Skvarbioji būdvardžių priesaga „-inis“, „-ė“

Stasys KEINYS THE HIGHLY PRODUCTIVE ADJECTIVAL SUFFIX -INIS, -Ė In contemporary standard language, the adjectival suffix -inis, -ė has become very common. At times it seems to be attached almost without any restraint. The vigorous activity of this suffix is continually spurred on by Slavic and Germanic languages, and perhaps to some extent by certain other languages as well. But this was not always so. In the written language of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, adjectives formed with the suffix -iškas, -a were especially frequent and popular. In many cases, their widespread use was also prompted and sustained by foreign languages, particularly, it seems, Slavic languages, with their suffix -sk-, similar even in sound. Thus, in the first year of Varpas (1889), one finds absoliutiszka valdžia 53 (following Polish usage, the letters sz were then used to denote š; the numbers written beside the examples indicate the page of that year’s Varpas on which each example occurs), demokratizska valdžia 54, dvasiszka spėka 54, ekonomiszkas gyvenimas 53, ekonomiszkas padėjimas 29, ekonomiszkas paspyrimas 71, medegiszka parama 38, militariszkas padėjimas 12, moksliszkas pamatas 36, politiszkas gyvenimas 12, politiszka išmintis 24, politiszka organizacija 55, politiszka valdžia 53, statistiszkai padavimai 14, tautiszka skirtybė 37, and many others. Today, everyone is accustomed to saying in such cases absolute power, democratic government, spiritual strength, economic life (for example, of a state or country; whereas ekonomiškas gyvenimas now means “a frugal way of life”), economic situation, economic support (or economic assistance), material (though the more common adjective derived from a loanword is material) support (assistance), military situation, scientific foundation, political life, political wisdom, political organization, political power, statistical data, national distinction. In place of the word teisė, the ordinary word in contemporary language, they then used tiesa; and the adjective juridinis, -ė was replaced by juridiškas, -a. Thus our current terms economic law, legal person, legal rights, political rights, private or civil law have replaced those used in Varpas: ekonomiszkos tiesos 87, juridiszkza asaba 53, juridiszkos tiesos 87, politiszkos tiesos 8 53, private or civil truth 53. The shift from derivatives with one suffix to words with another was largely due to linguists’ explanations and corrections. Both J. Jablonskis (1860–1930), the most prominent cultivator of contemporary standard language, often called its father, and later prewar linguists patiently explained on numerous occasions what adjectives with the suffix -iškas, -a mean and where they are and are not appropriate. J. Jablonskis himself, having titled his first grammar, published in Tilsit in 1901, “Grammar of the Lithuanian Language,” later publicly corrected himself, writing that lietuviška kalba would mean a language resembling the one spoken by Lithuanians, rather than the language used by Lithuanians themselves. These repeated admonitions by linguists helped narrow the use of adjectives in -iškas, -a (in some cases, there is now even an overcorrection: derivatives with this suffix are no longer used where they would be entirely appropriate), but opened the gates to widespread use of adjectives formed with the suffix -inis, -ė. These words have more abstract meanings, and in many instances even experienced language correctors or editors find them problematic: it is difficult to prove conclusively that a particular adjective is truly inappropriate in a given case, since one can often discern, or at least invent, some new nuance of meaning that cannot otherwise be expressed. In many instances, they should not even be considered language errors; cases are increasing in which an adjective with the suffix -inis, -ė is used alongside another linguistic form, such as a noun in the genitive. Being highly productive, these adjectives are gradually pushing out of use many traditional forms that are inherent to the language by nature, which may have considerable consequences for the use of certain cases. Nevertheless, these adjectives are by no means appropriate in every context in which they are used. The following discussion examines a small group of terms containing adjectives of this type and seeks to show how they might be used in the language of public affairs and law, and which of them are unsuitable in corrected terms or in other expressions of formal language. 1. What is a constitutional amendment? Some legislators and, apparently, journalists who learn the language from them have for some time been introducing into the Lithuanian language users’ con- 9 the term rather than the term constitutional amendment. Every time one hears or sees that expression in writing, doubts arise about what is meant. If the subject is amending the constitution itself (and lately this is generally what the expression is used to mean), why not say plainly—an amendment to the constitution? Surely the examples included under the meaning of the word amendment, “a corrective change, an addition,” in the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian are not made up out of thin air: an amendment to the constitution, a resolution (V., 1993. P. 522). Dictionaries also list an amendment to a list, contract, or resolution. The genitive here indicates what is being amended, where the amendments are made. This is what our language classic J. Jablonskis called the genitive of the affected thing, or object, e.g.: She sews shirts (a garment), and Sewing shirts kept her at home too. A father teaches children, and Teaching children is not considered an entirely easy task (Jablonskis J. Rinktiniai raštai. V., 1957. T. 1. P. 572–573). Continuing these comparisons made by that eminent cultivator of the language, one might say: They amend the constitution, and the amending of the constitution, amendments to the constitution. This, it seems, is both simple logic and the ABC of our language’s grammar: if the constitution is amended, then the amendment is to the constitution; compare repairing wheels, clocks—repair of wheels, clocks. But is the word combination constitutional amendment possible, and if so, what should it mean? Adjectives are more abstract than nouns; they always express a quality. The meaning of the word constitutional certainly has some connection with what the base word constitution means, but this is apparently not a quality of the constitution itself. The meaning of this adjective is defined quite well in the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language: “based on the constitution, connected with it” (V., 1962. T. 6. P. 336). Thus a constitutional amendment, reasoning at a very abstract level, could be some amendment made on the basis of the constitution or otherwise connected with it. In that case, it is clear that the constitution itself is not being amended, but something else. For example, it may be noticed that a provision in some law is inconsistent with the constitution, and so it is amended to bring it into conformity. Such an amendment could justifiably be called constitutional, since it is made on the basis of the constitution. Such a term may be needed both in parliament and in law more generally. 10 From what has been said here, dear reader, you have undoubtedly understood that both an amendment to the constitution and a constitutional amendment are possible expressions or terms in our language, but they should be distinguished in meaning. When an amendment made to the constitution itself is meant, it is entirely inappropriate to use the term constitutional amendment, because that is an amendment to the constitution. It is quite another matter when some other law or something else is amended on the basis of the constitution. Such an amendment, naturally, would aptly be called a constitutional amendment. 2. Not “authorial” but “author’s” rights In recent Soviet times, the Lithuanian language used almost exclusively the term authorial rights. This usage was codified in the Legal Terms Dictionary, compiled by A. Žiurlys, edited by J. Bulavas, K. Jablonskis, J. Žiugžda, and the compiler A. Žiurlys, and approved by the Terminology Commission of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature, which recommended it for practical use (V., 1954). Page 24 contains the terms authorial rights, authorial right to a work, derivative authorial right, original authorial right, object of authorial rights, subject of authorial rights. The same volume also includes authorial honorarium and authorial certificate. The terms authorial rights, authorial contract, authorial remuneration were used in the civil and civil procedure codes of the Soviet period, but the dictionary’s authorial certificate was replaced in them with the still-used term authorship certificate. It is true that in some places the codes, including the criminal code, also used genitive constructions terminologically, e.g.: author’s remuneration (CK 1985, Art. 547), author’s rights (CK 1985, Art. 519 et al.), author’s and inventor’s rights (BK 1983, Art. 142). These terms must, of course, have acquired the adjective authorial from their Russian equivalents авторское право, авторский договор, авторский гонорар, авторское свидетельство and so on. With this adjective, the term authorial rights was included in the Dictionary of Literary Terms compiled by J. Petronis, V. Vanagas, and A. Zalatorius (V., 1962. P. 43); it was included in the first edition of the prescriptive Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian (V., 1954. P. 57; the second edition included the term authorial rights. – V., 1972. P. 65), and is defined in the Soviet Lithuanian Encyclopedia… 11 ciklopedijoje“ (V., 1976. T. 1. P. 514). Tad Lietuvoje keletą dešimtmečių šis terminas, kur reikia, buvo vartojamas. However, in prewar independent Lithuania the term author’s rights was defined (see Lietuviškoji enciklopedija. K., 1934. T. 2. Sk. 390–391). Author’s rights was also included in the Lithuanian Encyclopedia published in exile (Boston, 1953. T. 1. P. 487). Those encyclopedias also define the term authors’ honoraria. At present, Lithuania is once again returning to the older, clearer, and more precise term author’s right. This return is not accidental, because in expressions of this kind the genitive case is much clearer and more familiar to a Lithuanian speaker than the rather vague adjective authorial, which is not very characteristic in its formation. The genitive here better accords with the general principles and tendencies of naming in our language. The familiar terms family law (cf. Russian семейное право), human rights (cf. Russian человеческие права), and so on are formed in the same way. If necessary, one would, of course, use terms or terminological expressions such as artisans’ law, nobles’ law, rather than artisan law, noble law, since it seems no one ever thought of forming and using, for instance, the contrasting term humanly rights. From the standpoint of language, the only issue that might be considered here is the number of the noun: that is, whether to use author’s right or authors’ right. This may also depend on how the term author is defined. If one uses the term author’s right, it is clear that one should also use author’s remuneration, author’s honorarium; author’s certificate would also be possible (supported by personal certificate, doctor’s diploma, student ID, citizen’s passport, professor’s certificate, and so on). Besides the term author’s right, which names a branch of law, the language also needs a term for the freedoms and possibilities of such persons. For this purpose, the plural of the word right is generally used in a collective sense, together with the genitive of the word denoting the person to whom those rights belong or to whom they are granted or apply; that is, one says and writes author’s rights, cf. citizens’ rights, spouses’ rights, children’s rights, and so on. This terminological word combination seems to have been used all along, at least in official technical language; only in poorly written publications or in conversation has the expression authorial been used and continues to be used. 12 rights. In compounds of this kind, it is customary to use the genitive in either number (author’s rights and authors’ rights), depending on what one wishes to say. However, even when speaking in general terms, the singular genitive may be entirely sufficient here. Incidentally, the latest normative language publications now also recommend the terms discussed with the genitive; for example, the second fascicle of the Dictionary of Library and Bibliography Terms, “Document. Publication. Publishing” (V., 1991), includes the terms author’s right (Russian авторское право, English copyright, German Urheberrecht), defined as “civil-law provisions governing the relations between authors and publishers” 13, and author’s rights sign (Russian знак авторского права, English copyright sign, German Verfassersignatur, Verfasserzeichen), defined as “the © sign, denoting the author’s right to the published work and marked in accordance with the procedure established by a normative document” 13–14. The term author’s contract is also listed in this dictionary and used as a synonym alongside the preferred term publishing contract (Russian авторский договор, English publishing contract, German Verlagsvertrag), defined as “a contract concluded between an author and a publisher to print and distribute a work or works” 45. Given that publishing contract is a much clearer and more transparent term (its meaning is directly related to the meanings of its components), the synonym author’s contract, being inferior both linguistically and terminologically, has become unnecessary. The now familiar term authorship certificate 14 is also given here, although, as already noted, author’s certificate would be more systematic from the linguistic point of view. The terms author’s right, author’s rights sign, authorship certificate, publishing contract are defined in the Lithuanian standard “Authorship. Publishing. Texts. Main Terms and Definitions.” The term author’s right, as a normative recommendation, is also included in the third edition of the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian (V., 1993. P. 837). Thus, in practical language use, the terms authorial right, authorial rights, authorial remuneration, authorial honorarium, authorial contract are still not forgotten; since they are formed in a way uncharacteristic of our language, they cannot be recommended as models of usage. Those who use them either do not know the correct, clear terms now recommended and in use, or cling to the old ones, formed according to a foreign grammar. It is easier 13 for the former to adopt (more precisely, return to) the recommended terms, no doubt1. 3. What Is Elected in Presidential Elections? There are many countries in the world headed by presidents. Presidents—literally, chairpersons—are elected leaders, so politicians and the mass media often deal with the elections of these officials. Alongside the universally understood, customary expression characteristic of our language, presidential election, people both say and print presidential-type elections. But the adjective presidential is entirely unsuitable here in our language—for in this case it is the president who is elected, and no one else. Therefore, one should use the already familiar (see the article on constitutional amendment) genitive of the affected entity, or object, just as in other instances of elections, e.g., chairperson’s election, pope’s election, parliament’s election, judges’ election, board’s election, etc. (thank goodness, it seems no one has yet thought to say papal-type, household-type, or judge-type elections). The adjectival expression presidential-type elections was no doubt introduced and is kept alive by admirers of one or another foreign language that has most strongly influenced and continues to influence our language in recent times—the Russians use президентские выборы, the English presidential elections. But we cannot rule out the possibility that Polish (wybory prezydenckie) or French (élections présidentielles) may also have influenced at least some users. Among the more influential nations, only the Germans clearly differ in this case, using the compound noun Präsidentenwahl (f) in keeping with the conventions of their language. Many people regard the usage of one or another foreign language being identical or similar as compelling proof that Lithuanians, too, must not lag behind—that is, they too must weave their thoughts in the way those foreigners do. But this is the path chosen by the forgetful or by some kind of monkeys. It should be firmly borne in mind that a language is doomed when its speakers begin to speak, 1 See also the author’s article “On Terms with the Adjective authorial,” published in the journal Tarp knygų (1997, No. 3, pp. 15–16). 14 by following the grammar of a foreign language or foreign languages. Acting in this way, it is easy to lose one’s own language entirely or, in other words, to make a foreign language one’s own. Lithuanian, with its highly developed system of noun cases and thereby differing fundamentally from the renowned languages of the Western world, allows speakers in many situations to do without adjectives and to express the relations between words clearly and precisely through word forms—that is, cases. For Lithuanians, this usage is almost instinctive. In this respect, our word is more powerful, flexible, and rich in meaning than the word of those languages. Even a small child readily understands that a president is elected in a presidential election. But who elects whom in the presidential elections borrowed from foreigners? Even an adult cannot understand that. Perhaps this would make sense to an Englishman, Pole, or Russian learning Lithuanian, or to a compatriot who does not think in Lithuanian, but not to a Lithuanian who knows their native language well. There are also other word combinations unsuitable for model language that include the adjective prezidentinis, -ė. As the so-called USSR was crumbling, the similarly formed, alarming term prezidentinis valdymas had also become very fashionable. Even now, when needed, this term is still used, not merely as a relic of the past, since such things occur or may occur in other states as well. That prezidentinis valdymas of those days was, obviously, copied on the model of the Russian term президентское управление, but English speakers too would have offered the same thing to followers of other languages and “enrichers” of their mother tongue—the English expression is presidential government. In Lithuanian, with words denoting an action of this kind, the agent is expressed in the genitive, for example: kunigaikščio, karaliaus (not kunigaikštinis, karalinis!) valdymas, valdžia, vyskupo įžengimas (ingresas), žemaičių kovos and so on. Thus one should also say prezidento valdymas. The same applies to the naming expressions prezidentinė vėliava, prezidentiniai pietūs, prezidentinis lėktuvas, and so on, introduced into the language by people who favor non-Lithuanian speech (especially officials and journalists). Repeatedly drummed into people’s heads, such expressions may gradually come to seem entirely normal and irreplaceable to many. It is only a small step to prezidentinė kėdė or prezidentinis dekretas, although I have yet to hear 15 anyone say direktorinis kaklaryšis, ministrinė mašina, viršininkinis kabinetas, premjeriniai pusryčiai or vyskupinė vakarienė. But that is not how one should speak. Purpose and, especially, possession are also often expressed in Lithuanian by the genitive. In the examples under discussion, that is what is natural in our language. * The encroachment into our language of adjectives derived with the suffix -inis, -ė, and their varied spread and usage, constitute one of the major questions in the cultivation of the contemporary standard language. This is a very broad, contentious, and difficult question, and perhaps for that reason it is often debated. In this article, by reflecting on a few cases of usage, I have only sought to broach it2. Abbreviations BK – Criminal Code of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic: Official text with amendments and supplements as of June 1, 1983. Vilnius: Mintis, 1983. 264 p. CK – Civil Code of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic: Official text with amendments and supplements as of January 1, 1985. Vilnius: Mintis, 1985. 344 p. 2 An earlier version of this article is published in the journal “Justitios” (1997, No. 3 et seq.). 16