JONAS KLIMAVIČIUS

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

Rūta Vainienė. DICTIONARY OF ECONOMIC TERMS

Vilnius: Tyto Alba, 2005, 328 p.

The dictionary does not have the approval of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language (VLKK), so, as the author herself says, “all responsibility for what is included in this dictionary and what is not included” (12) rests with her. The reviewer does not know how much responsibility she bears for the fact that the dictionary lacks the approval that is both needed and required. The author thanks the unnamed “editors and linguists” (12), as well as the named “strict and fair reviewers” (12)—Dr. Raimondas Kuodys and Elena Leontjeva—but adherence to the approval procedure established by the VLKK would have made it much clearer whether the author had already experienced enough strictness, and how much more was still needed.

What has been started must be finished—someday, the dictionary must obtain that approval. Until that happens, the reviewer ventures to try to help the dictionary’s readers, naturally limiting himself to the most important matters: the selection of terms, their standardization, and the purification (Lithuanization) of economic terminology.

The author describes the criteria for selecting terms in a rather unusual way: “whatever, in my opinion, might be interesting and useful to most readers” (11). This establishes only the basic direction in accordance with the chosen aim—the dictionary is not intended solely for professionals (10–11). But even within that direction, everything should be thorough and consistent. This is lacking to some extent. Perhaps the “strict and correct” could have had a stronger say here. But a reviewer can also count himself among the “majority of readers” for whom it is indeed “interesting and useful” (11). Thus, the reviewer finds not one of the phenomena (or people) visible everywhere but unnamed in the dictionary: the exploitation of people; the universally needed solidarity; the product, now ubiquitous but precisely lacking a clear normative status (only final product is included—although why is the concept defined in the plural as “goods and services, <…>”?); natural person, savings deposit, stable price, communism (after all, these occur in explanations of other terms); competition; credit

202

Jonas Klimavičius |

(not credit) and payment (or charge) cards (debit card is included), bank cards, bank accounts, ATMs; crises; tax policy; landlord, tenant, rent (?), subletting (only renting is included); goods (!), trade (!); complaints, hiring and hired labor (although it includes the owner-worker problem, incentive, debt, lender, borrower, re-lending, borrowing (only loan is included); transaction (!), price surge (although price bubble and price ceiling are included); royalties, ounce, or Trua (not Troy!) ounce...

As the American fashion of calling jargon (including one’s own Lithuanian jargon) slang spreads, and of calling jargon—professional jargon or even professionalisms (in Lithuania these are already understood in two different ways...)—by that name, the dictionary’s author does so too. Professional jargon would not in itself be a great evil if it were in its proper place—in a closed professional circle, rather than in terminology. But the opposite is the case. Many of these professional slang terms—bulls, bears, dogs (why the plural?)—have no terminological equivalents. Perhaps Americans can afford this—their language is global, after all! But the Lithuanian people understand the slang expression monkey business (and it is not in the dictionary), and have not adopted the yellow-dog contract (Klimavičius 1994 1: 5). By the way, the dictionary’s dog is different from that yellow dog, and having two different dogs is already a defect... The dictionary’s hare (see idler) is not a hare but a free rider at all! Why does free-riding mean idling? After all, “hare-catching” may simply mean idleness. Somewhat more acceptable (and widespread everywhere) are (economic) tigers. Nevertheless, the grammar must be Lithuanian: Lithuania is a Baltic tigress. Truly unbearable are bottlenecks—“weak links in the production process, i.e. a shortage of stocks, semi-finished goods and capacity, or underutilization of production capacity for other reasons.” Some, wishing to defend the unendorsed traffic jams, try to justify them using bottlenecks as well. Reputable dictionaries do not do this: bottle-neck – 2) narrow passage, narrowing of a road, 3) weak point (in production) ALKŽ 1975; bottleneck – 2) figuratively, narrow passage ALKŽ 1998, – road narrowing; figuratively, an obstacle, weak point ALKŽ 2004. We are already free of the Russian last, but we must also distinguish English goats from Lithuanian sheep. And that is not all—one need only leaf through periodicals to find a flood of zoological and other quotation-marked economic “terminology,” for example: Charles Handy, creator of the theory of “fleas and elephants,” says that people are “fleasing”—that is, seeking to become increasingly autonomous “Veidas,” 2006 50 21. A network of “business angels” investing in risky areas is being established in Lithuania “Veidas,” 2007 1 54. The talent one has developed can at any moment be bought by the so-called “headhunters” “Veidas,” 2006 50 20.

Terminologija | 2006 | 13 203

Žodynas bent kiek terminografiškai įtvirtina šiaip jau anksčiau pradėtą ir iš dalies atliktą angliškų svetimybių šalinimą: barteris – ntk.= natūriniai mainai; biznis – ntk.= verslas; dileris – ntk.= agentas, brokeris, makleris; marketingas – ntk.= rinkodara; opcionas – ntk.= pasirinkimo sandoris; over-draftas – ntk.= sąskaitos kreditas.

However, terms still awaiting terminographic Lithuanianization—whether more extensive (through substitutes) or less extensive (through coexisting equivalents)—include aggregation, annuity, charter, factoring, fiscal, forfaiting, franchise, clearing (netting!), bill of lading, consignment, consolidated liability and supervision, listed company and unlisted securities (Klimavičius 2005 12: 12–13), offer, syndicated loan, stagnation (we’ve got so used to it! but there is also stagnation!), usufruct (usufruct!)... Standardization is too lenient: leasing – see financial lease (perhaps because some of the “strict and correct” still cling to leasing), while lease-purchase – see financial lease – is hardly precise.

It would be worth drawing the dictionary author’s (and other economic terminographers’) attention to the Lithuanian terms in a small interwar work on terminography: freight – Fracht, Frachtgut; load, freight, shipment, cargo (how could there be a bill of lading without it?!); ship’s document; cargo document; ship charter agreement – Charterpartie, Befrachtungsbrief; charter party; consignment, consignment; goods on consignment, chartered goods; acceptance (acceptance); commerce; premium; insurable; insurance policy – Police; insurance policy; insurance money... (Salys 1979: 455–484; Klimavičius 2002: 141–144; Gaivenis 2002: 69–72).

Lithuanian calques also require much attention—their accuracy and formal correctness.

In Lithuanian, the term future contract (future) can only be understood as “a transaction to be concluded in the future,” whereas in fact, philologically speaking, it means “a transaction concluded for the future”; and, more precisely, in the dictionary under review, it is “a certain quantity of a specific commodity (including currency) to be delivered or received in the future, with payment made for it.” Future transaction would also be inaccurate and downright misleading. From the accurate but long term contract for future deliveries (and payments) one can surely derive the short and fairly clear term futures contract. Forward contract is also questionable, since a futures contract is “forward” as well. The former variant, fixed-term forward contract, could be made more precise—not fixed-term (until when), but term contract (when it is realized) (cf. Klimavičius 2000: 23–24).

The term purchase of external services is unacceptable (Klimavičius 2004 7: 10–11). It is all the more regrettable that English is not even to blame here—there is no “purchase” in the English term at all

204

Jonas Klimavičius

purchasing, and outsourcing. Why is anyone allowed to act so irresponsibly and do this whenever they please? After all, in Lithuanian soldiers are hired, mercenaries, so why are athletes bought, sold, bought and resold, bought back; why is someone in Lithuania already waving employees off not to change employers, but to buy them?! [Another matter is the (buying and) selling of turncoats, handing over traitors—only then! But one must distinguish these, not call them all the same!] Why do buyers and sellers of services also want to join this unsavory crowd? Everything has to be paid for, but Lithuanian clearly distinguishes what can be bought and sold, what can be hired, what can be rented; one must also order and acquire—provide, as well as take and give, for example, lessons, that is, certain services.

Why is the term tax at source being proposed? It is a slavish translation (i.e. a calque) of the English withholding tax. There has long been an accurate and clear term, income tax (Buračas 1997).

It is good that the dictionary includes amortization, but the word depreciation, a foolish fashionable term that grossly violates the system, should be discarded—after all, nothing here is worn. Depreciation is precisely loss of value, but why does the dictionary give two terms here—both the good one, loss of value, and the poor one, depreciation? Why is amortization also defined as 1) in economics, “the gradual transfer of the value of fixed assets to the value of the products manufactured,” and “the term ‘depreciation’ is also used; in Lithuania it is applied to describe the loss and transfer of value of tangible assets”?

The term economic man is surprising—after all, this is homo economicus, economic man, and it has always been economic man; that is how it should remain.

That is enough for readers seeking first aid and protection (prevention). The dictionary is nevertheless a step forward. But unapproved terminological dictionaries are a bad thing, and not an uncommon one either. Readers, often not seeing the entry The State Commission of the Lithuanian Language has no objections, forget or do not know that the VLKK approves terminological dictionaries, and that an approved dictionary has greater terminological authority.

LITERATURE AND SOURCES

ALKŽ 1975: Anglų-lietuvių kalbų žodynas. Sudarė A. Laučka, B. Piesarskas, E. Stasiulevičiūtė, Vilnius.

ALKŽ 1998: B. Svecevičius. Anglų-lietuvių kalbų žodynas, Vilnius.

ALKŽ 2004: Anglų-lietuvių kalbų žodynas. Lietuviškai leidimą parengė R. Šepetytė, V. Niauron y tė, S. Janušonienė, R. Katiliūtė, G. Naktinienė, Kaunas.

Buračas A. 1997: Bankininkystės ir komercijos terminų aiškinamasis žodynas, Vilnius – Kaunas.

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

Klimavičius J. 1994: I. Geltonojo šuns kontraktas. – Savininkas.

Klimavičius J. 2000: Antanas Buračas. Bankininkystės ir komercijos terminų žodynas. Pirmoji dalis: Lietuvių–anglų kalbų aiškinamasis bankinių ir komercinių terminų žodynas, 1997 (rec.). – Gimtoji kalba 1, 14–19; 2, 20–28.

Terminologija | 2006 | 13 205

Klimavičius J. 2002: Kazimieras Gaivenis. Lietuvių terminologija: teorijos ir tvarkybos metmenys, 2002 (rec.). – Terminologija 9, 129–147.

Klimavičius J. 2004 7: Can a service be produced, sold, and bought? – Gimtoji kalba.

Klimavičius J. 2005 12: Can a company be “in-situated”? – Gimtoji kalba, 12–13.

Salys A. 1979: Prekybinės korespondencijos žodynėlis. – Raštai 1, Roma, 455–484.

Received 2006-12-01

Jonas Klimavičius

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius

Email: [email protected]

206

Jonas Klimavičius |