Keletas minčių apie terminologiją

Kazimieras GAIVENIS Lithuanian Language Institute, Vilnius KELETAS MIN CHIŲ ABOUT TERMINOLOGY He says that A sundial with a Latin inscription stands in the courtyard su of the Sorbonne University "Sicut umbra dies nostrae" ("The Shadow of Our Time"). Science is iš truly great and eternal, ir man's life o is short. But ir science is not equal to science. Some branches of science appear quickly, strengthen, ir and immediately make great progress, o while others develop — slowly. ir Terminology — is a branch of applied science. It is forming me worldwide ji with no rush, as if not ir knowing how to join linguistics, computer ko science or any other branch — of science. ar Linguists have so far been little interested in terminology, probably because there is a lot of non-linguistic in it, borrowed from other sciences. iš Specialists in traditional branches of linguistics often do not understand the interrelationships of the content (semantic) of terms ir jų from other fields. For physicists, pu mathematicians, physicians, economists and ar engineers, terminology is primarily related to su linguistics. These specialists are often disturbed by the evaluation of the form of terms, the jų concept of regularity, grammar of terms, ir pronunciation. The terminology was created by engineers (E. Wöster, E. Dresden, Lotte, etc.), D. who intended ir to standardize technical terminology on an international scale. However, it is said that it became a real science only when linguists were involved in its creation. ji | ir Iš The success of the practical work on terminology depends largely on the understanding cooperation of linguists-terminologists from different disciplines. ir Linguists are sometimes even criticized for not creating the necessary innovations. For example, a journalist recently ir wrote about the rapidly spreading and now commonly used novelty in the media: “Languists iš are really getting tired. Only a few In the years of the use of „mass media“ the phonetic groove „Media“ has been unraveled. Lie iš "Timeline". Še You want it! Linguists seem to have to keep an eye on the ir garbage cans of speech. Unfortunately... It is well 89 known that terms are not created by linguists, but by specialists. To be more precise, they are created by the entire nation’s enlightenment, accepting or rejecting the proposed novelties and foreign words. Not only journalists, but also scientists are often unable to assess the regularity of novelties. For example, when evaluating the Lithuanian equivalent of the term file, file was interpreted as follows: "The term file is inaccurate, it cannot indicate the result of a collection, a certain set. It can only represent a single electoral unit. "There's a difference between a single word, a single phrase, a single sentence, a single sentence, and a single sentence- ." It states that the word file means a collection. So why can't the word file mean "set"? Where and who determined that the word mark means "mark element"? The word émena, meanwhile, is probably invented by the author himself, and is not in the dictionary. Thus, only linguists can objectively assess the regularity of terminological innovations. In the definitions of novelty and otherwise interpreting the characteristics of jy, two things are usually indicated: 1) that novelty — newly created Words and that jy novelty is felt by users; 2) that innovations most often arise as a result of the rise of culture and science and the change of social relations and name a new object or mean a new concept. These things are generally true, but relative. The novelty of good new creations fades very quickly, and bad new creations can compete with international words for decades and not be overtaken. For example, the word decimate does not replace the word percentage, the word compost, etc. Furthermore, it is not entirely correct to believe that the progress of social life stimulates the creation of novelties more than the internal processes of language development. In some fields of science, the use of international new words is low, while in others it is high. Many international words are used in the terminology of chemistry, music, astronomy, computer science and other fields. It is difficult for linguists to say whether a newly-emerged international term is needed or not. For example, is it necessary to use the term benzene next to benzene, butene next to butylene, cymene next to cymol, phosphate next to phosphin90 e, xylene next to xylol, ir naphthalene next to naphthalene, etc. Iš the actual first members of these pairs are IUPAC recommended or permitted terms, second o ,,The Explanatory Dictionary of Chemical Terms“ (V., 1997) presentsu ed in abbreviated form nk. (invalid term). Be therefore, in addition to non-systematic (traditional) names, systematic names composed according to international rules are now mi ir used in the nomenclature of chemical compounds. For example, the non-systemic name is water, systemic hydrogen dioxide, non-systemic o oxygen, — systemic oxygen, non-systemic ozone, systemic — trihydrogen, o non-systemic — boric acid, systemic trihydrogen trioxoborate o — o — (3—) ir t.t. In other cases, the systematic ir non-systematic names completely coincide, e.g.: sodium fluoride, zinc sulfide, lithium hydroxide, etc. ir In general, the need for international new words can best be je assessed by specialists. Linguists can better understand the relationships of only international Lithuanian words. When creating new ir terms in terminology, the question of motivation often arises. Motivated ir terms are easier to remember, and their location in the term microsystems is determined faster. ir jų However, in general, motivation does not play a decisive role in terminology, because the most perfectly used are completely ir unmotivated terms, as well as foreign words, the motivation of which is completely incomprehensible to us, e.g.: barnas “Unit of effective cross-section of nuclear events forming radioactive isotopes”, cymene “1-isopropyl-4-- methylbenzene- ”, damara “hardened tropical woods Agathis dammara sakai“, pot ‘African semi-monkey Perodicticuspotto’, etc. ir There are thousands of thousands of such terms. It may be assumed that motivation is more important for species terms than for relative terms. After all, species are distinguished from each other by markings reflecting essential distinctive features. However, in terminology there are cases when the species characteristic "contradicts" the constructive meaning of the main element, e.g.: garden reed (Acrocephalus dumetorum Blyth), forest meadow mushroom (Agaricus sylvaticus), and Megasterinum boletophagum Marsh. ir Mr. Such terms are not defectiir ve and can be corrected. Specialists of various ir branches of scientific production sometimes very energetically defend the improperly used participants of the active 91 species, passing species certificates (e.g., intoxicating drinks, decisive voice, etc.), condemns the noble word combinations to be ir terminologized ir (e.g., road traffic, occupational safety, state control, etc.). ir Termination cannot eliminate the difference in the meanings of the word combinations of the common language, making them strictly unambiguous. In general, in the practical term management work of various scientific production ir "specialists often overestimate the importance of motivation for the ir accuracy of terminology logicizes terminology. The content of the term is ne jo lexical meaning, but definition (definition), which does not depend on the motivation of the term, nor on its practical meaning. Polish terminologist S. In his book “Introduction to Terminology” (Opole, 1990), Gajda writes that the term is not the servant of two, but of many masters. This is because terminology is related to philosophy of science, logic, linguistics, psychology, computer science, etc. Therefore, the question arises whether a complex theory of terminology is possible. S. Gajda responds positively. The complex theory of terminology is important also because international terminology management, the development of terminology standards and the creation of terminology banks are becoming more and more relevant. Received 25 May 1998 92