Terminologijos istorijos ir dabarties problemos

THE HISTORY OF TERMINOLOGY AND PRESENT PROBLEMS In memory of Kazimieras Gaivenis Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute Publishing House, 2004, 380 p. The thick book of terminology is presented in a serious, but also humorous, non-dull cover (artist Alfonsas Žvilius), with a neat layout (Neda Marcinkienė and Audronė Stanislovaitienė) —in the publishing of scientific literature the Lithuanian Language Institute Publishing House differs with a distinctive face: it has a distinctive humanitarian spirit. Reflections of that spirit also flash under the cover, most prominently in the first part of Kazimieras Gaivenis —žmogus ir mokslininkas (13-82), which is like aged paper. It was based on the 70th anniversary of the linguist-terminologist (1934–2003). The in memoriam part begins with the memories of the linguist Jolanta Gaivenytė-Butler from the Father’s stories and notes — about the native village of Stūčiai on the northern coast of Tauragė, family history, childhood, school times. They are supplemented with photos of his home, parents, little Kaziukas with even younger sister, a nice seventeenth grade student. Then, according to the chronology, which unfortunately does not understand the alphabet, there is a mixture of memories of fellow scholars and collaborators, and at the end — excerpts from the diary of one classmate (1953) and K. Gaivenis’ letters to him (1954—1959). The writings of collaborators and colleagues in terminology are quite diverse — here there is almost an article with summaries of activities and portrait features, and an almost official report of cooperation, marked with a deep line in the bars (26), a bright contribution (32), rays of light (32) and similar stamps, and comprehensively presented facts of common terminology work (sometimes already forgotten, suddenly revived), and a beautiful youthful admiration of the elder, the leader, his devotion to science, the modesty of the scientist, humanity. For the reviewer, who was only asked to talk, it was then unexpected that a text should be prepared from the record of said memories and impressions — I was prepared to speak, but it turned out impossible to put it in a book, but I apologize to the lovers of edited memories... Thank you to Jon Ivonis, Romualdas Šimkūnas, Rytis Trimonis; Stasys Keinis, Palmira Zemlevičiūtė; Kostas Ušpalis, Adele Trečiokaitė, Nijolė Dudlauskienė. Only it is not clear why palutarka, kalnierius, galulaškis (the end of the bed), pagulionė, vandravoti, skaitliukas (45—46) remained in one text without any editorial mark. 151 The scientific part of the dissertation, History and Present of Terminology, begins with the publication of Kazimieras Gaivenis’s dissertation Composite Terms in the Present Lithuanian Language (1969), chapter Presentation and Interpretation of Composite Terms in Term Dictionary (85—115) with an English summary (116-117). The data are from 17 dictionaries (1954—1966), but 1 of them is not available. A brief characteristic of Lithuanian terminology dictionaries (85-89) shows that the author is familiar with Lithuanian and foreign terminology of the earlier period (author’s words, lexicography of terminology dictionaries). Section 2 deals with the structure of the glossary articles and the selection of terms. Undoubtedly, the least time tooth touched 3 sc. Interpretation of compound terms in Lithuanian terminology dictionaries (101-113). Until now, no Lithuanian linguist has been more interested in logical terminology and especially definitions than K. Gaivenas. Binary, real, complete, nominal, synonymous, enumerable, comparable, or null, incomplete, reference — lexicographic, cited and encyclopedic definitions are discussed. Today, by the way, in terminology they are called definitions, but there is also a systematic (philological) interpretation, cf. the explanatory glossary (and terms). Furthermore, it is interesting and significant that K. Gaivenis used the term with a fermionic (rather than terminological) meaning (101-104, 107), as well as the term concept (105, 107), although, unfortunately, a terminological system (107). K. Gaivenis’ dissertation publication could certainly be a guideline and benchmark for current terminology dissertation writers, and it certainly surpasses more than one article in this collection. Of the 22 articles in the book, 18 were prepared on the basis of the 22 papers presented at the 2003 International Scientific Conference on Terminology at the Beginning of the Third Millennium (Pranešimų tezės, 2003, 72 p.), and 4 were written specially for the collection. One case should be mentioned here, which should be avoided in the future —except for the tirage and the Lithuanian summary included in the book, the Challenges of Coining ICT Terms (150—157) is completely identical to the thesis text (14—20). This does not detract from the text itself, from which a warning is especially valuable for Lithuanian terminology:,, — English terms are not always strictly separated from professional jargon, and according to the requirements for Latvian terms this is considered a shortcoming” (157). Not only in this report, but also in many other reports, it is in the plural. It might have been appropriate at the beginning of the millennium, but 3 out of 1000 is still a very small start, and each concrete response is the most important. 152 The article Junariuxa cenmankmuKu 3auMCcm8e06anhnul 6 VCNO6USX AMHOZOHOHLUOKHOAbHbIX KOKMAKMOS coepemennot mepmuronozuu (with Lithuanian and English abstracts) by Valentina Skujina is also significant for Lithuanian linguistics. The semantic contradictions of international words, which is why they are often called consumer misleaders. false friend (or faux amis du traducteur in French, irrefiihrende Fremdworter in German) are by no means unavoidable, and new semantic shifts constantly require very accurate assessments. In Iveta Pūtele’s article /fexomopbie ocobennocmu 0bpaszoeanus nazeanuti npocdheccuū 8 coepemennom hambuuckom azvike (Some features of the construction of profession names in contemporary Latvian) there is talk about both borrowed names and their internationalization, and —at the very least— about Latvian equivalents, but not about their construction. Therefore, in Lithuanian it should be not the daryba of the profession names, not even the darymas, but the kūrimas (after all, the English is name building, not word-formation). In linguistics, terminology (if linguistic) is often depicted as very distinct. In his article Termini un onimi: dažas kopigas iezimes (Terms and real names: some common features), the Latvian linguist Ojars Bušs attempts to find similarities between terms and real names (onims) — refuting the claim of most onomastics (and perhaps general semasiology) specialists that names have no lexical meaning. Estonian terminology is represented only by Maire Raadik with an article Research of the Situation in the Spheres of Estonian Language Usage as a Means Jor Mapping the LSP Landscape (Study of the situation of the Estonian language usage areas as a means of determining the state of the special language- ). Situational studies and the Development Strategy for the Estonian Language 2004—2010 — goals, factors, influences, objectives of the special language planning and:,,the study of the state of the special language should show how to achieve this objective” (293)!.. When between a long-formulated goal and its attainment there is an investigation, how to attain it, does the goal itself not get even further away? 17 articles are devoted to Lithuanian terminology. Of course, Regina Kvašytė- ’s topic On the terminology of Lithuanian and Latvian stylistics reduces that number by 0.5, although it increases the value of the article. But only Kazimieras Župerka could give an accurate assessment here — both one of the creators of Lithuanian stylistic terminology, its norm-setters, and the author of the idea of the comparative stylistics of Lithuanian and Latvian languages. Lithuanian terminologists in the book cover quite wide and diverse bars of their science. The large article by Stasys Keinis, The Development, State, Role and Tasks of Terminology at the Entrance into the 21st Century, could be called a framework or a program. 153 The author leaves aside the millennium (mention only the millennium boundary) and does not spell out the challenges. Perhaps some things are not quite proportionately enlarged, but the main things — still in the 20th century, by the way — remain in place: terminology has grown greatly, its use has spread widely, terms from the edges of the system of language (perhaps lexical?) are approaching the center (but, of course, not the whole terminology, but its core). The very end —, it remains to believe" and "must maintain" (237) in the present conditions, of course, has a rather narrow and very unpleasant concretization — "terminologists remain to believe only in themselves" and "linguists alone must maintain". If this most abnormal situation does not change very soon, then the third millennium for the "Lithuanian spirit of the Lithuanian language" may end irreversibly in two or three generations. The conversation may remain, but it is for half-a-nation… The second great and significant article, but of a different direction – the history of Lithuanian terminology – would be Albina Auksoriūte’s article Prigimtūmenės naujosžodžiai (New words of Prigimtum) by L. Ivinskis. These are new words that cannot be considered as clear derivatives (they are made in any case, but both the derivative and the derivatives are unclear), because there are no clear formal signs of the derivative — the base word, the motivation, although some endings are repeated, it is possible to grasp some vague, incomprehensible base, e.g.: bandonis, drūžmas, griedmas, gryntas, kriimlys, lemėtras, lūšvis, svirpstas, skamotis, sunkris, vaiklas, žyblonis. Of course, the author’s formula “not composed, but simply invented” (148) will still pass the exam, but this article will have to be read well by every possible examiner. The third should be distinguished article of young terminologist Irma Zeller Possibilities and peculiarities of term recognition in text. The article itself also has peculiarities. The first is a big difference from the theoretical (?) assumptions of the report. The presentation began as follows: “At the turn of the millennium, terminology finds itself in a stalemate: on the one hand, due to the huge breakthrough of new terms, it becomes impossible to cover and standardize this subject of science in traditional ways, and on the other hand, with the acceleration of scientific, economic and political life and the active transfer of sciences, the real use of language outstrips the lists of available terms. In this case, it is not the creation of the term that is important, but its use. The shift of focus from term creation to usage of already created terms fundamentally changes terminology work, as both terminology sources and methods change. The main source of terminology becomes large volume electronic text collections – textbooks” (Theses of the Reports, 58). Thus, it was stated here... terminology disaster — deadlock, it is impossible to standardize, even to create terms is not important (maybe not even necessary); and if the most important 154 the most important figure in terminology —not the creator of terminology, not its researcher, but... the user? But the report was consumers or, after all, doctoral candidates? The article either eliminates or dilutes this, but it remains: “Therefore, the actual use of the term often does not correspond to the definition of the term, in the broad sense — the norm” (314). However, what is not said becomes clear: the subject of the queen’s use is not a specialist in any subject, knowing its terminology along with its subject. It's a thing without that transference. “The abrupt transfer of terms to other fields and their use in different contexts of business language with different meanings” | is not an “old problem of terminology” (314). Terms have long been transferred — from mathematics to physics, from chemistry to technology, from biology to agriculture, food technology, and so on — not without problems, but without tragic grimaces and without automatic term recognition devices. The author’s problem (in fact, the real one) is caused by other developments in terminology of the new era, but not of creation, but of use — the wide and rapid flow (in her words, transfer) of terminology from various sciences into life — agriculture, politics, law and their translation. Terminology does not change in the field, it is not the primary users who change terms, but those secondary ones, such as legislators and translators, for whom the terminology is terra incognita. They don't call specialists, they don't look at dictionaries. We are waiting for the results!.. And right. Who can not recognize terms without a machine —in the text, because it is not inserted, corrected to recognize... even more difficult —creating a textbook, some kind of term recognition program, denigrating “traditional terminology”, but... returning to it—“compared with existing dictionaries, term databases or other language data” (326). This is not an assistant, my dear, this is a competent decision-- maker! And with what will you compare, if there is no dictionary of terms in some field (even in a foreign language- )? The conclusion that “the process of standardization, approval or simply recognition of terms should begin with the study of the textbook by modern (semi-)automatic means” (328) is completely unacceptable. What Jupiter does, leave it to Jupiter—focus on,,2) the field of translation, 3) the search for information in electronic texts”, but not on,,1) practical and theoretical terminology” (316). Let’s get down to earth and look at more specific research. Many of them are from the field of terminology history. Factors of the duration of the adoption of terms in physics not without the aim of modernity —the dependence of this duration on the number of synonymous and variant forms is even expressed by the author in a formula. But the factors themselves — linguistic (correctness, accuracy, clarity), interlinguistic and extralinguistic — are only listed but not examined. 155 From the same area are Palmira Zemlevičiūtė- ’s large article “Naminio gydytojo” medicinos terminai, Robert Gedrimas’s “Sudėtiniai žiedinių augalų pavadinimai” in Jurgis Ambraziejus- ’s Pabrėžos work “Tayslos augmenija” (it is not clear why those Pabrėžos terms, which are still used today, are called current ones). The problem of research in this field is diversified by the article of Gita Kazlauskaitė Traits of the antonym of phonetic terms. In Genovaitė Irtmonienés and Albina Pribušauskaitė’s article Trends in the creation of sports fermins and the problem of their consumption, the historical moments are only summarized, and the whole analysis is based on the data and problems of the Sports Terms Dictionary (1996 and 2002). There is a real novelty here —Giedrė Čepaitienės and Regina Kvašytė’s article Gender Studies Dictionary: Terms Selection and Interpretation Criteria. This is a fairly new thing not only for the readers, but perhaps also for the authors — they state that “terms necessary for this field are used in the works of various scientific disciplines” (179), many of them are presented with explanations, but the content of the concepts — the basis of the terms — may differ in neighboring sciences. Is it not necessary for the new field to define these contents and concepts in its own way, rather than criticizing those who could not have such a goal? Several articles in the collection have been written by terminologists not linguists. In the article Terms of popularized publications of natural sciences by Stasys Dabušis, the physicist Eglė Makariūnienė and the linguist Angela Kaulakienė review many of the works of this famous and famous linguist, editor and translator, the terms used in them and conclude that from his proposed physics and technical terms, reflector, button, pin, calculator have come into force. A short article by three authors — Loreta Alešiūnaitė, Vytautas Gedrimas and Elena Molytė —Problems of standardization of anatomy terms begins with a brief overview of the creation and standardization of the Lithuanian nomenclature of human anatomy. There are ambiguities and even repetitions, for example: “The article intends to review not only the change of anatomy terms, but also to observe the principle of Y’s permanence, —” (118, I para.). “In this work we want to review not only the change of anatomy terms, but not to lose sight of the principle of permanence” (120, II para.). The aim of “raising some issues” (118) is almost limited to raising them. And some statements lack a great deal of precision. Very strange is the following statement: “we use it when we mark a place along and under an object, e.g., the parathyroid gland, the temple (cerebellum), the pubic gland, the pharynx, the larynx, the testis, the testis node, etc. ; povartojame, when we mark what is at the bottom of the object, e.g.: subocular seam, subocular opening, subocular groove, nucleus of the subocular nerve, subocular bone, subocular artery, subocular sac, poract muscle, subocular center, etc. “ (120). There are no so necessary definitions here, but from the authors’ definitions of the positive meaning of the verb it would follow that the polyegus bone is not under the tongue, but at the bottom of the tongue, and therefore still in the tongue itself, the subcutaneous sac — in the skin!.. It is very strange that the place po means paand not po-(cf. underground, subterranean, subterranean); declared another place — along, although in this case more usual and clearer pre- (pre-accidental, force). The references to literature are not quite accurate, e.g.: "In the second volume of the Academic Grammar of Lithuanian Language it is stated that present tense participles of the passive type are usually used to form terms in various fields (LKG 1971: 337-343)" (120). 156 The full subsection is contained in the LKG at the specified location. Present tense passive participles, noun forms are on several pages, but statements about them — only 339 and 340. The authors say: “<*> we have noticed that this instruction is not always followed” (120), but they operate already on the participants of the active species, and moreover, immediately, but without any explanation, they attack another thing —the designation and non-designation of the types of participants —the examples are many, and the solution is unclear. The author talks about the law of the consonant connection and the analogy of consonants, and then ends with a vague statement: “Perhaps the principles of terminology have a historical tradition, which they do not want to change” (122). Many and inconsistently cited, but unnecessary and incorrect, is the following criticism: “The literature we have read allows us to conclude that linguists do not have one opinion when to use -inis, -ė and when to use the genitive vowel in a compound term (123). Perhaps we have read more of that literature And understood better — linguists have clearly indicated when this, when that, but also the third thing — when both (grammatical synonymy) is not a language error. Of course, a terminologist must make a choice, but this cannot be done without definitions of terms (after all, you have to assign meanings!) and microsystem analysis. There are clear boundaries for language phenomena. but there are also transitional bands (grey zones). The three authors, who do not understand this, make mistakes in them and express their dissatisfaction with linguists... Article by Jurgita Mikelionienė The variety of synonyms and means of construction in contemporary Lithuanian philosophy is perhaps only important to the author as an exploration and practice in the much-inherited approaches of textual linguistics. Let’s manage terms responsibly, not with nods, not with puzzles — by name: a lot of recommendations and calls, a lot of denials and bare statements that are impossible to verify without arguments, a lot of quick decisions and unstable proposals. Here is a key word — both a significant, and a main, and an essential word, or an essence word. And perhaps the most accurate would be the key word (and key concept). 157 It is a very wrong idea that “for some linguists it is usually only important that the word is Lithuanian and properly pronounced” (305). In fact, the accuracy of terms is primarily the competence of the specialists in the subject, but when the inaccuracy is very clear to linguists, it is by no means “left to the specialists in the subject” (305). The nonsense is that the /current (instead of the permissible) current is the one “which is usually allowed by some element” (308). First, there is no such concept (such a kind of current), secondly, it is necessary to read and understand grammar if one takes it in any subject. The fragmentation of teaching also makes a bad impression. It is written and sung in the same style. Terminology with puzzles at the end (306), and subsections. Let's not rush to change well-established terms (307), although there is a special subsection. On the meaning and value of terms (310-311). The ideas that it is not necessary to change terms unnecessarily, to create strange new creations are correct (and the examples are correct), but with some of his unfounded statements the author, unfortunately, does not confirm neither his own statements, nor the most important and correct one — “the organization of terms is still a scientific work” (311). Valerijonas Žalkauskas’s remarks about the terminology of the Polytechnic — when not a linguist begins to speak a lot, inaccuracies — and this is in a book of linguistics! —unavoidable. Regarding the suffix -tis, it should be recalled that it is the third in abundance of abstract verbs, or action names, suffix (atimtis, baigtis, išpažintis, mirtis, slinktis, šlytis, tartis, friction,... LKG [291], although some Vedic (obstacle, station) have a specific meaning; only the ninth by consistency of the derivative suffix of the result of the action (įkaištis, paplotis, svirtys 373), even the not rare suffix of tool names (dangtis, korštis, lanktis, raištis, skląstis 387). Stasys Žebrauskas and Rimantas Jonas Mukulys chose a good topic — Professor Leonas Kaulakis’ terms in electrical engineering: the scientific competence of a field is very important for researching the history of the development of terminology in that field. Finally, we mention Renata Maslauskienė- ’s article Terms Standardization, which reviews and shows in Figure 6 the qualitative indicators of the terminology work of the Lithuanian Standardization Department. However, neither the linguistic problem nor the quality criteria appear in that review. You really should. Conclusions The collection of articles on terminology History of terminology and current problems (2004), which is quantitatively very distinctive, for the most part successfully passes the tests of scientificity. But there is also a small part... the compiler Albina Auksoriūtė and the editor Stasys Keinys, manding, already set themselves a trap when they were preparing the conference — when there is no sieve, there is also garbage. Of course, many of them were sewed in preparing the book. In addition, when the articles are in alphabetical order, the garbage is not so visible. But if the conference (not the thesis) is not alphabetical, then why is the collection alphabetical? Perhaps the modesty of the Editor is to blame, but it is certainly exaggerated and unnecessary — the sections would not be by value, but by theme. In the future, we can think of other solutions, say, that the sieve is not blind for some, to dedicate the seminar part of the conference. When narrowing the evaluation to Lithuanian terminology, one should also note what appears very strongly — the computerized branch of terminology. However, neither she nor anyone else is wondering whether this is a new method of terminology or just a technical means, although it is common and undeniable that methods are only ways of linguistic analysis. By evaluating (and critically) the present, we hope for a straight road to the future. 158 But he — to the mountain, only to the mountain. Jonas KLIMAVIČIUS Received 2005-11-28 Institute of Lithuanian Language Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail termin(dktl.mii.lt 159