Keletas pastabų apie sistematikos terminiją

DISCUSSION, PROPOSALS A FEW NOTES ON SYSTEMATIC TERMINOLOGY In the Great Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (hereafter LKŽ), neither under the word karalystė nor under the word karalija do we find the name of the highest principal taxon in the world of organisms. In the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian (hereafter DŽ), under the word karalystė, the third, figurative, sense—“a domain in which something prevails or reigns”—is illustrated with the example grybų karalystė (“kingdom of fungi”), but it is not presented as a systematic term. Some botanists call this taxon karalystė (kingdom), AAS 17, while others use karalija, G 170. The more common and longer-established term is karalystė. It should be regarded as the standard form. Moreover, intermediate taxa are sometimes named incorrectly too, e.g.: antkaralystė (Superregnum) and pokaralystė (Subregnum). The forms should be: antkaralystis and pokaralystis. The names of some taxa take special suffixes in both Latin and Lithuanian. For example, the Lithuanian suffix -ūnai (Latin -phyta) is used to name plant divisions, -ainiai (Latin -opsida) for classes, -iečiai (Latin -ales) for orders, and -iniai (Latin -aceae) for families. However, their use is not yet consistent. For instance, alongside the suffix -iečiai, the element -žiedžiai is also used to name plant orders. The names of varieties and cultivars also vary. Such inconsistencies could be resolved only by specialists in those fields working together with terminologists. Next, we will discuss several inconsistencies we have observed in the formation and use of terms in this field. 1. Entomological terminology is not yet firmly established Tettigonia viridissima! Tettigonia viridissima! He himself does not know that this is his name—for several centuries now—Call out as much as you like in the meadow or the wilderness—no one Will answer, in Latin or Lithuanian, even after death. S. Jonauskas, “The Green Grasshopper” 138 In the quoted poem, the poet seems to play with the grasshopper’s Latin name. Yet similar wording also appears in the scholarly work “The Fauna of Lithuania” (I, V., 1995), for example: “Only on the Lithuanian coast are halophilic beetles found. These are species adapted to living in saline soils (e.g., Cicindela maritima, Dyschirius obscurus, D. impunatipennis, Bembidion pallidipenne, Pogonus chalceus, Dicheirotrichus rufithorax, Ceryon litoralis, Aegiala arenacia, Coccinella undecimpunctata, Phyllon gibbus)” (p. 24). Here, however, it is no longer poetic wit but scientific naming. But why are Lithuanian terms not used? After all, later in the same work many of the beetles mentioned are already given Lithuanian names, for example: Cicindela – šoklys, Dischirius – nykštukžygis, Bembidion – barzdūkžygis, Dicheirotrichus rufithorax – rudakrūtinį žygis, Ceryon – puvėsinukas, Aegiala arenaria – kopinis mėšlavabalis, Coccinella – boružė, Phylan gibbus – pajūrinis juodvabalis, and so on. These examples show that entomologists find Latin professional terms more convenient and often rely on them alone in scientific literature. Lithuanian entomological terminology has been considerably improved through the publication of Prof. S. Pileckis’s books and the scholarly work “The Fauna of Lithuania.” Yet even in the revised publications, there are still cases that need correction. For example, consider two terms: ūsuotiškasis juodvabalis (Upis ceramboides L.) and ūsuotiškasis dulkiagraužis (Pseudocistela ceramboides) LF II 63, 66. There is also a beetle family ūsuočiai (Cerambycidae) LF II 87. Lithuanian has no adjective ūsuotiškas. Entomologists coin it by using the suffix -iškas, which expresses similarity. Thus, Upis ceramboides is a darkling beetle resembling a longhorn beetle. The term krypūnėliškasis juodvabalis (Crypticus quisquilius L.) is similarly motivated: it is a darkling beetle resembling a krypūnėlis. However, the term for the same taxon, kailiavabalis juodvabalis (Cylindrinotus dermestoides), though motivated in the same way, is formed with the suffix -inis. The problem here is minor: adjectives with the suffix -inis can also express similarity. The linguist P. Kniūkšta, who has studied adjectives with the suffix -inis in depth, writes: “Synonymous adjectives with the suffixes -iškas and -inis, as we have already noted in discussing adjectives of similarity, differ in meaning. Adjectives with -iškas have a qualitative meaning indicating a characteristic feature, whereas those with the suffix -inis denote a kind of thing” PB 183. Thus, in this case the suffix -inis would be more suitable for naming the species, but with this suffix 139 other species terms with different motivations are formed in entomological terminology, for example: kinivarpinis krypūnėlis (Paromalus parallelipipedus), pjūklelinis vaisiastraublis (Curculio crux), and so on. Here the meaning is not similarity, but shared habits and diet. Since the suffix -iškas is also used to express similarity in other cases in the terminology of this field (e.g., kiaušiniškoji dusia (Hyphydrus ovatus L.), rutuliškasis kūdravabalis (Coelostoma orbiculare), and so on), the suffix -inis should not be used with this meaning. However, species adjectives formed with the suffix -iškas should be converted into definite-form adjectives, for example: kriaušiškas (=kriaušiškasis) šliužžagys (Cychrus caraboides L.), gaubliškas (=gaubliškasis) kerpvabalis (Amphicyllis globiformis), and so on. This would be a terminological variant conforming to the standard of the general language. The terms juostuotoji prūdadu­sia (Porhyd­rus lineatus) and paprastoji naradusia (Scarodytes halensis) are objectionable. One issue is that the word prūdas is not to be used; another is that the ending of the compound should be not -ia but -ė (cf. paprastoji kūdradusė – Graptodytes granularis L.). It is entirely unclear what the first element of the compound naradusia should be associated with. Sometimes beetle names are formed in an excessively cumbersome way, for example: rausiavabališkasis urvavabalis (Nemadus colonoides), and so on. It would be much simpler to call this beetle, for example, rausiavabališkasis urvinėlis. The Brianavabalius (Micropeplidae) could be given the term briaunėliai. Particular attention should be paid to keeping genus names simple. Then species names, too, would be simpler. 2. Distortions of plant names Be patient and kind to the flowering dill, Which still has not learned Its Latin name, Musca domestica! A. Nyka-Niliūnas, “To a Fly” All plants and little plants already know their Latin names. K. Linnaeus and his disciples taught them these. Only Lithuanian names are still lacking. 140 or they are distorted. For example, in the “FLOREXLIT PAVASARIS 1998” advertisement, the flower lenktažiedis trimėtis (Salpiglossis sinuata) was given the name lenktažiedis trinyčius. This name is found neither in LKŽ nor in LBŽ, which list not only scientific but also dialectal plant names. We would suppose that this nonexistent term arose from a proofreading error. Or, another example. In the beautifully and carefully published book “Sodo gėlės” (V., 1996), we find the term virgininė kalabarpuprė (Physostegia virginiana). The book’s index corrects it to virgininė kalabarpupe. And still it is wrong. Physostegia is pūstatauris, whereas Physostigma – kalabarpupe. Thus two completely different plants have been confused. Their Lithuanian names, too, are, one might say, no good at all. Pūstataurį can be retained only because it has been used in LBŽ, while instead of kalabarpu-pės, the Lithuanian word pupuolė would be more suitable. Lithuanian plant names should be preferred. For example, the terms čeras and eleboras are currently competing. This is the name of a plant that flowers very early but is poisonous. The first term was used by J. Pabrėža, and LKŽ lists it without a cross (i.e., as acceptable), whereas the second is a Latin term of Greek origin adapted to Lithuanian grammar, Helleborus. J. Pabrėža’s term should not be forgotten. Some Latin loanwords are difficult to pronounce and do not even sound like plant names. For instance, in the beautifully published book “Kambarinės gėlės” (V., 1997), we find plant names that have not been sufficiently Lithuanianized. One such name is veltheimija (Veltheilmia). It could be called by the neologism pluoštažiedė, since its inflorescence consists of many small bell-shaped flowers. The names of the flowers nidularijus, pteris, šaflera are strange. The first flower could be called lapokė, because its leaves are attractive. The second flower could be named with the neologism papartūnas, since “its genus includes about 280 species of deciduous, semi-evergreen and evergreen ferns” KG 221. For the third flower, the neologism šakotė might be suitable, since its stem is notably branched. Lithuanian neologisms could be used alongside loanwords so that, over time, they would become established in the nomenclature of this field. Some borrowed names of garden or indoor flowers are written inaccurately or adapted incorrectly to Lithuanian grammar. For example, a pleasantly fragrant flower native to Peru and Ecuador is referred to by the term kvapnusis elijotropas (Heliotropium arborescens) SG 86. It should be: kvapnusis 141 heliotropas, because its little flowers turn toward the sun, which in Greek is called helios. One of the rock-garden flowers is called etijonema (Aethionema) SG 100. It should be: etionema. Usually only one of its species is cultivated—didžiažiedė etionema (Aethionema grandiflora). A perennial prairie flower with graceful inflorescences is referred to by the compound term varpotasis lijatris (Liatris spicata) SG 155. The correct term should be liatris. Likewise, the term širdžialapė tijarėlė (Tiarella cordifolia) is written inaccurately. It should be: širdžialapė tiarelė. A dwarf indoor fern is called by the borrowed term adjantas (Adiantum) KG 130. It should be: adiantas. Indoor palms whose very unusual leaves look ragged at the tips are called karijota (Caryota) KG 150. This term, too, should be written without j, namely: kariotė. In translated books, the names of some plants from distant lands are left untranslated because there are no Lithuanian equivalents, for example: Adenium obesum, Beaucarnea recurvata, Exacum affine, Jatropha podagrica, Medinilla magnifica, etc. (KAE 126). In consultation with specialists, translators could suggest neologisms for these plants, especially since some of the flowers mentioned have very distinctive features. For example, Adenium obesum could be called tuklōji stiebūnė, since its stem is very thick, resembling a tree trunk. The agave-family plant native to Mexico, Beaucarnea recurvata, could be called by the compound term lenktalapė agavūnė. The neologism energìnė žiedūnėlė might be suitable for naming the pleasantly fragrant houseplant Exacum affine, since it flowers profusely with small blooms and treats depression and stimulates the lungs. In other cases, Latin plant names are not translated even when corresponding Lithuanian terms are used in the same book. For example, Calendula officinalis “goes well with Ageratum, Salvia farinacea, Tagetes, Delphinium, Heliopsis, Rudbeckia, Calamagrostis” SG 82. Elsewhere in the same book, Ageratum is called žydrūnu, Salvia farinacea is called miltuotuoju šalaviju, Delphinium is called pentiniu, Heliopsis is called saulakiu, Rudbeckia is called rudbekija, and Calamagrostis is called lendrūnu. Such inconsistency in the use of terms is unjustifiable. By the way, flower cultivar names are not translated. 142 ABBREVIATIONS AAS – Galinis V. Aukštesniųjų augalų sistematika, Vilnius, 1984. DŽ – Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, Vilnius, 1993. G – Urbanas V. Grybai, Vilnius, 1986. KAE – Hoffman E. K. Kambarinių augalų energija, Vilnius, 2000. KG – Houseplants, Vilnius, 1997. LF – Fauna of Lithuania. Beetles 1, 2, Vilnius, 1995, 1997. LBŽ – Lietuviškas botanikos žodynas. Red. J. Dagys. Kaunas, 1938. LKŽ – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 5, Vilnius, 1959. PB – Kniūkšta P. Priesagos -inis būdvardžiai, Vilnius, 1976. SG – Hertlė B., Kyrmejeris P., Nikig M. Sodo gėlės, Vilnius, 1995. Kazimieras GAIVENIS Kazimieras GAIVENIS Received 2001 06 10 Institute of the Lithuanian Language 6 Antakalnio St., 2055 Vilnius Email: [email protected] 143