Lietuvos Respublikoje (1918–1940) veikusio „Baudžiamojo statuto“ vertimų teisės terminijos skirtybės

Alvydas UMBRASAS Lithuanian Language Institute DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TRANSLATIONS OF THE LAW IN THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (1918-1940) THAT OPERATED AS A CRIMINAL STATE IN THE TERM OF LAW In the independent state of Lithuania established in 1918, it was impossible to create its own legal system in a short time, 0 the state could not remain without law, so it had to adopt most of the Russian laws that were in force here until then. The exception was made only in the area of criminal law. For half a century, the 1864 Penal Code and the 1866 Penal Statute, imposed by the tsarist authorities, were in force in Lithuania. In Russia, after a good two decades of work, a new Criminal Statute (YrojioBnHoe yjioxexmne) was approved in 1903, the entry into force of which was postponed indefinitely. It was this statute that was introduced in Lithuania in 1914 by the German occupation authorities, because it was close to the German criminal law and was already translated into German. In 1918, Lithuania decided not to return to the outdated former Russian criminal laws. As a result, an interesting situation arose: Lithuania was governed by the Russian Criminal Code, which, with the exception of some articles, did not enter into force in Russia. However, it must be admitted that Lithuania won in this — the new statute was prepared according to the example of the criminal codes in Western Europe, and in some respects was even superior to them. It is said that it corresponded to the spirit of the time, had a rational system and accurate terminology (see more. Stankevičius 1925: 10-15; Andriulis 1996: XXVII; Maksimaitis 2001: 55-56). Since in the second year of Lithuania’s independence, the Provisional Law on the Organization of Lithuanian Courts and their Work (LLTS 1919: 7) decided that the state language of Lithuania must be used in the courts, neither the Russian, nor the German text of the 1903 Criminal Statute satisfied the needs. A Lithuanian translation was needed. The translation began in the spring of 1918. Petras Klimas, Liudas Noreika, Antanas Sugintas worked in the specially formed commission of lawyers of the Council of Lithuania (1958: 27). There are indications that the translat78 ion work was already completed at the end of 1918 (based on the minutes of the meetings of the State Council, M. Maksimaitis notes this (2001: 169)). However, the evidence is lacking—the translation has not been published, and the manuscripts, if any, were apparently of limited use. By the way, this commission also provided for terminology work. In the appendix to the “Work Programme of the Rights Commission” of 20 August 1918, signed by Stasys Schilingas, the provisional Chairman of the Commission, there is a section entitled “Collection of Material- ”, which states that A. Janulaitis is entrusted with the terminology dictionary, and P. Klimas and L. Noreika with the legal terminology (Schilingas 1918: 10 doc.). In 1919, the Ministry of Justice began to translate the Criminal Code. The work here, apparently, went faster, since the Ministry published the translation at the end of 1919 (Penal Statute, K., 1919). The Minister of Justice L. Noreika’s commentary does not mention the interpreter or the translation process. Legal scholars usually attribute this statute simply to the Ministry of Justice. Judging by the few press data, the spoken text was translated by Konstantinas Jablonskis in consultation with Boleslav Masiulis (Masiulis 1954 6: 2). He, a young lawyer, had just started working as a rapporteur for the Ministry of Justice. The remaining documents show that K. Jablonskis may have also contributed to the work of the translators of the Rights Commission. In the above-mentioned appendix to the Commission’s estimate of work, the name of K. Jablonski is added next to that of P. Klim, who is involved in the translation of Russian criminal laws (Šilingas 1918: 10 doc.). By the way, it is unclear why the same translation appeared with two titles. In the libraries you can find the aforementioned book Criminal statute and a completely identical edition called Criminal laws (K., 1919). It is not known if any more versions were produced. It is only necessary to draw attention to an interesting thing observed by the researchers — since the appearance of the translation in question, the term statute has become familiar to this matter. The Criminal Code mentioned in the laws passed in Lithuania until then was later called the Criminal Statute' (Maksimaitis 2001: 172). "This is also the term used in this article, although in current Lithuanian law there is a common term for the code.. 79 The interpretation was not recognised as official. It is also not adapted to Lithuanian realities — it is a non-adapted translation of the Russian statute of 1903, which mentions Russia, its lands (e.g., Altai, Užbaikalė), gold mines and the Holy Person of the Ruling Emperor. Although there was a lack of efforts to codify the text and there was writing about the ambiguities, inaccuracies and errors of the translation, contemporaries recognized its value for the science and practice of law (Stankevičius 1925: 15). This translation was undoubtedly of great importance for the further development of the terminology of criminal law. It should be noted that on November 3, 1919 — shortly before the publication of the Criminal Statute (the preface was written on November 12) — a report appeared in the press about the Ministry of Justice preparing “a dictionary of legal terms and words most needed by judges, investigators, notaries, etc.” (1919: 2). One of the persons who signed this report was K. Jablonski, who was the chief of this Zodyn? the organizer. It is very likely that he combined the translation of the Criminal Statute with the preparation of material for the dictionary. The translation of the Criminal Statute of 1919 was the only one for a decade. Only in 1930 K. Jablonskis, apparently on his own initiative, published another translation of the Criminal Statute (Criminal Statute: with additions. K. Jablonskis, K., 1930). Instead of the word "Russia" is written —Lietuva, omitted deleted or irrelevant to Lithuania articles. At the end is an appendix of newly published laws, edited by J. Byla, and an index compiled by Viskanta. The second edition of this book* was published the following year. In the second edition, the text of the statute was not substantially changed, only more appendices were added. The name of K. Jablonski, written on the cover of these books, does not clearly describe his work — whether he considered himself a translator or a compiler, editor. In terms of subject matter and structure, the books differed from the 1919 translation, but in terms of language style, terminology (if we compare the translations of the articles of the statute rather than the appendices) they were similar. ? For more information on the dictionary, see Umbrasas 2001: 77-80. * The preface of the first edition is dated April 8, 1930, and the second edition is dated December 31. Judging by the date, the second edition should have been published in 1931, but copies of the second edition dated 1930 are available in libraries; There are also some with the date 1931 on the cover and 1930 on the front page. 80 There were few changes (see below), the 1919 text is presented almost in its entirety. The 1934 edition of M. Kavolis and S. Bieliackin- ’s “Criminal Statute with Additional Criminal Laws and Commentaries, Composed of Decisions of the Russian Senate and the Supreme Court of Lithuania and Other Interpretations” (K., 1934) is further removed from the 1919 translation. It is the most comprehensive collection of criminal laws of the time with an arrow. Compared to previous translations, the language is better arranged here (it was corrected by Juozas Sužiedėlis- ). How the translation language has changed can be seen by comparing one translation article (differences are thinned out): 391.A skipper or other head of a port or coastal area who has committed an offence by not performing his duty of guiding ships, as well as a person who does not have the surname of a skipper, who has committed an offence by assuming that duty without proper authorization or without a clear reason for it, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than two weeks or a fine of not more than five tens of rubles (two hundred and five tens of litas — BS,,, BS,,). If due to (due to —BS,,) the skipper or the person who has assumed the duties of a skipper; of guilt his led ship sat down in the shallow or on a rock, or was created a boat sailing (sailing —BS,,), then the guilty is punished with imprisonment for not more than three months or a fine of not more than three hundred rubles (one thousand five hundred lity —BS,,, BS,,) (BS,,“BS,, BS,,). 391.A skipper or other port or coastal manager who has committed an offence by failing to perform his duty of guiding ships, as well as a person who does not have the degree of skipper who has committed an offence by assuming that duty without proper permission or without a clear reason for it, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two weeks or by paying a fine of not more than two hundred and fifty litas. If, due to the fault of the master or of the person who assumed the duties of master, the ship under his command sailed on shallow water or on a rock, or if the ships were prevented from sailing, the guilty party shall be punished with imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months or with a fine not exceeding one thousand five hundred litas (BS,,). 81 As can be seen, the language of the Ministry of Justice publication and the subsequent translation by K. Jablonski do not differ substantially. The 1934 translation has been more modified and is slightly more modern, but in general no major changes have been made. On the other hand, such a change as punishable by arrest — punishable by arrest can also be regarded as a regression. * kk In this thesis, the differences in legal terminology in the aforementioned translations of the Criminal Code (hereinafter — CS) are reviewed from a comparative point of view. Since, as stated, the 1930 and 1931 editions differ only in the number of appendices and not in the text of the statute itself, only the later edition is taken into account for comparison. Therefore, we want to compare the BS translations published in 1919, 1931 and 1934. Various appendices, commentaries on articles, etc. are not compared because it is too complicated to do — it is like comparing different books. Only the 1903 Russian BS text is compared, which consists of 687 articles (in the translations some obsolete articles are omitted). The principle of comparison is to look for differences in the legal terms of different translations in the same articles." The first translation (1919) is taken as a reference point. In total, about 200 differences in terms were found during the investigation.” Since we are comparing terms in the same position in three translations, there can be several combinations — all translations are translated the same (there is no difference) or at least one translation uses a different term. It may be that all terms are different. In other words, if we mark identical terms with the same letter, we can foresee the following differences in the three translations: aab, abb, aba, abc. The ratio of these differences in translations is shown in the diagram. * Therefore, the article number will be indicated next to the term. This is more convenient than specifying pages that do not match in the translations. > It is calculated after one, usually the first, change of a certain term in another case; if a term is changed in the same way in different articles, this shall be treated as a single difference. 82 Chart Ratio of differences in legal terms in BS translations Percentages Types of differences. BS, and BS,, coincide, BS,, differ BS,, and BS,, coincide, BS,, differ (abb); . In all BS different (abc); WN ‘BS, and BS,, are different, and BS,, contain those items (a-b); ; BS. and BS., coincide, BS, differ (aba). Dh As can be seen, the 1919 and 1931 translations have the least differences in terms of law — of the material differs only in terms of the 1934 translation (e.g.: 161 mark BS,,, BS, —marking BS,,; 593 real estate BS, “BS, —immovable property BS,,). The number of cases in which the term changed in 1931 was adopted in 1934 is much lower — about 13% (e.g.: 158 applicant BS,,—witness BS,,, BS,,; 265 servant BS,,—citizen BS,, BS,,). Even fewer are the cases where different terms are used in all BS — about 10% (e.g.: 157 criminal investigation BS, — criminal investigation BS, —criminal prosecution BS,,; 158 expression BS, —deposition BS,, —deposition BS,,). About 3% of medZiaga is an unforeseen situation —since BS, some articles are omitted, here the differences are only between BS,, and BS,, (e.g.: 29 decision BS,, decision BS,; 659 court session BS, —court session BS,,). And only about 2% of the differences are those where the 1931 term was changed, but in 1934 the old term from the 1919 translation was returned (e.g.: 30 reiSkéjas BS,,, BS,,—witness BS,; 117 testimony BS, about 72% BA does not (aab); = . 19° 31° 83 BS,, —proof of BS,,). It can be seen that there were also unlawful changes (see the expression applicant — witness quoted twice), i.e. in one case (BS,,) the applicant was replaced by a witness, in another case — not. From these figures, it can be concluded that the most unlikely in terms of legal terminology are BS,, and BS,,. BS,, is like an intermediary between them, because some of the terms BS,, are taken from it. At the same time, it can be seen that the 1931 translation has changed little compared to the BS. This fact may partly confirm the idea that the translator was the same. Now about the differences more specifically. About 85% of the differences collected are changes in terms of noun or noun-compound form. Of this number, about 89% of terms are replaced by identical equivalents in terms of number of elements, i.e., one-word terms are replaced by one-word, two-word terms by two-word, and so on. And only about 11% of the terms are replaced by a smaller or larger number of elements, i.e., certain terms of the 1919 translation law are translated in later translations by shorter or longer equivalents in relation to elements (e.g., a single word is replaced by two words: 409 unuovoka BS, BS,, —smrť BS,,). First, about the changes of noun terms with the same number of elements (i.e., the form of a noun or a noun compound). It is common in terminology that the more elements a term has, the more rare it is. The same tendencies can be seen in terms of differences in the terms of BS law. The most frequently found errors were the replacement of a single word by a single word (about 40%) and the replacement of two words by two words (about 46%). The remaining 14% comprises all changes of the polynomial (more than two terms) noun compound form of the term of the corresponding length in the study material. There are 60 modified monosyllabic terms in the research material. Of these, about 40% were substantially amended and about 60% were amended in part. Substantial changes are considered here such cases, when the term is replaced by a formally unrelated word of another root, i.e. BS,, or BS,, compared to BS,, are used completely different (unlike) terms, for example: 479 prisoner BS, BS,, —prisoner BS,; 684 extension BS,, BS, — supply BS,,; 158 expression BS,, —demonstration BS,, —attestation BS,,; 124 the union BS, BS, — the association BS,,; 265 command BS,,citizen BS,,, BS,,; ; 532 driver BS, passenger BS,, BS,,; 410 vedyba BS, BS, — marriage BS,,; 627 company BS,,—pabauda BS,, BS,,. This includes a pair of interesting terms 161 vada BS, BS,, —slistis BS,,, and the probably euphemistically considered substitution 526 whore BS,,—prostitute BS,, BS,,. There 312 7934 19? 84 are some more terms that have been amended, as has been said. In the case of partial substitution, the term remains formally similar — the same root is retained, but affixes or similar are changed (some substitutes can be considered variants- ). This is best seen when the difference is minimal — only one morphological part of the word is changed, for example: + prefix: 117 demonstration BS,,, BS,, — demonstration BS,; 10 condemned BS,,„BS,, — damned BS,,; 29 Judgment BS,, —Judgment BS,,; 2 deportation BS, BS, —expulsion BS,; 68 aging BS,,„BS,, —aging BS,,; * suffix: 160 respondent BS,,-—defendant BS,, BS,,; 167 punishment BS,, BS,, —punishment BS,,; 160 Applicant BS, — Applicant BS,,, BS,,; 479 19? 31? passenger BS, —passenger BS,, BS,,; 606 lender BS, BS,, —lender BS,,; 457 explosive BS,, BS, —explosive BS + ending: 264 exchange BS, BS,, —exchange BS,,; 351 praba BS,,, BS, — prabė BS,,; 524 Sangielis BS,, BS, — Sangūla BS,,; 363 akčyžė BS, — akcizas BS, —akcyzė BS,, (in the latter case there are also phonetic differences). Sometimes two affixes are changed at once (e.g.: 639 pažeidimas BS,, BS,, —skausmas BS,,; 660 bridžiavimas BS, BS,, —bribiavimas BS,)) or the form is changed altogether, e.g.: 25 pronoun BS BS,, —first name BS,; 42 guilt BS, i” BS, BS, —duties BS,; 662 value BS,, BS, —translates to BS,,. There are also other partial differences. Some jy can be considered morphological, for example, 490 pagalba BS,,, BS,, —pagelba BS,; 611 contract BS,, BS, —santoris BS,,, with some phonetic (or spelling) differences, for example: 34sk® bankruptcy BS, BS, —bankruptcy BS,; 262 palicija BS,„-—policija BS,, BS,,; 279 kantrabanda BS,,, BS,, —kontrabanda BS,,. 68 changes of the legal terms of the noun compound form were found in the investigated statutes. Most commonly strange one any 31? 34? 19? BS,, —fault BS,,; 30 positions * Used not in the BS article, but in the title of the section. This continues to be the case. 85 term emphasis (80 %). Both spots changed four times less often (20%). Of those terms that differ in one accent, the dependent accent (about 53%) and the principal accent (about 47%) were changed almost equally often. When changing the term, the same syntactic structure is usually maintained (about 86%), i.e. the unchanged relationship of elements —alignment corresponds to alignment (a), control — control (b), blending — blending (c), for example: (a) 433 the trade mark BS, —trade mark BS, —trade mark BS,,; (b) 4sk darby upgrading BS, BS,, —upgrading of actions BS,,; c) 198 right to trade BS,,BS,, —right to trade BS,,. And only about 14% of the legal terms in the later (than 1919) BS are translated in terms of different syntactic structure, i.e. the coordination is replaced by the control (a), the control — the coordination (b) or the controlling verb (c) is replaced, for example: (a) 175 place of exile BS;, BS, —place of deportation BS,; b) 142 criminal association BS, BS, —criminal association BS; c) 2sk infringement of the law BS,,, BS, —offences against the law BS,,. Approximately 62% of the cases of changing the focus of the main term (regardless of whether the secondary focus is changed or not) are of a substantial nature, i.e. the method of changing the form of the term is not chosen, but a search for another, formally unrelated word. For example: 5 definitions of laws BS BS,, —limits of laws BS,,; 30 plausible for cases BS tinis for cases BS,,; 129 compulsory order BS, mass order BS,,; 382 personal safety BS,,, BS, —personal safety BS,,; 545 trade secret BS,, BS, —trade secret BS,,. In those cases where at least one of the two subsequent BSs changed the secondary focus of the two-word legal term, the percentage of substantive changes is slightly lower — about 43% (regardless of whether the main focus was changed). For example: 64 composition rules BS,, BS, —total rules BS,,; 127 Union member BS,, BS, —Community member BS,,; 375 sandoros raštas BS,,„—the contract letter BS,; 411 degree of kinship BS,,—degree of kinship BS,, BS,,; 655 German statement BS,, BS, —closed statement BS,,. Thus, in the 1931 and 1934 BS translations, the main elements of colloquial terms were substantially changed slightly more often than the secondary elements of the same terms. Why is this? The reason for this is that the main focus of the term has a greater significance. 86 19? to BS, —agalioBS,, —privercia- the language. Many legal terms have been taken from it. On the other hand, even now, when certain questions of legal terminology arise, it is worthwhile to first look at the past, and only later to create or improve the latest terminology. Andriulis V. 1996: Features of the formation of the legal system of the Lithuanian state (1918.II.16— 1940.1V.15). —Legislative Acts of the Lithuanian State (1918.II.16-1940.IV15). Prepared by V. Andriulis et al., Vilnius. BS,,: Criminal law, Kaunas, 1919 //Criminal laws, Kaunas, 1919. BS,,: Criminal statute: with additions. K. Jablonskis, Kaunas, 1930. BS,,: Criminal statute: with additions. K. Jablonskis, 2 ed., Kaunas, 1930. BS,,: Criminal statute with additional criminal laws and commentaries made up of decisions of the Russian Senate and the Supreme Court of Lithuania and other interpretations, Kaunas, 1934. 1939: The Path of Lithuanian Law. —Vairas 9. Danilenko V. P. 1977: Įlanujenxo B. II. Pyccxas mepmunonozus: onbim AuneeucmuuecKoe0 onucanus, Mocksa. 1919: Dictionary of Legal Terms. —Lithuania, November 3. LLTS 1919: Temporary organization of Lithuanian courts and their work. —The Provisional Government's Knowledge 2—3. Maksimaitis M. 2001: Sources of Lithuanian Law 1918-1940, Vilnius. 1954. pp. 14. "Law and Lawyers". —Lawyers’ Knowledge 6, 7. 1925: The Laws of the World: A History. 1958: The Court of Appeal. 23–24. Šilingas S. 1918: Estimates for the work of the Rights Commission [08 20 letter to the Presidium of the Lithuanian State Council]. —LCVA, f. 1014, ap. 1, b. 32. Umbrasas A. 2001: Legal Terminology in Lithuania 1918-1940. — Terminology 8. i UU: Yeonoenoe yroxcenie 22 mapma 1903 2. Ilo uznanisims H. C. Taranuesa, Pura, DIFFERENCES IN THE TERMINOLOGY OF LAW IN THE TRANSLATION OF THE CRIMINAL CODE THAT FUNCTIONED IN THE REPUBLIC 1922. OF LITHUANIA IN 1918-1940 Summary During the period of the independent Republic of Lithuania (1918-1940) there was no original criminal code prepared. From 1918 Russian criminal laws were in force, among them —The Criminal Code (Yronosnoe ynoxenue) of 1903. This article 93 deals with differences in the terminology of law in translations of this Code into Lithuanian (translations of 1919, 1931 and 1934 are compared). In total there were about 200 differences found. They are analysed and grouped according to the expression. The correctness and preciseness of terms are also discussed. The conclusion is drawn that translations of 1919 and 1931 differ very slightly. The biggest changes in the terminology of law were made in the translation of 1934 — here it is closest to the terminology of the present. It is likely that most of the differences between these translations occurred because terminology was being constantly improved. Some of the differences appeared because of corrections of mistakes and inaccuracies in the translation from 1919. The article emphasizes the significance of the terminology created in 1918-1940 to the contemporary language law. of Alvydas UMBRASAS Received 2002-10-03 Lithuanian Language Institute P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-2055 Vilnius E-mail Alvydas- @]Iki.lt 94