Karybos žodynas

LITERATURE DŽ,-Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1993. LKZ III, VII, XII, XIV —Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 3, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1956; 7: Mintis, 1966; 12: Mokslas, 1981; 14: Mokslas, 1986. A Lithuanian military dictionary has been published (Smetona 1995). Here I would like to give a little background to the vocabulary and touch on some of the problems I encountered in compiling it. Until now, no one had put Lithuanian military terminology into one place, although there have been attempts. The first attempt was the Lithuanian-Russian and Russian-Lithuanian Dictionary of Military Terms, prepared by P. Rusecko and published in 1919. It is small, and contains many doubtful or even completely unpresentable things from the point of view of modern linguistics. Later, of course, statutes, various guides, manuals, instructions were written. However, they can no longer be used, because both weapons and methods of warfare have changed. Finally, they reflected the language of that very time — the language of the time of the formation of the common language. Here are some examples from the vocabulary prepared for artillerists at that time: vertical intersection —nasecka, rintė —vint, bryliai —zakrainy, sestarné —šesternia, Thunder silver —gremucaja rtutj. Of course, there were some well-developed, especially general technical terms, but all about the Russian 1902 cannon, which is completely obsolete. Before the war, J.M. Laurinaitis, Chairman of the Ministry of National Defence’s Terminology Commission, was perhaps the most interested in military terminology. In the 1930s, A. Salys and Pr.Skardžius taught and studied military terminology in more detail in the General Staff courses. In one of his articles (Laurinaitis 1938) M.J. Laurinaitis states that a large dictionary of military language is being written, to which, I think, Pr. Skardžius and A. Salis also had to contribute. Unfortunately, the war prevented the dictionary from being completed, and the manuscripts disappeared. Fragments of this work can be found in general dictionaries. For example, just before the war a small (about 15,000 words) Russian-Lithuanian dictionary by S. Rozen (Rozen 1941) appeared. In the preamble, thanks to Mr. To the coffin. And there it is written that narirad is a service group, not a service, as all modern dictionaries state, except that this word has no meaning of "group of people" (LKZ XV), and that is precisely the most important meaning of member. After the war, the military terminology, as we know, was only Russian. I found a small conversational dictionary for a young soldier published by the agro-industrial complex in 1986 (Kratkij... 1986). As a curiosity in this area, we can mention a small conversation book published by the Russian army during the war, apparently intended for interrogation of people who speak only Lithuanian (Šebalin 1944). It is about the collection of military data needed for the frontline units, destruction battalions. The booklet was even transcribed, but it was not worth the dictionary. Thus, there was no modern Lithuanian military terminology until the last few years, or rather, the pre-war terminology was considerably outdated, no one collected it in one place, and around 1990 only fragments of it remained. Five years have passed. The statutes have been prepared (some of them are provisional). Kaunas School of Paramilitary, SKAT as, Military Academy have already published perhaps over a hundred books — these are descriptions of various weapons, tactics, protection against destruction, training of soldiers, etc. textbooks, guides, instructions. Almost all of them were edited by Lithuanianists (the best, in my opinion, is the War Academy, the weakest — the Kaunas Paramilitary School). Unfortunately, the overall impression is not good — even if the Lithuanianists have arranged the general issues of the language very thoroughly, there are still many problems with the use of terminology. First of all, because these news outlets often work on their own, do not coordinate publications, not every editor is interested in what his colleague is doing. There are many inconsistencies, for example, the same armoured vehicle is named in one way in the first part of the description, in the second — differently. Therefore, many terms had to be described by myself, uniformizing the variety of terminology that had already arisen. The Ministry of National Defence has recently established a Terminology Commission, so the work of creating and standardizing terminology should make significant progress. Incidentally, the manuscript of the dictionary was read by a number of officers, whose reviews are very contradictory. The most unpleasant thing was to encounter the conservatism, stubbornness, reluctance to change one or another very clear translation, to give up the inappropriate 265 work, strangeness of some officers. It is true that the Military Academy publishes not only specific military literature. In 1994 she published "Informatika", "Language Culture". The language culture handbook for soldiers is a very important work that helps to develop the language of the army. It is a pity that the reviewer was not taken care of. The military dictionary was reviewed by Jonas Klimavičius. It is an explanatory (the reviewer suggests to call it encyclopedic) dictionary of almost three thousand military terms with an appendix — a Lithuanian-Russian-English dictionary of military terms and alphabetical indexed lists of Russian and English terms. The most difficult problems that had to be solved when writing the Military Dictionary are mentioned. They should at least make it clear how war terminology was collected, compiled and interpreted. The most difficult was the selection. It is completely unclear what to consider a real war term, and what is a common matter of nearby areas. After all, warfare is related to many natural sciences. It is known from the history of science that many fields of science are first developed for military purposes, and are usually applied to peaceful purposes much later. I also thought that, given the situation of terminology and of the army in general, it was not necessary to have a comprehensive dictionary, but rather a nucleus of terminology, the basis on which a comprehensive encyclopedic work could later be written, which would not be the work of one man. Therefore, it was decided to include general warfare and tactics of the land army and the closest related subjects of physics, chemistry and technology. Obviously, we were interested in such dictionaries in Russian, English, Polish and German, because these languages were used to create the vocabulary in this field. It also helped to select terms, choose a vocabulary model, understand what those terms 266 should mean. It is completely separated from military history and politics. In aviation and shipping, too, only the most important things are mentioned, related to general warfare and tactics of the land army, even though separate dictionaries for shipping and aviation are being prepared. So much for the general remarks. Now about more specific matters of selection and creation of terms. Although it is claimed that we no longer have the traditions of military terminology, it is clear that one or another old term has come from the dawn of the firearm. Unfortunately, their meanings and usage vary so much and have changed so much that they have only confused everything even more. I mean the trigger, the grip, the crew and so on. Although I have written about these issues in “Native Language- ”, I will repeat it briefly. First, the trigger. According to J. Klimavičius and some dictionaries, this is an irritating gun device, a detail. Let it be. But even then, it is not clear enough. However, even though this is done, it is not possible to translate kurok as a little girl, because Russians have spuskovoj kriučok for the irritating device. In the DLKZ and LKZ, the saying to bend or pull the trigger no longer has any meaning or remains merely historicism. Finally, when asked by older people what these parts are called, the answer is very different — the trigger is called and not the stimulus. Therefore, in order to make a firm assertion, separate investigations would be necessary. A hug. It also seems to be an old and clear term. Unfortunately, modern weapons have two different devices for storing ammunition, which also perform other additional functions. And some weapons have both. So one name is no longer enough. Therefore, the dictionary provides magazin —detuve, obojma —apkava, but generally, it seems, the magazine —apkava is spreading. Maybe there's nothing wrong with that. Like that trigger. Perhaps it is worth considering the fact that the terminology of a certain field of science is well known only by specialists, and in colloquial language it often happens that several different phenomena are called by one term or one phenomenon has several names. Finally, perhaps it is only necessary for the expert in that field to distinguish this exactly. All the officers I know only opened fire, in this dictionary it is only allowed. Especially that fire / walk is fun when it comes to rockets. I noticed that the usage of the words papliūpa, salve, serija varies in different dictionaries. I think so: papliūpa — when shooting from one gun or one tube several shots without interruption (3-30), sa/vé — when shooting from several weapons at the same time (usually in one direction or to one target), and the series is not needed by anyone. There is only one thing that is unclear — how to call it when a lot of tubes are fired at the same time or almost at the same time from one gun. I'd think it's sa/ve, too. Hardly, it would seem, with the simplest Schaufuff. But there are a couple of ruzhyo — vintovka (Russian), gun —rifle (English). And the Russian automaton is still alive in the spoken language. In the army, the machine gun seems to be no longer used, and when you go deeper, it becomes clear why — this machine is completely unnecessary, it is enough to know that the Russians call the automated rifle the Aufornat. Unfortunately, with gun —rifle pair is not so simple. I tried to find different titles, and I turned differently, but I still caught all the reviewers. Therefore, the variant was as follows: Šautuvahas two meanings: first —gun, second —rifle, in the dictionary also called a blade rifle. The ancestors and descendants. The dictionary tries to give preference to the adjective, but in some places its ambiguity is very clear, so there are a lot of derivatives of the suffix -inis: artilerinis — artillery, aviacinis — aviation, 267 inžinierių — engineering, etc. The officers could not understand why there was no uniformity: artillery shells — artillery training, aviation weapons — aviation support. They often demanded that these statements be harmonized. By the way, I have seen new military brochures using only engineering and completely rejecting -inisvedinis. Apparently, some linguist advised to give preference to the genitive, but not fully explained or understood. Unfortunately, the examples I have just mentioned cannot be equated in one way or another because of the ambiguities that arise. I noticed that officers tend to adopt the Russian terminology unconditionally. A typical example is the names of armoured vehicles: boevaja mašina desanta, boevaja razvedyvatel'no dozornaya mašina, bronetransportior, bronevik, etc. It's hard to imagine what kind of polyglottic and polysyllabic grooves would come out of trying to translate boevaja razvedyvatel'no dozornaya mašina. As smart as I was, I tried to fix such things. In this particular case, I proposed to call them all armored vehicles, and to mark the types with one badge — infantry, paratrooper, reconnaissance armored vehicle. The officers, it seems, did not object, although the same confusion still exists in the booklets now published. Without wanting to break some tradition of using the Armoured Transporter, I left this term, although next to it I propose to call it simply Armoured. Similar and patron —vystrel problems. It is not the shot that is meant here, but what is fired, e.g. artilerijskij vystrel razdelno gilzovogo zariažanija, or artilerijskij vystrel kartuznogo, unitarnogo zariažanija. First of all, what is the difference between artillery vystrelir patron. I even touched it when I found it. It turns out, the main difference —only size. So why different names? Therefore, I proposed to call one shotgun, the other — artillery shotgun. Now their kinds —i.e. I mentioned kartuznogo, gilzovogo and unitarnogo zariažanija. I suggested calling them artillery bullets. J. Klimavičius proposed multi-purpose artillery rifles. I left his suggestion in the dictionary, although I don't think my one is worse. Some may ask what military experts think: for them the most beautiful —unrfarin artillery shell. A major obstacle to work—the temporary nature of statutes, the constant change of various structures. It would be quite logical to write the name of some structure or phenomenon existing in the Lithuanian army, explain it and compare it with the names of the corresponding structures or phenomena in the armies of other states. However, while I was writing the dictionary, for example, the names of the state border guard structures changed three times and remained out of the army’s hands. Therefore, I often had to describe the phenomenon in the way that seemed most logical to me, and then apply it to specific armed forces. In this case, I named the State Border Guard units and explained how they are called in which state and to whom they are subordinated. 268 There were also things that were not fully understood, such as the difference between Si/ur and infrared. Unfortunately, both in Russian and in English sources, these words are often confused. The Lithuanian dictionary of physics terms follows them, so do I. Mainly due to the lack of time, 0 and due to the uncertainty of the phenomenon itself, the degree of nesting of terms remained completely undiscussed. This was also criticized by the critics. Because if I were completely consistent, I would create very large (up to ten pages) nests. This is, of course, a weak argument not to make such nests, but, as I said, mainly because of lack of time I did not finish this matter. Fight — destroy, fighting — annihilation. In Russian poraženije, porazit' In the manuscripts I had somewhat expanded the meaning of fighting and formed a harmonious system of terms with fighting. Unfortunately, it caught the eye of all the reviewers. I corrected to nazkinti, but fight soldiers. But the fighting so convenient that just a pity was narrowed. Isn’t sometimes destroying in this case semantics, especially since poraženije can be translated in ten Lithuanian words? In the English terminology there are also defeat, kill, destruction, combat. And in the great dictionary fight has three meanings, kill — two, and not necessarily related to a living thing. Here are some terms: destruction, destruction by fire, destruction space, degree of destruction, reliability of destruction, means of destruction, destruction radius, probability of destruction, destruction zone, law of target destruction. I don't know if fighting would be appropriate here. The opposite case: in Russian, different variants of the same phenomenon are called different words, and the German, English tradition is almost nonvariant. For example, Russian —vofskovoj, taktičeskij, polevoj, German, English —field, Feld. In the dictionary I propose, of course, a less varied model, but the real use in the army tends towards the Russian model. For example, at the beginning I wrote without hesitation Lauko statutas, unfortunately, later this Statute was called Kovinis. I had to include it in the dictionary. It is not easy to find the boundary between a Lithuanian and an international word, although in such dictionaries this is generally very important. Almost everywhere I relied on J. Klimavičius’ advice — the fewer international words, the better. J.M. Laurinaitis also demanded this (Laurinaitis 1938a). There are no words in the dictionary repair, crew, elements, stages and similar. J. Klimavičius suggested the words; Šranga, keliutė, smūginis (I had left fugasinis), glaudusis and atokusis puolimas. For example, close attack — nastuplenije iz neposredstvennogo soprikosnovenija s protivnikom, in English there is also a similar phrase. With some things the officers, not having seen the final draft, I think, will be very dissatisfied, namely; sranga, keliuta, aviator. So the work was not easy and very responsible. The terminology of warfare differs from that of other fields. First, this science was, is, and probably will be quite dogmatic — i.e. very poor soil. Secondly, this terminology is relatively easy to implement, it is only necessary to agree with the military leadership. The terms used today by a soldier will be used by a ploughman in fifty to ten years. 269 The soldier will use 9096 statutes written today, various military manuals, dictionaries terms. Therefore, today probably rarely succeeds to see the results of their normative work in life, and not in articles. I can both boast and be ashamed that today I hear in the speech of soldiers and volunteers the past term that I released three or four years ago and some ill-considered word. Such dictionaries should be expanded, updated and repeated every five to eight years. This is especially relevant in these times, when life is changing so quickly. At the time of writing the dictionary, neither dragons nor jégeriy were yet in the Lithuanian army, so they are not in the dictionary, but should be included. It seems that we have decided to march towards NATO with sufficient determination, which means that weapons, war theory and practice will change, and that means new phenomena, concepts, terms. All this needs to be managed, standardized and implemented without delay. Antanas Smetona LITERATURE Kratkij... 1986: Kparkni pyccK0-JIIHTOBCKHĖ pa3IOBODHHK OyKkyLuKero BoHHa.—Short Russian-Lithuanian conversations of a future soldier, BunsHroc: T'oc. rporipoM. Come on. Juer. CCP. Laurinaitis J. M. 1938: The maturation of the military language. —The Sword 10. Laurinaitis J. M. 1938: Foreignness and military language. —Your native language. 1941. pp. 31. "C.S. Lewis". Pyccko-J7rtrToBckHū c/roBaps, Mocksa: T 'ocyJiapCTBEHHOE H3)ATEJIbCTBO VHHOCTpaHHbIX H HALIHMOHAJIbHEIX CJIOBapeXH. Smetona A. 1995: Karybos žodynas, Vilnius: Lithuanian Military Academy. Shebalin D. (red.) 1944: llle6amun JĮ. B. (pen.) KparkHii pyccKO-JIHTOBCKHĖ pa3roBOpHHK, Mocksa: Boenuanar HKO. CLAVIS GERMANICO-LITHVANA. LITHUANIAN-GERMAN DICTIONARY OF THE 17TH CENTURY, PART 1 A-E. VILNIUS: MOKSLO IR ENCIKLOPEDLJU LEIDYKLA, XIII + 629 P, 1995 (BIBLIOTHECA BALTICA). Professor V. Drotvinas of Vilnius Pedagogical University is currently the most famous researcher of the 17th-18th century manuscript dictionaries of Lesser Lithuania, determined to publish these more difficult to access linguistic works of the time. The first fruit of Prof. V. Drotvinas’s endeavour was the Lexicon Lithuanicum, published in 1987 by Mokslo publishing house, which for a long time, according to J. Gerulis, was considered to be a copy of D. Klein’s lost manuscript dictionary. In preparing this dictionary for publication and after careful studying it, Prof. V. Drotvinas convincingly proved that this is not the case, because “both the critical interpretation of previous facts and the comparison of some linguistic data do not allow the Lexicon Lithuanicum to be identified with D. Klein’s dictionary, i.e. to be considered as a copy of D. Klein’s dictionary” (Lexicon Lithuanicum, p. 15). 270