Teisės terminijos tvarkyba Terminologijos komisijoje (1921–1926): Terminologijos komisijos 100-mečiui

doi.org/10.35321/term28-10 Teisės terminijos tvarkyba Terminologijos komisijoje (1921–1926): Terminologijos komisijos 100-mečiui ALVYDAS UMBRASAS Institute of the Lithuanian Language ORCID id: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5184-0056 ANNOTATION 2021 marks the 100th anniversary of the establishment in Lithuania of the first Terminology Commission, which systematically worked on terminology in various fields, including law. At that time, Lithuanian, as the official language of law, was only taking its first steps. The list of legal terms considered by the Terminology Commission and published in the press on several occasions contributed to the standardization of legal language. Although small, the list, which also included examples of usage, helped courts write texts in Lithuanian and served essentially a didactic purpose. KEYWORDS: legal terms, history of terminology, terminology standardization, Terminology Commission, anniversary. ABSTRACT 2021 marks the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the first Lithuanian Terminology Commission, which systematized the terminology of various fields, including law, in an organized manner. Lithuanian, as the official language of law, took only the first steps at that time. The list of legal terms considered by the Terminology Commission and published several times in the press contributed to the standardization of the legal language. Although small, the list, which included examples of usage, helped to write court texts in Lithuanian and performed a largely didactic function. KEYWORDS: legal terms, history of terminology, terminology ordering, Terminology Commission, anniversary. INTRODUCTION After independence was restored in 1918, Lithuanian was used for the first time for official state purposes, so the standardization of legal terminology and legal language in general was of particular importance, being directly related Terminologija | 2021 | 28 2 2 5 with statehood. At the time, the challenges facing legal language were numerous: after the restoration of the state, many legal acts of the Russian Empire that had been in force here remained in effect—the young state simply had no other choice—and efforts began to translate those acts gradually1 into Lithuanian, while also introducing Lithuanian into various spheres of life in which there had previously been almost no official use of Lithuanian2. The law prepared in the first years of independence and published in January 1919, Temporary Organization of Lithuanian Courts and Their Work, stipulated that court proceedings were also to be conducted in the state language, Lithuanian (LLTDS 1919). However, this was not easy to implement, as there was a shortage not only of terminology but also of people capable of handling legal matters in Lithuanian. The state of legal terminology during the first period of independence has already been examined (Umbrasas 2001); other authors have also written about the formation of Lithuanian legal language during that period, for example Vytautas Andriulis (Andriulis 1998: 11–13), Mindaugas Maksimaitis (Maksimaitis 2007), and Ieva Deviatnikovaitė (Deviatnikovaitė 2021). Contemporaries themselves also wrote about it, for example Petras Stravinskas (Stravinskas 1938), Boleslovas Masiulis (Masiulis 1954), and others. This article was prompted by an anniversary: on 14 March 1921, the prime minister of the time, Kazys Grinius, and the minister of education, Kazys Bizauskas, signed the order establishing the Terminology Commission (TKSĮ 1921). It was published in Government Gazette a couple of weeks later, on 29 March. Thus, 100 years have passed since the establishment of the first official commission, whose purpose, as the order stated, was “to establish and standardize the terms of all branches of science and all practical needs of life.” The order provided that the commission, operating under the Ministry of Education3, would consist of ten members, and that there would also be ten lower-level subcommittees in various fields to prepare material and submit it for consideration to the main commission. One of these subcommittees was for legal science. It was planned that the Terminology Commission would publish the material it was considering for the public through the Ministry of Education, so that they could 1 Many translations were made largely through private initiative and did not have official status. This was the case with the principal codes in force across most of Lithuania (indeed, the term code had not yet become established). At the same time, it should be borne in mind that in parts of Lithuania (Užnemunė, the Klaipėda Region, Palanga County, and a small part of Zarasai County) other legal acts were in force, and no Lithuanian translations of them were published at all (for more, see Andriulis 1998: 22–27; Maksimaitis 2001: 168–176). 2 For example, considerable difficulties arose in introducing Lithuanian in the military sphere (see Ažübalis, Builienė, Kazlauskaitė-Markelienė 2010: 7–33). 3 According to Aldonas Pupkis, at that time the Ministry of Education not only engaged in educational activities but was also one of the most important centers for organizing cultural and spiritual life throughout the country (Pupkis 2019 1: 6). The Terminology Commission in Lithuania was established on the model of a similar commission that had been operating in Latvia since 1919 (for more, see Kvašytė 2021). 226 Alvydas Umbrasas Teisės terminijos tvarkyba Terminologijos komisijoje (1921–1926): Terminologijos komisijos 100-mečiui to receive feedback, and finally to agree that the terms adopted by the Commission would be printed in the publication Švietimo darbas and become binding on state institutions. The Terminology Commission, established in March 1921, held its first meeting on 21 April (TKPP 1921: 14). Seven of the ten members attended the first meeting: Kazimieras Būga, Aleksandras Dambrauskas (also known as Adomas Jakštas), Pranas Dovydaitis, Jonas Jablonskis, Pranas Mašiotas, Antanas Smetona, and Antanas Vireliūnas. Those invited who did not attend were Vladas Požėla, Juozas Tumas-Vaižgantas, and Adomas Varnas. As can be seen, the Commission was made up of well-known public figures—linguists, lawyers, publicists, and educators. Many of them pursued a range of activities; they were people with broad interests. At the inaugural meeting, it was agreed that the Commission’s foremost task was “to standardize the official language of state institutions” (TKPP 1921: 1). It was also agreed to review and revise the terminology of various branches of science. Regarding working procedures, the first meeting planned that the ministries concerned would officially submit terms in writing to the Terminology Commission for consideration through specially designated officials. Representatives of the ministries submitting terms would be invited to the meeting5. It was also envisaged that individual interested parties could submit terms for consideration. To facilitate the review of the material, it was suggested that explanatory sentences accompany the terms. At the second meeting of the Terminology Commission, held three days later (24 April), with nine members now in attendance (only V. Požėla was absent; apparently, he did not participate in the Commission’s work at all), A. Smetona was confirmed as the permanent chair of the Commission and A. Vireliūnas as secretary. It was agreed that decisions would be made by a simple majority of votes and only when at least six members were present, including at least one philologist (i.e. J. Jablonskis or K. Būga; evidently, their role in the Commission was to be significant) and a rapporteur (TKPP 1921: 2). The composition of the Terminology Commission, which operated until mid-1926, as well as its chair and secretary, changed several times. Disagreements and differences of opinion gradually emerged, particularly over the Lithuanization of terms; groups formed that wanted “to Lithuanize everything, leaving nothing foreign,” “to Lithuanize some things, but not to discard more important scientific terms and words that were very familiar in general,” and “inter- 4 Here and below, the year of the Terminology Commission meeting is given, followed after the colon by the protocol number. 5 Essentially, this procedure is still followed today at meetings of the Terminology Subcommission of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, when it considers terms submitted by state institutions in accordance with the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Term Bank and its implementing legal acts (Umbrasas 2013: 96–97). Terminologija | 2021 | 28 227 nacionalinių žodžių nelietuvinti“ (Laurinaitis 1925b: 2–3), tai trukdė nuosekliam ir sistemingam darbui, paskatino kritiką6. J. Jablonskis iš Komisijos veiklos nuo 1923 m. pradžios buvo pasitraukęs, 1925 m. Švietimo ministerijos sugrąžintas į Komisiją jai vadovauti, bet 1926 m. viduryje dėl sveikatos problemų pirmininko pareigų atsisakė. Jam atsistatydinus Švietimo ministerija Komisiją apskritai paleido ir Kauno universitetą įpareigojo sudaryti kitą komisiją, bet ten terminų svarstymo veikla taip ir neprasidėjo. Dirbdama be J. Jablonskio ir K. Būgos (pastarasis mirė 1924 m. pabaigoje) Komisija buvo nukrypusi į perdėtą purizmą (Palionis 1995: 281). Plačiau apie Terminologijos komisijos veiklą, joje dirbusius asmenis žr. Albinos Auksoriūtės publikacijose (Auksoriūtė 2011, 2021). The Terminology Commission’s work covered various fields, but this article focuses solely on law and examines only legal terms. The aim of the article is to use a descriptive-analytical method to reveal the Terminology Commission’s contribution to the standardization of legal terms at the beginning of independence and to show the nature and development of its terminological proposals. The article analyzes not only public publications of the Commission’s decisions but also the Commission’s meeting minutes, which have not been examined in greater depth. The work of this Commission and of other terminology commissions of the period that considered legal terms has been reviewed (see Umbrasas 2010: 20–26); this article seeks to supplement earlier research with both source-based historical and terminological data. DISCUSSION AND PUBLICATION OF LEGAL TERMS The decree establishing the Terminology Commission provided that its work would be carried out in committees for various fields, but the minutes of this Commission’s meetings do not make clear how those committees functioned (or whether they all functioned7). On October 6, 1921 (TKPP 1921: 13), during consideration of the budget for the following year, funds were earmarked for committee meetings, and it was agreed to establish committees to prepare mathematical, natural-science, geographical, literary, and legal terms8. The composition of some com- 6 Apie lietuvinimo nesutarimus Komisijoje ir kritiką plačiau žr. Keinys 2012 [1967]: 38–41. Reikia pridurti, kad tie nesutarimai su teisės terminų svarstymais Komisijoje nebuvo susiję, teisės srities nepalietė. 7 The decrees establishing the Terminology Commission provided that the committees for particular fields would be formed by the state institutions concerned (TKSI 1921), but, as Jonas Martynas Laurinaitis, who did not work at the Commission from its outset, writes, “since the decree did not clearly impose on any state institution the duty to take care of this matter, no one formed those committees” (Laurinaitis 1925a: 5). He singles out only the Ministry of National Defence, which established a commission and an entire network for terminology work in the army. In a later account, he also mentions the Ministries of Agriculture and Transport (Laurinaitis 1930: 27). Despite the lack of committees, the Terminology Commission considered lists of terms; the working groups or individuals who prepared them could have served in place of committees. 8 These were apparently the first fields to which attention was to be devoted, especially since by summer “no systematically prepared proposals had yet been submitted to the Commission” (TKPP 1921: 10). 228 Alvydas Umbrasas Teisės terminijos tvarkyba Terminologijos komisijoje (1921–1926): Terminologijos komisijos 100-mečiui Fig. 1. Beginning of the minutes of the Terminology Commission’s meeting No. 18, November 11, 1921 The composition of the committees was specified, but about what was then called the Committee for Legal Terms, it was stated only that A. Smetona had been tasked with forming it. Incidentally, at the meeting on June 9, A. Smetona had already raised the question of establishing equivalents for certain Russian words important to political journalism (now it is clear, to administrative law as well). It was then agreed that Russian власть corresponds in Lithuanian to valdžia, правительство – vyriausybė, and начальство – vyresnybė (TKPP 1921: 10). Just over a month after the decision to establish the Committee for Legal Terms was made—on November 11—the Terminology Commission considered (TKPP 1921: 18) a short list of legal terms accompanied by examples of usage (the minutes comprise slightly more than two pages of small handwritten text; see Fig. 1). In addition to members of the Terminology Commission, the meeting was attended by the list’s compiler, Antanas Kriščiukaitis, chairman of the Supreme Tribunal, that is, the Supreme Court of Lithuania at the time. That same month, at its November 26 meeting, the Commission decided to publish the legal terms already considered in the newspaper Lietuva (TKPP 1921: 21), but they were not published immediately, because at the December 1 meeting (TKPP 1921: 22), another matter concerning the same legal Terminologija | 2021 | 28 229 part of the list of terms, also with usage examples (the minutes contain three and a half pages of small handwritten text; see Fig. 2). It should be noted that the first meeting’s minutes give Lithuanian terms with Russian equivalents, while the second meeting’s minutes do the reverse—Russian terms with Lithuanian equivalents (that is, both the terms and their arrangement differ). As stated in the minutes of the second meeting to discuss legal terms (December 1), these terms were “for court use.” This essentially reflects the needs of the time for legal terminology, and the list’s compiler, A. Kriščiukaitis, was also, given his professional activity, interested in organizing precisely those terms relevant to the courts. First of all, the two sets of minutes show that there was an effort to agree on the names of persons needed in court proceedings, for example: bylininkas (сторона (въ судѣ быть⁹), тяжущійся), skundikas (истецъ, жалобщикъ), liudytojas (свидѣтель), kaltintojas (обвинитель), kaltinamasis (обвиняемый), teisiamasis (подсудимый). Some terms were provided with synonyms, for example: atsakytojas, skundžiamasis, apskųstasis (отвѣтчикъ). The minutes of the first meeting record the material already agreed upon, while those of the second meeting include a column for the Commission’s proposals. This shows that most of the terms submitted for consideration were approved; a relatively small number of terms were changed during the meeting, for example, instead of the form with the prefix pareiškėjas, it was agreed to use reiškėjas (заявитель); synonyms were also added, for example, the Commission’s proposed civilinis, turtinis skundikas (гражданскій истецъ), whereas the initial version had only civilinis skundikas; the synonym tretininkas was added alongside trečiasis asmuo byloje (trečiasis bylos asmuo) (третье лицо въ дѣлѣ). According to the minutes, very few usage examples were considered for revision; only one unsatisfactory example was substantially reformulated. The original read: Skundikas padėjo skundui kainą 1000 r. ir prašė tos sumos skundą apdrausti uždėjus areštą ant atsak theto kilnojamojo turto; it was changed to: Skundikas įvertino savo skundą 1000 r. ir prašė tos sumos skundą apdrausti uždėjimu (arba: uždėjus) arešto atsak theto kilnojamajam turtui, mantai. At the meeting held in mid-December (on the 15th) (TKPP 1921: 24), which A. Kriščiukaitis also attended, the minutes record that the “legal terms had been corrected” (no specifics are given), and a decision was made to publish them. Just a week later (on December 23), the draft list of terms appeared in the newspaper Lietuva, as stated, “for public criticism for a month” (TTP). The list was published in a rather chaotic form, with terms, relevant word combinations, and example sentences interspersed (see Fig. 3). The draft list contained a total of 68 numbered 9There should be a comma between the words, but there is none in the minutes. The wording of the examples has not been edited anywhere in the article; they are taken from the sources (only the Lithuanian term is written first when the Russian term came first in the minutes). 230 Alvydas Umbrasas Teisės terminijos tvarkyba Terminologijos komisijoje (1921–1926): Terminologijos komisijos 100-mečiui Fig. 2. First page of the Terminology Commission’s minutes No. 22, dated December 1, 1921 Terminologija | 2021 | 28 231 Fig. 3. Draft list of legal terms published in the newspaper Lietuva on December 23, 1921 (beginning) items, although some of them are compound; the first 24 items are material from the discussion at the first meeting, and from item 25 onward, material from the second meeting (the order is the same as in the minutes). In terms of content, the published draft essentially matches the material in the minutes (there are only a few minor differences), except that the newspaper omitted the example sentences and the Russian equivalents of some combinations (although the minutes included equivalents). At the end of the list, readers were asked to send comments to the Terminology Commission and were informed that the terms, after being finalized and edited a month later, would be published in the newspaper Švietimo darbas. As is evident from later minutes, feedback was received: the minutes of February 2, 1922, state that “the Commission received submissions from Mr. Bulota and Mr. Bendoris regarding the published legal terms” (TKPP 1922: 31). A. Kriščiūčiui was instructed to review them and report at the next meeting. 232 Alvydas Umbrasas Teisės terminijos tvarkyba Terminologijos komisijoje (1921–1926): Terminologijos komisijos 100-mečiui The minutes of the meeting held a week later (February 9) state that “Kriščiukaitis reports the Commission’s positions concerning the statements by citizen Bulota and citizen Bendorius in the field of legal terminology” (TKPP 1922: 32) (from this it may be inferred that A. Kriščiukaitis was a member of the Legal Terms Commission). In view of the proposals received, the Commission resolved to add some information to the list (include the terms initial claim (первоначальный иск), testimony, witness statement (свидетельство, показание), add the phrase terminate, suspend a case (прекратить дело)), and, instead of clue (улика), put forward incriminating evidence (the draft initially did not include clue; this word was added alongside evidence, incrimination by the Commission itself at its December 1 meeting). In March (on the 9th), the revised list of legal terms was discussed once more, and it was resolved to publish the final list in the newspapers Lietuva and Švietimo darbas. The meeting minutes record that “the Russian text of the explanations was decided to be written in the old (non-Bolshevik) Russian orthography” (TKPP 1922: 36) (in the first draft published in Lietuvoje, Russian words had generally been transcribed in Latin letters). The terms appeared that same month in the newspaper Lietuva (TT₁), and somewhat later, in July, in Švietimo darbas (TTR₁). The journal Teisė, first published that same year, 1922, also included the list in its first issue (TT₂). Compared with the first draft published in Lietuvoje in December 1921, the material was now presented somewhat more systematically: the list was reorganized into two parts, separating terms from examples. The first part contained 46 numbered terms or terminological phrases (a single number did not necessarily correspond to a single term, meaning that the actual number of terms was higher), while the second part contained 22 numbered sentence-form examples of usage (with various variants). Few terms were changed compared with the draft. In addition to the changes noted earlier in the minutes, defendant, plaintiff appeared, whereas the draft had only respondent, complainant, respectively. claim appeared, with suit as a synonym, whereas the draft had only complaint in this sense. The term third-party intervener, previously proposed by the Commission itself alongside third party to a case, was removed; also removed was the ill-formed “appropriation charge”, which the Commission itself had added alongside private (non-public) prosecution. The variants appeal complaint, cassation complaint were added alongside appeal, cassation appeal (these variants were already in the minutes of December 1, 1921 (TKPP 1921: 22), but for some reason were omitted from the published draft). What aspects of law, then, were of concern to the first Terminology Commission in general? The approved list begins with terms for types of cases: case, court case (судебное дело), criminal (criminal-law) case (уголовное дело), civil case (гражданское дело). As already noted, Terminologija | 2021 | 28 2 3 3 considerable attention was devoted to naming persons. Those persons, of course, perform certain legal actions. How to name these actions and how to express them in phrases and sentences was one of the key matters on which people wished to reach agreement a century ago. The list10 contains numerous different actions associated with a case and variants for naming them, for example: appear, come, appear in court (явиться въ судъ); bring, institute, initiate a case, lodge a complaint, (возбуждать дѣло); summon, serve, summon to court conduct, pursue, litigate a case (вести дѣло); review, hear, try, decide a case (рассматривать, разбирать, слушать, рѣшать дѣло); adjourn a case (исключить дѣло изъ очереди); postpone a case (дѣло отложить); suspend a case (приостановить дѣло); review, hear, try, decide a case to conclusion (рассмотрѣть, выслушать, разобрать, рѣшать дѣло); a case proceeds, is tried, is (дѣло производится). Another significant group consists of constructions naming actions related to proving guilt and hearing complaints, claims, and petitions, for example: prove, establish (guilt, culpability), incriminate (доказывать, доказать, уличать, уличить); terminate, suspend, discontinue (the charge, investigation) (прекратить дѣло, обвинение, слѣдствіе)); hold (a petition, complaint) (оставить прошение, жалобу безъ движенія); dismiss, reject (a petition, complaint) (оставить прошение, жалобу безъ послѣдствій (безъ уваженія, безъ удовлетворенія), въ искъ отказать); not consider a petition (complaint); leave the petition or complaint unconsidered (without consideration) (оставить прошение (жалобу, искъ) безъ рассмотрѣнія); secure (a claim, lawsuit, complaint) (обезпечить искъ). It appears that there was a need to agree on how a resolution should be written on documents. The following was proposed: to the case (into the case) (къ дѣлу), note (take note), follow, carry out (put into effect) (принять) къ свѣдѣнію, руководству, исполненію. 10The three aforementioned sources in which the final list was published contain minor differences of an editorial, proofreading, and similar nature. The material is somewhat better organized and standardized in Švietimo darbas, so the examples are taken mainly from there. For example, the draft had In which court is that case proceeding, being heard? (TTP). Later it was published as In which court is that case proceeding, being heard? (TT₁, TTR₁), but compare In which court is that case being heard (proceeding)? (TT₂). 2 3 4 Alvydas Umbrasas | Teisės terminijos tvarkyba Terminologijos komisijoje (1921–1926): Terminologijos komisijos 100-mečiui The legal language of that period lacked established formulations, so it was important to reach agreement not only on the terms themselves but also on how to use them in certain standard phrases. Examples of usage made up a large part of the terminological material considered by the Terminology Commission. They show that the aim was to teach court employees how case documents should be written, for example: Jonas P. came (arrived) to me, the Court Investigator, and stated... Jonas brought a case against Petras, accusing him under Article 418 of the Criminal Statute (under the article), or sued him (summoned him, brought him before the court) for 1,000 gold coins under a promissory note. The litigants and witnesses appeared (came) before the court. The witnesses were questioned (examined, interrogated) under oath (without an oath) and testified... The testimony (statement) of the absent witness N. was read aloud. The defendant (respondent, accused) filed a counterclaim (complaint) against the plaintiff (complainant) and requested that P-tis be joined to the case as a third party. The plaintiff (complainant) maintained (defended, supported) the claim (lawsuit, complaint), while the defendant (respondent, appellant) denied the claim (lawsuit, complaint). The District Court dismissed Jonas P.’s claim (complaint), and the Supreme Tribunal rejected his appeal. In essence, it can be said that 100 years ago the Terminology Commission assessed legal language not only from a terminological perspective, but also more broadly from the perspective of regulating legal language. At the same time, it is clear that the Commission was not strict and did not seek to establish just one term or one formulation immediately—considerable freedom of choice and many variants were allowed. At the initial stage of language regulation, this is natural and understandable: the intention was to let users choose for themselves which variant seemed more suitable. Over the past 100 years, legal language has, of course, taken on a different form; many usage variants proposed at the time have become irrelevant, but, in general, we could not say that the changes have been enormous. Legal language from 100 years ago is essentially understandable to us, which shows that our current legal terminology grew out of the terminology whose foundations were laid 100 years ago. Discussion of the terminology list in question began in the Terminology Commission’s first year of work, and it was marked with the first number, which indicates that more lists were expected. However, before the Terminology Commission dissolved, the consideration of legal terms was never resumed. Although the list was small, it was nevertheless significant at the stage when Lithuanian legal terminology was taking shape. Its significance is also reflected in the fact that it was published in the press more than Terminologija | 2021 | 28 235 once. In 1924, the Terminology Commission’s secretary, A. Vireliūnas, on his own initiative published a 144-page booklet compiling the terms that the Commission had considered and published up to that time (in separate sections by subject area). These included the legal terms discussed above (TTR2). The booklet’s editor rearranged the list of legal terms and phrases alphabetically, moved usage examples alongside the related terms, added further cross-references, and compiled an index of Russian equivalents. This presentation was presumably more convenient for users. In essence, it was the same material published earlier, with only a few minor differences in content11 (for example, bylos, previously listed with the synonyms baudžiamoji, kriminalinė, kriminalė, was also supplemented with kriminalioji; instead of the synonyms atskirasis (privatinis) skundas, the variants atskiras(is), privatus(is) skundas were given). A few years later, after the Terminology Commission had ceased to operate, A. Vireliūnas’s revised list of legal terms was printed in the Teisininkų kalendoriuje published by the Lithuanian Lawyers’ Association (TTR3) (incidentally, the Association’s chair was the compiler of the list of legal terms, A. Kriščiukaitis). The calendar was compiled by Zigmas Toliūšis. On his own initiative, or perhaps in consultation with A. Kriščiukaitis, he corrected some errors in the list of legal terms and made a few substantive changes to its content—for example, in some cases reducing the number of synonyms, leaving only atsakovas (previously alongside atsakytojas, skundžiamasis, apskūstasis), and only liudytojas (there was also liudininkas). Perhaps after a few years, tendencies in usage had become apparent, and efforts were made to respond to them. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS A hundred years ago, the Terminology Commission established under the Ministry of Education contributed to the regulation of legal terminology, among other fields. Law was one of the first fields taken up by the Commission. The list of legal terms compiled by A. Kriščiukaitis was considered in the Commission’s first year of activity. The Commission evidently regarded the draft list as sufficiently well prepared, since its initial consideration required only two meetings; relatively few changes were recorded in the minutes, although the material under consideration was also limited. The published draft consisted of 68 numbered entries, including terms, phraseological units of a terminological nature, and sentences. The material was intended for the needs of the courts: ensuring that the Lithuanian language functioned in the courts was one of the most important goals—and, at the same time, challenges—at the beginning of independence 11 Errors were also made that had not appeared in earlier editions. They are mostly typographical in nature, for example: išleisti bylą instead of išteisti bylą, tiesti bylą instead of teisti bylą. 236 Alvydas Umbrasas Teisės terminijos tvarkyba Terminologijos komisijoje (1921–1926): Terminologijos komisijos 100-mečiui of independence. It can be argued that the main purpose of this list was to name the participants in court proceedings and the actions they performed. The list was meant to be continued, but no continuation appeared, and the Commission itself operated for only five years; disagreements arose, which were probably the reason for its short existence. Nevertheless, this list of terms, published at least five times (not counting the initial draft) in various forms and with minor terminological differences, was significant in the early years of independence. On the one hand, it demonstrated the importance of systematically regulating legal terms and legal language more broadly; on the other, it could have served as an impetus for legal terminography (unfortunately, it did not). Given that the draft list of terms was prepared in 1921, when very few legal texts were available in Lithuanian, it is understandable why it offered many variants of expression, and why the Terminology Commission not only refrained from reducing those variants (as is customary in terminology work today), but even added to them. The expectation was evidently that usage would naturally develop in the desired direction; at the initial stage, it was important to achieve at least this much: that court texts be written in Lithuanian at all. KEY SOURCES TKPP 1921–1923: Terminologijos komisijos posėdžių protokolai Nr. 1–80. Saugoma Lietuvių kalbos institute. TT₁ – Teisės terminai. – Lietuva, 1922, kovo 26, 3. TT₂ – Legal terms. – Teisė 1, 1922, 53–56. TTP – Teisės terminai (projektas). – Lietuva, 1921, gruodžio 23, 2. TTR₁ – Terms for legal purposes. – Švietimo darbas 7, 1922, 77–81. TTR₂ – Terms for legal purposes. – Įvardai, arba terminai, priimti Terminologijos komisijos, Kaunas, 1924, 13–23. TTR₃ – Terms for legal purposes. – Teisininkų kalendorius 1928 metams, compiled by Z. Toliūšis, 272–277. LITERATURE AND ADDITIONAL SOURCES Andriulis Vytautas 1998: Pirmosios Lietuvos Respublikos (1918 II 16 – 1940 VI 15) teisinės sistemos kūrimo bruožai, Vilnius: Lietuvos teisės akademija. Auksoriūtė Albina 2011: Terminologijos komisijos (1921–1926) veiklos apžvalga. – Terminologija 18, 80–91. Available online: http://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/416. Auksoriūtė Albina 2021: Terminologijos komisijos įkūrimo šimtmečiui. – Gimtoji kalba 3, 3–9. Ažubalis Algirdas, Builienė Diana, Kazlauskaitė-Markelienė Rolanda 2010: Valstybinė kalba Lietuvos kariuomenėje (1918–1940), Vilnius: Generolo Jono Žemaičio Lietuvos karo akademija. Deviatnikovaitė Ieva 2021: Lietuvių kalba tarpukario teisėje. – Logos 106, 156–172. Prieiga internete: http://www.litlogos.eu/L106/Deviatnikovaite.html. Keinys Stasys 2012 [1967]: Lietuvių terminologijos kūrimo apžvalga (iki 1940 m.). – Keinys St., Lietuvių terminologijos raida, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 29–56. Kvasytė Regina 2021: Apie pirmąsias terminologijos komisijas Lietuvoje ir Latvijoje. – Mokslo Lietuva 7, 11–12; 8, 6–7. Laurinaitis Jonas Martynas [J. M. Ls.] 1925a: Terminologijos darbo esmė. – Kardas 8, 5–7. Laurinaitis Jonas Martynas [J. M. Lts.] 1925b: Terminologijos darbo evoliucija ir terminologų santykiai. – Lietuva 126 (birželio 9 d.), 2–3. Laurinaitis Jonas Martynas 1930: Terminologijos darbo atgaivinimas. – Kalba 1, 27–31. LLTDS 1919: Laikinasis Lietuvos teismų ir jų darbo sutvarkymas – Laikinosios Vyriausybės žinios 2–3/26. Terminologija | 2021 | 28 237 Maksimaitis Mindaugas 2001: Lietuvos teisės šaltiniai 1918–1940 metais, Vilnius: Justitia. Maksimaitis Mindaugas 2007: Prie lietuviškos teisės kalbos ištakų. – Jurisprudencija 5(95), 7–13. Prieiga internete: https://www3.mruni.eu/ojs/jurisprudence/article/view/2720. Masiulis Boleslovas 1954: Kalba ir teisininkai. – Teisininkų žinios 6, 1–3; 7, 2–3. Palionis Jonas 1995: Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos istorija, II pataisytas ir papildytas leidimas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Pupkis Aldonas 2019: Lietuvių kalba valstybėje. Iš tarpukario patirties. – Gimtoji kalba 1, 4–13; 2, 7–15. Stravinskas Petras 1938: Lietuviškosios teisinės terminologijos klausimu. – Teisė 41, 94–99. TKSĮ 1921: Terminologijos komisijos sudarymo įsakymas. – Vyriausybės žinios 60–551. Umbrasas Alvydas 2001: Teisės terminijos padėtis Lietuvoje 1918–1940 metais. – Terminologija 8, 76–94. Prieiga internete: http://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/698. Umbrasas Alvydas 2010: Lietuvių teisės terminija 1918–1940 metais: pagrindinių kodeksų terminai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Umbrasas Alvydas 2013: Lietuvos Respublikos terminų bankas: 10 metų po įstatymo priėmimo. – Terminologija 20, 94–120. Prieiga internete: http://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/475. THE ORDERING OF LEGAL TERMINOLOGY IN THE TERMINOLOGY COMMISSION (1921–1926): ON THE OCCASION OF THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE TERMINOLOGY COMMISSION S u m m a r y 14 March 2021 marked 100 years since the first Terminology Commission was set up in Lithuania to oversee the normalization of terminology in various fields, including law, in an organized manner. The article is dedicated to commemorating this anniversary. After the restoration of independence in 1918, the Lithuanian language was for the first time used for the official needs of the state, therefore the ordering of legal terminology and the language of law in general was of special importance and was directly connected to statehood. The Terminology Commission, which was established in 1921 under the Ministry of Education, took over the ordering of legal terminology in its first year of operation – a separate sub-commission was formed and discussed a set of legal terms prepared by Antanas Kriščiukaitis. The minutes of the Terminology Commission show that the Commission slightly modified the list of terms, changed some and added more options. The list was not large (68 items) and included not only terms but also examples of usage. The material was intended to serve the needs of courts, as ensuring the functioning of the Lithuanian language in court was one of the most important goals and challenges at the start of independence. Setting out terms which name the persons taking part in legal proceedings and their actions was the main purpose of this list. The list of terms was supposed to be continued, but it did not happen, and the Commission ceased to exist after five years. Nevertheless, this list of terms, which at the time was published at least five times, was significant and contributed to the formation and development of the language of law. It had a didactic function at the start of independence and court staff could learn how to write court case texts from it. Received 2021-09-06 Alvydas Umbrasas Institute of the Lithuanian Language P. Vileišio St. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius Email: [email protected] 2 3 8 Alvydas Umbrasas Teisės terminijos tvarkyba Terminologijos komisijoje (1921–1926): Terminologijos komisijos 100-mečiui