said (1805—1889). This fact alone cannot prove that the word klastininkas is a neologism coined by L. Ivinskis. The term striekis (p. 229) is not a neologism either. It is a Germanism.

The monograph rightly reproaches L. Ivinskis for having, in translating Robinson Crusoe, “formed some word forms unsuccessfully, e.g.: ispanczikas, brazilczikai” (p. 229). Here, a linguist cannot fail to notice the notion of “word form,” since it refers not to the form of a word, but to a lexeme.

In presenting the Latin botanical terms used by L. Ivinskis, proofreading errors have crept in at some points, e.g.: “Wilkuoge juodoje. Actaca (= Actaea — KG) spicata” (p. 221), “Kartinis musmiris. Agraricus (= Agaricus — KG) muscarius” (p. 221); “Skujej, lapaj eglu, puszun ir kadagiun. Folija (= Folia — KG) ociculares (= acicularis — KG)” (p. 221), and so on. If these are L. Ivinskis’s errors, they should have been discussed in footnotes. The author’s own terminology is also not always precise, e.g.: “In the translation, L. Ivinskis used the prefix nu incorrectly: in compound words, instead of it he wrote the hyperformalism nuo” (p. 223). Words formed with prefixes cannot be called either compounds or compound words. Elsewhere it says: “The dialect confirms that the sound n has survived in nasal forms [...]” (p. 222). Linguistics has no such concept as a “nasal form.” All these are various minor details, small mistakes. But since there are not just one or two such details in the monograph, but a whole handful, one inevitably begins to doubt the professionalism of the linguistic analysis of L. Ivinskis’s texts.

A few minor criticisms can also be made of the monograph’s contents. For example, its first chapter is entitled “The Course of a Life.” But surely the work of a teacher or working in Kaunas is also part of the course of a life. The monograph includes a bibliographic index of works, articles, and notices published in L. Ivinskis’s calendars, but we miss the index of names and list of illustrations usually included in such monographs.

In pointing out the minor shortcomings of the monograph under review, we do not mean that one cannot see the forest for the trees. The forest is clearly visible here and delights the eye. The work carried out by D. Petkevičiūtė deserves praise. To quote the Roman playwright Publius Terentius, pro captu lectoris habent sua fata libelli, that is, the fate of books depends on the understanding of their readers. We believe that fortune will favor this book, for it is an honestly written work of a high scholarly standard.

Kazimieras Gaivenis

THE SKYLARK, NOT THE SICKLARK

According to the authority on Lithuanian ornithology, Tadas Ivanauskas, besides the best-known field species in the lark family (Alaudidae)—the skylark, or lark (Alauda arvensis) LPV 134, LP III 167—and the urban crested lark, or sąslavukė (Galerida cristata; TLE IV crictata is a proofreading error) LPV 135, LP III 173 (also kuodys), there is a fourth species, very rare in our country (found mostly on the Curonian Spit), the horned lark (Latvian ausainais—ausystasis vieversio (Eremophila alpestris) LPV 135, LP III 175, and a fourth species—the lark of dry, sandy soils (it does not favor the fertile fields of Suvalkija, Klaipėda

183

(of the region), the lark Lullula arborea, found in dry woodland margins, pine forests, heaths, and clearings, is rendered differently each time even in Lithuanian by T. Ivanauskas: ligutė LPV 134, ligutė, or miškinis vieversys LP III 176, miškinis vieversys, or ligutė PP 232, although his magnum opus, “The Birds of Lithuania,” states: “Ligutė is a true lark” (LP III 176). By contrast, S. Mastauskis distinguishes them: “This [lark—J. K.] family in Lithuania includes the ligutė (Lullula arborea L.) and larks” (TZ 536). Three species of vieversių are now recognized (TLE IV), while TLE II treats ligutė as a species in its own right (that would make two genera in this family, although this taxon, mentioned in LP I 94, 96, 210, is not used in ornithology). Thus the synonym miškinis vieversys (DŽ₂ lygutė “a small songbird of the lark family, the woodlark”) proves unsuitable (though the definition “a forest lark, smaller than the Eurasian skylark” in DŽ₃ is suitable).

But let us leave the concerns of taxonomy to the specialists. This bird, which “scurries on the ground like a little mouse,” whose “flight is very light,” and which “in pure tones, as if of silver” (LP III 178) “proclaims its delightful little song, liu-liu-liu… liuli-liuli-liuli…” (ibid., 177), is still seeking the true form of its name. T. Ivanauskas and S. Mastauskis wrote ligutė, and V. Logminas (Lp 122) follows this form. Our three encyclopedias wavered: MLTE II 792, III 748 — ligutė; LTE VII 24, XII 238 — lygutė; TLE II 609 — ligutė again… Even the Boston encyclopedia did not hold firm, but ultimately came down on the right side: LE XVI 187 — lygutė; LE XXXIV 48 — ligutė; and in the latest volume on Lithuania, XV 53 — lygutė again! We linguists acknowledge T. Ivanauskas’s contributions to terminology and respect him for his linguistic precision and restrained beauty, and for the harmony of these qualities (one can experience it even in these brief excerpts). But matters of spelling must be regulated according to the principles of the language, and here we must be guided solely by those principles.

The spelling of the root vowel depends on the word’s origin. Under the word lygutė, LKŽ VII gives a couplet from a song in the Adutiškis area: Lygame lauke lygutės lyguoja, visame sviete siratos verkuoja. A similar example is sense 2 of the verb lyguoti: “to sing.” This word [sense 1, “to guess lyklygu (a children’s game played with nuts, sweets…)” is in fact not another meaning but a different word—a homonym] is also cited from A. Juška’s dictionary (J I 286) and MTt VI 167 (A. R. Niemi, Studies in Lithuanian Folk Songs); both sources probably derive from A. Jakštas’s former “Žinyčia” (1900 2 61). J I 286 gives the following series of synonyms for the word dainuoti: dainuoti, traldaruoti, lyguoti, ūksėti, augoti, talanduoti, tvaskuoti, suomuoti, tabaluoti, liūliuoti, kvėpčioti, suokti, tiepti, laskuoti, talaluoti, ripuoti, žiovaliauti, ulduoti, laluoti, aluoti, tutuoti, liuoliuoti, rauduoti, niniuoti, uolioti, samaliuoti, lyruoti, giedoti; MTt differs slightly in order and variants, adding surg uoti, zurg uoti, riūkti, vali uoti, while A. Sabaliauskas’s translator’s note also gives raliuoti, riduoti—so about 30 words [in A. Lyberis’s “Dictionary of Synonyms” (1980), dainuoti has only 2 synonyms—giedoti, audoti (dialectal), whereas kalbėti has about 250 (1.5 pages)!].

Thus lyguoti means “to sing, to chirp” and “to sing.” If anyone considers the length of the vowel in the Adutiškis example uncertain, it is incontrovertibly demonstrated by a song from the Višakio Rūda area: Tolei kukavo, tolei lygavo, pakolei iškukavo tevo dukrelę. There is no need to be surprised that the verb lyguoti occurs only in songs, much less to suppose that it may even derive from lygutės. E. Fraenkel, without etymologizing lygutės itself, gives the meaning of the word lyguoti

184

as “to rejoice aloud (vor Freude aufjauchzen),” and compares it with Latvian līgot “to sing, rejoice, sing Midsummer songs, celebrate Midsummer,” līg(u)o, līgā FrnW. This also persuasively explains the motivation behind lygutės. lygutės is not mentioned in the extensive studies of Lithuanian word formation, but it is clear that this is a derivative formed with the suffix -utis, -ė, which forms nouns denoting bearers of an action or verbal characteristic; cf. blizgūtis, drebučiai, klausutis, sagutis, šokutė, “a hopping frog,” traukutis, žibutė. Particularly characteristic is the observation: “Such derivatives are formed from various verbs (usually without prefixes), which, by virtue of their meaning, are very often sound-symbolic” (V. Urbutis, — LKG I 324): barškutis, braškutis, čiauškutis, dudutis, gaudutis “a noisy bird, a little owl,” kaukutis “a little owl, a spinning top,” kukutis, šlamutis, šnekutis, tarškutis, traškučiai, tututis, žvangutis. Thus plant and bird names stand out here. P. Skardžius, too, without classifying word-formation devices by type, notes bird names and their frequent “onomatopoeic formation” (ŽD 363): budutis, dudutis, liputis, lukutis, luputis, mikutis, slukutis, takutis, tikutis, tututis, uputis. There are so many of them that another, unmentioned but very familiar one simply springs to my lips: čekutis, lakštutė, lututė.

There is no doubt about the form lygutė. Moreover, dictionaries have always had lygutė—RŽ, DŽ₁, DŽ₂, LRKŽ, Ser, BŽ 137, BŽ I 242, II 607 (lygutis!—a form unknown elsewhere), R—LKŽ I 548, IV 668, L—LV. Only A. Lyberis’s vacillation stands out: L—RKŽ₁ has lygutė, L—RKŽ₂ has ligutė (ir grinis vyturys—as in BŽ II 607…) and J. Balkevičius and J. Kabelka’s omission: L—LKŽ 136 gives only the obsolete miškinis vieversys.

A lesson for the future: perhaps the matter would have been clear long ago, with no dispute or inconsistencies remaining, if DŽ had included lygutės alongside lyguoti and that line from the song. “Lithuanian Spelling and Punctuation” and instructional spelling dictionaries should also collect and include such words with the utmost care. Not at all! As early as 1970, K. Gaivenis established the name of the wheatear, a bird in the thrush family, Oenanthe oenanthe: kūltupys, kūltupis (LKK XII 193). DŽ₂, L—RKŽ₁, L—RKŽ₂, R—LKŽ II 13, and TLE II 426 corrected their entries, choosing the more convenient variant kūltupis. RŽ had kūltupys. LTE VI 244 confused the variants—kūltupiai, but kūltupys… And Lp 141 and L—LKŽ 138 retain kultupys (as do LPV 154, LP III 309, PP 263, MLTE II 792, LE XIII 324, L—LV). Kūltupis is in MRKŽ. But it is absent from the academic work LKRS…

ABBREVIATIONS

BŽ — Baronas J. Rusų lietuvių žodynas. K., 1932.

— Russian–Lithuanian Dictionary / Compiled by V. Baronas, V. Galinis. Vilnius, 1967. Vols. 1–2.

DŽ — Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian: DŽ₁, Vilnius, 1954; DŽ₂, Vilnius, 1972; DŽ₃, Vilnius, 1993.

FrnW — Fraenkel E. Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Göttingen, 1955—1965. Bd. 1—2.

LE — Lithuanian Encyclopedia. Boston, 1958. Vol. 13; 1968. Vol. 15; 1958. Vol. 16; 1966. Vol. 34.

LKG — Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. V., 1965. T. 1.

LKK — Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai. V., 1970. T. 12.

185

LKRS — Lietuvių kalbos rašyba ir skyryba. II pat. leid. V., 1989.

LKŽ — Lietuvių kalbos žodynas. V., 1966. T. 7 (ir jo sutrumpinimai).

L—LKŽ — Balkevičius J., Kabelka J. Latvių—lietuvių kalbų žodynas. V., 1977.

L—LV — Bojatė A., Subatnieks V. Lietuviešu—latviešu vārdnīca. Rīga, 1964.

LP — Ivanauskas T. Birds of Lithuania, Vilnius, 1955. Vol. 3.

Lp — Logminas V. Lietuvos paukščiai. V., 1979.

LPV — Ivanauskas T. Vadovėlis Lietuvos paukščiams apibūdinti. K., 1931.

LRKŽ — Dictionary of the Lithuanian Written Language. Heidelberg, 1932—1968. Vols. 1—5.

L—RKŽ — Lyberis A. Lithuanian–Russian Dictionary: L—RKŽ₁. Vilnius, 1971; L—RKŽ₂. Vilnius, 1988.

LTE — Lithuanian Soviet Encyclopedia. Vilnius, 1980. Vol. 6; 1981. Vol. 7; 1984. Vol. 12.

MLTE — Mažoji lietuviškoji tarybinė enciklopedija. V., 1968. T. 2; 1971. T. 3.

MRKŽ — Educational Dictionary of Lithuanian Spelling and Stress / Compiled by P. Kniūkšta and A. Lyberis. 2nd ed. Kaunas, 1986.

PP — Ivanauskas T. Pasaulio paukščiai. V., 1971.

R—LKŽ — Rusų—lietuvių kalbų žodynas. V., 1982. T. 1 (Sudarė Ch. Lemchenas); V., 1983. T. 2 (Sudarė Ch. Lemchenas); V., 1985. T. 4 (Sudarė J. Kardelytė, Ch. Lemchenas, J. Macaitis, A. Mankevičienė).

RŽ — Lietuvių kalbos rašybos žodynas. K., 1948.

TLE — Tarybų Lietuvos enciklopedija. V., 1986. T. 2; V., 1988. T. 4.

TZ — Mastau­skis St. Taikomoji zoologija. K., 1947.

ŽD — Skardžius P. Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba. V., 1941.

Jonas Klimavičius

THE “NEOTERM” JOURNAL AND THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF TERMINOLOGY

IOUTN (International Organization for Unification of Terminological Neologisms)—the International Organization for the Unification of Terminological Neologisms—was founded in Warsaw in 1982. Its founder was the writer, linguist, and translator Z. Stoberski. The organization brought together philologists, linguists, and other specialists from various fields who were interested in issues concerning the internationalization of terminology. The main principles and objectives of the organization’s activities are set out in a special publication, “All about IOUTN” (“Everything about IOUTN”).

Even the most prominent linguists often maintain that terminological neologisms should be coined only in one’s native language, while foreign terms—international terms—should be replaced with words from one’s own language. Guided by the principle “science is the property of humanity,” IOUTN proposes standardizing the form and meaning of terms. According to IOUTN, the internationalization of terminology would accelerate the exchange of scientific and technical information, which in turn would foster economic development.

IOUTN collaborates with international organizations, terminology banks, and terminology centers, as well as academies of sciences and universities; it establishes its own committees in countries around the world, compiles and publishes multilingual dictionaries of specialized terms, and provides information on terminological matters. One of the organization’s most important objectives is to promote the use of international terms through the mass media and specialized periodicals.

186