Teisės terminijos kaita 1918–1940 m. Lietuvoje veikusio Civilinio kodekso vertimuose

Alvydas UMBRASAS Lithuanian Language Institute THE CHANGE OF TERMS OF LAW IN THE TRANSLATIONS OF THE CIVIL CODE OF LITHUANIA 1918-1940 1. The laws of the Russian Empire remained in force in Lithuania, which regained its independence in 1918. The Lithuanian Civil Law Code became the Russian Code of Laws (Csoab 3aKk0oHoBb Pocciiickoit umrepin) Volume X Part 1 (last official edition of 1914). There are hints in the press that this code was translated into Lithuanian at the beginning of independence 1. At the beginning of 1918, a special commission of lawyers was formed by the Lithuanian Council to translate the laws inherited from the Russian Empire. Part 1 of Volume X of the Russian Code of Laws was translated by A. Sugintas. As he himself states (Sugintas 1958: 27), the work was very difficult, especially because of the lack of Lithuanian legal terms. After a little turning, he quit the job. In the autumn of the same year, he continued to translate, but in the spring of 1919 he was sent to work in Žemaitija. Most likely, the translation was only just started, because a few years later V. Mačys regretted that the civil laws had not been translated (Macys 1924: 3) in his lectures on Civil Procedure. The translation of the Linguistic Code into Lithuanian was first printed only around 1928. —Civiliniai įstatymai: Įst. Vol. X, No. 1: Translation (abbreviated as CI). Issued by the Ministry of Justice. Neither the translator nor the year are mentioned, and there was no cover page at all. The only modest data about the release was found in the bibliography presented in the Police Journal (Budrevičius 1929: 144). Here it is stated that the translation was made in 1927-1928 and was printed not at the same time — in notebooks (This may refer to the original version, since it does not appear from the surviving books that it was printed in notebooks). The text has been slightly changed during translation — instead of Russia, Lithuania is written, articles not relevant to Lithuania are omitted. Some copies were also published with a Lithuanian-Russian Russian-Lithuanian dictionary of legal terms at the end. The circulation is relatively small — about 390 copies. The publication was apparently not sold in bookstores, probably only lawyers received it in the ministry. That this translation was not enough. perhaps even did not trust him, shows the fact that in 1930 in Kaunas were issued L. M. Rotenberg's Civil Laws 55 Ir (Cl, ) original (Russian) language. Į some Lithuanian supplements and ir comments (on the yellow pages) have been inserted into the text. They were arranged by L. Veržbavičius. The most widely used translation of K. Šalkauskas, which appeared five years later, is Civil Laws: X volume I part, Kaunas, 1933 (abbreviated CĮ,,). There are also numerous attachments (decisions of the Supreme Court, Russian Senate), a large index. Obsolete articles are omitted, and changes made by law are inserted. It is said that the language was arranged by St. Cheshunt. The relationship between these translations is problematic. The first translation of 1928 is not mentioned in contemporary literature. It is not even mentioned in the preface to the book compiled by K. Šalkauskas, nor in the annotation to this book (G. R. 1933: 222). It gives the impression that the last book is the first translation. This is partly understandable — the previous translation was probably not readily available, or perhaps few people knew about it. When comparing the two translations, it is clear that K. Šalkauskis used the first book. More precisely, he rewrote it, changing only some parts and adding additions. Many of the articles overlap in their entirety. This can indicate two things: either K. Šalkauskis is the translator of the first book, or his translation is not original — it is just another revision of the first translation. The first version is the most likely, since K. Šalkauskis worked as a lecturer in the Department of Civil Law of the Faculty of Law of the University from 1922. The Lithuanian encyclopedia mentions the Civil Laws translated by K. Šalkauskas in 1930 (Puzinas 1963: 321). This is probably the first published translation. It is not clear why 1930. It is probably wrong, because the year is not written in the book. The version that there was another published translation is unlikely, although the manuscript of the Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences 56 Another manuscript of a part of the translation—Civil Laws—was found in K. Šalkauskas’s collection. The Second Book (F 281-59; abbreviated PI). This is a translation of one of the four books in Volume X, Part 1. There are also fragments of the translation of the first book of this codex written in another hand (F 281-178). The latter text is only incomplete 7 pages, 0 second book translated entirely — 101 finely written pages. The handwriting is similar to that of K. Salkauskis, but it may not be his translation. There are editorial remarks (probably by K. Šalkauskas): marked places to be omitted (in published books they are omitted), there are underlined words, question marks (mostly in those places where they differ from published books). But in general, the manuscript is very different from the books—it is definitely a different translation. The 10-page typeface attached to the manuscript (the text almost corresponds) indicates that there was also a typeface of the manuscript. K. Šalkauskis undoubtedly used this text, but the circumstances of its creation are unknown. It is possible that the laws in question were translated by several persons in the Ministry of Justice (the small manuscript is written on sheets with Vytis imprinted), and K. Šalkauskas finally arranged these texts. How the language of the translations has changed can be seen by comparing one article of the Code (hyphenation unchanged): 694. Searches, as well as complaints, are constrained by the decade-long aging of Zemininky. Whoever fails to do so, or does not take care of it in public vicissitudes, loses his right (PI). 694. Searches, as well as litigation, are defined by a general period of ten years of land ownership (= land ownership). Whoever does not start searching or does not take care of the authorities after starting, loses his right (CL). 694. Claims, like litigation, are subject to a general limitation period of ten years. Whoever fails to seek or, having sought, fails to move in the authorities, loses his right (Cl,,). It can be seen that the handwritten translation differs the most. The last translation only corrected the 1928 text. The first two translations can also be criticized mainly for editorial issues. It should be mentioned that in early 1937 a special commission of the Council of State began to prepare an original Lithuanian civil code and, according to P. Stravinskas, before its dissolution in 1940 it had already prepared and considered the most difficult parts of the code (Stravinskas 1958: 16), but it was not completed. 57 Political circumstances prevented it from being completed. Although the code was originally intended to be prepared relatively quickly, due to the slow and irrational work (which prompted criticism —Dakutis 1939: 171-172) the public never saw it. 2. Relationship with the manuscript The language code consists of 2334 articles. The second book, the manuscript of which has been found, consists of articles from 383 to 933 (articles not relevant to Lithuania have been translated in the manuscript, and in published editions they have been omitted). By comparing the second books of the manuscript and two published publications, about 160 differences in legal terminology were found. Since these are translations, compare in the relevant articles! terms used locally. About half of the found cases (almost 80) differ only in the manuscript text, and CL, and Cl,, coincide. This indicates that the latter two translations are closely related and that the manuscript is a separate translation (by the same or a different author). Most often, these are differences between one-word (a) or two-word (b) legal terms (both are approximately equivalent), e.g. : (a) 582 valuation of P.I. —valuation of Cl, CI damage C1,,, Cl,,, 425 revenue of P.I. —receivables of Cl,„„C.I. P.I. —plaintiff Cl, Cl,,, 539 evidence of P.I. —evidence of CI, CI,,, 581 credible P.I. —authorised Cl „Cl, 687 trustee of P.I. —authorised Cl Cl,,, 542 pledge —seizing Cl CL 644 bledis PI — 13, 046 SieSkotojas 33? 389 Clų,, 653 Jaunus PI —mažametis Cl,,, 581 mourner P.I. —invited Cl,,, Cl, 533 female P.I. —marriage CL, Cl,., 542 alienated P.I. —appropriated Cl, C.I.,,, 653 parents P.I. —parents Cl,,, CI; (b) 542 payroll Pl — periodic pay CI,,, CI, 402 current capital PI — live capital Cl, Cl,,„ 714 honorary fee PI — sign fee Cl,,, Cl,,, 542 honorary fee PI — sign fee Cl, Cl, 695 exclusive right PI — exclusive right Cs, CL, 3 Cl, 853 valuation act PI — valuation act CJ 698 charitable institution PI 28? 383 Movable property PĮ - movable property CI CI 28? 343? "Therefore, the article number is written before the examples. 58 —charity institution C1, Cl,, 695 authorised contract PI —authorisation contract CL, Cl,;, 666 women’s union PI —marital union Cl, CI. 383 real estate P.I. —real estate CL, Cl, 593 purchasing power P) —purchase deed Cl, Cl, 420 civil laws PIE —civil laws CL, CL, 707 hiring memory PIE —hiring deed Cl, Cli, 707 colloquial memory PIE —contract deed CI, Cl, 5 13 presentation letter PIE —gift deed Cl, Cl, 580 property conversion PIE —value of property Cl, CL, 713 firmness act PIE —confirmation deed Cl,,, CL, marriage memory PIE —wedding deed CL, Cl... Note the now unusual terms used in the manuscript blédis (this is a Slavism from brus. 6410s “damage, loss”, later and now damage), feminity (cf. latin matrimonium “marriage”), accent honorific (significant) in honorific (significant) compounds honorific tax (in both cases in the original is 2ep6oebiti cops; The term refers to special emblems used to collect fees for handling documents (RLKŽ, SRJ). The term is also used to express periodicity — remuneration in rounds (see Polish rata, German Rate; by the way, instead of periodical publication in PĮ 695 is written round publication, but this is not a legal term). The variation of the terms movable property — movable property is common during the period of independence (the latter is probably translated from Russian). It is only strange that in the civil laws movable property was used (movable property was only in the manuscript), while in the criminal statutes gradually moved precisely to movable property (in the translations of 1919, 1930, 1931, movable property was replaced by movable property in 1934) (Umbrasas 2002: 92). It is true that in the Civil Code manuscript the word manta was also used in the spoken sense (PĮ 401). The reason for all this is the lack of official terminology: neither the Ministry of Education nor the terminology commission of the State Council approved this term. Only L. Dargis and A. Salis in their Zodynelis of Commercial Correspondence proposed single-word terms: movable (Mobilien), immovable (Immobilien) (Dargis 1938: 166, 169). True, and Cl,„Cl,, is used analogous to immobility (2200 P*), but probably through carelessness, because it does not fit with movable property. 337 * P stands for an appendix next to the article that was already in the original. Translation additions are not compared. 59 The term civil law was also not without synonyms. In the manuscript civil laws were used, and in the press there have been proposals to change the civil element into the economic one (Sąmajauskas 1934: 27). Instead of CL, Cl., civil proceedings (the term civil proceedings was also common at the time) in the manuscript was used the original civil court proceedings (PĮ 709), which, possibly, was not used anywhere else. The use of memory in the sense of an act is unusual. Approximately one third of the accumulated terms (about 50) differ in all translations of the second book of the first part of volume X of the laws. There are only a few differences in all translations of single-word terms, e.g.: 402 pledge PW — obligation Cl, —obligation CI.,, 629 cost PY —cost Cl, —atseiti Cl,,, 446 santaris PW —sandora Cl, —santoris CI,,, 546 tv arkymas P] rédymas Cl, —ranging Cl, (‘disposition’), 390 firmness PW — endorsement CL, —endorsement Cl, (‘a document approved, entered into the accounting?’), 525 settlement PW —settlement Cl —staging CL, (‘staging’- ), 542 peasants PW —peasants’ Cl, —municipal authority C1... There are mainly differences in two-word terms, e.g.: 825 act duty PW —act tax Cl, —act tax Cl, 646 poor debtor PW —non-repentant debtor CL—incapacitated debtor Cl, 669 criminal complaint PW —criminal complaint CI, —criminal complaint Cl, —obligatory law Cl, 533 indivisible property PW —indivisible property CL, —indivisible property Cl,,, 825 firmness duty PW —endorsement duty Cl, —staging tax Cl, —staging period Cl, 557 residence term PW —staging period Cl, —staging period Cl, („the limitation period“), 525 compulsory management of PĮ — forcible management Cl, —forcible possession ČĮ,,, 695 government order of PĮ —government assistance CL, —government ordering CĮ,,, There are also differences in terms of longer or unequal number of elements, e.g.: 513 perpetual and ains management PĮ —perpetual descendants management Cl, —perpetual and descendants possession CĮ,,„ 405 perishable property PĮ —perishable movable property Cl, —perishable movable property Cl., (in the current CC (2000) corresponds to the consumable object (1.99 Art.)), 405 imperishable property PĮ —imperishable movable property Cl, —imperishable movable property Cl, (in the CC 2000 corresponds to the non-consumable object (1.99 Art.)), 541 right to act as a suitable PĮ —right to order Cl, —right to order C1. (‘right of disposal’), 396 immovable property of the parent PĮ —relative immovable property Cl, —paderminis immovable property Cl, 542 one-time salary P] —one-time salary Cl.„—one-time salary CĮ,,. Such a change clearly shows that this is a period of development of legal terminology. There were also about 20 cases (about 13%) where the term of the manuscript (PĮ) was taken over in the 1928 translation, but in 1933 the corresponding places of the article were replaced by another, e.g.: 826 akto duom PĮ, Cl,, —aktinis mokestis Cl, 710 apsunkinimas skolomis PĮ, CL, —įsiskolinimas Ūlias 542 atskira dalyvavimo teisė Pl, CL, —privataus dalyvavimo teisė Cl, 399 giminaitis PĮ, CL, —giminaitis CĮ,,, 390 60 gromata* PĮ, CL, raštas CL, 413 įstaiga PĮ, Cl, —steigimas Cl,,, 428 pakraščių teisė PĮ, CL, —krantinė teisė Cl, („law governing the boundaries of land along water bodies“), 923 testatorius PĮ, Cl, —palikéjas Cl,,, 420 wirtinamoyji teisė PĮ, Cl, —tvirtoji teisė Cl, 420 valdytojas PĮ, CL, —turėtojas CĮ,,. The manuscript did not have much influence on subsequent translations. There is only one case where the term of the manuscript and the term of the 1933 translation coincide, 0 in the 1928 edition another term was used —770 rūpintojas PĮ — patarėjas CL, —rūpintojas Cl,,. It is difficult to say why CL, the term of the advisor was chosen, but it is obviously inappropriate. Here we are talking (as it is used now) about the caregiver. There are also several places in the manuscript of the civil laws where the terms are not translated—only space is left for them to be recorded. It is apparent that the translator had difficulties with, for example, the following terms, which were later translated in the appropriate places: 663 disgraced Cl, —raped Cl; 664 transgression Cl, CI, (Cl next to still attributed transgression); 568 paranga Cl, CI, (‘ranga’); 707 statement of claim CI, CI,; 568 delivery of Cl, — delivery of Cl, (‘supply’- ); 452 easements CI CL; 432 servituty other Cl Cl; 287? * Strangeness gromata is used in probably the only place in this place. The fact that Cl. was also taken over (perhaps by accident) may indicate that the manuscript was indeed used. By the way, Cl, in the list of corrections at the end, gromata is corrected to raštas. 61 In conclusion, the manuscript of the second book of the Civil Code is not very relevant for the practical development of legal terminology (it only shows the initial ideas of the terms), because it was not available to the general public and could not influence the general usage. It is interesting only as the original text, which may have led to the emergence of some terms, but its terminology (and the language in general) CL, and CI, has been significantly changed. 3, 1928 and 1933 Civil Codes Differences in the Legal Terminology This article aims to examine in more detail the terminology of the translations of the Russian Code of Laws, Volume X, Part 1, entitled Civil Codes, which appeared in 1928 and 1933. The most well-known and most influential translation of the law is the last one, but it is based on a little-known 1928 translation. In order to see the evolution of terminology, it is useful to discuss the differences between these translations. As mentioned, this code consists of 2334 numbered articles. Paragraph by paragraph comparison of the translations revealed slightly more than just differences in legal terminology. The data are first divided into noun and verb terms according to the parts of speech, then according to the number of elements and finally according to the expression. To make it easier to understand the meaning of the terms and the reasons for the differences, the examples are sometimes accompanied by the equivalent of the original. The term is sometimes 350 attributed to the comparison and from the first printed dictionary of legal terms (A. Žiurlis). Most of all, of course, differences in noun terms were found — about 320 (i.e. about 89%). The remainder (about 40 changes, or 11%) are differences between verbs and their combinations. First of all, about nouns. As usual, there is a distinction between monosyllabic, bisyllabic and polysyllabic terms. Separately, such changes are discussed when the number of nodes does not coincide. 1.The comparison of the spoken codes revealed about 110 differences in single-word terms (which represents about 35% of all changes in noun terms). Of these, about two thirds (66%) of the terms have been substantially changed, i.e. by words of a different root, e.g.: 553 shareholder Cl, —holder Cl, (coenadtneų ZG, co-owner TZ), 560 settlement CI, —settlement Cl, („senatis“), 621 institution Cl, —jmoné CI, (3asedenie ZG), in translation, but in the current Civil Code there are only terms of pledge, collateral, and the former collateral has not been left at all (collateral is only as a precautionary measure in criminal law). Real estate collateral called Aipoteka 62 2100 load Cl, —safety Cl, (nokaaxca ZG), 647 negligence CL, heatsafety Cl,» 269 deficiency Cl, —default CI, (GesHedounouno ZG), 644 sin Cl, ~ transgression Cl, (npecmynoks ZG), 98 judgment Cl. —decision Cl,, (npueosops 2G), 695 ordering Cl, —ordering Cl... 533 heir Cl. —ipedic Cl, (nacikOnuks ZG), 187 obligation C L, —bond Cl, -(00x3a0menbemeo ZG), 42 side Cl, —party C1, 668 complaint CL, —search Cl, (ucxo 2G), 102 subject CI, —citizen Cl, 420 "manager CL, -—holder Cl,, (enadbaey ZG). i It is interesting that in the new translation the pledge-holder is replaced almost consistently by pledge-holder (1630), pledge — pledge (1554), pledge — collateral (1631) (in the original 341028) and, vice versa: jkeitéjas — pledge-holder (1664), pledge — collateral (1554), collateral — collateral (1665) (in the original 3aK1ado). (By the way, the usage in 1928 coincides with the usage in the manuscript P.I.) In the 1928 translation, įkeitimas, įkaitas are used in relation to movable property, užstatymas, užstatas —in relation to immovable property; In 1933, it was the opposite. The first translation sometimes uses a broader meaning of pledge (as including mortgage), the second — pledge (including mortgage). With these terms, confusion exists to this day. Lawyers still sometimes distinguish between mortgages on real property and mortgages on movable property (e.g., lombarde), t. y. as 1933 m. (CK 2000). The fact that in Lithuanian civil law there is no term of preemption is probably due to the fact that in Soviet Russian codes 3aKaad disappeared, there is only 30102 (e.g., GK). Older Russian legal dictionaries still contain 3axaad su reference į 34402 (JS), the 0 newer ones have only 34402. However, in Belarus, for example, 3axaao is still used. One of the most recent dictionaries explains that a pledge (3aKad) is a type of pledge (3an0¢) where the pledged property is transferred to the collateral holder, i.e. the creditor (NJS). By the way, from a terminological point of view, the definition of pledge in the current Civil Code is erroneously tautological: “Pledges are instruments ensuring the fulfilment of an existing future debt obligation. ar 63 Hue ycayeu ZG), 1238 P merchant- 's assistant Cl, merchant- 's order CL, (npuxasuuxo ZG), 132 written certificate Cl, —written confirmation Cl, (nucomennoe yoocmosepbnie 2G), 1008 dissolution of marriage Cl, —marriage invalidation Cl, (necocmoameavtocms Opaka ZG), 533 term obligation CL, —term bond Cl. 2064 twrtosuprava Cl —property use Cl, (ccyda na nodepxcanie 2G), 109 property management CL, —property possession Cl, (enadenie umymecmea 2G), 563 land seizure CI, land seizure Cl (3a61adbnie ZG). There are more changes to dependent domains, probably because they are easier to change. There are also greater possibilities of expression: alternation of jvardziuotiniy and unnamed forms, change of coordination and control, etc. In addition, there are generally more species-specific elements compared to the most commonly used primary-species-specific term. The fact that the main elements were more frequently changed coincides in essence with the general tendency to change terms in the Civil Codes —they were also changed in essence by about a third. Like single-word terms, the main elements of two-word terms were modified only in one third of the cases (about 34%). Ways also match. The following differences are visible: du suffixes (e.g., 37 blood kin Cl, — blood kin Cl, 420 private dependence Cl — private dependence Cl,,, 1259 property claim CI, property claim Cl,,); prefixes (e.g. 533 list of assets! Cl, inventory of assets Cl, 581 inventory of assets Cl, — description of assets Cl.,,); the method of making (e.g., 707 gift inscription Cl, —gift inscription CL, 683 uncontrollable power Cl, —invincible force Cl,,). Spelling inconsistencies also coincide, e.g.: 920 authenticity pa liudinimas CY, —certificate of authenticity Cl, 98 civil claims Cl, —civil claims Cl... 3. The differences in noun terms of more than two words were small — only about 40 (about 13%). Mostly these are three-word terms. The difference is usually minimal — one prefix is replaced.'- Note that the action here is not prepositional, only the difference is in the prefix. 70 muo, e.g.: 2200 P shareholders insurance company Cl, —akcine insurance company Cl, 542 separate participation right CL, -private participation right Cl,, (easements written in both CI brackets), 2012 loan without collateral Cl —unsecured loan Cl, 542 prior purchase right Cl, —first purchase right Cl, 420 primary acquirer Cl, —primary acquirer Cl (nepebiū npuoOpkbmamenb umymecmea ZG.,acquirer TŽ), 1184 continuous profit ticket Cl, ~permanent profit ticket Cl, (nenpepbi6eKo-Ooxodnbiū Ournemo 7G). Less frequently, two elements are changed (e.g.: 146 general civil legality Cl, —general civil legality Cl; (o6utee epaxdanckoe npasocnocobrocms 2G), 1300 heir by law Cl, -heir by law CI, (nacabonuks no 3aKony ZG)) or the term is also rearranged syntactically (e.g.: 134 inability to live in marriage Cl, —incapacity to live in marriage Cl. (necnocodnocmb K CYRPYHCECKOMY COweumuro 2G), 54 marriage annulment proceedings Cl, —marriage annulment proceedings Cl,,, 533 continuous ownership of CI, uninterrupted possession of CI.,). Almost all the different elements of trizodziy terms have already been mentioned in relation to the differences between one-word and two-word terms. The differences are similar in terms of expression. Note the following changes: 1527 purchase sale on loan Cl, —purchase-- sale on loan CLs 1527purchase-sale contractC, —purchase-- sale contract CL,,. Where the original kynas-npodaxca, the 1928 translation does not write a dash. In the later translation, the usual form with a dash is used today (although, in recent times, instead of the joined-up construction with a pay-out, there is an attempt to revive the term of A. Salis and L. Dargis, pay-out sale (Dargis 1938: 165)). There were only a few differences in terms of four-word law (e.g., 1668 movable property pledge CL, = pledge of movable property CL,,, 1642 immovable property mortgage consolidation Cl, —ncmovable property mortgage consolidation CI.) and five-word law (e.g., 774 purchasing and establishing pledge CL, —purchase and exchange consolidation CL, 533lifetime asset manager Cl, —lifetime asset trustee Cl,,). Here, too, the elements already discussed earlier are changed. 71 4. The least number of changes occurs when the number of terms does not match — almost 40 (12%). In three quarters of the cases, the 1933 translation uses shorter terms. Most often, two-word terms are replaced by one-word (a) or three-word—two-- word (b), e.g. : a) 922 power of attorney Cl, —power of attorney CI, (ebpromee“ nucomo ZG), 2311 misuse CL, _ misuse Cl, (320ynompeonenie ZG, misuse TZ), 1680 fabricated sale CI, — sale Cl, 923 testator Cl, —supporter Cl, 542 pledge holder Cl, —jcautionary Cl, 1549 land aging Cl, —ageing CI; b) 78 retroactive effect Cl, —retroactive effect C1, (o6pamnas cura 2G), 1302 heir by law Cl, —jlegitimate heir Cl 1679 contract of sale Cl, —contract of sale CI, 774 contract of sale Cl, —deed of sale Cl, (3anpodaxc3anucb ZG). There are also other relationships, e.g.: 150 full-age person Cl, full-age Čl., (coeepuennonemniū 7G) (3—1), 1243 property of unknown whereabouts person Cl,, —property of missing person CĮ,, (5—3), 186 right to undertake monetary debt obligations Cl, —right to contract money loans Cl, (5—4). Some terms of kinship have also been shortened, e.g.: 114 husband and wife Cl, —marriage C.I., (cynpyeu 2G) (3—1), 145 son and daughter-in-law Cl, ~ adopted children- “" CI, (ycbinoenenndie ZG) (3—1), 156 adoption as son and daughter Cl, —adoption as child" Cl, (ycomoenenie 2G) (4-2), 1140 brothers and sisters of the same mother CL, —brothers and sisters of the same school Cl; (5—4), 1140 brothers and sisters of the same parent Cl, — brothers and sisters of the same parent Cl, (54). Only a quarter of the cases have been extended. Somewhat more frequently single-word terms are replaced by two-word ones, e.g.: 1008 dismissal Cl, ~ forfeiture penalty CJ, (neycmoiūra ZG, forfeiture TŽ), 201 descendants 33 * Possible thing, error. It would be more logical to use eešpsaromee nucomo (see RLKZ). * There may be a proofreading error here — abuse. The adoptive father is in both translations, and the adopted father only appeared in CL... "I could have had an adoption, but there is no—as there is no adoptive father. 72 Cl, —children of children Cl, (nomomcmeo 2G), 202 predecessors Cl, —parents of parents Cl, (npedxu ZG; CL, corrected to ancestors), 677 official Cl, —man of authority Cl, (doancrocmuoe auyo ZG). There are also other relationships, e.g.: 529 inheritance Cl, —holding without interruption during the time of inheritance Cl,, (1-6) (true, Cl, in the amendments in this place inheritance has already been changed | continuous management during the term of agrarian aging), 668 defamation tax Cl, —instruction for the unborn CI, (naamexcs 6e34ecmia 2G) (2-3), 1097 testamentary management CI. — possession by will Cl, (2—>3), 513 perpetual management by descendants Cl, —perpetual and bequeathable possession Cl, (6aaoenie ebunoe u nomomcmeennoe 2G) (3-5), 420 perpetual and inheritable management C1, —perpetual and bequeathable possession CI, 5. Finally, there are differences in verbazodiniy (4-5). terms. It has already been said that there were about 40 such cases (i.e. about 11% of the total investigated material- ). Most often these are monosyllabic terms, which have been substantially changed, e.g.: 221 apsiimlioti Cl, —įsipareigoti C1, (ecmynamo 88 0653amenbemea 2G), 132 arsteisti CL, —atlyginti C1, (s03mbemums 2G), 663 išgėdinti Cl, —iszaginti Cl, (usnacunosamo ZG), 420 rédyti Cl, —rikiuoti CL, (pacnopsimcamoca 2G), 117 užstatyti Cl, —įkeisti Cl... Partial differences can be considered only prefix discrepancies, e.g.: 1011 aprašyti C1, —užrašyti Cl, (zaebuųamo 2G), 53 pasmerkti Cl, — nusmerkti Cl; (nodsepenymo ccouikt ZG), 38 redistribute Cl, —excluse Cl... There are also differences between longer than one-word verbazodiniy terms (mostly essential), e.g.: 542 forcefully dispossess Cl —-forcefully dispossess Cl,,, 2107 accept the load Cl, —accept the safety Cl, 1068 engage the duty Cl, —uZtrauktipareigg Cl, (06azeieame 2G), 66 give up the service Cl, —withdraw from the service Cl. (ocmaeumo cayxucdy ZG), 37 joined in marriage Cl, —joined in marriage Cl. 533 to control for life Cl, —to have for life CI... Some of the verb terms in the 1933 translation have a longer or shorter alternance in terms of the subject. Mostly shorter, e.g.: 94 put duty on Cl, —put duty on CI., (2—1), 98 destroy women Cl, —divorce CI, (2—1), 45 nowhere to go CL, —go away Cl,, (3—1), 2106 give cargo to guard Cl, —give guard CI, (3—2), 33? 73 145 taken sons and daughters CL, —taken adopted Cl, (4—2), 191 treat as appropriate with property CI, —arrange property C1, (pacnopaxcamocs umywecmeoms 2G) (5—2). There are only a few options for longer terms. Either a stand-alone point is added (e.g., 420 use for inherited Cl, —use for inherited Cl), or a prepositional construction is made (e.g., 707 enter control C1, —insert possession Cl, 56 enter captivity Cl, —insert captivity CL). 4. Harmonisation and correction of terms A comparison of the translations of the Civil Codes of 1928 and 1933 shows that the reason for the differences is not only the desire to improve the terminology by changing it, but also the standardization of the terms. In the first translation, many of the original terms had more than one equivalent. In the 1933 book, many of the inconsistencies were eliminated. For example, actinis mokestis (akmoeas nouiuna ZG) is used instead of Cl, akto muitinė (826), akto mokesnis (825); Letter of engagement (pa3e00noe nucsmo ZG) —instead of diluted letter (46), letter of separation (94); testator (saebujamens ZG) —instead of the deceased (1039), the testator (985), the testator (932); ancestral property (umbrie podosoe ZG) — instead of kin property (116), kin property (533), ancestral property (967); arbitrary condition (npou3eonsnoe ycaosie ZG) —instead of random condition (1425), free condition (1427). There appeared to disappear (6e36eĒcmno omcymcmeosame L(G) instead of varied not known where to be (1243), not known where to separate (54), not known where to disappear (45). The chosen adverb strictly in the compound strictly forbidden (cmpoeo eocnpemaemca ZG) instead of severely forbidden (690), sharply forbidden (1499). Incapacity for marital life (HeCHOCOOHOCMb KS CYHPYHECKOMY coxncumiro ZG) has also been unified instead of the former incapacity for marital life (134), incapacity for marital life (47). Left only indivisible property, because CL, used and this term (393), And jvardziuoting, and unnamed forms indivisible property (533), indivisible property (1324). The term half (Cl, 42) next to country (542) (cmopona ZG) has also disappeared. Instead of relative (23), relative (132) (podcmeennuxs ZG) is used relative. The term for kinship, grandfather, has also been unified, since in the previous translation there was grandfather (207), grandfather (202). In the 1928 translation, the terms Younger relative (207) and descendant (132) are used with the same meaning. They are replaced only by a lower relative or one-word lower (nusxodawii ZG). The term "tribal" (ceoūcmeo ZG), 0 persons —tribes (ceoūcmeennuxu 2G) is used to refer to marital (non-blood) kinship. Cl, there was brotherhood (1120), but persons —sveiniai (254), gentainiai (1054). Term npudanoe Cl, 74 transliterated part (66), litter (1001); Cl, changed unusually — equipment (LKZ equipment has no significance of breeding). Unsettled and Cl,, term to classify (pacnopsaxcamocs ZG). Instead of it, CI, most often written rėdyti (420), but there is also act as appropriate (191), arrange (192) or according to the situation chosen to make a pact (114). In this case, it is usually used to dispose. In general, Cl, abundant use of foreign spelling, spelling, which were later corrected. CI, variously written and corresponding to the original cdeaka terms: santaris (117), sandora (1540), santoris (1401); Cl,, left only santoris. - In 1933, the term resale (3anpodaxca ZG) was used in conjunction with the compound terms resale letter, resale contract. For CJ, Siam there is a fabricated sale (1680), but next to it is a negotiated sales letter (1680), a negotiated sale deed (774), a negotiated sales contract (1679). Overselling is similar to valuation from Russian. Apparently, this is why at that time in the Native Language it was proposed to change the sale to the sale of the sale, the sale contract — to the counter-sale contract (Zimanas 1933: 36-37), but the term remained (there is TZ, DŽ,). CL, the term forged sale is not bad, but in this book there is also used forged contract (568), and Cl,, is a verbal contract. Such a possible colloquial ambiguity of the spot is already wrong. The most common translation of the original term is o6s3ameascmeo. CI,, is translated bond, but Cl, variously: usually obligation'> (187), but there is also assumption (1531), letter (1521), agreement (117), interface (2200 P), contract (921). Where Cl, loan bond (2050), '*? There is also a possible ambiguity. CI, obligation used where CI, prefix (original nosunnocms). By the way, Cl, in the last fixes the duty is usually changed to interface. 75 debt bond (1259), CI, translated as borrowing, debt note. Apparently, there was no attempt to translate the same term uniformly, but it was adapted according to the situation, even though the Russian ods3amenscmeo is not unambiguous. It is true that in both translations the bond is used where it is in the original o6Gruezauia (708 P). In one case Cl,, terms are unified even when they differ ir in the original. Cl, was workshop (549), factory (717) (306008 ZG), institution (621) (3asedenie ZG), company (1738) (npednpiamie ZG). CĮ,, is written as a company in all cases. This change is apparently based not only on linguistic, but also on legal considerations — it is called the same thing, which legally does not need to be distinguished. The uniformization of terms is, of course, a good thing, but this does not mean that the 1933 translation did not go backwards by choosing the aforementioned terms: the statute tax, the tribal property, the arbitrary clause, the relative. There were better options in the previous translation. A little bit of inconsistency remained, however. Here is the original ucxs Cl, translated action (49), search (1066), complaint (668). Cl, in this Meaning there remained not ir only the complaint, but the claim and the search are and even in the indicated places replaced each other. Perhaps they wanted to separate the action from its result. CĮ,, began to use the terms spousal, spouse, spouses (cynpyes, cynpyea, cynpyeu ZG), but in some places unnecessarily from CI, still remaining spouse (37), spouses (1113). In addition to these, Cl, still used married (44), married (37), married (102) and quite often husband or wife (41), husband with wife (114). Both translations vary in terms of verb and citizen usage. CI, in some places the subject changed to citizen (102), in some places left the subject (695) (possibly by accident). It is interesting that in one of the articles of both translations (695) citizen is used to refer to Lithuanian people, and servant to foreign people. Here it must be said that the appearance of the citizen is associated with the change of order, i.e. Lithuania's liberation from the Russian Empire and becoming a republic. Original term npouexmnote 6ymaeu CL, translated interest securities (1006), interest securities (2200 P), securities (1674). Cl, unified into percentage securities, but remained unequal securities (2200 P), securities (2200 P), which were used in the original ybuueie Oymazu meaning (so was CL). 76 One other inconsistency even contributed. In the earlier translation, the heir by law (nacabonuxs no 3axony ZG) was replaced by the heir by law (1300) and the heir by law (1302). It is also known as a joint stock company, joint stock company, joint stock company, or joint stock company. CI, there was a public company (2128 P), a public insurance company (2200 P), but a private company (268 P). Separately, we should talk about the old age equivalents of that time. The original uses the terms dasrocme and semckas dasrocms. CL, presented: self-sufficiency (560), Earthly self-sufficiency (557). Žemietybinis jsisenéjimas (692), Zemietybinis nusenéjimas (694 P), Zemietybinis senėjimas (1549) (from the CI, the corrections at the end show that the preference is given to the non-prepositional form senėjimas, although the immersion is replaced by the ensence). 3emcKuū means the whole country, common state (RLKZ, SRJ); by the way, in the manuscript Zodynélis draft of legal terms and other words needed for courts of 1920, semckasn daenocmo translates as Land acquisition); there was no settlement“, but there was a variety of prepositions: aging, aging, aging (obsolescence is also in the index, but not noticed in the text). It is true that the presence or absence of the prefix in translations does not always coincide (but the prefixes j-, nuone are not interchangeable). The same variation occurs in compound terms: 557 term of inheritance Cl, — ageing time CI, 659 term of decadence Cl, = ageing time Cl,,, 565 term of earthly inheritance Cl, — ageing time CJ,,. Although there is variation, motivation can be seen. At the end of the independence, this was wanted to be finally legalized by giving prefixes a distinctive terminological meaning. In 1939, the State Council Terminology Commission proposed the term of limitation (Verjahrung, davnost’), but kept the former variants, giving them “The implementation is close to the implementation used in the manuscript of the P.I. (525). There were also terms: management occupation, term of occupation, landlords occupation (557). These terms are apparently used at the beginning of independence — CI, in the 1924 decision of the High Court attached to the annex of Article 694 is the occupation. 77 a special meaning: aging (tečenije davnosti, corresponds to the course of limitation TZ), aging (erwerbende Verjührung, davnost’ viadenija, corresponds to the acquired limitation (npuobpemame.vnas dasrocms) TZ: CL, this was the aging of control (gallery corrected to the aging of control), and Cl,, —the aging of possession (557)), obsolescence (erloschende VerJahrung, Anspruchsverjahrung, iskovaja davnost', corresponds to the limitation of claims TZ; in the spoken translations —obsolescence) (TTP 1939: 387). Such a confusing proposal, although already acquired a tradition, is highly questionable. The prefix was wanted to give too much distinctive meaning, even though the prefixed and non-prefixed forms varied in use. The Soviet Union refused to accept these terms, although the diaspora still supported them. In the Lithuanian encyclopedia, although there is antiquity, the preference is given to antiquity. Aging is also mentioned (Butkys 1956: 77-78). The interpretation of i$ corresponds to the one proposed in 1939, but there was a new confusion, because it was necessary to name what TŽ is the limitation of criminal prosecution, the limitation of decision (and sentence) execution, so the distinguishing function of the prefixes is outdated. It is also worth noting the varying equivalents of the Russian original term Kpbnocmb and the démens xpšnocmnoi made from it, In current dictionaries, kpenocme is usually translated as fortress, fortress, sometimes with a punishment added. And TZ Kpenocmnoe npago is a punishment, but in the Civil Codes another meaning is used. Kpšnocmo Cl, transliterated vertices (390), affirmative writing (188). CI, this corresponds to reinforcement (in the end somewhere corrected to reinforcement), reinforcement pattern (0 PI — strength). In other places in Cl, there is also a pattern of reinforcements (774), a reinforcement pattern (1388). Kpbnocmuoi axmo corresponds to enforcing (707) /enforcing (922) | enforcing (1424) act Cl, —fortifying act Cl... True, and Cl, can be found enforcing (457). Cl, in this place reinforcement, but in the original —yxpbnaenie. Also, the control anchors CL, —the holding anchors C),, (ykpbnaneKia Ka eaadbnie ZG 390). These are obviously related things. In all these cases, we are probably talking about certified documents. The following terms are apparently also related to confirmation: 1030 confirmed will Cl, —positive will Cl, (kpbnocmnoe 3aebuanie- ), 542 confirmation file Cl, —positive file CĮ,, (kpbnocmnoe dOĖA10), 1683 confirmation tax Cl, —positive taxes Cl, (kpbnocmusia notuaunot), 420 confirmation right Cl, —positive right CĮ,, (kpbnocmuoe npaeo). Cl,, punctuation KpšBnocmnotį correctly translates as 78 steadfast (CL, as seen, in various ways), but in LKZ there is no such word. By the way, RLKZ kpenocmb, in addition to the mentioned meanings of stronghold, fortress, punishment, also translates (3.) purchase- -sale act, and the adjective kpenocmuoii (4.) —purchase-sale. Since the manuscript of the P.I. used the terms ‘purchasing strength’, ‘purchasing strength’, which in the published translations corresponds to ‘act of purchase’ (399), ‘act of purchase’ (593) or ‘purchasing endorsement’ CL, ‘purchasing strength’ Cl, (707), such a translation is appropriate, but in view of the other terms quoted, this meaning appears to be insufficient. This idea is also supported by the fact that 3ax1adkak kpknocme was translated 542 zastavovatelný rukopis Cl, —zastavovatelný rukopis Cl,. The pledge is not a buy-sell. Thus, there is reason to say that RLKŽ lacks meaning —Kpenocmb, Kpenocmuou, apparently, still need to be linked with patvirtintas, related to the confirmation, And if we take the word from ClĮ,,, it is still affirmative. One of the etymological dictionaries of the Russian language also states that xpšnocmbo means "oath, confirmation" (KESRJ: 220). There is also a small possibility that in some cases the original referred to a punishment, only uniformized in translation, but this is unlikely. The terminology of both translations has many differences from today's one. In terms of linguistic correctness, the translations are approximately equal. However, the 1933 book stands out for its consistency in terms. There were also some translation errors or inaccuracies in the Civil Code of 1928. They were removed in later translations. For example, the contract of hire was replaced by the contracts of lease (1700; cf. docosops nHaitima ZG, here we are talking about the lease of objects; although in colloquial language, mainly in dialects, this meaning is sometimes used also for hire, for the common language for lease), the right of special participation was replaced by the right of private participation (441; cf. npaso yuacmia wacmuaeo ZG). Russian xaepada Cl, translated gift (539), but here it is about compensation for a found object, so CĮ,, replaced more appropriate to Lithuanian language —radybos. In a few cases, CI has been translated in the wrong sense. Instead of nokaaxca Cl, write load (2100). The Russian term has the meaning of "load, cargo", but here another one is needed — "temporary storage of a thing" (so is CIP,,). O6poxs CL, translated by Long (620). Such a translation is possible, i/lgės would mean “duty, tax” 79