvian linguist of the 20th century, was born on February 22, 1873 (February 10 according to the Old Style calendar) in northern Latvia, near the city of Valmiera. He died on July 1, 1961, in Koknese and was buried in Riga’s Rainis Cemetery. More than half a century ago, he was destined to become one of the greatest Latvian linguists.

This article briefly presents J. Endzelīns’s scholarly work and linguistic views, with particular attention to his ideas on terminology.

The Latvian giant², as most scholars describe him, J. Endzelīns studied linguistics in Estonia (at the University of Dorpat, now Tartu, at the time) and Ukraine (at Kharkov University, then in the Russian Empire). His first scholarly publications appeared while he was a student, under the pseudonym Kaugurietis (after his birthplace in Kauguri parish) (Zīriņa 2012). In 1920 he moved from Kharkov to Riga and began working at the Latvian State University. That year, on his initiative, the Department of Baltic Philology was established there, and he himself headed it throughout. J. Endzelīns taught a course in Latvian and lectured on Lithuanian and Prussian…

¹ The words about language are taken from one of J. Endzelīns’s favorite songs.

² K. Būga was the first to call J. Endzelīns this.

Terminologija | 2012 | 19

173

Sanskrit, the ancient Germanic languages, and other areas of comparative linguistics. His lectures were distinguished by extraordinary systematicity, an abundance of facts, and precision (Sabaliauskas 1962: 305). J. Endzelīns freely drew on facts from various languages, bringing them together in a logically clear and precise system.

No Latvian scholar was elected a member of as many institutions and organizations as J. Endzelīns: he was an honorary member not only of European linguistic societies (in the Czech Republic, Estonia, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Germany, and elsewhere), but also of the American Linguistic Society (EL 1972: 155). During the more than sixty years of his intensive scholarly career, the linguist published over 300 works in Latvian, Russian, German, Lithuanian, Italian, French, and Polish. Among J. Endzelīns’s fundamental works on Baltic studies are: Славяно-балтийские этюды (Slavų ir baltų etiudai), 1911; Senprūšu valoda (Senovės prūsų kalba), 1943; Baltu valodu skaņas un formas (Baltų kalbų garsai ir formos – published in Lithuanian in 1957), 1948; Ievads baltu filoloģijā (Baltų filologijos įvadas), 1945. Also worth mentioning is the second edition of Latviešu valodas gramatika (Latvių kalbos gramatiką)³, published in Riga in 1951, in which J. Endzelīns often drew on Lithuanian as well when explaining the history of Latvian linguistic facts. “In a certain sense, this work may be considered the first grammar of the Baltic languages in which Latvian facts are presented first” (Sabaliauskas 1982: 109).

From 1921 to 1940, J. Endzelīns edited the journal Filologu biedrības raksti (Filologų draugijos straipsniai, of which 20 issues were published). Most of the linguist’s works were collected in a four-volume selection, Darbu izlase, devoted to questions in Baltic studies, comparative historical linguistics, Latvian ethnogenesis, dialectology, toponymy, language contact, and current issues in Latvian language culture, lexicography, and other fields.

VIEWS ON STANDARD LANGUAGE CODIFICATION

In the words of Daina Nītiņa, J. Endzelīns’s theoretical views can be systematized on the basis of multifaceted studies of his scholarly legacy (Nītiņa 1972: 12).

Together with another renowned Latvian linguist, Kārlis Mīlenbahs, J. Endzelīns developed and established the principal principles of Latvian language codification. Following the linguists of the Leipzig School, the scholar meticulously examined every detail of the language at its various stages of development—

³ In 1958, J. Endzelīns was awarded the Lenin Prize for this work, becoming the first scholar in Latvia to receive it.

174

Solvita Labaunskienė | Janio Endzelyno terminologinės įžvalgos

ment. Historical data on Latvian were not the only things that mattered to him: in pursuit of an objective assessment, he advocated comparison—that is, comparing the phenomena of one’s own language with those of related languages (Porīte 1973: 70).

“Among the most important principles of language codification, J. Endzelīns lists selection. This principle itself entails certain losses: when choosing among several options, we must reject something. Thus, even simple selection is a responsible task: it is important to choose what is most suitable and valuable, and to discard inferior and unnecessary variants. Codification work is not limited to selection alone; it is also necessary to create entirely new phenomena that are absent from the language or not directly taken from it” (Knıūkšta 2001: 142).

Like Jonas Jablonskis, J. Endzelīns cared about the purity of the native language. He openly and firmly criticized language errors and incorrect forms. The professor was characterized by external precision (Ādamsons 1999: 5) and linguistic correctness: attention to word meanings, grammatical accuracy, and euphony (Celmiņa 1999: 36). He demanded the same of everyone who spoke or wrote.

The Latvian linguist Tamāra Porīte lists the following criteria J. Endzelīns used in language codification: 1) the antiquity of word forms or constructions, 2) the tradition and prevalence of their use, 3) analogy, 4) the semantic role of word parts, 5) linguistic economy, 6) clarity, and 7) correctness (Porīte 1973: 71–74).

In developing the norms of the standard language, J. Endzelīns attached great importance to Latvian folk songs (Endzelīns I: 31). In his view, ancient folk songs were the sole pure source of Latvian—the language spoken in the past by Latvians who knew no foreign languages and did not communicate in a language containing Germanisms and Slavicisms (Endzelīns III₂: 236–237).

The scholar emphasized the significance of neighboring languages. J. Endzelīns held up Lithuanian as an example for Latvian and frequently used Lithuanian linguistic facts in his research (Nītina 1972: 11). This is also evident in the book published in the United States, Profesora J. Endzelīna atbildes. Rīgas latviešu biedrības valodniecības nodaļas sēžu protokoli 1933–1942 (Profesoriaus J. Endzelyno atsakymai. Rygos latvių draugijos kalbotyros skyriaus posėdžių protokolai 1933–1942), for example:

How should “baldness of the head” be correctly named (Die Glatze, плешь)? Answer: The word „pleķis“ occurs in Glika’s text, but its ķ sound is not Latvian. A new word, „pleice“, corresponding to Lithuanian „pleikē“, should be introduced (Endzelīns 2001: 23).

Terminoloģija | 2012 | 19

175

Is it correct—“esamība” (das Sein)? Answer: in this sense, it is better to say “esme” (like Lithuanian esmė) and “ira.” The meanings of these two words could be distinguished (Endzelīns 2001: 24).

Instead of the word “atelje,” which lacks a Latvian ending, one could use the word “dirbīkla” (cf. Lithuanian dirbyklà) and the verb “piedirbt,” known in Priekule, =to attach) (Endzelīns 2001: 32)⁴.

Questions concerning syntax, stylistics, spelling, terminology, and other fields were discussed at the meetings of the Riga Latvian Society mentioned above. Representatives from Lithuania—Petras Jonikas and Jonas Kabelka—also took part.

J. Endzelīns learned Lithuanian on his own, and it became not only an auxiliary tool for studying other languages but also a direct object of study (Sabaliauskas 1959: 23). He wrote articles for Lithuanian journals (Lietuvių tauta, Archivum Philologicum) and took an interest in Lithuania’s cultural life. J. Endzelīns always spoke with great warmth of linguists—the Lithuanian Kazimieras Būga and the Estonian Paul Ariste (Paul Ariste) (Bitītė-Murele 1999: 25). The Latvian scholar encouraged K. Būga to pursue lexicography (Vosylýtė 1956: 88). J. Jablonskis was not forgotten either. J. Endzelīns spoke of him as a teacher who had taught him theoretical subjects and helped him organize terminology.

J. Endzelīns’s reviews, written both before the Second World War and in the postwar years, particularly reveal his views on language. Writing about translations of texts, he suggested adhering as closely as possible to the original, while also not doing an injustice to one’s own language (Endzelīns I: 656). In his view, one must attune oneself to the spirit and vitality of the language. J. Endzelīns drew inspiration from writers when devising new word forms.

Valentina Skujinia (Valentīna Skujiņa) emphasized that J. Endzelīns believed language to be a living organism that changes and develops along with society. Therefore, what is considered correct in one period may, after some time, prove unsuitable (Skujiņa 1972: 27–28).

⁴ Translation: What is the correct word for “a bald spot on the head” (Die Glatze, плешь)? Answer: In Glik’s text we find the word “pleikīs,” but it is not Latvian because it contains the sound ķ. A new word, “pleicē,” should be introduced; it would correspond to Lithuanian “pleikė” (From the meeting of the Linguistics Section held on December 7, 1933, chaired by J. Endzelīns). Is the word “esamība” (das Sein) correct? Answer: This meaning is better expressed by “esme” (like Lithuanian esmė) and “ira.” The meanings of the two words should be distinguished (From the meeting of the Linguistics Section held on December 21, 1933, chaired by J. Endzelīns). Instead of the word “atelje,” which does not have an ending characteristic of Latvian, it would be better to use “dirbikla” (cf. Lithuanian dirbyklà) and the verb “piedirbt,” known in Priekule, =to attach) (From the meeting of the Linguistics Section held on September 27, 1934, chaired by J. Endzelīns).

176 Solvita Labanauskienė | Janio Endzelyno terminologinės įžvalgos

PRINCIPLES OF TERMINOLOGICAL WORK

J. Endzelīns began his practical work on language at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, that is, at a time when non-standardized words coined by individual Latvian authors were prevalent. During that period, as Latvian terminologist V. Skujiņa notes, no principles for forming terms had yet been established in Latvia (Skujiņa 1972: 17).

V. Skujiņa has written about the contributions of the renowned Latvian linguist to terminology. According to her, J. Endzelīns did not publish a separate study devoted to problems of terminology; however, his views on this field can be discerned by reading the book Dažādas valodas kļūdas (Įvairios kalbos klaidos) (first edition 1928, fourth edition 1932), as well as individual articles from books he edited (P. Ozoliņa Valodas prakses jautājumi (Kalbos praktikos klausimai) (1935) and V. Rūķe Valodas un rakstības jautājumi (Kalbos ir rašybos klausimai) (1940)) (Skujiņa 1972: 23).

J. Endzelīns wrote short articles on terminology that appeared in periodicals such as Dzīntenes Vēstnesis (Tėvynės žinios), Latvijas Sargs (Latvijos sargas), Latvijas, Latviju Mēnešraksts (Latvių mėnesinis leidinys), Skolotāju Avīze (Mokytojų laikraštis), among others. Through his terminological work, he contributed to the organization of Latvian terminology.

At the beginning of 1919, the first Latvian-language terminology commission was established in Petrograd—the Latviju terminu komisija (Latvių terminų komisija). In the summer of the same year, at the initiative of the Ministry of Education, a terminology commission was also established in Riga. It was divided into sections and dealt with terminology in various fields. It operated until the Second World War. A special linguistics commission, comprising seven members, was subordinate to the Terminology Commission: J. Endzelīns (who joined its work in 1920), Ernests Blese, Pauls Dāle, Vilis Plūd(o)nis, Linards Laicens, and others. This commission’s task was to check the linguistic aspects of the work carried out by the sections (Skujiņa 2002: 16). J. Endzelīns was appointed consultant. In 1922, the commission published Zinātniskās terminoloģijas vārdnīca (Terminologijos žodyną), in which terms were given in Russian, German, and Latvian. It included terminology from more than ten fields: linguistics, philosophy, law, finance, art, chemistry, mathematics, and others. The Terminology Dictionary contains terms of Latvian origin (folk terms and neologisms) as well as loanwords. Nevertheless, the dictionary also displays purism: alongside international words, the 1922 dictionary included artificially created, incomprehensible terms (Grabis 2006: 224), for example: inerce – kutrība, klients –

Terminologija | 2012 | 19

177

pienāksnieks, coefficient – reizulis, corridor – starpeja, signalling – ziņdošana, temperature – siļtķāpe, thesis – dēts and so on. As can be seen, the Latvian Terminology Commission attempted to remove most international words (which J. Endzelīns also called modern foreignisms), replacing them with neologisms. Surveys were published in the press, thereby involving the public in the creation of terminology.

After the publication of the Terminology Dictionary, it began to be sharply criticized in the media. J. Endzelīns publicly published three letters addressed to one of its critics, medical doctor Herman Budulis, who called the dictionary “highly superficial” on matters of terminology (for more, see Endzelīns III₂: 127–133). The Latvian linguist wrote a stern reply, objecting to the unjustified and absurd criticism. In his letters of reply, he not only explained the reasons for choosing the terms criticized by H. Budulis, but also set out the principles of term formation. J. Endzelīns considered three-word terms to be definitions rather than terms, for example, elpas rīkles vāks (epiglottis). In his view, it was important first to collect all the words used by the people, and only then to turn to word formation (Skujiņa 1972: 22). In the scholar’s opinion, cooperation between specialists and linguists was of great importance.

During the third and fourth decades of the 20th century, terminology work in Latvia was quite intensive, but it was carried out unsystematically, without harmonizing or coordinating the terminology of different fields (Skujiņa 2002: 18). J. Endzelīns regretted that Lithuanians and Latvians had not coordinated with one another when creating terms, since this could have produced many terms common to both peoples (Endzelīns III₂: 373). In his view, terminology must be continually revised, updated, and supplemented over time.

The Latvian linguist edited a number of dictionaries, including several terminology dictionaries. A bilingual terminology dictionary published in 1939, Vāciski-latviska elektrotechniska vārdnīca⁵ (Latvijas Elektrotechniskās biedrības terminoloģijas komisijas sakopojums. [Red. J. Endzelīns]. Rīgā, 1939) (German–Latvian Electrotechnical Dictionary), had its terms reviewed by J. Endzelīns. It was the first dictionary devoted to electrical engineering, presenting Latvian terms alongside the German ones (about 5,000 terms). According to

⁵ Latv. “electrotechnical dictionary.” In J. Endzelīns’s view, according to Latvian language conventions, the correct title would be elektrotehnika vārdnīca (dictionary of electrical engineering), since the genitive form denotes belonging, whereas derivatives with the suffix –al denote relations of type or nature. It is precisely in such cases that Russian and German use an adjective (Skujiņa 1999: 104–105).

178

Solvita Labanauskienė | Janio Endzelyno terminologinės įžvalgos

According to V. Skujiņa, the 1939 dictionary confirmed that the activities of the Latvian intelligentsia at the time had yielded good results: most of the terms remain in use in the language today. These are, first and foremost, short and convenient terms—derivatives in -e—and, secondly, compound terms. It is noteworthy that some Latvian terms were formed on the model of German (Skujiņa 1999: 101).

Several dictionaries edited by J. Endzelīns deserve mention. In them, he checked not only the proofs but also corrected terms, nomenclatural names, and definitions (Bibliography 1958: 11):

Latviešu pareizrakstības vārdnīca (Latvian Spelling Dictionary). Comp. Ed. Ozoliņš. Ed. J. Endzelīns, Riga, 1924.

Svešvārdu vārdnīca (Dictionary of Foreign Words). Comp. Ed. Ozoliņš. Ed. J. Endzelīns, Riga, 1926.

Tautsaimniecības vārdnīca (Dictionary of National Economy). Vols. 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. Sinais ka-Lapa. Riga, 1943–1944.

Auziņš A., Kleinbergs F. and Plostnieks F. Vāciski-latviski grāmatrūpniecības termini (German–Latvian Book Industry Terms). Ed. A. Augstkalns. [The book was examined in proof by Prof. J. Endzelīns, who made several suggestions and comments]. Riga, 1940.

Latviešu, vācu un krievu grāmatrūpniecības vārdnīca (Latvian, German and Russian Book Industry Dictionary). Comp. A. Auziņš, (the dictionary’s nomenclature edited by Prof. J. Endzelīns), Riga, 1942.

These dictionaries provide insight into the Latvian scholar’s linguistic views and the criteria he used for forming terms. Most of the term-formation models presented in them remain productive today.

J. Endzelīns did immense work alongside K. Mīlenbahs in compiling one of the largest Latvian dictionaries, Latviešu valodas vārdnīca (1923–1932) (Latvian Language Dictionary). The dictionary contains many dialect words, which offer an opportunity to use and expand contemporary terminology (see Skujiņa 1972: 30). It is also important because it contains much etymological material valuable for the Lithuanian language.

In carrying out practical terminology work, J. Endzelīns turned his attention to word formation. He emphasized the unambiguous function of word-formation devices (Skujiņa 1972: 24), that is, the need to take into account the semantic role (function) of each part of a word. In forming derivatives with abstract meanings, J. Endzelīns considered -ība the most productive suffix (for naming more intense or persistent qualities), for example: agrīnība “earliness,” didžība “pointedness,” nodarbinātība “provision of work; employment,” notu-

Terminologija | 2012 | 19

179

boundary “permanence,” etc. To denote a property or state, he used derivatives with the suffix –ums. Derivatives of this type have a more specific meaning and are used to name an individual instance or a temporary state, e.g.: nopietnums “seriousness,” patiesums “truthfulness,” etc.

J. Endzelynas proposed forming new terms with the ending –e: such derivatives have a shorter form and a more general meaning, that is, they can name both the process of an activity and its result (Saule-Sleine 1972: 11), e.g.: aizdedze “ignition,” bīde “shift,” slīde “sliding,” etc.

The Latvian linguist urged that compounds, which are convenient to use because they express complex concepts in a single word (meeting the requirement that terms be concise), should not be overlooked (Skujiņa 1972: 11), e.g.: darbietilpība “labor intensity,” sausumizturība “drought resistance,” ziemcietība “winter hardiness,” etc.

J. Endzelynas introduced many new words into Latvian terminology, words that remain indispensable in present-day terminology. A considerable number of the terms he proposed, especially those formed with suffixes and endings, as well as compounds, have become established in contemporary Latvian, e.g.: aptumsums “eclipse,” attieksme “relation,” dārzeņi “vegetables,” dotumi “data,” dzinējrats “flywheel,” izvirdums “eruption; outburst,” laimest­s “win,” prievārds “preposition,” pārstāvis “representative,” vide “environment,” ziede “lubricant,” etc.

J. Endzelynas paid particular attention to analogy. When forming new words, he applied the patterns of similar words already present in Latvian (Porīte 1973: 71–72). The Latvian linguist did not rule out word formation modeled on other languages.

According to J. Endzelynas, ways of enriching a language include borrowing words from dialects, as well as from Lithuanian or Prussian, or creating words of one’s own. Stasys Šalkauskis, the founder of Lithuanian terminology theory, also emphasized the native lexicon as the most important source of terminology (for more detail, see Šalkauskis 1991: 24–60).

After the Second World War, in 1946, the Terminology Commission subordinate to the Latvian (then still Soviet) Academy of Sciences was established (initially it was called Latviešu valodas terminoloģijas un pareizrakstības komisija (Latvju kalbos terminologijos ir rašybos komisija); later the name was shortened and changed to Latviešu valodas terminoloģijas komisija (Latvju kalbos terminologijos komisija) (Skujiņa 2007: 5)). J. Endzelynas became the research director of the Language Division of the Institute of Language and Literature. Alongside his major research on the Latvian language, J. Endzelynas also found time to address current issues of language use and terminology. The Latvian SSR’s then

180

Solvita Labanauskienė | Janio Endzelyno terminologinės įžvalgos

Academy of Sciences began publishing the newspaper Zinātņu akadēmijas vēstis (Mokslų akademijos žinios) and, as a separate supplement, the Terminology Commission’s bulletins (42 terminology bulletins were published over 30 years). They included Latvian terms from various fields examined and approved by the commission, along with their Russian-language equivalents. Thus, from 1946 to 1955, J. Endzelynas worked on the Academy of Sciences’ Latvian Language Terminology Commission, writing reviews of terms in science, art, and technology, refining them, and creating new words. He provided valuable advice on terminology formation to many specialists (Skujiņa 1972: 30).

From 1946, when the Latvian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Language and Literature was founded, J. Endzelynas headed its Language Division and later, until his death, its Dictionary Sector.

CONCLUSIONS

J. Endzelīns is not only one of the most prominent Latvianists, but also one of the most prominent Balticists. He is one of the principal authors of the principles for standardizing the Latvian language. The essence of J. Endzelīns’s principles is to adhere strictly to the facts of language history, compare with related languages, select what is most suitable and valuable, maintain linguistic purity, grammatical correctness and euphony, and respect the meanings of words.

Through his theoretical and practical works, the scholar contributed to the development of Latvian terminology. His theoretical views on solving terminological problems emerge from the book Įvairios kalbos klaidos, intended for practical language use; from articles published in various Latvian newspapers and journals; and from the terminology, foreign-word and spelling dictionaries and books he edited. Valuable material for Lithuanian terminology can be found in the Latvių kalbos žodyne compiled by J. Endzelīns and K. Mīulenbachs.

The scholar attached great importance to folk speech, considering it one of the principal sources of terminology. He proposed creating neologisms only when no word used by the people could be found. In Latvian, he considered -ība and -ums the most productive suffixes; he proposed forming new terms with the ending –e and not avoiding compounds (the criterion of brevity).

The Latvian linguist rejected long, descriptive terms—he regarded three-word terms as definitions. He particularly emphasized cooperation between linguists and specialists in various fields.

Thanks to J. Endzelīns, Latvian terminology was developed, expanded and organized, and many of the terms he coined are still in use today.

Terminologija | 2012 | 19

181

LITERATURE AND SOURCES

Ādamsons E. 1999: Latvju milzis. – Jānis Endzelīns atmiņās, pārdomās, vēstulēs, Rīga: LU Latviešu valodas institūts, 5–7.

Bibliografija 1958: Akadēmiķis J. Endzelīns. Bibliografija. Sastādītāji: Kārlis Egle un Jānis Paeglis, Rīga: Latvijas PSR zinātņu akadēmijas izdevniecība.

Bitīte-Mūre M. 1999: Vārds – tas ir svētums, gadsimtu pienests. – Jānis Endzelīns atmiņās, pārdomās, vēstulēs, Rīga: LU Latviešu valodas institūts, 24–27.

Celmiņa I. 1999: Liela koka paēnā.– Jānis Endzelīns atmiņās, pārdomās, vēstulēs, Rīga: LU Latviešu valodas institūts, 33–39.

EL 1972: Encyclopedia Lituanica 2, Boston, Massachusetts.

Endzelīns J. I: Darbu izlase 1, 1971, Rīga: Zinātne.

Endzelīns J. III-2: Darbu izlase 3. 2. daļa, 1980, Rīga: Zinātne.

Endzelīns J. 2001: Profesora J. Endzelīna atbildes. Rīgas Latviešu biedrības valodniecības nodaļas sēžu protokoli 1933–1942, Losandželosā, ASV: Ramave.

Grabis R. 2006: Par latviešu terminoloģijas attīstību un izstrādi. – Darbu izlase, Rīga: LU Latviešu valodas institūts, 221–229.

Keinys St. 2005: Dabartinė lietuvių terminologija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.

Kniūkšta P. 2001: Kalbos vartosena ir tvarkyba, Vilnius: LKI leidykla.

Nītiņa D. 1972: Vispārīgās valodniecības jautājumi akadēmiķa Jāņa Endzelīna darbos. – Veltījums akadēmiķim Jānim Endzelīnam 1873–1973, Rīga: Zinātne, 11–24.

Porīte T. 1973: J. Endzelīna šaļvenie literāro normu avoti un normēšanas kritēriji latviešu valodas praksē. – Latvijas Zinātņu akadēmijas vēstis 2 (307), Rīga, 68–75.

Sabaliauskas A. 1962: Janis Endzelīnas. – Literatūra ir kalba 6, Vilnius, 302–328.

Sabaliauskas A. 1959: Akadēmiķa Jāņa Endzelīna nopelni lituānistikā. – Rakstu krājums. Veltījums akadēmiķim profesoram Dr. Jānim Endzelīnam viņa 85 dzīves un 65 darba gadu atcerei, Rīga: Latvijas PSR Zinātņu Izdevniecība, 23–27.

Sabaliauskas A. 1982: Janis Endzelīnas. – Lietuvių kalbos tyrinėjimo istorija 1940–1980, Vilnius: Mokslas, 107–114.

Saule-Sleine M. 1972: Par akadēmiķa J. Endzelīna darbu latviešu valodas kultūras laukā. – Latviešu valodas kultūras jautājumi 8, 7–16.

Skujiņa V. 1972: J. Endzelīna devums latviešu valodas zinātniskā terminoloģijas attīstībā. – Latviešu valodas kultūras jautājumi 8, Rīga, 17–33.

Skujiņa V. 1999: Terminu modeļi J. Endzelīna caurlūkotajā elektrotehnikas vārdnīcā. – Linguistica Lettica 4, Rīga, 100–109.

Skujiņa V. 2002: Latviešu terminoloģijas izstrādes principi, Rīga: LVI.

Skujiņa 2007: Latvijas Zinātņu akadēmijas terminoloģijas komisija sešos gadu desmitos. – Latvijas Zinātņu akadēmijas vēstis, 61. sējums, 3. numurs, Rīga, 4–13.

Šalkauskis S. 1991: Raštai 2, Vilnius: Mintis.

Vosylvtė B. 1956: K. Būga žodynininkas. – Literatūra ir kalba 1, Vilnius, 84–113.

Ziriņą I. 2012: Valodnieks no Kauguriem. Prieiga per internetą: http://valmiera.zurbu.net/id:1221/feed. Žiūrėta: 2012-10-03.

TERMINOLOGICAL INSIGHTS OF JĀNIS ENDZELĪNS

This article briefly presents research activity and linguistic views of the specialist of Indo-European languages and the most famous Latvian linguist of the 20^th century Jānis Endzelīns. Special attention is given to his terminological views.

During a sixty-year period of intense research activity, he published over 300 works in Latvian, Russian, German, Lithuanian, Italian, French and Polish. Endzelīns along with another famous Latvian linguist Kārlis Mīlenbahs developed and established the basic principles of standardization of the Latvian language. These principles are based

182

Solvita Labanauskienė | Jāņa Endzelīno terminologinės įžvalgos

upon the adherence to the historical facts of the language, comparison with closely related languages, selection of the most relevant and valuable elements, maintaining the purity, grammatical correctness, sound of language and respect for the meanings of words.

Theoretical and practical works of Endzelīns contributed to the development of Latvian terminology. His theoretical views on problems of terminology can be seen in his articles as well as in dictionaries of terms and books edited by him. After the establishment of Terminology Committee in Riga in 1919, Endzelīns undertook terminology management work. For many years he participated in meetings where term-formation and usage issues in various fields were discussed, and he also provided consultations for professionals of various fields. Endzelīns also edited dictionaries of terms as well as dictionaries of borrowed words and spelling dictionaries.

Endzelīns viewed the language’s own resources as the foundation for the terminology development. He paid much attention to word formation and especially to the semantic role of word parts. Suffixes –ība and –ums in Latvian language were considered by him as the most productive. Endzelīns encouraged the creation of new terms with the ending –e and suggested not to avoid compounding.

Thanks to Endzelīns, Latvian terminology was developed, expanded and managed, and many of the terms he created are still in use today.

Received 2012-11-09

Solvita Labanauskiene

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius

Email: [email protected]

Terminologija | 2012 | 19

183