Kazimieras Gaivenis. Lietuvių terminologija: teorijos ir tvarkybos metmenys

REVIEWS Kazimieras Gaivenis. LITHUANIAN TERMINOLOGY: THEORY AND PROCEDURE METMENYS Vilnius: LKI leidykla, 2002, 148 p. Jonas Jablonskis, who created several hundred terms, only briefly stated the principles of his new creation at the beginning of his work („Jie kala teip, kaip kala žmonės“ Jablonskis 1935: 42), but did not write a theory of terminology, rarely called a terminologist, even in the reviewed book only in Pratarmė it is said that the foundations of terminology were laid by „Lietuvoje —S. Šalkauskis (theoretical) and J. Jablonskis (practical)” (9), Jablonskis’ name is also mentioned in the standardization (89, 91, 103). In many cases, when mentioning the work of a linguist or botanist, a physicist in terminology or even terminography, the name of a terminologist is somehow missing… Not a single linguist who has worked as a full-time terminologue, who has gone into other fields and has been productive in them, can point to some article or consultant who has contributed the name (with or without thanks) in the preface of some dictionary. Kazimieras Gaivenis — a 100% terminologist since 1959, practitioner and theoretician. He began to earn his living as a terminologus in the Terminology Commission of the Lithuanian Language Institute, headed by Jon Kruopos, and for a short time he was actually the only member of the commission. He then headed the Terminology Group of the Dictionaries Section, again under Kruopos’ paternal patronage, and finally —after a short break—he took over the head of the Terminology Section and was also the editor of the Terminology. After a decade of intense work, he defended his doctoral dissertation (recognized by the examiners of the specialty as very well prepared theoretically), while painstakingly working on the tiring practical work of creating terms (he created his own haystack, glasshouse, a number of plant names, and J. Dagis himself was rewarded with a fresh plant), standardization, interminable consulting, deliberations, and continued to delve into the theory of terminology, published articles in that field and aspired to write Lithuanian terminology. He has consolidated his broader theoretical preparation with the Kalbotyros terminology dictionary (together with Stasys Keinis). He drew up a popularization booklet Margas žodžių pasaulis (A rich world of words), fun, attractive, with epigraphs and verses of poetry, with etymologies of Gaivenis and the native Taurūgnai, but also filled with theory inserts, terminological threads and even with a chapter “The most important words of the scientific language — terms”. He was truly the leader of the terminologists (not the driver) — the most demanding of them, the 129 first one everywhere, but able to agree with the second-hand ones, to advise the third-hand ones and to consult with everyone himself, to mobilize everyone. For various reasons, Lithuanian terminology took some time, but Gaivenis did! Some thoughts may have matured more, and a more homogeneous structure, composition may have lacked time and strength. However, it is undoubted that the author himself assesses the situation adequately — this is shown, among other things, by the final title —“<...>: outlines of theory and organization”. In one case Gaivenis also showed unnecessary modesty —he did not present any of his positions in the Literature list: readers were wronged —they will have to wait for Gaivenis’ bibliography index, and the reviewer has already got his jacket. The book consists of a Preface (9-11), 5 chapters (specificities of terms, sources, organization, standardization, overview of theories), a Concluding Word (137-138), lists of literature — cited and other — (139-142), an English abstract (143-145) and English contents (7-8). The wefts are enough, the knots are far from two, the weft is quite dense. The reviewer does not intend to sit in the author’s machine instead of the reader, but he would not want to hide his understanding of the author’s wefts and weavings. The structure of the book is quite clear, simple, the teaching is usually uncomplicated and consistent. But the logical dispersion of the theory and order of terminology is neither an easy nor an unambiguous, indisputable thing. It might even arise questions: why is terminology management (terminography, standardization, computer and text management) examined first, and then the principles and rules of terminology standardization, which would certainly follow more consistently after the sources of terminology (terminization, novelty, borrowing). The terminology could reasonably form a separate part of the book. Chapter I —Properties of terms and requirements for them (13-49) is the most important —theoretical, contentful—- and longest. It would be shorter if subsections 1 and 2 were not included. Terms "term", "terminology", "terminology" and 2. Typology of terms that deal with non-specificities. Here, too, the readers could be confronted with inconsistency130 of difficulties. For example, at the very beginning it is stated that the term is not equally understood by logicians, philosophers, sociologists, etc., but their concepts are not interesting (13), and after a few pages it is said: “in logic, a term is called a composite element of a decision (subject and predicate). Therefore, logicians speak of great, small and other terms” (16-17). In fact, the Latin terms —„limit; hedgehog; ‘border’, ‘boundary’; eziazenkel (Roman for stone); border sign (usually a pole)’, p. "limit", "goal", "end, end", again. “time limit” —preferably in logic acquired the meaning of “concept (of a decision)”: term 2. “In Logic, a necessary component of the solution (subject and predicate) or element of the syllogism (the large term is called the predicate of the conclusion, the small term — the subject of the conclusion, the medium term — the concept, present in the premises of the syllogism, but not in the conclusion- )” (FilosZ 1975: 436). From "concept" to "concept pronoun" is a shorter step. And here the natural support of terminology in logic is clearly visible. There is sometimes some contradiction in the text. For example, it is said that a term is a word or a constant attributive combination of words (14), but at the same time it is stated that this combination can be of any grammatical relationship: coordinative, controlling, fusion (14), but is the fusion connection attributive? The author of the book distinguishes between ferminity and terminology, uses the concepts of terminological meaning (13, 17, 39), non-terminal lexicon (122), but the transformation of a word into a term inconsistently, illogically, unsystematically calls not ferminization, but terminology (18, 121, 130), terminology (51) and does so on the exclusive ground that “sometimes it is necessary to talk not only about the adaptation of words, but also their forms or affixes in terminology” (18); also determinologizacja (18, 121, 130), transterminologization (18, 130), reterminologization (130), though intraterminization (114); Then there is the terminological meaning (17, 52, 53, 130), the terminological system (116), the terminological concept (117), the terminological designation (129), the terminological field (130), even terminology (126, 127) in place of terminology. Because sometimes it is not possible to sacrifice simply, and most importantly, termination (termination) can really mean both “translation or transformation into a term” and “translation or transformation into a term”. By the way, a perfect example of termination, transtermination and determination is the term itself. We have already spoken about its termination and transtermination, but it is necessary to add that this has happened outside the Lithuanian language — the term is a loan to us. Nauj. The Latin term was also determined, even acquiring the meaning of "word" (the synonym of Latin dictio, from which our saying, by the way, is derived, is not easily understood by 131 non-linguists) — remnants of this occurrence are found in many European languages: French en d'autres termes — in other words, in other words, dans toute la force du terme — in the true sense of the word; ital. in altri termini —in other terms; angl. in sel terms — in thoughtful terms, clearly, in the simplest terms —in simple terms, understandably; left. psn. another term — kitaip sakant; rus. psn npomecmoean 8 aHepeuueckux mepmuHaX — resisted with strong words. In Lithuanian, the term "word" occurs only as a translation error (international words — faux amis du traducteur!..). But even in the reviewed book there are special words, or special terms (21). Thus, the international fermion is remarkable: as a word —very polymorphic (or even homonymous, cf.: terme I 1) end, limit, border, 2) fixed time, term, 3) term of payment of rent (of an apartment, house); 4) (birth) time, term, 5) border post; terme II 1) word, term, 2) measure member, 3) (in logic) term, composite element of a decision, 4) plural relationship (PLKŽ 1976); in logic, terminated — unimportant; in terminology, linguistics transterminized — univocal; in language determined; in terminology has synonyms —dubletas, profesionalizmas, buvo (RZ 1948, RLKZ II 1967 mepmun —term, jvardas) and again can be jvardas: its construction —from įvardinti —impeccable (there is also adverb with pronoun „precisely; naming, naming“ LKZ IV 1957). The use of less common terms that are not yet or not at all explained is also considered a lack of teaching. For example: "The term meaning does not coincide with the lexical meaning of the word or the definition of the term. The latter reflects the intentional of terminological meaning and some sems of the implicational. Extensive definitions of terms, which refer to the totality of species concepts belonging to one level of abstraction, do not reveal the semantics of the term” (17); “The ideological semantics of social sciences belong not to the intentional but to the implicational” (19). And the terms extension and intensity are explained much further (28-30), extensional and intentional, and there is no implicational there at all. Unexplained term conceptology (19). 132 Lexicography of terms — terminology (16) has been used recently, but widely. By the way, I brought the terms terminography, termination, transtermination, determination from Kiev in the autumn of 1970 (Kozsajrux 1970: 14). Another meaning of terminography —“historography of terms or terminology” (16) is unknown, manding, erroneous in Lithuanian terminology. The book distinguishes nomenclature, as well as nomen (16), but then it says nothing: “Occasionally the word fermion is replaced by the word nomen, e.g.: “Dictionary of Botanical Names”, names of months, etc. (25) — as if the name were not the Lithuanian equivalent of the nomen. The names of objects (26), it seems, are also essentially nomen. Almost half of subsection 1 is devoted to the interpretation of the relationship between terms and professionalisms. Although at the very beginning it is said: “professional language contains not only terms, but also professionalisms, jargons and other words” (13), but already there it is confusingly explained: at the same time — on the basis of the specialty of concepts it is possible to talk not only about the terminology of science, but also about sports or culinary; only remains incomprehensible why “the speciality of the term is a sign of its narrow professional use” (13). The normal, understandable opposition is the ordinary <> special (and not professional). Professional, if not closed, is special, and the narrow, closed professional usage is characteristic only of the mutual secondary designation: the term gear <> professionalism rail. Terms have definitions and are therefore different from professionalisms. The broad concept of professionalisms begins with a quotation of 24 lines, where they are understood in three ways — terms used among themselves, professionalisms of colloquial language and even duplicates of jargon professional speech, i.e., the concept of terminology is also made ambiguous: 1) special (narrowly used) terms = professionalisms, 2) terms, 3) professionalisms of speech, 4) professional jargonisms. Here the author did not schematically describe his final conception that “part of professionalisms are terms, but part of terms are not professionalisms and part of professionalisms are not terms” (23-24). By the way, the Kalbotyros dictionary of terms follows the narrow concept of professionalisms, only adding at the end: “The concept of professionalism is often very broad—terms and even jargons are considered professionalisms” (KTŽ 1990). Manding, professionalisms and terms —their common 133 the problem of the dictionary and the designation —the problem comes from those countries, where the concept of professionalisms (e.g., Fachwortschatz, Fachausdriicke) is older than that of terms. The author’s conception of macaronismes, which includes even Latin nomen of botany and anatomy, and Italian nomen of music (24), is unheard-- of radical and fundamentally different from the dictionary of terms of Kalbotyra. In the subsection of the term typology, terms named by objects (e.g. soil, water supply terms) are understood as unofficial (25) for some reason. The (concepts) distribution (26, 27 (2x)) that appears here is not clear very quickly (distribution <> classification „classification“ 41-42). The ordering of the term properties is not explained, but it does not seem consistent in terms of content (meaning) and expression: 3. Extension and intensity of terms (subjects of meaning); 4. Grammar of terms; 5. Pragmatics of terms (close to meaning); 6. the correctness of terms (construction, grammar, pronunciation, spelling); 7. Accuracy of terms (meaning); 8. the systematicity of terms (this is logical; although there may also be lexical, constructive, grammatical systematicity); 9. Shortness of time; 10. stylistic neutrality of terms (to the nearest meaning); 11. Convenience of terminology. Another option could be: 1) systemic; 2) extension and intensity, pragmatism, accuracy, stylistic neutrality; 3) grammar, regularity, ease of use; 4) briefness. In Stasys Keinis’ booklet of the popularization series “Language and People” the Terminology Alphabet is arranged as follows: unambiguity, accuracy, [emotional neutrality], systematicity, convenience, regularity (Keinys 1980: 28-58). In the subsection on the grammar of terms, it is pointedly noted that there are only two genera in terminology, although it is not considered why there is no nominative genus. The plural termination is marked, but the relatively frequent termination of deminutives is omitted (treis <> medelis, olėda > olėdikė, smilga <> smilgaitė- ). Gaivenis rightly states that the classification of concepts can change the usual order of the marks, e.g.: bean bacterial plague (subspecies + species + relative member). But this is not only in terminology, e.g. : He left in the dictionary an immortal monument of his merits J. Balčikonis (Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1, Vilnius, 1941, V). 134 In the subsection on correctness of terms, one word is unclear in the interpretation of correctness: ‘it is the acceptance of rules of pronunciation, spelling, grammar, word formation, grammar and usage’ (36), and no examples of violations of usage rules are given. If we understood some lexical conjunction (valentness), the coordination of meanings, this would be part of semantics, and therefore of accuracy. The principle of pseudoanalogy (37) is not explained, although analogy is understood in two ways in linguistics. By the way, herbera is not an example of improper grammar (36-37), but of pseudoanalogy (: herba) (and in fact —: Gerber). An example of a pseudoanalogy is not only the be-preposition (37), but also the inheritance position indicated between analogues (because there is a transition, not an inheritance). Chassis (36), consumption (37), etc. are not spelling errors, but only spelling errors. The following formulation may be misleading: “c) the second syllable of compound words is pronounced incorrectly (e.g., lip-flowers, Simtakdjis, polyslogsnis, etc.)” (37). It is possible that the pronunciation of the second sando of these consonants is condemned, because most similar consonants pronounce the connective vowel. But in fact here there are only errors in the pronunciation — there must be lipstick, centipede, multilayer. A significant subsection of Terminy stylistic neutrality. On this occasion, it is worth adding that in justifying the expressive metaphorical geomorphological terms saddle, ram’s forehead, the term horn should also be advocated. —although it has long been replaced by the Cape, then Cape and the Horn of Good Hope, it would be difficult to recover, but let’s know if it exists and let’s not touch the Horn of Vente, the Horn of Grobst (about the anatomy dictionary in popular geographical terminology in general and the “horn” specifically in Baltic, Slavic, Germanic, Chinese and Vietnamese languages see Myp3aes 1974: 133-134). The point of death is also unnecessarily replaced by the point of seriousness, and that seriousness here is not real, it is very conditional. The subsection on the comfort of word making only deals with the comfort or inconvenience of word making. But there are also a number of terms that are Zodiac compounds. In 1910, K. Būga wrote to J. Jablonski: “Terms — grammar, etymology and syntax — are necessary to us: where they are appropriate, we cannot replace them with the science of language, the science of origin and the science of sentences, because the latter are not made like adjectives” (Būga 1961: 912). The section Sources of Terminology (51—62) is the shortest. There is little theory, a lot of practical things, but there could be more generalizations. 135 There are two ways of termination — extension of meaning and narrowing of meaning, it is said that “the term acquires special sems, which the ordinary word does not have” (53). But it is difficult to accept that “it is easy to convince” (53). Wave (wave) and wave (physics) — this is easy, although in such a classical case component analysis would be useful. However, the ease of other examples is questionable, given as follows: “the chive (what did the common man know about this bird) and the chive (Acanthis cannabina), the straight line (a straight line) and the straight line (mathematics) and so on.” (53). Gaivenis does not mention the termination published in some places, which only manifests itself in giving a definition — such termination is really questionable, and linguistically, manding, there is no semantic change. The sub-section Creating New Works is without Jablonski, and that's right. A considerable part of the text is rightly occupied by V. Urbutis’s quotes and thoughts, but the questionable naming of noun construction methods in academic grammar (which, by the way, is also V. Urbutis’s work) requires a more problematic, activated approach. The term specialization of working tools (well known to Gaivenis) remained undiscussed in the book. However, there are two important ideas in the subsection. The first, although not new, but still relevant: we need to distinguish the action from the structure (because without this, we are mistaken in evaluating the noun). The second one is not new either (at least for Gaivenis), but it is even more relevant: “In terminology, even clear derivatives or derivatives often cannot be assigned to the formation of terms. For example, the entomological term skater, the bacteriological term stick, the plant morphological term scoop, etc. are not derived from adjectives, but terminologized words of figurative meaning” (56). It can be said that from now on, terminologists will be able to ride the horse of the work (excellently investigated by V. Urbutis) only when there is a clear process of term recreation, and it is also time to talk about termination more deeply, more reasonably and more specifically — without forgetting that in Lithuanian it is often parallel (essentially carried out outside the borders of the Lithuanian language). Similarly, the old borrowed words (cucumber, asiūklis, eagle, glass, etc.) in terminology are “not borrowed, 0 terminologised words of human language” (58). Between the two sub-sections, two significant things remained lost, not discussed more extensively, only barely mentioned —“xenomany (the love of borrowing) and purism (the avoidance of borrowing- )” (58). Again, there would have been an opportunity to give the decisive word to the leader of the revival, who had brought the purists under control, Jablonsky. The requirements of living time and specifically the new “Procedure for the replacement of foreign words with Lithuanian equivalents”, its implementation, undoubtedly, will force us to seriously delve into this subject again. Only values, or secret borrowings, are mentioned (51, 58), but value, a broad and 136 complex dialinguistic and interlinguistic phenomenon, is not examined at all. Not even linguistic induction, or sequence, was mentioned. Borrowing hybrids and hybrid creation are not discussed at all, although —without any basis—the insurance is raised: “Although creational mixing of international and Lithuanian terms is not prohibited, such terms are not very convenient and prospective. They are avoided” (62). By the way, no one is particularly mixing in the Lithuanian language soil — our hybrids are usually found in the form of adjectives, but how to avoid such terms: antibody, antimatter, excogite, infrasound, countersmige, counterintelligence, protostar, subnone, superconductor, ultrasound, vice-president, as well as the auxide (101) and diiron (102) mentioned in this book? The Lithuanian origin, even conditionally understandable, of some international words is questionable: abonentas, reflektorius, klaviatūra, partitūra, admiralitetas (61—62). Among the international specialized prefixes is additionally mentioned the myriad—the myriadometer waves. The grammar of international terms, generally somewhat distant from this chapter, although mentioned as practically controversial, is presented almost exclusively by naming from other sources, relevant matters are not presented. Chapter IV—Principles and rules of terminology creation and standardization (89-108) is quite contentful, informative, but also inconsistent. In the subsection General principles of terminology standardization (89-100) the standardization principles and criteria are distinguished, but this is done in the footnote and there the criteria are called requirements — they are listed from Chapter I. And the text contains principles and criteria, it says: “They have been highlighted and discussed by A. Girdenis and A. Pupkis, the normers of the current common language” (89), but it is not specified how or where — perhaps they are referring to their extensive article Principles of the norming and codification of the common language in the 1978 collection of articles Baltų kalbos ir jų tyrinėjimo metodai (Baltic languages and their study methods) (53-56), although there is another article by these two authors — Principles of the norming of language (Gimtoji kalba 1996 5 1-5). But further Gaivenis name137 nits; niekena (Brack; defective merchandise, refuse), niekikas, niekti, niektinis; važykla (Fuhrgeschėft; carrier, trucking enterprise), važta (Fracht, Frachtgut; load, freight, shipment, cargo), sąskaita faktūra, važtininkas (Frachtfiihrer; carrier, forwarding agent), važma (Fracht, Frachtgeld; freight.-- Freight is a fee or remuneration), važmuo (Frachtsatz; freight rate), važus (transportabel; easily transportable). The mills of unfavorable weather overgrinded a lot here, for example, the bran left the cargo (preserved only in DZ — all editions, but not — so far! — in the usage), although the consignment note remained (but is it systematic: cargo — consignment note?); freight, chartering, cargo; only now važus, važumas is reinvented as a bicycle; only the loss of weight was adequately compensated — with wagons (also known from the interwar period), but even that word has mostly survived only in DŽ. It is very unfortunate that A. Salis, his live money (used by K. Buga, Vaižgantas, A. Baronas) and animal trade have not survived. Cash money would first of all be genuine, i.e. uncounterfeit (their assignment to pure 1. “which is without impurity, clean, pure” DG is a real misunderstanding). The author of the book indicates that the dictionary contains prepositions, adverbs, participles, associates (72), but does not provide any necessary adverbs, and there are the most abundant of them —atsiskaitytinai, įskaitytinai, išskaitytinai, atsiųstinai, išpirktinai, išsivežtinai, … The dictionary does not overlook an important aspect of grammar: when the verb of the compound is transformed into a noun, the adverb is transformed into an adjective (or participant): parduoti išsimokėtinai — learning selling. In 1969, Gaivenis was not aware of this idea of A. Salis, he admitted that he was trading on loan (T'aiiBaHUC 1969: 9), but later syntax researchers (E. Valiulytė) confirmed A. Salis’s truth: “Noun combinations with adverbs are very rare” (LKG 1976: 233), and with qualitative ones — occur “only in isolated cases” (LKG 1976: 234). Terminology cannot be based on individual cases. In the subsection on terminology, the author discusses definitions and their errors, although he says that the definitions of the dictionaries of explanatory terms “cannot replace the scientific definitions of those concepts” (74). Thus the place of scientific definitions in Chapter I. Significant topics, but insufficient subsections —2. Standardization of terms (81-82), 3. Computer-aided terminology (82-84) and 4. Textual terminology (84-87). Term banks ran out of space in the book, 144 4 although a computerized term bank is being created in Lithuania —unfinished, but already has 187 thousand terms (Černiauskas 2002: 20-24). For the sake of completeness, some more minor inaccuracies should be mentioned: 1) “For example, the word jaundice is commonly used in popular language to refer to any morbid yellowing” (93). In this case, the phrase is only one of the five possible meanings of the word "yellow": 1. „yellowness, yellowing“: Nuo saulės tuoj gelta apsitraukė (Liškiava), 3. bot. „geltė“ (Serratula) (Salakas), 4. “yellow paint” (Liškiava), 5. ‘yellow threads’ (Rudamina); 2) after analyzing about 200 names of tools with the suffix -fuvas, the author concludes: “all of them are made from non-prepositional transitive verbs” (99), and those made from prepositional intransitive verbs “must be considered with caution”, although no examples are given (99). It remains unclear why the transitiveness here is made dependent on the prefix, and otherwise there are as many prefixes of such derivatives as you like: išleistuvas, nuleistuvas, nuplėltuvas, nuimtuvas, nusodintuvas, surinktuvas, atskirtuvas, atsuktuvas, užsuktuvas, užkištuvas, peržengtuvas, atmuštuvas, iškrovutuvas (ADLKŽ 1995); 3) reference S. Keinys 1975: 7 repeats (48 and 57); 4) Duns Scotus (Šalkauskis 1991: 11), taken from Šalkauskas, became D. Scotus (113) in the book — traditionally in Lithuanian it is Jonas Dunsas Škotas; 5) doubtful “newcomer” (or “neon”) (131) —neon would be a new name. The author's own language is almost exemplary. It caught my eye only through Lithuania passes (92) and a very annoying combination of approximation or contradiction, meanwhile —academic three-volume grammar published as rare (LKG 1976: 770), new one-volume —no mention (DLKG 1994: 708716), otherwise —not from the living language, not to be given. So Kazimieras Gaivenis judged. The theoretical thought in the book is alive, albeit uneven—sometimes mature, sometimes semi-mature, sometimes pulsating, sometimes tired. Many of the author’s articles did not result in a coherent synthesis, the picture is sometimes mosaic, sometimes, as the author himself likes to say, cracked. But the book is there, and it will last. Feeling sincere respect for the author’s life’s work, the reviewer, who has worked with Gaivenis in the terminology bar for the longest time, hopes that he has fulfilled his commitment to younger terminologists. And Gaivenis, with the weighty thoughts of the book Pabaigos žodis (The End of the Word), has taken his whole life into the future of Lithuanian terminology, living in its difficult troubles. 145 ADLKŽ 1995: Reverse Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language. Compiled by Vida Žilinskienė, Vilnius. Bodin A. 2001: European Dictionary. —Native Language 12, 6-9. 1961: 3rd edition, New York. Černiauskas V. 2002: Computerized term bank is being prepared. —Native Language 7-8, 20-24. DLKG 1994: Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian Language. Red. Vytautas Ambrazas, Vilnius. DŽ: Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language, Vilnius, 1954, 1972, 1993, 2000. Philosophy. 1975: Dictionary of Philosophy. The Lithuanian edition was edited by R. Plečkaitis, Vilnius. Tažūssannauc K. 1969: Cocmaenbie mepmunsl 6 coepemennomM AUMOBCKOM A3bIKE, Bumsunc. GK 1938: Native language 6. Girdenis A,Pupkis A. 1978: Principles of standardization and codification of the common language. —Baltic languages and methods of their study, Vilnius, 53—66. Girdenis A,Pupkis A. 1996: Principles of language standardization. —Mother tongue 8, 1-5. Girdenis A,Rosinas A. 1983: A few more thoughts on the codification of the common language. —Cultural Bars 4, 67-69. 1935: The Language of Our Writings. —Jablonskio raštai 4, Kaunas, 40-43. 1930: The Alphabet of Terminology, Vilnius. KoBanuk I. I. 1970: OcHoBHa rpoOjieMaTHka Cy4yaCHOI YKPaiHChKOI TEDMIHOJsioril. —Ilepwa nHayko6o-memooduura Hapaoa 3 npobaem YnopsoKy8aHHs i HOpMaAizauli mepminonoeii, Kuie, 13-14. KTZ 1990: Gaivenis K,KeinysS. Dictionary of the English Language, Vol. LBKTP, KK and jy T 1997: Principles of the management of the Lithuanian common language, criteria for codification and application of jy (approved by the State Lithuanian Language Commission). — Language 4, 1-3.; Lyberis A. and Ulvydas K. 1958: The enrichment of the Lithuanian literary language vocabulary in the years of the Soviet regime. —Literature and Language 3, Vilnius, 31— 110. LKG 1976: Lithuanian Grammar 3. Vyr. red. K. Ulvydas, Vilnius. LKŽ 1941-2002: Lithuanian Language Dictionary 1-20, Vilnius. Myp3aeB3. M. 1974: Osepxu mononuxux, Mocksa. Huxurtuna C. E. 1978: Tesaypyc no meopemuuecroii u npukaaoHou Auneeucmure (Aemomamuueckasn obpabomka mexcma), Mocksa. PLKZ 1976: Pranciizy-Lietuvyj kalbų žodynas. Compiled by A. Juškienė, M. Katiliené, A. Kaziuniené, Vilnius. Pupkis A. 1980: Fundamentals of Language Culture, Vilnius. RLKZ II 1967: Rusy-lietuviy kalbų žodynas 2. Prepared by V. Baronas, V. Galinis, edited by K. Musteikis, J. Macaitis, Vilnius. 146 1948: Dictionary of English Grammar. Edited by K. Gasparavičius, N. Grigas, J. Lazauskas, K. Ulvydas, A. Žirgulys, Kaunas. Salys A. 1979: Raštai 1, Roma. 1991. pp. 2. "Vilnius". Jonas KLIMAVIČIUS Received 2002-11-15 Lithuanian Language Institute P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-2055 Vilnius termin @ktl.mii.- lt 147