Asmenis įvardijantys teisės terminai 1918–1940 m. Lietuvos kodeksuose

Alvydas UMBRASAS Institute of the Lithuanian Language LEGAL TERMS DESIGNATING PERSONS IN THE LITHUANIAN CODES OF 1918–1940 The sources for this article are unofficial Lithuanian translations of Russian codes that were in force in Lithuania in 1918–1940 (a list of abbreviations is provided at the end of the article). This study continues the series of articles on legal terms, begun in issue 8 of Terminologijos. It examines legal terms that designate persons. The need to designate persons by terms varies across different fields of science and activity. There are fields whose terminology contains very few, or perhaps no, designations of persons (this applies first and foremost to the exact sciences). In the social sciences, it is impossible to do without terminology designating persons. Law is one of those fields in which human relations and their activities are the focus of study. It should be said at the outset that designations of persons are not all equally term-like. It is claimed that names of agents are problematic in terms of their terminological status, and that the word linguist is not a linguistic term, since it does not designate a specialized concept in this field of study. It has been proposed that the nomenclature of names of professions be assigned to a separate subcategory of terminology (Gaivenis 2002: 31). The word lawyer is not found in the 1918–1940 codes, but advocate occurs in C33 569 T, CTI38 44, BS34 155 T, BPI30 561; sworn advocate occurs in C33 1539 T, CTI38 44, BS19 30/8, BPI33 44. It is difficult to find criteria on the basis of which these words would not be classified as legal terms. The study collected not only terms that clearly designate people (natural persons), but also related terms of analogous form, suitable for designating both a natural and a legal person (e.g., plaintiff, defendant). Nearly 800 legal terms designating persons were found in the codes examined (i.e., almost one seventh of all the terms used in the codes). Approximately half are single-word terms and half are compound (mostly two-word) terms. Compound terms are also discussed in the article according to their head constituent (together with single-word terms). By head constituent (single-word terms have only one constituent), most terms designating persons are of Lithuanian origin 107 (about 700, i.e. about 88%). These are terminologized simple1 words or terminologized or newly formed derivatives. Just over 20 one-word simple (morphologically unanalyzable) terms designating persons were found. In fact, when compound terms whose head is one of these same simple terms are added, the total approaches 100 (about 14% of the Lithuanian-origin terms by head). Among the simple terms relevant to the topic under consideration, the first to be mentioned is person CI33 533/13. It occurs in compound terms: missing person BPI33 852, with the same meaning; person missing without a trace CTI38 1775; person whose whereabouts are unknown CTI38 1451; person whose whereabouts are unknown CI33 254 T, CTI38 1775 T; liable person CI33 2105 S; civil person BPI33 1252; natural person CI33 420 S, BS34 39 R; suspected person BPI33 46 (and suspect person BPI33 257/1); accused person BPI33 46 (and accused person CI33 574 S); collegial person CI33 2325 T; freelance person CI33 56; injured person BPI30 43; guilty person BPI24 223 (and condemned person BS34 59 T, convicted person BS34 53 V); outsider CI33 514 S, CTI38 44, BPI33 620/3; person prosecuted CI33 647 S; private person CI28 982, BPI33 2 (and private person CI33 31, CTI38 2, BS34 156 P); interested person CI33 919 S, CTI38 1215 S (and interested party CPI3IV 241, CTI38 1164); third party CI33 1691 PT, BS34 72 P, BPI24 700 (and third party CI33 533 T, CTI38 128/1, BPI33 778). Incidentally, the nonstandard nominative form third party, occasionally found in current legal acts (e.g., CK 2000: Art. 6.51), was not found in the codes of that period. It should be noted that the State 1 Here, simple words are understood morphologically, i.e. they are words that cannot be morphologically analyzed. Instead of the element simple, primary is also used (Urbutis 1978: 62). In terminology, however, simple word also has another meaning. It is often understood as the opposite of specialized words (terms) in dialects and the standard language (regardless of word formation), when discussing their terminologization, i.e. their conversion into terms (see Keinys 1980: 63–64). K. Gaivenis puts it more clearly, speaking of the conversion of ready-made words into terms (Gaivenis 2002: 51–53), though he also mentions simple words in the text (Gaivenis 2002: 53). S. Šalkauskis used profane word, profane language for this purpose (Šalkauskis 1991: 24), though he also briefly uses ordinary language (Šalkauskis 1991: 44). Works in lexicology sometimes discuss the terminologization of words common to the whole nation (Jakaitienė 1980: 73), or divide terms into neologisms and folk words (Drotvinas 1987: 51). 108 At the very end of independence, the Terminology Commission operating within the Council, instead of the now customary terms natural person and legal person, quite aptly recommended private individual and legal entity (TTP 1940: 185). The first term may have been new (it does not occur in the codes), whereas legal entity was already in use (CI₃₃ 698 T, CTI₃₈ 45 T). The proposal did not catch on. In P. Kniūkšta's view, the use of person to designate an institution or organization (following the example of other languages) distorts the meaning of this word, but is tolerable insofar as it does not encroach upon the language system. In his view, better terms could also have been found, for example, legal subject (Kniūkšta 1999: 18–19). The term person is also related to the term human being CI₂₈ 533/13, BS₁₉ 39. The latter seems sometimes to have been used in the codes under study in the sense of the former, e.g.: minor child BS₁₉ 421; underage person BS₁₉ 420; mentally ill person BS₁₉ 282; outsider CI₃₃ 1246 T, CTI₃₈ 13; person of full age CI₂₈ 150/1; private person CI₃₃ 1537 (and private individual CI₃₃ 212, BS₃₄ 471 T). The term partner was used in an unusual sense, meaning “member of a company,” CI₃₃ 2129, CPI₃₁C 36/3; partner in a general partnership CPI₃₁C 26. This terminological meaning is not distinguished in LKŽ. A sizable group consists of kinship terms required in civil law. Most are ancient Indo-European² inherited words, e.g.: brother CI₃₃ 204, CTI₃₈ 83, BS₁₉ 455, BPI₃₃ 705; daughter CI₃₃ 125; in-law, ‘relative by marriage,’ CI₂₈ 23, CI₃₃ 23, CPI₃₁V 417, BPI₂₄ 99 (свойственник); sister CI₃₃ 23 S, CTI₃₈ 83, BS₁₉ 455, BPI₃₃ 705; son CI₃₃ 125; brother-in-law, ‘relative by marriage,’ CI₂₈ 254, CI₃₃ 1054 S, CTI₃₈ 86, BS₃₄ 518 S, BPI₃₀ 85, BPI₃₃ 85 (свойственник); husband’s brother CI₃₃ 996 T; father CI₃₃ 125; spouse, CI₂₈ 41, CTI₃₈ 1086, BS₁₉ 29, BPI₂₄ 751, BPI₃₃ 1013 T (супруг); son-in-law CI₃₃ 1051 T; wife, ‘spouse,’ CI₂₈ 41, CI₃₃ 23 S, CTI₃₈ 1086, BS₁₉ 29, BPI₂₄ 751, BPI₃₃ 85 (супруга); several are Baltic, e.g.: daughter-in-law CI₃₃ 996 T; wife’s father CI₃₃ 1051 T; child CI₃₃ 12, CTI₃₈ 371, BS₃₄ 170 R; one is an old Slavic loanword—grandchild³ CI₂₈ 203. In fact, although we no longer perceive it, wife, child are historically derivatives ² Etymology was checked in the works of A. Sabaliauskas, especially his Lietuvių kalbos leksikoje (see Sabaliauskas 1990). ³ The language adviser corrected the word anūkas, -ė; -ai to sūnaitis, dukraitė; vaikų vaikai, vaikaičiai, palikuonys (KP 1939). It is absent from KPP 1985 and included in DŽ 2003, although its acceptability is sometimes questioned. The term grandchild is used in current codes. 109 (Skardžius 1996: 296; Keinys 1999: 27–28). There were quite a few specific terms for a child, e.g.: a child separated Cl₃₃ 190, a legally recognized child Cl₃₃ 144, a minor child Cl₃₃ 106 S, a child not separated Cl₃₃ 181, an underage child Cl₃₃ 164, a child under the age of majority Cl₃₃ 131, a child born out of wedlock CP₃₁ᵥ 325/1, CT₃₈ 1460/2 S, an illegitimate child CT₃₈ 325/1, BS₃₄ 445 T, an adopted child Cl₃₃ 163, a legitimate child Cl₃₃ 144. The primary meaning of vyras is “an adult male person,” while that of žmona is “an adult female person.” Their use in the sense of spouse (male), spouse (female) has been known since the earliest written sources; indeed, the use of vyras in this sense was very widespread, whereas that of žmona was only occasional (Buivydienė 1997: 18, 19, 61–64). In the codes under study, vyras, žmona had become terms meaning spouses, but were used more often in the earliest translations of the codes; in later ones, spouse (male), spouse (female) was more common (as in contemporary law). Interestingly, the codes used gentis, svainis. Gentis was more common in civil codes and in the earliest translations of the civil and criminal procedure codes (Cl₂₈ 4, Cl₃₃, CP₃₁ᵥ, BP₂₄), while svainis was used in later translations of the procedural codes (BP₃₀, BP₃₃, CT₃₈) to designate relatives by marriage. The semantic development of svainis is described in considerable detail by R. Buivydienė (1997: 177–190). Svainiai, svainės formerly referred to people related through sisters’ marriages (a sister’s husband, a wife’s sister), and later to people related through brothers’ marriages (a brother’s wife, a husband’s brother), until the meaning eventually broadened to include all relatives by marriage. According to A. Salys, gentis in the sense of “relative by marriage” is very rare in dialects (Salys 1979: 176) (this meaning is not distinguished from the kinship meaning in LKŽ), and it is doubtful whether, in everyday speech, relatives by marriage and blood relatives are generally designated by separate words. This meaning of gentis did not take hold in legal usage, and A. Salys also criticized it (ibid.). Today, svainis is used for this purpose. Although it may often be possible to manage without this word, the only term used to designate this relationship is a derivative of it—svainystė (TŽ 1954; CK 2000: 3.136 art.). Judging from some current laws, the corresponding pairs are: kinship – relative; affinity – person related by affinity (LRVTĮ 1999: 9 art.). Svainis is apparently avoided because of its polysemy, or at least 4 The text of Cl₂₈ uses both svainis and gentis, but the latter is corrected to svainis at the end of the book. Instead of savočmeninkų, gentainis is also used in Cl₂₈ 1054. 110 skliaustuose pateikiamas paaiškinimas – svainis (sutuoktinio giminaitis) (LRVAĮ 1999: 21 str.). Prie svainio (svainystės) įtvirtinimo teisėje anuomet prisidėjo A. Salys (1979: 176, 187), dalyvavęs Valstybės Tarybos Terminologijos komisijos veikloje, nors jau šioje komisijoje galėjo būti pastebėtas terminijai nepriimtinas tarmių nulemtas svainio daugiareikšmiškumas. Galbūt todėl ši komisija svainiui, svainė paliko senesnes reikšmes (Schwager, šurin, svojak; Schwägerin, svojačinica), o vedybų giminaičiui įvardyti teikė terminą svainaitis (Verschwägerter; svoistvennik) (TTP 1939: 479). Jis greičiausiai buvo padarytas pagal analogiją su giminaitis. Darybiškai ir sistemiškai visai galimas, tačiau Nepriklausomoje Lietuvoje šiam terminui prigyti jau nebuvo kada, o sovietmečiu jis nepastebėtas. Nepateko ir į LKŽ. Tai gali būti A. Salio naujadaras. Jis, iš pradžių teikęs svainio daugiareikšmiškumą (Salys 1979: 187), galėjo apsigalvoti. Terms of a different type, rare in the codes, are dedė C₃₃ 204 and teta C₃₃ 1137. P. Skardžius considers them children’s words, formed from two identical sound sequences—reduplicative formations, or reduplicants (Skardžius 1996: 22, 23). Synchronically, they are unanalyzable. Some researchers (e.g. E. Fraenkel) consider them borrowings from Slavic languages (Sabaliauskas 1966: 13). Most person-denoting terms used in the 1918–1940 codes are derivatives (or compound terms whose head component is a derivative). Some of these derivatives have become terms, while others are legal neologisms. It is often difficult to distinguish the former from the latter (especially when dealing with productive types), because historical data on the words are lacking. As is usual, suffixal derivatives predominate among the derivatives. The material under study contains about 450 terms formed with suffixes (or having a suffixal derivative as their head component), i.e. about 67% of terms of Lithuanian origin. These person-denoting terms (single words or the head components of compound terms5) belong to two derivational categories: names for agents and for bearers of verbal properties, and names for bearers of nominal properties. More terms were found in the first category—about 320, of which roughly half are single words and half are compounds (i.e. have such a head component). The two most productive suffixes are -tojas and -ėjas. 5 Compound terms with the same head component are counted as separate units. 111 The suffix -tojas, -a is the most widely used suffix for agents and bearers of verbal characteristics, not only in the material under study but throughout the language, including terminology (Urbutis 1965: 317; Keinys 1975: 25). The codes under study contain 60 derivatives formed with this suffix (one-word terms), for example: aikvotojas CT38 1460/13 (растомучель, cf. eikvotojas CT33 1383, CT38 1460/21 T), aukotojas “a person who donates property to the state or to someone else” CI33 986, derėtojas “participant in an auction” CT38 1171 T, dovanotojas CI33 974, CT38 258 T, gabentojas BP33 1149 (провозитель), gimdytojai “parents” CI33 194, CP31v 1345/10, gyventojas CT38 1460/19 T, BS34 401 S, BP33 216, globotojas CI33 12, BP33 85, ieškotojas “plaintiff” CT38 161/6, BS19 160, kainotojas “appraiser” CI33 675, CP31v 1007, BP33 113 T, kaltintojas CI33 574 S, BS34 419 T, BP33 63, klastotojas BS34 442 P, kurstytojas BS19 51, laiduotojas CI33 1555 S, CT38 161/3, BP33 80, laikytojas⁶ CI33 1512 S, BS19 617, liudytojas CI33 31, CT38 54, BS31 30, BP24 161, BP33 50, mokėtojas BS34 578 T, prašytojas CI33 56, CT38 54/1, rikiuotojas “administrator” BS31 605, rūpintojas CI33 6, CT38 1543, BS19 30/6, BP33 975/1 V, samdytojas CI33 1744, CT38 138, BS19 208, skolintojas CI33 584, BS19 606, tardytojas⁷ CI33 1512 S, BS34 158 R, tarnautojas CI33 102, CT38 616, CP31v 1086, BS19 396, BP30 1120, turėtojas CI33 420 (владелец), tvirtintojas BS34 636 T, valdytojas CI28 420, CI33 442 T, CT38 34, CT38 1116, BS34 624 S, vykdytojas BS34 51 R, BP33 955. Approximately one third of the -tojas derivatives have prefixes, for example: antspaud(u)otojas CT38 1696, atsakytojas “defendant” CI33 1530 T, BS19 160, įgaliotojas CI33 6 In the codes, the term laikytojas is equated with turėtojas and savininkas, for example: “[bearer] securities must be returned by the same criminal court decision to their last h o l d e r, as their actual o w n e r and lawful p r o p r i e t o r” CI33 1512 S. Today, turėtojas or savininkas is used instead of laikytojas. 7 As early as 1892, J. Jablonskis wrote about the word tardymas, tardyti, saying that it had been known for a long time and that Donelaitis had already used it in the sense of “to investigate by questioning.” J. Jablonskis connects this word with tarti, that is, tardau means “I make, order others to say what they know about the matter being investigated” (Jablonskis 1935: 12, 13). He also mentions Kuršaitis, whose dictionary gives tardyti, tardytojas as meaning “to investigate,” “investigator,” and proposes: “Investigators could be what we call our ‘sliedovatelus,’ since day after day they do nothing but question others; all their work is questioning others” (ibid.). Tardyti can also be linked to tirti (iterative), which explains the connection with Kuršaitis’s “investigator.” V. Urbutis tardytoją laiko J. Jablonskio naujadaru (Urbutis 1999: 430), tačiau J. Jablonskis tik pasiūlė šį žodį vartoti tam tikra reikšme. 112 687, CTI₃₈ 47, BS₃₄ 44 S, irodinėtojas CI₃₃ 120, įvaikintojas CI₃₃ 145 S, CTI₃₈ 1460/12, nusiunomotojas “one who rents out, landlord” CI₃₃ 1691, pasirašytojas “one who signs for an illiterate person” CI₃₃ 919 S, pasisavintojas BS₃₄ 574 S, pavaduotojas CI₃₃ 691 T, paveldėtojas CI₃₃ 132, CI₂₈ 533/10, pristatinėtojas CI₂₈ 1740 (поставщик), pristatytojas CTI₃₈ 470, BS₃₄ 591 T (поставщик UGS), prižiūrėtojas BS₁₉ 311, užsakytojas “customer” CI₃₃ 1737 S, užstatytojas CI₂₈ 1630, CI₃₃ 1664. For many of the derivatives given here, the prefix is essential and has become almost lexicalized (has given the word a new meaning); however, there are also forms for which the prefix is not essential, for example: išieškotojas “plaintiff” CI₃₃ 1399 S, CPI₃₁₆ 161/16, CTI₃₈ 161/10, išnuomotojas CI₃₃ 1691 T, CTI₃₈ 1460/29 T, išžagintojas BS₃₄ 520 S, suklastotojas BS₃₄ 440 S, sukurstytojas BS₃₄ 131 T. Incidentally, it is interesting that the opposition nuomotojo – nuomininko is distinguished by prefixes: išnuomotojas – nusiunomotojas (the term nuomotojas was not found; nuomininkas is widely used). In some of the cases given, present-day law uses only -ovas derivatives: atsakovas, ieškovas, užsakovas. J. Jablonskis recommended the legal term atsakovas (which he compared with ieškovas), while he proposed reserving atsakytoją for schools and other fields (Jablonskis 1936: 105). The latter term was used by lawyers more often only at the beginning of independence and appeared in a manuscript dictionary (TTTŽP: 61). Derivatives with the suffix in question often serve as the principal components of multiword terms (there are even more such terms than one-word terms), for example: varžytynių dalyvautojas CI₃₃ 1492, kontrabandos gabentojas BPI₃₃ 1174, teismogydytojas BS₁₉ 171, BPI₃₃ 337, nuolatinis gyventojas CTI₃₈ 1673 T, pirminutinis turto įgytojas8 CI₂₈ 420, prisiekusysis kainotojas BPI₃₃ 335, privatinis kaltintojas BPI₃₃ 5, termininis laiduotojas CTI₃₈ 651, įmonės laikytojas BS₃₄ 363/3, užstato laikytojas CI₂₈ 542/24, CTI₃₈ 1586 T, vekselio laikytojas CTI₃₈ 161/3, BS₃₄ 440 T, kvotos liudytojas CI₃₃ 28, sutuoktuvinių liudytojas CI₃₃ 36, valstybės verslų ančdelio mokėtojas BS₁₉ 546, teisių paveldėtojas CPI₃₁V 458, įpėdinių neįvaldinto palaikų turto rūpintojas CPI₃₁V 1744, vakansinio palikimo rūpintojas CTI₃₈ 1744, testamento sudarytojas CI₃₃ 1048 S, nužudymo sumanytojas BS₃₄ 457 S, freely employed 8 An unusual derivative, but one already used by K. Sirvydas. The form igijė-jas was more common in the codes; the forms igijėlis, isigijėlis, not listed in LKŽ, also occur (see below). 113 official CTI₃₈ 1289, BS₃₄ 532 S, state official CTI₃₈ 261, BS₃₄ 471 T, life tenant CI₃₃ 533/1, landholder CI₃₃ 434, actual possessor CI₃₃ 533 T, CTI₃₈ 29 T, prosecutor BPI₃₃ 249 P, enforcement officer BS₃₄ 59 T, executor CI₃₃ 1048 S, CPI₃₁V, CTI₃₈ 24. The suffix -tojas is quite common in everyday speech, so it is not easy to say which derivatives have become terms and which were formed specifically for law. In general, the classification of derivatives with this suffix as either established terms or neologisms raises considerable doubts, since such a derivative can be formed at any time (regularly) when an agent needs to be named. For example, the word kaltintojas is not recorded in LKŽ from dialects or old writings, although kaltinti, kaltinykas (kaltininkas) are attested. The term kaltintojas was proposed by the Terminology Commission in 1922 (see Umbrasas 2001: 81 for more). Was it a neologism? Lexicographical gaps are more likely here than the possibility that this word had never been used before (for such research, in addition to old writings, a corpus of texts from the 19th and early 20th centuries would be very useful). Since the suffix -tojas is very common, it is possible that this is precisely why several derivatives with the same base and the suffix -ovas later became widespread; these were somewhat more specialized and more distinct from ordinary vocabulary. According to LKŽ, most of the derivatives with the suffix under discussion mentioned above are attested in dictionaries or other writings from before the 20th century. Terms that could be considered words of this century include, for example, antspauduotojas, įgaliotojas, įrodinėtojas, įvaikintojas, kainotojas, klastotojas, rikiuotojas, vykdytojas. In its function, meaning, and derivational regularity, the suffix -ėjas, -a is very similar to the one discussed above, but somewhat fewer derivatives were found—almost 40 one-word terms (and only slightly more multiword terms). A little more than half of them are prefixed, e.g.: atpirkėjas “one who reclaims family property” CTI₃₈ 1448, įgijėjas CI₃₃ 1424 T, CTI₃₈ 161/3, BS₃₄ 591 S, įkeitėjas CI₂₈ 1664, CI₃₃ 1630, CTI₃₈ 1068, BS₃₄ 577 S, įskundėjas BS₃₄ 157 R, BPI₃₃ 1204 (доноситель UUS), įteikėjas BS₃₄ 530 S, įžeidėjas BS₃₄ 530 S, padėjėjas BS₁₉ 51, BPI₃₃ 73 P, palikėjas CI₃₃ 923, CTI₃₈ 1705 (завѣщатель ZG), papirkėjas “bribe-taker” BS₁₉ 149, pardavėjas CI₃₃ 570 S, CPI₃₁V 470, BS₃₄ 532 S, pareiškėjas CI₃₃ 1512 S, BPI₃₃ 307, patarėjas CI₂₈ 6, CTI₃₈ 1632, perėmėjas CTI₃₈ 458 (преемник), perleidėjas “one who transfers a right to property or something else” CI₃₃ 1424 T, pranešėjas CI₃₃ 1666, BPI₃₀ 1204 (доноситель UUS), priėmėjas “one who accepts property for safekeeping” CI₃₃ 2111, privertėjas “one who compelled 114 someone to engage in criminal conduct” BS₁₉ 146. As can be seen, the prefix is essential to these terms. Of the cases in which a term could occur without a prefix, the only one worth mentioning is apdraudėjas “one who provides insurance services” CT₃₃ 2199 S. There are only slightly fewer derivatives without a prefix, e.g.: draudėjas CL₂₈ 2200 P (страхователь), gavėjas CL₃₃ 1744 S, gyvėjas CT₃₈ 967/1, BPI₂₄ 516, globėjas CL₂₈ 12, CT₃₈ 20, BS₁₉ 30/6, BPI₂₄ 99, pirkėjas CL₃₃ 521 T, CT₃₈ 1056, BS₁₉ 610, radėjas “one who finds a lost item” CL₃₃ 539, BS₃₄ 573 R, reiškėjas9 BS₁₉ 30, BS₃₄ 30, BPI₃₃ 975/1 V (свидѣтель UU), rinkėjas BS₁₉ 30/1, BPI₃₃ 975/1 V, siuntėjas CL₃₃ 1744 S, skundėjas CL₃₃ 432 T, CP₃₁C, CT₃₈ 163, BS₃₄ 156 S, BPI₃₃ 307 (жалобщик UUS), sprendėjas BPI₂₄ 579, šmeižėjas BS₃₄ 537 S, teisėjas10 CL₃₃ 120 S, CT₃₈ 50, CPI₃₁V 1390, BPI₃₃ 10, vertėjas BS₁₉ 158, BPI₃₃ 114, vežėjas BPI₃₀ 1173, BPI₃₃ 1230. Multiword terms were mostly also used with the same components, e.g.: mortgagor BPI₃₃ 80, property acquirer CTI₃₈ 1424, BS₃₄ 616 R, bill issuer CL₃₃ 1529 T, mortgagee BS₁₉ 593, bribe-taker BS₃₄ 531 T, mortgagee BPI₃₃ 27 S, defendant’s counsel BS₃₄ 111/2 T, BPI₃₃ 93, sworn guardian CL₃₃ 1653 T, sworn adjudicator BS₁₉ 30/8, BPI₂₄ 582, founder of a joint-stock company BS₁₉ 580, district judge CTI₃₈ 82, criminal judge BPI₃₃ 119 P, justice of the peace CL₃₃ 131, CPI₃₁C 82, BS₃₄ 68 S, BPI₃₃ 34, court adviser CTI₃₈ 1681, successor to a creditor’s rights CL₃₃ 2058 S, case reporter CTI₃₈ 804/1, mortgagee CL₃₃ 1703, CTI₃₈ 1068 S, BS₃₄ 593 R, company manager BS₃₄ 298 T. Because of the regularity of the word formation (compared with derivatives in -tojas, they differ only in the stem-final consonant), it is also difficult here to distinguish words coined specifically for law. Most of them have undoubtedly become established terms. According to LKŽ, the following, for example, were not attested before the period under study: apdraudėjas, draudėjas, įgijėjas, įkeitėjas, palikėjas, pareiškėjas, perėmėjas. In present-day terminology, people are very rarely named with the suffix -ėlis, -ė, because its derivatives often have a pejorative meaning (Keinys 1975: 9 TTTŽP свидѣтель alongside reiškėjo is also translated as reiškikas (96). 10 Instead of teisėjo, older writings used various designations, e.g.: teislys, teismadarys, teistojas, tiesdarys, tiesdarys, tiesudėja (LKŽ; Palionis 2004). At the beginning of the previous century, some of them had apparently not yet fallen out of use, since J. Šlapelis explains teisėją with the words teislys, teisdarys and the Slavicism sūdžia (SNŽŽ 1907). 115 25; he mentions only one derivative with this suffix), although in general, in the language it far surpasses the other suffixes denoting possessors of verbal characteristics in productivity (Urbutis 1965: 318). The codes examined also contain few derivatives with -ėlis—15 (although, compared with St. Keinys’s data, one could say that this is quite a lot)—and several compound terms containing them, e.g.: igijėlis C₃₃ 401 S (cf. teisėtas igijėlis C₃₃ 1512 S), įsigijėlis C₃₃ 384 T (cf. pirmutinis turto įsigijėlis C₃₃ 420; TŽ 1954 gives įgijėjas, nesubrendėlis for this case), nukentėjęlis “victim” BPI₂₄ 43, numirėlis BS₁₉ 79, BPI₂₄ 352, BPI₃₃ 338, nusikaltėlis C₃₃ 652, BS₁₉ 16, BPI₃₃ 1244, nusimanėlis “expert, specialist” BS₁₉ 158, BPI₃₃ 444 V, nusizengėlis BS₁₉ 240, nusižudėlis C₃₃ 1017, pabėgėlis “one who escaped from prison” BS₃₄ 66 T, pamišėlis C₃₃ 5, CT₃₈ 84, BPI₃₃ 93 (explained in C₃₃ 366: the insane are those who, having lost their reason because of some accident and become ill, sometimes reach a state of frenzy; such an illness can be dangerous to society and to themselves, and therefore they must be kept under special supervision; distinguished from beprotis: the mentally deficient are those who have lacked sound reason since childhood C₃₃ 365), sutuokėlis “spouse” C₂₈ 695/6, C₃₃ 37, BPI₃₃ 861, susivedėlis “spouse” CPI₃₁C 83. One derivative was found only in the compound term neatsargus nusigyvenėlis (simple bankruptcy) BS₁₉ 603. Of the terms listed here, only nusikaltėlis and pabėgėlis are used in current codes. Note the pairs nusikaltimas – nusikaltėlis, nusižengimas – nusižengėlis (“crime – criminal, offense – offender”). The latter term does not occur in current legal acts (checked in the Seimas database; although it is included in TŽ 1954); a descriptive construction is used instead—a person who has committed an offense. One possible reason is that the current Criminal Code uses only the term criminal offense (and correspondingly a person who has committed a criminal offense), from which it would be necessary to form the unusual two-word term criminal-offense offender. Judging from LKŽ, most of the derivatives listed here were first used only during the period under study and may therefore be considered legal formations. Only numirėlis, nusižudėlis, nusigyvenėlis, pamišėlis. have become clearly terminologized. There are as many derivatives with the suffixes -tinis, -ė as with the suffix just discussed—15 (and several compound terms), e.g.: atleistinis “dismissed from service” BS₁₉ 27, įgaliotinis C₃₃ 533 T, CT₃₈ 14, BS₁₉ 116, BPI₃₃ 43 (cf. bylininko įgaliotinis C₃₃ 2326 T, valstybės įgaliotinis BS₃₄ 116 R), įsakytinis C₃₃ 1238 P, CT₃₈ 445, BS₁₉ 115, BPI₃₃ 1131 (приказчикъ UUS, 116 UGS), įtikėtinis “authorized representative” BS₁₉ 30 (cf. įtikėtinis byloms BS₁₉ 30), kviestinis “summoned witness” CĮ₃₃ 580, BS₁₉ 172, BPĮ₃₃ 108, BPĮ₃₀ 114 (понятой UUS), pavestinis “authorized representative” BS₃₄ 363/8, perįgaliotinis CĮ₃₃ 2307 S, suimtinis “arrestee, prisoner” BS₃₄ 479, sutuoktinis CĮ₃₃ 40, CTĮ₃₈ 83, BPĮ₃₃ 962, sužadėtinis CĮ₃₃ 12 S. A pair of derivatives was found only in compound terms: globojamas auklėtinis CTĮ₃₈ 246, rūpinamas augintinis CPĮ₃₁V 246. The examples show that the much more varied term now in common use is įgaliotinis. With the exception of auklėtinis, augintinis and suimtinis (used, respectively, as early as by K. Sirvydas, J. Bretkūnas, and L. Ivinskis), the other words are new. Derivatives with the suffixes -ikas, -ė were used in the codes under study essentially only as one-word terms. Eleven were found, e.g.: apdraudikas CĮ₃₃ 2200 P (страхователь), apgavikas “swindler” BS₃₄ 598, atpirkikas “one who reclaims property sold” CĮ₃₃ 1371, grobikas CĮ₃₃ 652, BS₃₄ 591 S, pardavikas BS₁₉ 610, pirkikas CĮ₃₃ 555 S, CPĮ₃₁V 1056, CTĮ₃₈ 1167 T, BS₃₄ 619 T, rinkikas “one who participates in elections” BS₃₄ 639 T, skaudikas “insulter” CĮ₃₃ 667, skundikas CPĮ₃₁V 745, BS₁₉ 157, BPĮ₂₄ 45, BPĮ₃₃ 132 T (жалующийся, жалобщик, приносящий жалобу), užpuolikas BS₃₄ 45 R, vežikas “carrier, transporter” BPĮ₃₀ 1149. In current law, many derivatives in -ikas have been replaced by derivatives in -ėjas: pardavėjas, pirkėjas, rinkėjas, skundėjas, vežėjas, and others. Both types of derivative are words of the living language. Only occasionally are derivatives with these suffixes from the same base word now assigned different meanings, e.g., draudikas “an organization providing insurance services” and draudėjas “a person or organization paying an insurance premium” (such an unusual distinction had not yet become established at the time; the suffixes varied¹¹). In general, nearly all the derivatives mentioned here are terminologized; only apdraudikas, atpirkikas, which are not listed in LKŽ, can be singled out. The research material contains few derivatives with the suffixes -ovas, -ė—8 (twice as many compound terms containing these derivatives were found), e.g.: atsakovas CĮ₃₃ 47, CTĮ₃₈ 15, BS₃₁ 160, BPĮ₃₃ 1013 P (cf. civilinis atsakovas BPĮ₃₃ 6 P, solidariniai atsakovai CĮ₃₃ 1548 S, CTĮ₃₈ 1197 T, solidarūs atsakovai CĮ₃₃ 1548 T), atstovas CTĮ₃₈ 1 S, BPĮ₃₀ 1171 (деньгам UUS) (cf. 11 A distinction was also made without suffixes: the contrast страхователь – страховщик was expressed respectively as draudėjas – apdraudimo priėmėjas (BŽ 1924: 494), and as draudėjas – draudimų ėmėjas (BŽ 1933: 545). 117 representative of interests CT₃₃ 1164 S), plaintiff CT₃₃ 112 S, CP₃₁₃C 57, CT₃₈ 6, BS₃₁ 160, BPI₃₃ 7 (cf. civil plaintiff CT₃₃ 964 IPS, BPI₃₃ 6, possessory plaintiff CT₃₈ 29 T), contractor CT₂₈ 1740, CT₃₈ 1301, BS₁₉ 382 (cf. wholesale contractor BS₁₉ 382), supplier, “supplier” CT₃₃ 1740 (поставщикъ), manager CT₃₃ 56, ruler BS₁₉ 72, expert “expert” CT₃₃ 675, CP₃₁₃C, CT₃₈ 82/2, BS₃₄ 37 S, BPI₂₄ 130. Most of them are legal neologisms (cf. Skardžius 1966: 10–11). Contractor is also new; in its place the first Terminology Commission had proposed worker (ĮTPTK 1924: 28). The latter term was later criticized (Skardžius 1998: 238–239). In general, this suffix has become widespread only recently, since no such derivatives are found in 16th–17th-century texts (Ambrazas 1993: 152–153). According to LKŽ, of the derivatives presented here only manager, ruler, expert. are terminologized. Only four derivatives denoting persons with the suffixes -inys, -ė were found: kalinys CT₃₈ 1608, BS₁₉ 173, BPI₃₃ 191/1, pasiuntinys CT₃₈ 225, BPI₃₃ 230, samdinys CT₃₃ 2202, valdinys “citizen” CT₂₈ 102, BS₁₉ 265. The latter term is also used in BS₃₄ 642 S in the sense of “a subordinate of a superior.” Pilietis (“citizen”) predominates in the codes, while valdinys is characteristic only of the first code to be translated, BS₁₉. In current law, the prefixed form pavaldinys is known with a different meaning (as in BS₃₄). Incidentally, in TŽ 1954 (probably owing to the influence of prewar terminology), pavaldinys refers to valdinys (подданный). Valdinys was also preferred in KP 1939 and KPP 1985. Today pavaldinys predominates (encouraged by the system: pavaldus, pavaldumas, “subordinate, subordination”). According to LKŽ, the words listed here are terminologized. Finally, less productive suffixes should be mentioned. Eight suffixes each have one to three derivatives denoting persons. A total of 13 such one-word terms were found (there are also a few compound terms containing these derivatives), e.g.: -ata: valkata BPI₃₃ 209; -ėiva: verteiva BS₁₉ 209 (промышленникъ). TTTŽP translates the word verteiva as дѣлецъ, предприниматель (23, 79), corresponding to the modern verslininkas (“entrepreneur”); -inė; giminė “relative” CT₂₈ 23, CT₃₃ 196, CP₃₁₃C 83 (cf. spiritual giminė CT₂₈ 37, kraujogiminė CT₂₈ 37); -ininkas, -ė: liudininkas BS₃₄ 108 T, samdininkas “hired worker, wage laborer” CI₃₃ 2229, valdininkas CI₂₈ 677, CI₃₃ 683, CPI₃₁₃V 261, CT₃₈ 76, BS₁₉ 143, BPI₃₃ 2 (должностное лицо UUS) (cf. excise valdininkas BPI₃₃ 1150, trade-supervision valdininkas BS₁₉ 134). Incidentally, the term liudininkas is very rare in the codes (cf. also in the compound term liudininko parodymas CP₃₁₃C 102); liudytojas was predominant. Both these words are old. J. Klimavičius proved, 118 kad liudytojas yra ir universalesnis, ir sistemiškesnis (Klimavičius 1988: 3–5); -lis: antstolis CTI38 942, BPI33 189; -lys, -ė: našlys CI33 1259 S, CTI38 1086, pirklys CTI38 468, BS34 220 S; -ūnas: atskalūnas „sektos narys“ BS19 380; -uonis: atskaluonis „sektos narys“ BS34 380, palikuonis CI28 201, CI33 420, BS34 672 R. Tai terminizuoti žodžiai, dauguma jų žinomi iš tarmių ir senesnių raštų. Another category of word formation for terms denoting persons is names of possessors of nominal properties. Nearly 130 one-word suffixal terms in this category, or compounds whose head component is a derivative in this category, were found in the codes (of these, one-word terms number only a little over fifty). More than 30 terms have the most frequent suffix in this category, -ininkas, -ė (including compounds whose head component is formed with this suffix, the total exceeds 70). Only a small proportion of the derivatives with this suffix that have been collected denote persons by their occupation, e.g.: darbininkas CI33 106 T, CTI38 138, BS19 125 (cf. laisvai samdomas darbininkas CTI38 1289), įmonininkas CI33 584, CTI38 203 S, iždininkas CI33 2048, BS34 578 T, prekybininkas CI33 192, CPI31V 468, CTI38 1485, raštininkas CI33 1073. Often it is difficult to specify a generalized meaning; it derives from the base word, e.g.: amžininkas ‘contemporary’ BS19 180, bylininkas ‘party to a case’ CI33 531 T (cf. užinteresuotas bylininkas CTI38 504 T), CPI31C 15/3, CTI38 13, BS34 160 S, BPI33 44 V, dalininkas ‘co-owner of property’ CI28 553, CI33 2135 S, CPI31V 1156/3, CTI38 36/3 (cf. bendrojo turto dalininkas CI33 1315 S, bendros nuosavybės dalininkas CI33 546 S, įmonės dalininkas CI33 2137, kompanijos dalininkas CI33 2136), įkaitininkas ‘holder of pledged property’ CI33 542/24, CPI31V 1156/3, CTI38 1545 P, BS34 577 S, indėlininkas CI33 2135, kyšininkas BS34 656 S, kuopininkas ‘member of an association (chapter)’ CI33 1238 P, nuomininkas CI33 514 T, CTI38 138, BS34 507 T, BPI33 1131, papėdininkas ‘legatee who receives a testamentary gift’ CPI31V 1712 (cf. palikimo papėdininkas CPI31V 1510/1)¹², paskolininkas CI33 2036 (заемщик), posedininkas ‘special member of a court in the Klaipėda Region’ BPI33 33 P (cf. prisiekęs posedininkas BPI33 12 The word in KP 1939, as an unsuccessful coinage, is corrected to palikuonį. 119 801), pusininkas ‘tenant farmer who pays half the harvest’ CI33 1691 T, BS34 591 T, santuokininkas ‘spouse’ CPI31V 1337, skolininkas CI33 112 S, CTI38 8, BS19 178 (cf. neišsimokantis skolininkas BS34 599 T, nusigyvenęs skolininkas BS19 599), sutartininkas ‘contracting party’ CPI31V 458, CI33 1222 S, tarpininkas CTI38 1370, užstatininkas ‘holder of the pledge (now: collateral)’ CI33 1549 S, vietininkas ‘an office of this name’ CTI38 88, viršininkas CI33 1234, žemininkas CI33 2201, BS19 609 (землевладѣлецъ). The base word of derivatives with this suffix is usually a noun. One can identify a term formed from a compound noun, nuomnuomininkas CI33 1547 S. It corresponds to subnuomininkas TŽ 1954. This is based on the unusually formed term nuomnuomė CI33 1705 S. Almost just one derivative each is formed from an adjective, numeral, or pronoun, e.g.: bendrininkas CPI31V 15/4, CPI31C 36/3, CTI38 1156/3, BS19 51, kaltininkas CI33 78, CTI38 10, CI33 78, CTI38 10 (cf. tiesioginis kaltininkas BS34 51 R, vyriausias kaltininkas ‘principal offender’ BS34 51 R, pirmininkas CTI38 1134, BS19 141 (cf. ministeris pirmininkas CTI38 88), savininkas CI33 106 T, CPI31V 1147, CTI38 1042, BS19 255 (cf. dokumentalinis turto savininkas CI33 567 PT, pasaugos savininkas CI33 2119). Bendrininkas was used with several meanings: ‘committing a crime jointly’, ‘having joint ownership’, and ‘participating jointly in a case’. This is also evident from compound terms besibylinėjantis bendrininkas CPI31V 15/3, bylos bendrininkas CPI31V 483, nusikalstamojo darbo bendrininkas BS19 51, BPI33 207, nusikaltimo bendrininkas BPI33 934 S, nusižengimo bendrininkas BS19 51, turto bendrininkas CTI38 1095 T. The suffix -ininkas is thought to have developed from -inykas. The latter suffix variant is still more characteristic of many Lithuanian dialects, whereas -ininkas is used only in Samogitian and neighboring dialects (Ambrazas 2000: 124, 125). Words with both suffix variants can be found in old written texts. Words such as bendrininkas, bylininkas, darbininkas, kaltininkas, nuomininkas, raštininkas, skolininkas, tarpininkas, vietininkas, among others, have been known since the 16th–17th centuries, regardless of the suffix variant. The dialects use pirmininkas ‘a shepherd walking at the head of the flock; a guide; a leader; someone who 13 The base word here is not entirely clear: it may be connected both with kaltas, -a and with kaltė (see Urbutis 1978: 91). Some researchers regard kaltininką as a derivative from an adjective (see Ambrazas 2000: 120), while others derive it from a noun (see Pakerys 1994: 124). 120 geriausias, pirmos rūšies“ (Ambrazas 2000: 119–124). Taigi didelė kalbamos priesagos vedinių dalis yra terminizuota, tik įgavo naujų reikšmių. Kai kurios terminų reikšmės nuo gyvosios kalbos žodžių nutolo nedaug, kai kurios gerokai (pvz., pirmininkas; nors 1907 m. J. Šlapelis jį pateikia tarp „nesuprantamų žodžių“ ir aiškina svetimybėmis ir vertiniu pirmasėdis, plg. rus. председатель SNŽŽ 1907). Vis dėlto nemažai terminų yra nauji, padaryti specialiai teisės reikalams, pvz.: įkaitininkas, įmonininkas, indėlininkas, išdininkas, kyšininkas, kuopininkas, paskolininkas, posėdininkas, prekybininkas, santuokininkas, sutartininkas, užstatininkas. Among the names of possessors of nominal properties in the material under study, there are no further suffixes whose groups of derivatives could be singled out. Another 17 suffixes were found, but each has only 1–3 derivatives denoting persons (a total of twenty-five, and an equal number of compound terms containing them): -ainis; gentainis CI₂₈ 1054 (современник); -aitis: giminaitis CI₂₈ 132/12, CPI₃₁V 83, CTI₃₈ 83, sūnaitis CI₃₃ 201, vaikaitis CI₃₃ 1356, in a compound term – valsčiaus viršaitis BS₃₁ 480, BPI₃₃ 249/2. By the way, J. Jablonskis criticized viršaitį and recommended using viršilą (Jablonskis 1935: 132, 133, 164). The first translation of BS used valsčiaus viršila BS₁₉ 480 (-ila), but it did not become established; viršilą came to be used in the army; -eivis: keleivis BS₃₁ 479; -ėlis: neturtėlis BS₁₉ 578; -ėnas: sūnėnas CI₃₃ 204; -ėtis: pašalėtis ‘an outsider’ CI₂₈ 193 (посторонний). It is unclear whether this variant, pašaliečio, was used deliberately or is an error; -ietis: giminietis CI₃₃ 132/12, BPI₃₃ 622, pašalietis ‘an outsider’ CI₃₃ 193, BS₁₉ 140 (посторонний ZG), pilietis CI₃₃ 1, CTI₃₈ 45, BS₃₁ 265, BPI₃₃ 215 (cf. garbės pilietis BS₁₉ 26). Formally, the term pilietis is related to pilis (LKŽ pilietis 2. ‘inhabitant of a castle’), but the semantic connection has already been lost. It should merely be noted that pilietis in its current sense, ‘a full member of a state’, was first recorded relatively late—in 1907, in J. Šlapelis’s Svetimų ir nesuprantamų žodžių žodynėlyje (Klimavičius 2003: 12, 13). Thus, it is possible that the current meaning of piliečio is relatively recent; -ijas: prekijas CPI₃₁V 470, BS₁₉ 198 (cf. didmenų prekyjas BS₁₉ 213); -ikis: jaunikis CI₃₃ 3; -ina: motina CI₃₃ 122 S, BS₁₉ 419 (the derivative is also classified as a diminutive, although it is acknowledged that it has lost this meaning (Ambrazas 2000: 107)); -iška: moteriška ‘woman’ CI₃₃ 102; -iškė: moteriškė ‘woman’ BS₁₉ 58; -olis, -ė: senolė CI₂₈ 1118, CI₃₃ 1118, senolis CI₂₈ 1118, CI₃₃ 1118; -(i)onis: pasaulionis ‘layperson’ 121 BS₃₄ 5 R, ancestral estate CT₂₈ 521, CT₃₃ 521 (вотчинник), in a compound term – mentally ill person BS₃₄ 480 P; -(i)ūnas: seniūnas CT₃₃ 919 S, BS₃₄ 530 S, BPI₃₃ 249/2, tėvūnas CT₂₈ 1118 (подоначальник); -utinis: žemutinis “a relative in the descending line, i.e. a younger relative, e.g. a child, grandchild” CT₃₃ 132/12 (нисходящий). With one or two exceptions (e.g. pasaulionis, tėvūnas), most of the derivatives presented here are old. They were terminologized. As can be seen, quite a number of kinship terms are presented here. Compound terms were not used with most of the derivatives; they were abundant only with the synonymous components giminaitis or giminietis, e.g.: aukštutinės eilės giminaitis CT₃₈ 83, aukštutinis giminaitis BPI₃₃ 5 P, šalutinės eilės giminaitis CT₃₈ 86, šalutinės linijos giminaitis CT₃₈ 1400 P, tiesioginės eilės giminaitis CT₃₈ 86, tiesioginės linijos giminaitis CT₃₈ 1400 P, tiesioginis giminaitis CT₃₈ 370, žemutinės eilės giminaitis CT₃₈ 83, žemutinis giminaitis CT₂₈ 132/12, CT₃₃ 132; aukštutinės eilės giminietis CT₃₃ 194 S, aukštutinis giminietis CT₃₃ 132, BS₁₉ 455, BPI₂₄ 5, BPI₃₀ 5, dvasios giminietis CT₃₃ 37, kraujo giminietis CT₃₃ 37, šalutinės eilės giminietis CT₃₃ 994 S, šalutinis antrojo laipsnio giminietis BS₁₉ 519, žemutinis giminietis BS₁₉ 455. Although no compound with giminaitis was found, instead of the predominant šalutinė eilė, šoninė eilė was also used (CT₃₃ 200) (modern codes use precisely the component šoninė). At that time the component eilė predominated, whereas modern codes use linija, and not tiesioginė but tiesioji. Thus today one finds tiesiosios or šoninės linijos giminaitis and aukštutinės or žemutinės linijos giminaitis (CK 2000: 3.131–3.133 str.). Few non-suffixal legal terms denoting persons were found in the codes examined (about 10% of terms of Lithuanian origin). Of these, the most numerous are compounds, of which more than 20 were found (no compound terms containing them were identified). More than half are formed from an adjective and a noun. With one exception, all such compounds have a linking vowel, e.g.: ben-drabylininkas “a person litigating jointly” CT₃₈ 15/3, CP₃₁₃ 15/4 (an incorrect compound), bendradarbis BS₁₉ 615, jaunametis BS₁₉ 181, mažametis CI₂₃ 213, CT₃₈ 1368, BS₁₉ 40, nesveikaprotis CP₃₁₃ 84, pilnametis CI₃₃ 150/1, BPI₃₃ 356/6 S, silpnaprotis BPI₃₃ 95, svetimatautis CI₂₈ 66. The only form used without a linking vowel is svetimšalis “foreign citizen” 122 CTI38 261, BS34 4 T, although it too has the variant svetimašalis CI33 1, BS19 5, BPI33 228. Fewer cases were found in which a noun is compounded with a verb. There are compounds with a linking vowel, for example, darbadirbys “worker” BS19 608, knygavedys “clerk” BS19 328, and without a linking vowel, for example, darbadavys CI33 684 PT, CTI38 1163 T, BS34 625 T, įstatymleidys BS34 4 R (possibly modeled on законодатель), raštvedys BS34 656 S. One or another term denoting persons in the codes belongs to derivatives of a rare structure: a) adjective + verb: bendravaldis CTI38 1189 (совладѣлец), veltkleidis “a person who squanders property” CPI31V 1460/13 (расточитель). Indeed, in these cases the first component may have arisen not directly from an adjective but from an adverb derived from an adjective; b) noun + noun: pusbrolis CI33 204. Only some of the derivatives presented here have become terms. According to LKŽ, the words coworker, co-ruler, laborer, legislator, young person, minor appeared in the previous century, so they may be legal neologisms. Bendrabylininko, knygavedžio are not in LKŽ (but the clear neologism bookkeeper is). Approximately as many prefix-derived terms as compounds were found in the codes (no multiword terms were found either). Nor is there a single prefix that stands out as especially productive. No more than 5 derivatives are formed with any one prefix. In total, derivatives with 7 different prefixes naming persons were found, e.g.: be-: unemployed person BS34 53 T, madman CI33 5, BPI33 93, propertyless person CTI38 200/7, BPI2 199, childless person CI33 1138; į-: adopted daughter CPI28 145, adoptive mother CPI31V 1460/12, adopted son CI28 1119/1, adoptive father CI33 152, CPI31V 1460/53, CTI38 86, adopted child CI33 1119/1, CPI31V 195, CTI38 86; ne⁻¹⁴: minor CI33 213, CTI38 45, BS19 41, BPI33 16; pa-: stepmother CI33 1129, stepfather CI33 1129, BS34 515 S, child born out of wedlock “illegitimate child” CI33 122 S, CTI38 1460/2 S; po-: stepdaughter BS34 515 S, stepson CI33 194 S; pra-: great-grandmother 14 Nepilnametis is treated here as a derivative with the prefix ne- (cf. the term pilnametis), whereas nesveikaproti is classified as a compound because there is no term nesveikaproti. In general, it is not always clear whether ne- should be considered part of a term. When negation is not specifically defined, dictionaries usually list only the affirmative forms of terms, although in texts those terms may sometimes also occur with the prefix ne-. 123 CI28 207, great-grandparent CI28 207; pro-: great-grandfather CI28 202, great-grandmother CI33 207, great-grandparent CI33 202. As can be seen, there are quite a few kinship terms here. Most of them have been terminologized, taken from the living language. The Lithuanian Dictionary does not include only prasenelė, prasenolis. Only a few person-denoting terms formed by suffixation, relevant to law, were found (terminologized names of agents and bearers of verbal properties), e.g.: suffix -is (-ys): -is (-ys): nebylys CI33 212, CTI38 1345/4, BPI33 411, neregys BS19 612, vagis CI33 652 S, BS34 45 R; -a: nuotaka CI33 3. Incidentally, the currently used deaf-mute does not occur in the codes; only deaf mute was found, CI33 381 T. Lithuanian linguistics also distinguishes the mixed method of term formation. These are cases in which two different methods of formation are manifested at once (Urbutis 1978: 189–290). The term įpėdinis, formed by this method, was found in the codes: CI33 533/10, CTI38 24, BPI33 18 (formed at once with a prefix and a suffix; the word was already used by S. Daukantas). There were a dozen or so specific terms for it, e.g., indirect heir CI33 1134 T, collateral heir CI33 1104 T, direct heir CI33 156 T. Two synonym series were also mentioned: heir by statute CI33 1110 T, heir under the law CI33 1300, statutory heir CI33 1068/2 S, CTI38 1352, lawful heir CI33 1066 PT, heir entitled by law CI33 1066 PT; and heir by will CI33 1298 S, heir under a will CTI38 1408 S, testamentary heir CI33 1010 S, CTI38 69 T. What is interesting here is the now-unusual synonymy of terms using the prepositions iš and pagal (for a somewhat fuller discussion, see Umbrasas 2004: 102, 103). Finally, mention should be made of distinctive person-denoting terms not formed by derivation. In the codes examined, more than fifty words from other parts of speech used as nouns were found (about 9% of terms of native origin). These are participles that can be regarded as fully substantivized or at least partially substantivized. Substantivization cannot be classified as word formation. V. Urbutis argues that the fact that a word acquires semantic and syntactic properties characteristic of another part of speech does not warrant speaking of word formation or the emergence of a separate word. This is merely a change of function, since the base word is formally no different from the supposed derivative; there is no derivational formative (Urbutis 1978: 294–297). When discussing substantivization, people often first have in mind the conversion of adjectives into nouns (Jakaitienė, Laigonaitė, Paulauskienė 124 1976: 78, 79; Paulauskienė 1983: 42–45). Such substantivized adjectives are inextricably intertwined with nouns formed by means of formatives, so it is often difficult to say whether one is dealing with a substantivized adjective or a noun formed with an adjectival suffix. In this way, the formatives of substantivized adjectives come to be considered noun-forming formatives (Paulauskienė 1983: 43, 44). Therefore, cases such as bedarbis, moteriška ‘woman’, mažametis, pilnametis are not analyzed here; they are discussed among derivatives and treated as nouns, although they can also be used as adjectives, in which case they would be part of compound terms or would not be considered terms at all. Only participles functioning as nouns are discussed here. The collected material shows that, to denote persons, present-tense passive participles are most commonly terminologized, e.g.: atstojamasis ‘a person whose inheritance, assigned to them, is inherited by another under the law upon their death’ CL₃₃ 1123 S, draudžiamasis CL₃₃ 2199 S, globiamasis CL₂₈ 12, CP₃₁C 19, BS₃₄ 577, globojamasis CL₃₃ 12, CP₃₁C 19, CT₃₈ 19, BS₃₄ 577, grasomasis ‘a person who is threatened’ BS₁₉ 510, įtariamasis BS₃₄ 676 T, įvaikinamasis CT₃₈ 1460/8, įžeidžiamasis BS₃₄ 532 T, kaltinamasis CL₃₃ 644 S, CT₃₈ 6, BS₁₉ 9, BPI₂₄ 669, BPI₃₃ 3, kurstomasis ‘a person urged to commit a crime’ BS₃₄ 51 P, kviečiamasis BS₃₄ 676 T, paperkamasis ‘bribe-taker’ BS₃₄ 149 R, renkamasis ‘a candidate participating in elections’ BS₁₉ 30/1, BPI₃₃ 975/1 V, rūpinamasis CT₃₈ 1632, samdomasis ‘hired worker’ CL₃₃ 2201 S, skundžiamasis BS₃₄ 156 S, šaukiamasis ‘a person summoned to court’ CT₃₈ 61, BPI₃₃ 56, šmeižiamasis BS₃₄ 537 S, teisiamasis CL₃₃ 574 S, CT₃₈ 111, BS₃₄ 1 S, BPI₃₃ 748, tiriamasis ‘a person examined by medical experts for the court’ CT₃₈ 1673 T. The codes also contain no fewer examples of past-tense passive participles used as nouns, e.g.: apkaltintasis CT₃₈ 1333 (обвиняемый), aprašytasis CL₂₈ 1039 (завещатель), įdukrintas CPI₃₁C 195, BPI₂₄ 99 (masculine gender!), išūnytasis CT₃₈ 195, CPI₃₁C 195, BPI₃₃ 85, išteisintasis BPI₃₃ 21, įtartasis BS₁₉ 159, įvaikintasis CPI₃₁C 195, įžeistasis BPI₃₃ 1213/4, nubaustasis BPI₂₄ 216 (осужденный), nuskaustasis ‘the offended, the injured party’ CL₃₃ 667, BS₁₉ 477, BPI₃₃ 20, nusk riaustasis BS₃₄ 536 T, nusmerktasis CL₃₃ 50, BS₁₉ 10, BPI₃₃ 180/10, BPI₂₄ 226 (осужденный), nuteistasis BPI₂₄ 791, BPI₃₀ 948, BS₃₄ 522 T (осужденный), papirktasis BS₁₉ 149, pasamdytasis CL₃₃ 2228 S, condemn- 125 convicted person BS₃₄ 10, BPI₃₃ 26 (осужденный), arrestee BS₁₉ 59, BPI₃₃ 51/1, detainee Cl₃₃ 665. The examples show that participles of different tenses with the same root occur. Their meanings differ: for example, the accused and the convicted are not the same (incidentally, the convicted person is also rendered by the punished, the sentenced, the condemned); however, it sometimes seems that participles of different tenses are used essentially to designate the same concept. Compare <…> a false testimony became the subject of an inquiry, or a criminal investigation was initiated on its account, or the suspect was summoned to disciplinary court <…> BS₁₉ 159 and <…> the village elder, while participating in a search at the suspect’s home, did not beat him <…> BS₃₄ 676 T. The examples show that substantivized forms of definite participles are used. The definite form can partly be considered a formal means of substantivization, but it is not a derivational affix, since the participle itself already has that form (Urbutis 1978: 296–297). It cannot be ruled out that some of the participles mentioned have undergone substantivization only in particular contexts; however, certain words are clear terms, listed in TŽ 1954, e.g.: the suspect, the accused, the defendant, the detainee, the convicted person. Where possible, nouns are more convenient than verbal forms; compare ward (not found in the codes) and person under guardianship. An equivalent of the former was also used at the time: prisoner BS₁₉ 174, BS₃₄ 479 (арестантъ; compare arrestee). Several lexicalized active-voice past simple (past-tense) participles were also found, e.g.: the injured party Cl₃₃ 1512 S, BS₃₄ 45 T, BPI₃₃ 43 (потерпѣвшій UUS; compare injured person TŽ 1954), the married person ‘spouse’ Cl₂₈ 44 (and married persons ‘spouses’ Cl₂₈ 102, BS₃₄ 412 R). Active-voice past simple (past-tense) indefinite participles with the nominative ending in the suffix -us- are also used as nouns. Such participles are characteristic of certain dialects (Ambrazas 1996: 358). In the sense of ‘offender’, the forms the one who insulted Cl₃₃ 670 and the one who wronged Cl₂₈ 670 are found. Their use as terms is evident from the opposition the wronged party – the offender, e.g.: if, because of personal injury or insult, the wronged party has suffered a loss of credit or property, then the wronged party or the offender shall compensate him for these losses at the court’s discretion and by its decision Cl₃₃ 670. It is true that the second occurrence of the wronged party is used incorrectly, making the sentence incomprehensible—the original has обидѣвшій или оскорбившій; therefore, the second the wronged party should instead read, as in Cl₂₈, the one who wronged. 126 Relatively few terms of foreign origin denoting persons were found. Most are borrowings or compound terms with a borrowing as the head constituent—about 80 such terms in all (half single-word, half compound; approximately 10% of the material studied). Only a few of them are foreignisms clearly unnecessary in Lithuanian, e.g.: army reserve officer15 BS19, 183, prikazčikas CT38 445 (apparently added for clarity alongside orderly), unteraficieris BS19 27. Other borrowings are to be regarded as international words; almost all of them can be found in modern dictionaries of foreign words. It should be noted that about a third of the borrowings occur not in the codes’ articles themselves, but in various appendices and explanatory notes to the articles, mostly in decisions of the Lithuanian Supreme Tribunal (and somewhat less often in decisions of the Russian Senate), and thus entered Lithuanian translations not necessarily from the original. Some cases show that international terms were also used when the Russian original from which the translation was made did not contain an international term, e.g.: administrator CP31v 1794 (управитель), advocate BP30 561 (защитник), appellant CP31v 165 (противная сторона), appellant CP31v 163, CP31v 164/3 (приносящий жалобу, проситель), civil servant BP33 226 (лицо гражданского ведомства), expert CP31v 516, CT38 1117, BP33 112 (свободные люди), curator CP31v 1543, CI28 220 (попечитель), testator CI28 985, CT38 25 (завещатель). Of course, these international terms may have been used in places other than those indicated in the Russian text; however, the fact itself shows that an international word was not always adopted from the Russian original. Sometimes it was inserted deliberately, even when a native word could have been chosen to match the Russian equivalent—for example, advocate rather than defender16 (P. Skardžius also proposed this equivalent (1998: 441)). The reason is probably the one already mentioned in the literature: an international word, especially when used as a term, often has a more precisely defined meaning than its Lithuanian synonym, evokes no extraneous associations, and is more abstract or stylistically neutral (Pikčilingis 1975: 176). At the same time, one may suppose that for some of the international 15 Tiesa, šis žodis anuomet laikytas tarptautiniu (plg. Skardžius 1998: 441). 16 Beje, LKŽ duomenimis, „advokato“ reikšme S. Daukantas vartojo terminą teisrodis, iš A. Kuršaičio žodyno šiam reikalui žinomas tiesabylys, o Aušroje 1886 m. pavartota forma tiesabylius. 127 Western legal literature must also have influenced the emergence of terms, since lawyers undoubtedly read it. The available data show that almost all the international terms collected for naming persons have a Latin base17, for example: agent CI₃₃ 1744 S, CTI₃₈ 36, BS₁₉ 111 (diplomatic agent CTI₃₈ 225, BS₃₄ 5 R, BPI₃₃ 230), appellant CPI₃₁V 165, author CI₃₃ 695/5, CTI₃₈ 1041, censor BS₁₉ 302, debtor CI₃₃ 2200 P, CTI₃₈ 1092 S, deputy BPI₃₃ 1171, emigrant BS₃₄ 442 P, governor-general CTI₃₈ 88, creditor CI₃₃ 542 S, CTI₃₈ 8, BS₃₄ 607 T, notary CI₃₃ 569 S, CTI₃₈ 47, BS₁₉ 672, BS₃₄ 577 S, occupant CI₃₃ 700 T, subject of an offence BS₃₄ 245 R, persona BPI₃₃ 1 P, testator CTI₂₈ 985, CI₃₃ 1010 T, CTI₃₈ 25, BS₃₄ 440 R, president of the state CI₃₃ 53. A few terms are associated with Romance-language forms derived from Latin (French, Italian), for example: ambassador CTI₃₈ 225 (French ambassadeur TŽŽ 2001; French ambassadeur < Italian ambasciatore – envoy TŽŽ 1999), commandant BS₃₄ 174 T (French commandant – leader, commander), commissioner CTI₃₈ 445 (French commissionnaire < Latin commissio – commission), prosecutor CTI₃₈ 8, BPI₃₀ 11 (French procureur), state comptroller CTI₃₈ 200/10, BPI₃₃ 277/1 T (French contrôleur), state secretary CTI₃₈ 88 (French secrétaire). There are only isolated instances in which other languages (German, Dutch, Polish) are mentioned when indicating etymology, for example: bankruptcy “an indebted person” CTI₃₈ 1485 (Italian banca rotta – broken table TŽŽ 2001; French banqueroute TŽŽ 1999; German Bankrott < Italian bancarrotta – bankruptcy TŽŽ 1969), burgomaster “city head” CTI₃₈ 1117 T (Polish burmistrz < German Bürgermeister), broker CI₃₃ 1690, CTI₃₈ 445, BPI₃₃ 369 (German Makler TŽŽ 2001; German Makler < Dutch makelaar TŽŽ 2000). Borrowings and the Lithuanian adaptation of international terms. In most cases (as can be seen from the terms already presented), words are used in forms customary today; that is, the spelling, phonetic, and morphological adaptation of the terms into Lithuanian coincides with present-day usage. Although few in number, several spelling or phonetic variants unlike those used today were found, for example: klijentas CI₃₃ 1539 T, CTI₃₈ 17 Etymology was checked mainly against TŽŽ 1999, 2000, 2001. 128 410 T, BS₃₄ 363/4, companion CĮ₃₃ 2126 S, BS₃₄ 574 S, courier BS₃₄ 5 R, contracting party CĮ₃₃ 569 S, CTĮ₃₈ 1304, BS₃₄ 591 T. Both the then-current and present-day form contractant (contracting party CTĮ₃₈ 1302) was used. It was recommended in KP 1939 on the grounds that -g- comes from Russian. The forms bankrotas CTĮ₃₈ 1485 and bankrutas CPĮ₃₁ᵥ 1485 were also used differently (cf. present-day bankrotas, but bankrutuoti). Compound terms show an additional variant: malicious bankruptcy CTĮ₃₈ 1794, BPĮ₃₃ 29 S, malicious bankrūtas CTĮ₃₈ 468, fraudulent bankrutas CPĮ₃₁ᵥ 468. Also noteworthy is minister CPĮ₃₁ᵥ 88, CTĮ₃₈ 88 (Latin minister)—only in the Soviet period did ministras become widespread, most likely on the model of Russian министр; cf. also French ministre (TŽŽ 1969). Lithuanian dictionaries of the period contained ministeris (SNŽŽ 1907; SNŽŽ 1924; TŽŽ 1936). Finally, it should be noted that some terms used in the codes are absent from present-day dictionaries of international words. One such term is apelliator CPĮ₃₁ᵥ 163, CTĮ₃₈ 745, BS₃₄ 262 T (Latin apellator—a person appealing a judgment, LLŽ 1996). A term now in use, derived from the same Latin word and found in one of the codes examined, is appellant CPĮ₃₁ᵥ 165. However, in CPĮ₃₁ᵥ, apelliator and appellant seem to have been used with different meanings: the former for the person who appeals, the latter for the person against whom an appeal is made (CPĮ₃₁ᵥ 163 and 165). This is an unusual distinction. CPĮ₃₁ᵥ 764 also uses cross-appellant, with the synonym counter-appellant. Incidentally, the terms in the present Code of Criminal Procedure are not systematic: a person who has filed a cassation appeal is called a cassation appellant, while a person who has filed an appeal is called an appellant. The terms legatar CPĮ₃₁ᵥ 1712 and legatarius CĮ₃₃ 1086 S, CTĮ₃₈ 1510/1 (Latin legatarius—heir), apparently used synonymously, are also no longer in use. Cf. also the compound terms universal legatar CPĮ₃₁ᵥ 1510/1 (explained as successor to the inheritance), universal legatarius CTĮ₃₈ 1510/1. TŽŽ 1936 gives a different form: legataris. Sometimes the derivation of international terms is analyzed synchronically, classified by derivational categories, and suffixes are identified (see Urbutis 1965); in other words, the approach is similar to that used for native words¹⁸. From this perspective, only a little over a third of the terms examined in the codes could be 18 It is argued that derivatives borrowed from other languages function as derivatives because of derivational relationships established with other foreign-origin words having the same roots. This is called correlative derivation (Urbutis 1978: 248, 249). 129 They are morphologically analyzable, whereas for the majority of the international terms examined, it would not be possible to find potential base words even when looking at them formally. Among the cases in which derivation can formally be discerned, terms with the suffixes -orius, -ė predominate, e.g.: darbo inspektorius CT38 161/1, ipotekinis kreditorius CT38 1563, senatorius CT38 88, and -atorius, -ė, e.g.: kasatorius CĮ33 1184 T, BS34 41 T, BPĮ33 3 T, kuratorius CĮ28 220, CPĮ31V 1543, turto administratorius CĮ33 1317 S. Hybrid person-denoting terms, that is, those which, in addition to their own, also contain non-inflectional morphemes originating in other languages, number only 16 in the material examined (approximately 2% of the material). Most of them are derivatives formed with the suffix -ininkas (to be regarded as names for bearers of a nominal characteristic), e.g.: akcininkas CĮ33 2138 S, BS19 580, bankrūtininkas BS34 602 S, činšininkas CĮ33 533 T, duelininkas BS34 486 R, kontorininkas CĮ33 1238 P, kontrabandininkas BS34 591 T, policininkas BS34 523 T, servitutinininkas BS34 624 T, šantažininkas BS34 615 R. Instead of the latter, šantažuotojas is now used; the international term šantažistas is also known (DŽ 2003). Neither this term nor the analogous kontrabandistas occurred in the codes of that period (kontrabandistas is listed alongside kontrabandininkas in SNŽŽ 1907). Kontrabandininkas is now fully established, and therefore kontrabandistas, which is sometimes heard on television, is rightly corrected (Pečkuvienė 2004: 11, 12). Bankrotininkas and servitutinininkas are no longer used in law at all. A term of a different type formed with the same suffix is subnuomininkas CĮ33 570 T. It is derived from a hybrid term; cf. sub-nuoma CĮ33 1705 S. Although it was not yet present in the 1918–1940 codes, TŽ 1954 aptly offers pernuoma, pernuomininkas for the meaning in question—these terms were needlessly forgotten by the compilers of the current relevant codes. It is true that TŽ 1954 also lists subnuoma with subnuomininkas without any synonymic relationship, and even with other equivalents, but this is most likely a dictionary flaw rather than a deliberate distinction. Only a few other hybrid terms were found. Worth noting are three hybrid agent nouns with the suffix -tojas: apeliuotojas BS34 155 T, likviduotojas CĮ33 2200 P, įstatymų dabotojas BPĮ33 166 S (beside the latter, a term explicitly not recommended, is written bliustitel zakona); two hybrid participles used as nouns were also found: areštuotasis BS34 453 T, internuotasis BS34 174 T. 130 Calques are generally also classified as terms of foreign origin. The examined material was not analyzed with respect to calquing, that is, the formation of calques, because recognizing and treating calques presents problems, especially in cases where words are well adapted to the Lithuanian language system and their foreignness is not felt. Here, the native character of a term is understood primarily as having Lithuanian components. It is possible to distinguish more clearly only terms formed blindly on the model of other languages, which lack derivational motivation19 or have an unusual form; however, there are very few such cases in the material examined. For example, under the influence of Russian, bendrasavininkasCl₃₃ 555 PT, CPl₃₁V 1156/3, CTl₃₈ 4 T (the original had various forms: соучастникъ въ общемъ владѣніи; совладѣлецъ UGS; TŽ 1954 shows the structurally closest equivalent to be сособственник) is corrected—replaced by nuosavybės bendrininku20, bendraturčiu (TT 1992: 25; K Konsul 2003: 35). Worth mentioning is the long-criticized įstatymdavėjas BPl₃₃ 174 T and the related term įstatymdavy stė21 BPl₃₃ 180/4 P (cf. законодатель, законодательство). The latter was included in the 1939 Kalbos patarėjas (KP 1939); both are still corrected today (Šukys 2003: 44). Although not sufficiently so, the corresponding terms įstatymleidyba BS₃₄ 4 P and įstatymleidys BS₃₄ 4 R are somewhat better (and are also corrected). Both sets are replaced by įstatymų leidyba, įstatymų leidėjas (the latter also appeared at the time in Cl₃₃ 570 T, CTl₃₈ 1163 T, BS₃₄ 53 S; see TT 1992; Piročkinas 1990: 152; Šukys 2003: 44). All these terms were probably formed by analogy, following older writings. According to LKŽ, K. Sirvydas and J. Brodovskis used tiesastatys, tiesastatis for the concept in question; later, Aušroje also used tiesastatystė. XIX–XX a. dictionaries (mainly those of S. Gimžauskas, G. H. F. Nesselmann, J. Šlapelis, J. Ryteris, and A. Kuršaitis) also listed tiesadavys (tiesadavis), tiesadavėjas and tiesadavystė, tiesadavėjystė, tiesadavyba. Thus, at the beginning of the 20th century, when tiesą ceased to be used in the sense of “law,” the component of the derived term was also changed, but teisė was not inserted; instead, įstatymas. 19 St. Keinys calls only such cases calques, while terms otherwise modeled on other languages are considered loan translations (Keinys 1999: 113. 115). 20 This title was not found in the codes, but a similar term, turto bendrininkas CTl₃₈ 1095 T, was found. 21 LKŽ also has the form įstatymdavybė. 131 Conclusions 1. Legal terms designating persons were used extensively in the codes of 1918–1940. Some of these terms belong to legal science, others to legal practice. They are names for persons involved in legal relations and performing various legal functions. 2. A characteristic feature of legal terms designating persons from the period under study is their Lithuanian character. Person designations that cannot be analyzed morphologically are rare in the codes; most terms are derivatives. Only some were coined specifically for legal terminology, while most were terminologized. It is difficult to draw a strict distinction between terminologized words and new formations because historical data on words are lacking. Most legal terms designating persons are derivatives formed with the suffixes -tojas, -a and -ėjas, -a, which are very common and productive in general usage (although they are not always recorded in lexicography). It may be that precisely because of their commonness, some terms formed with the suffix -tojas, -a were later replaced by derivatives with -ovas, -ė. The more clearly identifiable neologisms of the period under study were mostly formed with the suffix -ininkas, -ė. 3. A distinctive type of legal terms designating persons consists of substantivized participles, usually passive present-tense participles. This is a fairly convenient means of concise expression. Some terms of this type are still in common use today. 4. Borrowings make up a relatively small proportion of the legal terms designating persons in the codes. Almost all borrowings are international words. Most are of Latin origin. The Lithuanian adaptation of only a few international words differs from current usage; there was little variation. The material also shows that international words were not always adopted from the Russian original text. Hybrid terms are also akin to borrowings, but this method of term formation was quite rare in the codes. 5. Some of the legal terms designating persons examined here are no longer used: concepts have changed, more suitable forms of expression have been found, and synonyms have been eliminated. There are few incorrect terms. Of the terms found in the codes, only a few are corrected today. The reason for correction is often the inappropriate influence of other languages. 132 PRIMARY SOURCES22 BPL24 – Code of Criminal Procedure. Ed. A. Kriščiukaitis. – Teisė 6–10 [supplement], Kaunas, 1924–1926. BPL30 – B y l a J. Code of Criminal Procedure, Kaunas, 1930. BPL33 – Code of Criminal Procedure with commentaries compiled from the decisions of the Russian Senate and the Supreme Tribunal of Lithuania and other interpretations concerning the criminal procedure law of Greater Lithuania and the Klaipėda Region. Ed. M. Kavolis, Kaunas, 1933. BS19 – Criminal Statute, Kaunas, 1919 // Criminal Laws, Kaunas, 919. BS31 – J a b l o n s k i s K. Criminal Statute: with supplements, 2nd ed., Kaunas, 1930. BS34 – Criminal Statute with supplementary criminal laws and commentaries compiled from the decisions of the Russian Senate and the Supreme Tribunal of Lithuania and other interpretations, Kaunas, 1934. CI28 – Civil Laws: [State Collection, vol. X, part 1. Translation. CI33 – Š a l k a u s k i s K. Civil Laws: Volume X, Part I, Kaunas, 1933. CPĮ31C – Code of Civil Procedure. With Lietuvino M. Čepas, Kaunas, 1931. CPĮ31V – The Code of Civil Procedure with accompanying laws and a subject index-glossary. Prepared for publication by J. Viskanta, Kaunas, 1931. CTĮ38 – The Law on Civil Procedure with all amendments and supplements and with explanations by the Supreme Tribunal and the Russian Senate. Edited by Č. Butkys, Kaunas, 1938. UGS – Charter of Civil Procedure and Regulation on Notarial Affairs (Vol. XVI, Part I, Code of Laws of the Russian Empire), Berlin, 1924. UU – Criminal Code of 22 March 1903. According to the editions of N. S. Tagantsev, Riga, 1922. UUS – Charter of Criminal Procedure (Code of Laws, Vol. XVI, Part 1, 1914 edition), with subsequent enactments, legislative motives, explanations of the Governing Senate, and circulars of the Ministry of Justice. Compiled by M. P. Shramchenko and V. P. Shirkov, Riga, 1923. ZG – Civil Laws: (Code of Laws, Vol. X, Part I, 1914 edition, according to the 1914 continuation): including enactments issued pursuant to Article 87 22 Only the Lithuanian codes under study and their Russian-language counterparts are presented here. To make it easier to find a term, the code abbreviation is accompanied not by a page number, but by an article number. Many terms are taken from appendices to articles, which contain commentaries. In such cases, a letter is also written next to the article number to indicate the type of appendix: T – a decision of the Supreme Tribunal of Lithuania, S – a decision of the Russian Senate, R – a commentary by the code’s editorial commission, V – another law, P – all other appendices, including those that were originally included. Some terms are taken from subarticles. In such cases, the subarticle number is also written next to the article number, after a slash. 133 of the Fundamental Laws and explanations of the Governing Senate from 1866 to 1 October 1915. Compiled by V. V. Isachenko, Petrograd, 1916. LITERATURE AND ADDITIONAL SOURCES Ambrazas S. 1993: Daiktavardžių darybos raida: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių vediniai, Vilnius. Ambrazas S. 2000: Daiktavardžių darybos raida 2: Lietuvių kalbos vardažodžių vediniai, Vilnius. Ambrazas V. 1996: Veiksmažodžio neasmenuojamosios formos. – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius, 354–385. Buivydienė R. 1997: Lietuvių kalbos vedybų giminystės pavadinimai, Vilnius. BŽ 1924: Baronas J. Rusiškai lietuviškas žodynas, Kaunas. BŽ 1933: Baronas J. Rusų lietuvių žodynas, Kaunas. CK 2000: Lietuvos Respublikos civilinis kodeksas. – Lietuvos Respublikos pagrindiniai įstatymai, Vilnius, 25–303. Drotvimas V. 1987: Lietuvių kalbos leksika ir frazeologija, Vilnius. DŽ 2003: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Vyr. red. St. Keinys, Vilnius (e. leidimas). Gaivenis K. 2002: Lietuvių terminologija: teorijos ir tvarkybos metmenys, Vilnius. ĮTPTK 1924: Įvardai, arba terminai, priimti Terminologijos komisijos. Sudarė A. Vireliūnas, Kaunas. Jablonskis J. 1935: Jablonskio raštai 4, Kaunas. Jablonskis J. 1936: Jablonskio raštai 5, Kaunas. Jakaitienė E., Laigonaitė A., Paulauskienė A. 1976: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija, Vilnius. Jakaitienė E. 1980: Lietuvių kalbos leksikologija, Vilnius. Keinys St. 1975: Priesaginė lietuviškų terminų daryba. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 16: Lietuvių terminologija, 7–56. Keinys St. 1980: Terminologijos abėcėlė, Vilnius. Keinys St. 1999: Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, Šiauliai. KKonsul 2003: Kalbos konsultacijos. Sudarė A. Kupčinskaitė-Ryklienė, Vilnius. Klimavičius J. 1988: Kas krato teisės kalbos vežimą? – Gimtoji kalba 7, 3–10. Klimavičius J. 2003: Vila – vasarnamis, kotedžas – pilaitė. – Gimtoji kalba 10, 10–13. Kniūkšta P. 1999: Ypatingesni kanceliarinės kalbos atvejai. – Kalbos kultūra 72, 19–28. KP 1939: Kalbos patarėjas. Paruošė L. Dambrauskas. Red. A. Salys ir P. Skardžius, Kaunas. KPP 1985: Kalbos praktikos patarimai. Sudarė A. Pupkis, Vilnius. LKŽ: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–20, Vilnius, 1941–2002. LLŽ 1996: Kuzavinis K. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas, Vilnius. 134 LRVAI 1999: Lietuvos Respublikos viešojo administravimo įstatymas. – Valstybės žinios 60-1945. LRVTĮ 1999: Lietuvos Respublikos valstybės tarnybos įstatymas. – Valstybės žinios 66-2130. P a k e r y s A. 1994: Accentology 1: Noun and Adjective, Kaunas. P a l i o n i s J. 2004: XVI–XVII a. lietuviškų raštų atrankinis žodynas, Vilnius. P a u l a u s k i e n ė A. 1983: Outline of Lithuanian Morphology, Kaunas. P e č k u v i e n ė L. 2004: What to catch at Lithuania’s border: smugglers or contrabandists. – Native Language 3, 11–12. P i k č i l i n g i s J. 1975: Lithuanian Stylistics 2, Vilnius. P i r o č k i n a s A. 1990: Administrative Language Culture, Vilnius. S a b a l i a u s k a s A. 1966: Lietuvių kalbos leksikos raida. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 8: Lietuvių kalbos leksikos raida, 5–141. S a b a l i a u s k a s A. 1990: Lithuanian Vocabulary, Vilnius. S a l y s A. 1979: Writings 1, Rome. S k a r d ž i u s P. 1966: The suffix -ovas and its usage. – Native Language 1, 10–12. S k a r d ž i u s P. 1996: Selected Writings 1, Vilnius. S k a r d ž i u s P. 1998: Selected Writings 3, Vilnius. SNŽŽ 1907: Svetimų ir nesuprantamų žodžių žodynėlis: Skaitytojams palengvinimas. Sudarė J. Šlapelis, Tilžė. SNŽŽ 1924: N o r k u s J. Svetimų ir nesuprantamų žodžių žodynėlis, Kaunas. Š a l k a u s k i s S. 1991: Writings 2: Terminology of Philosophy and Pedagogy, Vilnius. Š u k y s J. 2003: Kalbos kultūra visiems, Kaunas. TT 1992: Terminologijos taisymai. Parengė K. Gaivenis, A. Kaulakienė, St. Keinys, J. Klimavičius, Vilnius. TTP 1939, 1940: Teisinės terminijos projektas. P. Stravinskas. – Teisė 48, 384–387; 49, 475–480; 50 73–74; 51, 184–185. TTTŽP: Draft Glossary of Legal Terms and Other Words Needed by the Courts [manuscript], [1920]. TŽ 1954: Teisinių terminų žodynas. Sudarė A. Žiurlys, Vilnius. TŽŽ 1936: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Sudarė K. Boruta, Pr. Čepėnas, A. Sirutytė-Čepėnienė. Red. J. Žiugžda, Kaunas. TŽŽ 1969: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Vyr. red. F. Petrovas. Vertė O. Doveikienė ir kt. Lietuviško leid. red. Ch. Lemchenas, Vilnius. TŽŽ 1999: V a i t k e v i č i ū t ė V. Dictionary of Foreign Words 1, Vilnius. TŽŽ 2000: V a i t k e v i č i ū t ė V. Dictionary of Foreign Words 2, Vilnius. TŽŽ 2001: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Ats. red. A. Kinderys, Vilnius. U m b r a s a s A. 2001: The state of legal terminology in Lithuania in 1918–1940. – Terminologija 8, 76–94. U m b r a s a s A. 2004: Prielinksniniai teisės terminai 1918–1940 metų Lietuvos kodeksuose. – Specialybės kalba: sistema ir vartosena. Mokslinės konferencijos darbai, Vilnius, 102–108. U r b u t i s V. 1965: Daiktavardžių daryba. – Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1, Vilnius, 251–473. 135 Urbutis V. 1978: Žodžių darybos teorija, Vilnius. Urbutis V. 1999: Naujadaras. – Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija. Red. V. Ambrazas, Vilnius, 429–430. LAW TERMS NAMING PERSONS IN LITHUANIAN LEGAL CODES OF 1918-1940 Summary Sources for the research in this article are unofficial translations of Russian legal codes, which were valid in Lithuania between 1918 and 1940, into Lithuanian. The article analyses terms of law for naming persons. Part of these terms could be attributed to the jurisprudence, other part – to the legal practice. They are names of persons connected by the legal relations and persons performing legal functions. There were about 800 such terms found in the earlier mentioned codes. About half of them are one-word terms, a half of them – complex terms (mainly two-word terms). Terms are discussed according to their origin and word-formation. A characteristic feature of law terms of that period naming persons is their Lithuanian origin. Names of persons, which are separable in respect of word-formation, are rare in those codes, most of them are derivatives. Some of them are coined specially for the needs of law terminology, most of them are terminologized. It is quite difficult to mark strictly terminologized formations from new formations. If a derivative, which is systematically possible, did not get into the earlier lexicography, it is not possible to conclude that such word did not exist. Most of law terms naming persons are derivatives with suffixes -tojas, -a and -ėjas, -a, which on the whole are very common and productive. It is possible that exactly because of the commonness some terms made with the suffix -tojas, -a were replaced with derivatives with the suffix -ovas, -ė. More clearly new words were made with the suffix -ininkas, -ė. The article singles out a distinctive type of law terms naming persons – substantivized participles, mostly of the passive voice of the present tense. This is quite convenient way of a short expression. Some of the terms of this type are usual until nowadays. Borrowings make quite a small part of law terms naming persons in these codes. Almost all borrowings are international words. An absolute majority of them are of the Latin origin. The Lithuanization of a very few international words differs from the present one, variations are rare. Hybrid terms are close to borrowings, though such way of naming persons in these code was not popular at all. Alvydas UMBRASAS Received 2005-11-10 Institute of the Lithuanian Language P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius email [email protected] 136