From degreasing to desemanticization: prescription and usage

ALVYDAS UMBRASAS

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

KEYWORDS: word formation, removal meaning, language standardization, usage, error

The article examines derivatives containing the prefix nu- and the suffix -inti (-inimas), which express the removal of a certain substance (indicated by the root). Such derivatives have already been subject to a considerable tradition of correction, but at least some of them remain widespread in usage; therefore, their history of correction and prescription and their current status are examined. The aim is to show linguists’ views on these derivatives, the development of norms in dictionaries, and current usage, its (in)compatibility with codification, and to draw attention to possible changes in codification.

The most convenient source from which to collect data on current usage is the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (DLKT), compiled by the Vytautas Magnus University Centre of Computational Linguistics. It contains over 140 million words used in texts from various fields dating from the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries (approximately 1991 to 2008), including both scholarly and specialized texts, as well as journalism for the general public, fiction, and so on. Since these are published texts, it is likely that they have been edited or at least minimally revised. Accordingly, the study decided to rely on the DLKT, since this corpus can show the average level of contemporary written language around the turn of the century (it does not yet contain data from the second decade of this century). The data collected (about 80 verbs or their nominalizations of the model in question were found in the DLKT, with a total of about 3,500 occurrences) were subsequently also compared with usage on one of the most popular news websites, lrytas.lt (over 2,600 publications containing words selected from the DLKT were found there; it is not technically possible to determine the total number of word occurrences, but clearly a single publication may contain more than one occurrence). The website has been operating since 2006, so it partly reflects the past ten ye-

120 Alvydas Umbrasas | Nuo nuriebalinimo iki nuprasminimo: teikyba ir vartosena

of internet media (some articles published on the website are reprinted from other media outlets; where necessary, several examples in the article are also taken from other sources). Using the DLKT search functions, efforts were made to collect as varied a range of data as possible and to identify semantic and/or structural as well as quantitative patterns.

DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDIZATION

Half a century ago, Kazimieras Gaivenis was perhaps the first to speak about cases in which “an attempt is made to give the prefix nu- in verbs and deverbal nouns a generalized meaning of removing the material denoted by the word’s root” (Gaivenis 1964: 29). Writing about the terminologization of derivational affixes, he regretted that the meaning of removal had made its way from scholarly publications into several dictionaries of the time as nuriebinti, nuriebinimas. He argued as follows: “the verbal abstract nuriebinimas is derived from the verb nuriebinti, which in turn is derived from the adjective riebus. With this type of adjective-based verb, the prefix nu- usually gives it the meaning of excess in the action expressed by the unprefixed form (cf. nustorinti, nutirštinti, nurūgštinti, i.e. to make too (= overly) thick, dense, sour)” (ibid.). Thus, nuriebinti should mean “to make excessively fatty,” not “to remove fat.” K. Gaivenis also pointed out that “translating the terms обезжиривание, Entfettung or degreasing as nuriebalinimu (following similar ‘fashionable’ neologisms such as nuanglinimas, nusilicinimas, nusierinimas, nupeleninimas, and the like) is also questionable” (Gaivenis 1964: 29–30). He suggested that, to express removal, it is best to use phrases with the word pašalinti (e.g., pašalinti sierą, pašalinti pelenus, “remove sulfur, remove ash”) or, where available, specialized verbs (e.g., not nuplaukinti, but nuplikinti).

A few years later, Antanas Balašaitis also proposed translating обезболивание not as nuplaukinimas, o plaukų pašalinimas ‘hair removal’, and instead of savaiminio dirvos nukenk-sminimo he recommended dirvos apsivalymas ‘soil self-purification’. He also explained that “the Russian обезболивание should not be translated as nuskausminimu, since from the verb apmarinti ‘to render insensitive, to make numb’ we have the usual expressions ligonio apmarinimas prieš operaciją, vietinis ar visuotinis apmarinimas, apmarinamieji vaistai ‘anesthesia of the patient before surgery, local or general anesthesia, anesthetic drugs’” (Balašaitis 1969: 9–10). The argument was that “in every language, neologisms are formed according to that language’s word-formation rules”; one must “follow the tendencies of Lithuanian word formation” (ibid.).

¹ The original contains neither italics nor letter spacing.

Terminologija | 2016 | 23

1 2 1

Soon afterward, Alvydas Rosinas also continued examining derivatives with nu- meaning the removal of material or a property: “The view that such formations (cf.: nušarminti, nuvandeninti, nuskausminti, etc.) do not run counter to the laws of Lithuanian word formation and are understandable to everyone is apparently not beyond question. From the derivational (syntactic) point of view, they are impeccable. However, when forming a new word, derivational rules alone are not enough; the lexical functions of the elements of that word must also be taken into account” (Rosinas 1971: 15). Drawing also on K. Gaivenis, he maintained that nuriebinti in the sense of removing fat is an unsuccessful calque, and that in living speech the prefix nu- gives denominal verbs a meaning of excess (nukietinti ‘make too hard’) or, in some cases (nuaštrinti, nugražinti), seems to convey the removal of a property, but “denotes the opposite of the force, intensity, and result of the action (in wishing to make [something] sharp or beautiful, they sharpened or beautified it so much that it became completely blunt, completely ugly)” (ibid.). He also calls the verbs nuplaukinti ‘remove hair’, nudruskinti ‘remove salt’, nužievinti ‘remove bark’, and nukalkinti ‘extract limescale’ “fashionable,” and says that in living speech denominal verbs with nu- have other meanings (nuauksinti ‘color gold’, nuspalvinti ‘paint’, nuskiedrinti ‘scatter wood chips’), and that “if the German verb entha(S)

At the beginning of the decade, in the second edition of the dictionary published after the aforementioned articles (DLKŽ₂ 1972), there was no rush to remove these words; on the contrary, the definitions of existing entries were revised slightly² and many new ones were added: nudruskinti ‘remove salt’, nudujinti ‘remove gas’, nukalkinti ‘remove limescale’, nukenksminti ‘make harmless’, nuriebalinti ‘remove fat’, nusakinti ‘tap resin’, nuvandeninti ‘remove water, moisture’. Most of them (except nuasmeninti, nubuožinti, nusakinti) were marked spec. Soon after the dictionary appeared, Jonas Paulauskas, one of the members of its editorial board, said, speaking about the dictionary’s problems, that it contained words “marked with the abbreviations spec. or knyg., indicating that although a word is not well formed (or has been assigned an unusual meaning), it is used in certain fields, where more regular derivational equivalents are either lacking or unpopular” (Paulauskas 1974: 42). Among other examples, he also mentions nudruskinti, nudujinti, nuvandeninti, and says that “as lexical standardization continues, more acceptable equivalents should be found for such words” (ibid.). The phrase “more acceptable equivalents” may have implied a preference for single-word expressions, since the correctors’ proposed forms matched the dictionary definitions. Vitas Labutis also expressed reservations about including nukenksminti, nuriebalinti and the like in the dictionary, saying that approving an insufficiently investigated linguistic phenomenon might do more harm to the language than restraining its spread on traditional grounds (Labutis 1973: 75). Nevertheless, the dictionary had been published, and its standards could not fail to affect usage.

Although the second edition of the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian included quite a number of words of the model under discussion, linguists continued to correct them in their work. In the first edition of Guidelines for Language Practice, it was said of derivatives with the prefix nu- that it was preferable to use “a word with a different root, expressing the loss of something” (KPP₁ 1976: 159). The principle of replacing the root was formulated, but in specific examples the root was often left unchanged; for the most part, phrases using words with the same root were recommended: nudruskinti (– pašalinti druską (–as)), nukenksminti (– padaryti nekenksmingą, pasterizuoti), nuplaukinti (– pašalinti plaukus), nupeleninti (– pašalinti pelenus), nuriebinti, nuriebalinti (– pašalinti riebalus, suliesinti), nuvandeninti (– pašalinti vandenį, padaryti sausą), nužmoginti (– dehumanizuoti, (su)barbarinti). Some of these corrected words were additionally marked dirbt., meaning—

² Nuasmeninti ‘1. deprive of personal responsibility. 2. deprive of personal qualities, make uniform’; nubuožinti ‘during the period of collectivization, deprive kulaks of the means of production and land’ (DLKŽ₂ 1972).

Terminologija | 2016 | 23

123

ing that it is an artificial word. Only with nužievinimo staklės is there no advice that it is better not to use it; instead, it is corrected categorically (n. dirbt. – an artificial word that should not be used), and the alternatives žievės lupamosios, žievi-lupės staklės, žievialupė³ are recommended (KPP₁ 1976: 159–163). Essentially the same points were repeated in the second edition of the guidelines, published about a decade later, except that the word nupele-ninti was removed (perhaps it was considered outdated), while ⁴ numėsinti (– pašalinti mėsą, kaišti) was added (KPP₂ 1985: 171–176). The words may have been corrected with the label preferable rather than categorically because the contemporary Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian allowed their use. Some correctors, while discussing words of the model in question and classifying them as nonstandard, also said that “there are words of this type in current usage that are not included in the DLKŽ, but they could be included there on exactly the same terms. For example, nužievinti is absent, but it is just like nudruskinti”; they also explained and reminded readers that “there is an agreement among linguists not to correct categorically anything presented as a norm in grammars and dictionaries of the contemporary language” (Paulauskienė, Tarvydaitė 1986: 31). There were opinions that, by correcting words included in the DLKŽ, Guidelines for Language Practice confused users, who then did not know which source to rely on; it was proposed that recommendations “should observe the p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s: all language forms approved in earlier normative publications must be regarded as correct until their defects have been proved p u b l i c l y and beyond dispute” (Girdenis, Rosinas 1977: 70). The response to this criticism was that changes to the norms of the DLKŽ, too, “were nowhere proved p u b l i c l y” (Pupkis, Zinkevičius 1978: 51).

Arguments for correcting derivatives of the model under discussion were formulated in various ways. The main objections concerned semantics and the influence of other languages. This is evident from the quotations from K. Gaivenis and A. Rosinas already given above; other language purists also discussed the issue when correcting derivatives with a different prefix: “the prefix gives a meaning that cannot express the concept intended by the word. These are all translated words, to which the prefix has been added according to the word-formation rules of other languages”; such words “are not used in dialects, nor do they have a firm tradition in better-quality written language” (Pupkis 1980: 124). The model was noted—

³ Teikiniai pasiūlyti Jono Klimavičiaus (žr. Klimavičius 1974: 19). Vietoj nužievinimo mašina vėliau dar buvo siūloma žieviasukė (Gerulaitis, Lūkenas 1983: 35).

⁴In language culture, a separate article had appeared discussing what to call the operation performed when working with hides and furs, in which flesh, residual fat, and the entire subcutaneous layer are removed. Instead of the words in use, to deflesh, to scrape off the pelt, the term to plug was proposed, along with plugging tool, plugging, plugging process, plugging place, and so on (Kinderys 1982: 47–49).

124

Alvydas Umbrasas

Nuo nuriebalinimo iki nuprasminimo: teikyba ir vartosena

systematicity: “These are nothing other than calques that arose by analogy with Russian. Under the influence of such a derivational analogy, calques are often formed in series; that is, it is not an individual word that is calqued, but a particular derivational pattern” (Kaulakienė 1992: 9). The ambiguity of certain verbs, for example, nukalkinti, was noted (Kinderys 1982: 48). Attention was also drawn to the formal structure of the word: “most of these words are not used without a prefix (e.g., there is no word kenksminti), so they are unsuitable with the prefix nu- <...> either: instead, phrases should be used” (Piročkinas 1990: 70). Mixed derivation was considered undesirable: “It is unusual to derive verbs from nouns by adding a compound derivational formant (a prefix and suffix together). <...> If there were verbs *druskinti, *žievinti, *vandeninti⁵, it would be understandable that the prefix nu- is used appropriately (cf. vilkti – nuvilkti, lupti – nulup­ti). But they do not exist. Hence, nužievinti is associated with žieve, nudruskinti with druska, nuvandeninti with vandeniu. And verbs with prefixes are not formed from nouns. Thus it is clear that nužievinti has the prefix nu- and the suffix -inti added at once, thereby forming a verb from a noun” (Paulauskienė, Tarvydaitė 1986: 30–31). Sometimes the words are simply criticized as artificial: “Since the words nuvandeninimas, nuvandeninti are artificial, for meat with its water removed <...> the term nusausinta mėsa (dehydrated meat) is more suitable” (Montvilienė 1978: 38). The length of the means of expression was assessed: “One word is more convenient than two, but if it is formed incorrectly, two are better than one” (Nemickaitė, Paulauskienė 1984: 22). It was argued that “a foreign word is better than a poorly coined ‘native’ one” (Būda 1973: 164). Ironic, vivid arguments were also invoked, for example, that a kirpykla (hair salon) is not a nuplaukinimo ar nubarzdinimo punktas (hair- or beard-removal station) (Kinderys 1982: 49).

Looking at linguistic publications from the 1980s, one can sometimes discern a certain uncertainty regarding the nu- + -inti (-inimas) derivatives under discussion. Pranas Kniūkšta does not undertake to assess the derivatives, observing that “being regular and easily adaptable to various fields, and moreover supported by the Russian-language model with обез-, the new word-formation model proved convenient and viable and is gradually beginning to take root in scientific style and terminology” (Kniūkšta 1980: 29). Later, reviewing publications in Kalbos kultūra, he concludes: “The phrases proposed by linguists for this purpose (pašalinti riebalus, ‘remove fats’, and the like) did not satisfy the users of those derivatives,”

⁵Although LKŽe lists druskinti, žievinti, vandeninti, in many derivatives of this type with nu- one can nevertheless reasonably identify mixed derivation.

Terminologija | 2016 | 23 125

the linguistic arguments presented had no effect. The perceived new need for these words and the older forms of expression defended by linguists have proved difficult to reconcile smoothly. International words are sought as a way out of the predicament: nuasmeninti – dehumanizuoti, nuskausminti – anestezuoti (depersonalize – dehumanize, relieve pain – anesthetize); there are also degazacija, degazuoti (degassing, degas), but fundamentally they do not solve the problem. In short, a struggle is under way, in which linguists, with their point of view, are forced to return fire from defensive trenches (to prevent the prefix nu- from occupying new territory)” (Kniūkšta 1986: 33). Arnoldas Piročkinas revises words formed according to the model under discussion, for example, nuplaukinti (= remove hair, shave, cut off hair), nužievinti (= remove, peel off bark), nužmoginti (= dehumanize, turn into a non-human), but adds that “linguists should nevertheless thoroughly investigate the status of verbs in this group in the standard language: there are too many of them, they are often needed by the language, and, finally, perhaps a linguistic argument justifying their use might be found. But until that is done, the public should avoid using them” (Piročkinas 1990: 70). Angelė Kaulakienė neutrally classifies technical terms nuanglinimas (Russian обезуглероживание, German Kohlenstoffentziehung), nuriebalinimas (Russian обезжиривание, German Entfettung), and so on, as calques that are derivationally adequate and mostly semantically adequate (Kaulakienė 1979: 147). Later, she says they are nonstandard and should be replaced by more acceptable equivalents (Kaulakienė 1985: 71), yet acknowledges that, being regular and easily adaptable, they helped give rise to a new derivational type that is convenient and “is gradually beginning to take root not only in physics but also in the terminology of other fields of science. However, the convenience of this type could be justified only to some extent by flexible stability, since otherwise such a derivational type can hardly be semantically motivated” (Kaulakienė 1988: 132). A reference is given to a source in which lankstus stabilumas (‘flexible stability’) is explained as “functionally motivated, purposeful change of norms, the constant capacity of a norm to adapt as well as possible to society’s needs and aims” (Pupkis 1980: 24). Thus, on the one hand, words formed according to the model under discussion were revised, while on the other, their necessity and possible justification were sometimes considered.

Taking account of various published revisions, terminologists at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language did not overlook derivatives formed with nu- + -inimas when collectively preparing Terminologijos taisymai, which appeared at the beginning of restored independence. Nupeleninimas, nuplauk inimas, nuriebalinimas, nuriebinimas, nusierinimas were marked as calques and firmly corrected to phrases using the word (pa)šalinimas (‘removal’) (TT 1992). Alongside these, some derivatives were revised in more than one way-

126

Alvydas Umbrasas

Nuo nurie balinimo iki nuprasminimo: teik yba ir vartosena

way: nuskausminimas (= anestezavimas, skausmo (pa)šalinimas), nuvandeninimas (= 1. vandens (pa)šalinimas; 2. vandens atskyrimas, dehitratavimas), nužievinimas (= 1. žievės lupimas; 2. žievės skutimas). Also added were terms relevant to forestry and agriculture: nusparninimas (= skristukų paisymas), nusparnintuvas (= skristukų paisiklis).

A significant step in standardizing derivatives formed according to the model under discussion was taken in preparing the third edition of the Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas (Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian) (DLKŽ₃ 1993), to which terminologists made a substantial contribution. It consolidated nearly three decades of experience in revising nu- + -inti derivatives used with the meaning of removal, and the derivatives included in DLKŽ₂ 1972—nudruskinti, nudujinti, nukenk smin ti, nuriebalinti, nusakinti, nuvandeninti—were removed. The verb nuskausminti, which had already been included in DLKŽ₁ 1954, was also removed. Nukalkinti was retained, but its meaning was changed: instead of “remove limescale,” it was given the meaning “sprinkle with lime.” Also added was nurūgštinti, a word relevant to the system under discussion, meaning “make too acidic” (the second meaning in LKŽe is “remove acids”). The word nubuožinti, also present since DLKŽ₁ 1954, disappeared, but it took another form—the prefix was changed, and išbuožinti was entered as a historicism meaning “deprive prosperous farmers of their means of production and land.” The verb nuasmeninti was nevertheless retained. This situation persisted in later print and electronic editions of DLKŽ, so it can be said that the third edition was the decisive one.

The nu- + -inti (-inimas) derivatives under discussion arose in specialized usage. Looking through old terminology dictionaries, one also finds derivatives apparently not mentioned by revisers during the Soviet period, for example: nudumblinimas (Russian отмучивание) “settling of muddy particles,” MTŽ 1960 (the derivative also appears in GFGTŽ 1956; ChŽ 1960), nuazotinimas (English denitration), ALKPŽ 1958; nuklijinimas⁶ (Russian обесклеивание), RLKPŽ 1959; nusluoksninimo plyšiai (Russian трещины отслаивания), GFGTŽ 1956; numiškinti (English deforest), ALKŽŪTŽ 1977. The derivatives under discussion were not necessarily listed in dictionaries individually; synonyms, both Lithuanian and non-Lithuanian, were also provided alongside them, for example: debark – nužievinti, nulupti žievę ALKŽŪTŽ 1977; disbark – nulupti žievę, nužievinti ALKŽŪTŽ 1977; deforest – išnaikinti, iškirsti miškus, numiškinti ALKŽŪTŽ 1977; denitration – nuazotinimas, denitravimas ALKPŽ 1958; dewatering – nuvandeninimas, dehidracija ALKŽŪTŽ 1977; обезвоживание – дегидратация, vandens šalinimas RLKŽŪTŽ 1971; обезвоживание – nuvandeninimas, dehid-

⁶Not included in Terminologijos taisymai, but in a publication that appeared in the same year, A. Kaulakienė, one of the co-authors of those revisions, mentions the derivatives nudrumzlinimas, nudumblinimas, nujautrinimas, nuklijinimas, nuorinimas, nuvarnalėšinimas, and also adds the verb nukalinti (Kaulakienė 1992: 9).

Terminologija | 2016 | 23

127

ravimas RLKMTŽ 1975, обезболивание – nuskausminimas, anestezavimas RLKŽŪTŽ 1971, обезжиривание – nuriebalinimas, riebalų pašalinimas RLKMTŽ 1975. Atkreiptinas dėmesys, kad greta tuose pačiuose žodynuose yra nemažai terminų straipsnių, kuriuose analogiškose situacijose nu- + -inti (-inimas) vedinių neteikta, pvz.: defoliate – pašalinti lapus ALKŽŪTŽ 1977, degrease – pašalinti riebalus ALKŽŪTŽ 1977, dehorn – pašalinti, nupjauti ragus ALKŽŪTŽ 1977, deplume – (nu)pešti plunksnas ALKŽŪTŽ 1977, dewool – pašalinti plaukus ALKPŽ 1958, обезвоживание – dehidratacija, vandens šalinimas RLKŽŪTŽ 1971, обезволашивание – plaukų pašalinimas RLKŽŪTŽ 1971, обезжиривание – riebalų pašalinimas RLKŽŪTŽ 1971, обеззоливание – kalkių pašalinimas RLKŽŪTŽ 1971, обезлесение – miškų iškirtimas, išnaikinimas RLKŽŪTŽ 1971, обезлиствление – lapų pašalinimas, defoliacija RLKŽŪTŽ 1971. Teikimo nevienodumus dabar sunku paaiškinti. Beje, senuose terminų žodynuose, kuriuose galima rasti įvairių nu- + -inti (-inimas) vedinių, kartais matyti įrašas, kad žodyno terminus peržiūrėjo LTSR Mokslų akademijos Lietuvių kalbos ir literatūros instituto Terminologijos komisija, minimos Jono Kruopo ir (arba) K. Gaivenio pavardės. Neaišku, ar visada kalbininkai dėl šių vedinių priekaištavo. Net jeigu ir priekaištavo, tikėtina, kad vedinius gynė dalyko specialistai. Vis dėlto žvelgiant į skirtingu metu leistus tos pačios srities terminų žodynus matyti, kad nu- + -inti (-inimas) vedinių žodynuose palaipsniui mažėjo. Štai, pavyzdžiui, 1959 m. išleistame politechnikos terminų žodyne (RLKPŽ 1959) teikiama: обезвоживание – nuvandeninimas, обезволашивание – nuplaukinimas, обезгаживание – degazavimas, nudujinimas, обезжиривание – nuriebinimas, обеззоливание – nukalkinimas, обезуглероживание – nuanglinimas, обесклеивание – nuklijinimas, атвиринimas, обескремнивание – nusilicinimas, обеспыливание – nudulkinimas, обессеривание – nusierinimas, desulfurizavimas. Po ketvirčio amžiaus leistame politechnikos terminų žodyne (RLKPŽ 1984) to paties tipo rusiškų terminų dar daugiau, bet lietuviški atitikmenys pakeisti pagal kalbos normintojų pastabas: обезвоживание – vandens šalinimas, dehidratacija, обезвоздушивание – oro šalinimas, обезволашивание – plaukų šalinimas, plikinimas, обезвреживание – darymas nekenksmingo, обезгаживание – dujų šalinimas, degazacija, обезжелезивание – geležies šalinimas, обезжиривание – riebalų šalinimas, обеззоливание – pelenų šalinimas, обезуглероживание – anglies šalinimas, обезфторивание – fluoro šalinimas, обесклеивание – klijų šalinimas, обескремнивание – silicio šalinimas, обеспыливание,

128

Alvydas Umbrasas

Nuo nurieballinimo iki nuprasminimo: teikyba ir vartosena

dust removal – dust removal, sulfur removal – sulfur removal, desalinization – salt removal, dephosphorization – phosphorus removal.

Similar changes also took place in chemistry dictionaries. The dictionary published in 1960 (ChŽ 1960) gives:

salt removal “removal of soluble salts” – выщелачивание,

gas removal “removal of gases” – обезгаживание,

dust removal “dust removal” – обеспыливание,

sludge separation “separation of fine materials into fractions; purification according to differing settling rates in water” – отмучивание,

deliming “removal of lime from a hide pelt” – обеззолка, обеззоливание,

de-ashing “removal of ash from filter paper” – обеззоливание,

dehairing “removal of hair from a hide” – обезволашивание,

degreasing “removal of fats” – обезжиривание,

resin tapping “extraction of resin from conifers” – подсочка,

desiliconization “removal of silicon compounds” – обескремнивание,

dehydration “removal of water, moisture” – обезвоживание.

In a chemistry terminology dictionary published after independence (ChAŽ 1997), some concepts were dropped, international terms were introduced (a), and some terms were replaced by phrases (b):

a) demineralization “removal of salts dissolved in water” – обессоливание, выщелачивание, demineralization,

decarbonization “1. removal of carbon from steel; 2. removal of CO₂ from gas; 3. liberation of CO₂ from heated carbonates” – обезуглероживание (1), декарбонизация (2,3), decarburization (1), decarbonization (2,3),

degassing “1. rendering toxic warfare agents harmless; 2. removal of gas; 3. release of gases and vapors from a plastics compression mold” – дегазация, дегазификация (2), обезгаживание (2), подпрессовка (3), degassing, outgassing (2), degasification (2), breathing (3),

detoxification “making a toxic substance harmless or removing it” – детоксикация, обезвреживание яда, detoxi(fi)cation (but cf. mechanical removal of harmfulness “mechanical removal of contaminants or covering them with inert materials” – механическое обеззараживание, mechanical decon-tamination);

b) removal of lime “removal of lime from a hide pelt” – обеззоливание, обеззолка, deashing, ash removal,

hair removal, dehairing – “removal of hair and epidermis from a hide being processed” – обезволашивание, depilation,

fat removal “separation of fat from the surface of a material (1) or from its volume (2)” – обезжиривание, degreasing (1), defatting (2),

water removal “reducing the amount of water in a material using desiccants, mechanical action, or heat” – обезвоживание, dewatering, dehydration.

Terminologija | 2016 | 23

129

Descaling, degreasing ChAŽ 1997 marks these as non-recommended. The only distinctive feature is this term’s cross-reference entry: nusakinimas see sakinimas; sakinimas “letting resin flow from coniferous trees specially incised for the purpose” – nodочка. The sakinimas unrelated to nusakinimas (nodочка) was also found in ChŽ 1960. In the aforementioned revised polytechnic dictionary (RLKPŽ 1984), sakinimas was given both as the equivalent of nodочка and as the equivalent of обессмоливание.

Neither the academic Grammar of the Lithuanian Language nor the Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian discusses prefixal verbs of the model in question. They mention only the meaning contributed by the prefix: “something is separated from something by means of the action denoted by the base word,” e.g., nudrėksti (LKG II 1971: 279). Revision of the “removal” meaning began with the denominal adjective-based verb nuriebinti (riebinti: riebus), whose formation raises no questions; this is more a matter of semantics. Later, the discussion moved to noun-based verbs such as nuriebalinti (: riebalai). LKŽe includes the verb riebalinti, “to smear with fat” (I entered riebaluoti with this meaning), but it is likely that nuriebalinti arose as a mixed formation, formed directly from riebalai by analogy with other languages (just as, for example, įvaikinti, išūnyti are formed directly from vaikas, sūnus). Apparently, a dual interpretation is possible here: both prefixal and mixed formation can be discerned. The mixed formation of some derivatives of the model under discussion is more obvious, for example, nuplaukinti (: plaukai), nuvandeninti (: vanduo).

The Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian distinguishes, among other meanings, the sense in which verb derivatives with the prefix nu- mean “separation or removal of something”; examples given are numauti, nupjauti, nuplėšti, nupratinti (DLKŽ₆ 2006). Noun-based verbs are not mentioned here, although the dictionary includes some, for example: nubalnoti “to remove a saddle,” nuginkluoti “to deprive of weapons,” nukainoti “to lower the price, devalue,” nukamanoti “to remove the bridle,” nukelneti “to take off one’s trousers” (DLKŽ₆ 2006). DLKŽ₂ 1972 even had nukaukiuoti “to remove a mask, unmask,” but it was removed from later editions (probably because there is no kauk(i)uoti). Also related to these derivatives is the derivative with the suffix -inti, nuvertinti, “1. to reduce value, make low in value; 2. to render completely worthless” (DLKŽ₆ 2006). It could, however, be treated as causative with respect to nuvertėti, a verb not recorded in several DLKŽ editions, just as nutautinti is causative with respect to nutautėti, nutautsi, “to lose national characteristics, assimilate.” In both the causative and intransitive verbs, nu- indicates loss (removal). nudulkinti “to remove dust” is different: here one can discern only perfective aspect, since dulkinti already means “to dust

130

Alvydas Umbrasas

Nuo nuriebalinimo iki nuprasminimo: teikyba ir vartosena

dusting away dust” (although, at least in theory, nudulkinti could also denote the opposite of removing dust—sprinkling with dust or the like—since the first meaning of dulkinti is “to raise dust, to make something dusty” DLKŽ₆ 2006).

Šiame kontekste įdomu atkreipti dėmesį į veiksmažodį nusavinti. DLKŽ₁ 1954, DLKŽ₂ 1972 jis buvo aiškinamas „atimti ir perduoti ką valstybės ar visuomenės nuosavybėn“. Kaip matyti, nu- čia reiškia ypatybės šalinimą, t. y. padarymą, kad daiktas būtų ne kažkieno savo, o visų. Tvarkant DLKŽ₃ 1993 galbūt desovietizacijos kontekste, bet neatmestina, kad ir dėl nagrinėjamų nu- + -inti vedinių taisymo reikšmė pakeista iš esmės – „kitam paimti ką nuosavybėn“, t. y. turimas omenyje padarymas, kad būtų savo (prilygsta pasisavinti), iš vieno savininko daiktą paima kitas (abi reikšmės fiksuojamos LKŽe). Vėliau (nuo DLKŽ₅ 2003) reikšmė pakeista dar kartą, praplėsta – „buvusį ką nesavą paimti nuosavybėn“, t. y. padaroma, kad daiktas taptų savo, bet nesvarbu, ar priklausė kam nors anksčiau. Vis dėlto aiškinant kitus žodžius nusavinti vartojama lyg ir pirmuosiuose DLKŽ buvusia reikšme: konfiskacija – „priverstinis n u s a v i n i m a s, atėmimas valstybės naudai“, konfiskuoti – „daryti konfiskaciją, n u s a v i n t i“, rekvizicija – „priverstinis atlygin­tinis n u s a v i n i m a s ar laikinas paėmimas valstybės reikalams“ (DLKŽ₆ 2006). Vartosenoje nusavinti dažnas konfiskavimo, nacionalizavimo kontekstuose, pavyzdžiui, LRTB aprobuota: nekilnojamojo turto savininkas – „asmuo, kurio nekilnojamasis turtas pagal TSRS (LTSR) įstatymus buvo n a c i o n a l i z u o t a s ar kitaip neteisėtai n u s a v i n t a s ir kuriam pagal Lietuvos Respublikos piliečių nuosavybės teisių į išlikusį nekilnojamąjį turtą atkūrimo įstatymą atkuriamos nuosavybės teisės į išlikusį nekilnojamąjį turtą“. Įdomu tai, kad šiais laikais galbūt gretinant su nusavinti sugalvojama pasidaryti ir nusvetiminti, pvz.: „<...> savaip sužmogina („n u s v e t i m i n a“) tai, kas iš tikrųjų anaiptol nėra nei žmogiška, nei žmogui nesvetima“ (Petras Setkauskis, 1994⁷).

CURRENT USAGE

Most of the derivatives mentioned earlier in the work of language editors over the past half-century and included in some dictionaries, formed with nu- + -inti (-inimas), are of nominal origin and denote the removal of a particular, usually material, substance. In the current usage, at least partly overseen by editors, the prac-

⁷ Example from DLKT. Here and below, examples from the corpus are cited with the publication year and either the book’s author or the periodical’s title.

Terminologija | 2016 | 23

131

tice shows none of some derivatives recorded earlier (e.g., nuanglinti, nuazotinti, nudumblinti, nuplaukinti, numiškinti⁸, nusilicinti), while some still occur (all the nominal-origin derivatives found that denote material removal are listed in Table 1; the DLKT column gives the number of occurrences of the words, including verb forms, and the abstracts in -imas; the lrytas.lt column gives the number of publications whose text contains the word).

Table 1. Nominal-origin derivatives denoting material removal

Nu– + –inti | DLKT | lrytas.lt | Nu– + –inti | DLKT | lrytas.lt nugeležinti | 63 | 18 | nudruskinti | 4 | 4 nužievinti | 44 | 11 | nupeleninti | 2 | 0 nuriebalinti | 16 | 9 | nukalkinti | 1 | 9 nusierinti | 14 | 5 | nugyslinti | 1 | 0 nusakinti | 11 | 0 | numėšinti | 1 | 0 nuvandeninti | 7 | 1 | nusparninti | 1 | 0 nuorinti | 5 | 12 | nudujinti | 0 | 1 nukraujinti | 5 | 3

It is unclear how many such derivatives occur in authors’ original, unedited texts, but, as can be seen, the derivatives are not very numerous or varied in published texts; the most common is nugeležinti (nugeležinimas), e.g.: “The company installed an artesian well, a water iron-removal unit, and a 2.5-km-long water supply network <...>” (Žemėtvarka ir hidrotechnika, 2004). A less frequent word, nužievinti (e.g., “The clear conclusion is that debarking the above-ground part of stumps is ineffective and should not be applied” (Mūsų girios, 1997)), is nusakinti, which is used in similar contexts. As mentioned earlier, the verb nusakinti was removed from DLKŽ₃ 1993, but sakinti, “to let resin flow, to tap resin,” has been included since DLKŽ₁ 1954; only from DLKŽ₃ 1993 did this word receive the label knyg. (since the verb was probably formed by analogy with nusakinti), so nusakinti can, when needed, denote a completed action. Similarly to sakinti, the verb žievinti, not codified in DLKŽ (but listed in LKŽe: “to peel, strip bark”), is also used, sometimes in the same context,

⁸ The opposite-action verb apmiškinti was found only a few times; this word, too, is corrected (TT 1992).

132 Alvydas Umbrasas | Nuo nurie balinimo iki nupr asminimo: teik yba ir vartosena

e.g.: “He noticed a young pine forest on the other side of the road that had not been tapped, where there were 5% more rotten trees than in the tapped forest. As Prof. Vytautas Valenta observed, tapped pines, sensing that they are about to die, become more active and leave more offspring. Inspecting the felling site, the professor agreed that the stumps had not been debarked” (Mūsų girios, 1997). Sakinti and žievinti most likely arose around the same time⁹ and are words of essentially similar quality; both could be corrected or recommended equally (cf. also “<...> an agreement was signed with the Swedish company Vallby Staket & Stolpar to manufacture debarked stakes” (Mūsų girios, 1995)).

The derivatives presented in Table 1 are generally used in the sense of removal, except for nukalkinti, which is used in two senses, cf. “If the water is decalcified (filtered), soap foams vigorously” (Laima, 1996) and “Of course, the grass beneath the trees turns white as if it had been limed” (Lietuvos rytas, 2002). Occasionally, other derivatives are also formed from words in the model under discussion, for example, automatinis nuorintuvas (Statyba ir architektūra, 2004), dūmų nusierintuvas. Derivatives of the model under discussion are generally not formed to mean the removal of something material other than a substance. Only one or two attempts to “embellish” the text can be seen, e.g.: “<...> things turned out the other way around: we didn’t have lice, but got them after the bathhouse. We went to ‘delouse ourselves’ and came back ‘lousy’” (Birutė Pūkelevičiūtė, 2003).

Among the long-corrected derivatives of nu- + -inti (-inimas) under discussion, nuriebinti clearly stands out as a derivative of adjectival rather than nominal origin (the argument is that it should mean an excess of a property, not its removal, i.e. ‘to make too fat’ rather than ‘to make not fat, to remove fat’). A search of DLKT and lrytas.lt publications found no instances in the sense of excess, but there are some in the sense of removing a property: 14 occurrences in DLKT and 11 publications containing this word on lrytas.lt, e.g.: “Skimmed milk retains all the calcium it contains” (Artuma, 2003), “Hair dries out after rain because acids have a degreasing effect” (lrytas.lt 2014-03-19). The derivative nurūgštinti is also of adjectival origin, although in the context under discussion, at least in theory, it could also join the previously mentioned nominal-origin derivatives meaning the removal of a substance (by association not with rūgštus ‘sour’, but with rūgštis ‘acid’). In the sense of excess of a property, nurūgštinti

⁹ Pre-Soviet usage is also evident: “The resin-tapping technology used in Lithuania was described in detail: before World War II by S. Kripas in the article ‘PINE TAPPING IN LITHUANIA’ (Mūsų girios, 1935, No. 6/7), and from after World War II to the present day by A. Alekna in the book PINE FOREST TAPPING, Kaunas, 1989” (Mūsų girios, 1997); “If the material is to be cut in June or later, the logs found should then be debarked and stacked on pallets so that they do not touch the ground <...>” (Ūkininko patarėjas, 1936-02-06).

Terminologija | 2016 | 23

133

There are no instances in DLKT or lrytas.lt, but the removal sense does occur (12; 5¹⁰), e.g.: “If the soil is somewhat acidic, it is advisable to deacidify it with lime <...>” (lrytas.lt 2015–04–14). Here we may also mention the verb nusodrinti, which is occasionally used in the sense of removal (5; 5). In DLKT it is attested in the 1996 Law on Nuclear Energy of the Republic of Lithuania: “Nuclear materials—plutonium, uranium (natural, enriched in uranium 235 or uranium 233 isotopes, and depleted) and thorium, present in the form of a metal alloy, a chemical compound or concentrate, or in a mixture with other materials,” whereas the current 2011 Law on Nuclear Safety of the Republic of Lithuania, available in LRTB, has approved the wording “Nuclear materials—plutonium, uranium (natural, enriched in uranium 235 or uranium 233 isotopes, or depleted) and thorium, present in metal alloys, chemical compounds or concentrates, or in mixtures with other materials” (nuskurdinimas in this sense is found in terminology dictionaries, e.g. FTŽ 2007). In usage, nusodrinti is also used in the sense of imparting a property, e.g. “A runway for autumn-winter fashion, toned down with chocolate, ochre and burgundy” (lrytas.lt 2011–03–09). DLKT even yielded the entirely occasional formation nuvienprasminti, derived from a compound adjective: “<...> strives to complicate and strip the stylistics and style of their singular meaning, and yet—in almost every sentence—the experience of a writer of detective stories and jokes insistently intrudes from somewhere” (bernardinai.lt 2007–01–03).

There is no indication that language publications have previously corrected derivatives of the model under discussion with a non-Lithuanian root in the sense of removing a property. Quite a few such derivatives can be found in current usage (see Table 2). They are all used infrequently, with a few or sometimes just one occurrence; this is partly due to the concepts themselves being of little relevance to broader usage, e.g.: nuabsoliutinti, nuindividualinti, nukonkretinti, nurealinti, nusakaralinti (the last two are the most frequent, with 11 occurrences each in DLKT). The reasons for the emergence of these derivatives can be inferred: instead of derivatives such as absoliutizuoti, konkretizuoti, absoliutinti, konkretinti are generally recommended (e.g., for konkretizuoti see konkretinti in DLKŽ₆ 2006), so alongside dekonkretizuoti, deindividualizuoti (no usage of deabsoliutizuoti was found), nukonkretinti, nuindividualinti arise, especially since these forms are encouraged by derivatives denoting the opposite action, sukonkretinti, suindividualinti. Sometimes the system of derivatives is developed very extensively: alongside materializuoti, dematerializuoti and the reflexive dematerializuotis, forms such as sumaterialinti, numaterialinti, sumaterialėti, numaterialėti are created, as well as įmaterialinti (for usage examples, see Table 2).

¹⁰ The first numeral indicates the number of occurrences in DLKT, the second the number of publications on lrytas.lt.

134 Alvydas Umbrasas | Nuo nuriebalinimo iki nuprasm inimo: teikyba ir vartosena

Table 2. Derivatives of adjectival origin with a non-Lithuanian root expressing the removal of a property

Nu– + –inti

Cf.

Examples

nuabsoliutinti

suabsoliutinti

“Seeking to strip the values absolutized in the nineteenth century of their absolute status, Leskaitis proclaims crises in various areas of life <...>.” (Darbai ir dienos, 2003)

nuindividualinti

to individualize / to de-individualize

“The technologization of the human being is first and foremost his de-objectification, depersonalization, and de-individualization.” (Arvydas Šliogeris, 1996) “<...> the body individualizes and concretizes the soul, binding it to the living present and sensory proximity <...>.” (Arvydas Šliogeris, 1999) “In metaphysics, a person is not as de-individualized, socialized, and anonymous as in science.” (Problemos, 1996)

deconcretize

concretize deconcretize

“To try to denationalize evil (or good) means trying to deconcretize it, that is, to mystify it.” (Romualdas Ozolas, 2003) “One could concretize such a vague conclusion, for example, with a quotation from a recent economics newspaper <...>.” (Knygnešys, 1995) “The content of the East Slavic recension itself underwent the effects of a partial deconcretization of historical details.” (Darius Baronas, 2000)

dematerialize

materialize become material dematerialize embody dematerialize (oneself)

“Banale objects, jeans, flattened, as if dematerialized, and thus the decorative effect is intensified.” (Kauno diena, 2002) “Whatever an individual creator’s attitude to religion may be, creativity is also influenced by the faith of others, by the materialized imagery of faith.” (Viktorija Daujotytė, 2003) “Thus, once one cycle of the materialization-dematerialization of the divine principle has ended, a new cycle must begin.” (Mindaugas Tomonis, 1995) “<...> having added a perception grounded in sensory or social empiricism and having broken it down, we have a result that cannot be verbalized, much less embodied.” (7 meno dienos, 2007-07-06) “<...> in the world everything is becoming increasingly virtual and dematerialized, and from this entirely new virtual, non-hierarchical communities emerge <...>.” (Atgimimas, 2007-01-19) “With technologies of this kind, a house is, as it were, dematerialized.” (Kauno diena, 1995)

Terminologija | 2016 | 23

135

Nu– + –initi

Plg.

Examples

derealize

realize derealize

“<...> in all these cases the erotic situation is derealized, and it is no longer so important whether the friend will be She or He, since the spiritual bond is emphasized.” (Saulius Žukas, 1995) “A moment of uncertainty that makes the world real.” (Vytautas Rubavičius, 1997) “The reality of dreams is altered, derealized; we can call it poetic.” (Laima, 1997)

desacralize

sacralize desacralize

“Today in Lithuania a trend toward desacralizing the priesthood is becoming apparent.” (Dienovidis, 1996) “Poetry makes the world noble, sacralizes it.” (Švyturys, 1996) “Television desacralizes the political process and its actors <...>.” (Žygintas Pečiulis, 2007)

Alongside derivatives with non-Lithuanian roots, analogous derivatives with Lithuanian roots also appear; for example, the pair desacralize – sacralize (cf. desacralize, sacralize) is supplemented by the pair de-sanctify – sanctify (a). Similarly, alongside moralize – demoralize, moralize – demoralize appears (b), while alongside sensitize – desensitize, the forms heighten sensitivity, sensitize – desensitize begin to be used (c), e.g.:

a) “We see how, in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, the world’s desacralization, its de-sanctification and deification’s undoing, still hidden but clearly perceptible, takes place; in modern times it became a fundamental norm governing human relations with the world” (Arvydas Šliogeris, 1996); “<...> I consider the sanctification of the name Lithuania an exceptionally important factor in preserving and strengthening Lithuanian identity under Soviet occupation <...>” (lrytas.lt 2016-04-13);

b) “<...> a school from which God has been banished is not neutral—it spreads godlessness and morally corrupts the young” (Soter, 2000); “Cosmopolitanism is an attempt to moralize egoism, an attempt to render immorality moral by ideologizing it” (Kultūros barai, 1997); “The denial of moral principles kills creativity and has a demoralizing effect on the entire nation” (Juozas Keliuotis, 1997);

c) “<...> one should consult a foot specialist or dermatologist, who, after anesthetizing the area, will remove the ingrown corner of the nail” (Cosmopolitan, 2004); “<...> one must not forget previous allergens; they must be avoided throughout life, since the likelihood of spontaneous desensitization is very low” (Caritas, 1996); “When allergens first enter the body, they do not yet cause illness, but they sensitize the body, making it allergic—that is, they trigger the production of antibodies” (Sveikata, 1995);

136

Alvydas Umbrasas

Nuo nuriebalinimo iki nuprasminimo: tekyba ir vartosena

“<...> the formation of the body image is a consequence of sensitizing sensory fields; they are sensitized by the acoustic waves emitted during phonation” (Psichologija, 2002).

Denominal derivatives are also formed according to the same model, for example, demythologize – mythologize (cf. demythologize, mythologize):

“Historiography emerges as a tool for demythologizing myth and unmasking poetic invention, separating it from reality” (Arūnas Sverdiolas, 1996);

“<...> Lithuanian history has been mythologized and excessively romanticized; in the subconscious of many Lithuanians lies a great-power complex” (Filosofija ir sociologija, 1997);

“The process of demythologizing historical events leads to a more rational view of history <...>” (Valentinas Brandišauskas, 1995).

Interestingly, for the same purpose, the forms mythologize, demythologize, demythologize are also coined:

“Emilija Pliaterytė came from another branch of the Pliateriai family, not this one; perhaps somewhat mythologized, she is known as a participant in the 1831 uprising, that is, as a political figure” (Meilė Lukšienė, 2000);

<...> he sincerely believed that the New Testament was full of mythological images and therefore had to be demythologized” (Česlovas Kavaliauskas, 1998);

“For this reason, the negating pathos of contemporary literature is partly determined by efforts to demythologize social life <...>” (Vytautas Rubavičius, 1997).

Sometimes it is not entirely clear whether derivatives with non-Lithuanian roots formed with nu- + -inti (-inimas) are denominal or deadjectival, since the stem is disintegrated in the derivative¹¹. For example, the newly coined form nuerotinti may perhaps be linked through derivational stages both to erotika and to erotinis, erotiškas (“remove the features of eroticism,” “make non-erotic”), while nukomunistinti may have derivational relations with komunistas, komunizmas, komunistinis, komunistiškas (for more examples and microsystems, see Table 3). Even where derivational relations with nouns exist, the meaning of removing a property is still evident here; that property simply derives from, and is associated with, the noun. It is also apparent that deerotizuoti, dekomunizuoti function alongside these forms. The emergence of all the analogies mentioned, involving de- and nu-, shows that the oppositional pairs forming among non-Lithuanian words (with de- and without this prefix) put pressure on the Lithuanian prefix system to have analogous pairs as well, and this is sometimes realized through the opposition nu- versus su-.

¹¹ Dėl dezintegracijos žr. Urbutis 1978: 125–128, 198–208.

Terminologija | 2016 | 23

137

Table 3. Derivatives of nominal or adjectival origin with a non-Lithuanian root denoting the removal of a property

Nu− + −inti

Cf.

Examples

de-eroticize

eroticize; de-eroticize

“The imagined and appropriated intellectual’s right to de-eroticize the nation signifies his attempt once again to emphasize the importance of his role as guardian of the nation’s chastity.” (Kultūros barai, 1997) “<...> my heroine in ‘Dawson’s Creek’ was sexual, eroticized...” (lrytas.lt 2012-01-20) “<...> an obvious tendency to de-eroticize the relationship between Aschenbach and Tadzio by resorting to flashbacks <...>.” (7 meno dienos, 2005-03-04)

de-communize

communize; de-communize; decommunize

“All the more so because, probably, this is only one episode in the major problem of de-communizing Lithuanian society, and these issues should be addressed here comprehensively.” (LRS, 1991) “Thus, the secret liquidation operation was being prepared only by the very highest-ranking officials of the communized security department.” (Lietuvos aidas, 1997) “We may become the first country to be decommunized <...>.” (Vytautas Landsbergis, 2000)

depoliticize

politicize; politicize; depoliticize; depoliticize

“<...> the prolonged duration of the Vaidist regime had time to depoliticize part of society, pushing it away from taking an interest in state affairs <...>” (Filosofija ir sociologija, 1995) “Korsakas’s sociological interpretation of literature, which at that time was also particularly politicized and ideologized, was entirely alien to Mykolaitis.” (Meilė Lukšienė, 2000) “Even regional, sub-ethnic movements, such as attempts to politicize the Samogitian movement, can also be interpreted as carrying within them the interests of provincial people.” (bernardinai.lt 2008-04-17) “<...> the creation of a European identity is inevitably accompanied by the subtle depoliticization and deconstruction of the peoples of Europe.” (lrytas.lt 2016-01-19) “Under the guise of depoliticizing the school, the patriotic education of young people is being disrupted.” (Zigmas Zinkevičius, 1999)

138

Alvydas Umbrasas

Nuo nuriebalinimo iki nuprasminimo: teikyba ir vartosena

Nu- + -ify

Cf.

Examples

dereligionize

religionize, become irreligious, dereligionize

“In the consciousness of many people today, technology occupies the place of God. But religion itself, too, has not escaped a desacralizing, dereligionizing interpretation.” (Filosofija ir sociologija, 1996) “It is no coincidence that the philosophical systems of India, arising from an age-old mythological tradition, are so rapidly religionized, merge with the old currents of faith, or give birth to new streams.” (Romualdas Ozolas, 1997) “Secularism, in turn, is not a straightforward process of becoming irreligious, but a contradictory process which, as is becoming increasingly clear, is undergoing a crisis and exhausting its possibilities.” (Filosofija ir sociologija, 1996) “We live in times when society is paying dearly for its earlier dereligionization, desacralization, and rejection of faith.” (Sigitas Geda, 1999)

deromanticize

romanticize, deromanticize

“The postmodern era is characterized by the deromanticization of the pathological personality, but also by the complete liberation and realization in art of human capacities—destructive and creative, good and bad.” (Mokykla, 1996) “<...> V. Mykolaitis-Putinas is considerably more critical of the total romanticization of Lithuanian literature.” (Lituanistica, 2003) “The path of deromanticization, even desacralization and dethronement of love, has been taken.” (Dienovidis, 1995)

A review of the DLKT and lrytas.lt sources shows that present-day usage includes a relatively wide variety of denominal nu- + -ify (-ification) derivatives denoting the removal of a property or some other immaterial, abstract thing. Some are used quite widely (frequency data will be presented later), while others are used very narrowly. They are generally formed by analogy with one another, sometimes giving rise to substantial microsystems. For example, we already have the established microsystem of words codified in the DLKŽ: value, evaluate, appraise, devalue, lose value, devalue (as mentioned earlier, nuvertėti is not included in the DLKŽ, but is essential to this system (it is in the LKŽe)). It is likely that, by analogy with this system, a similar microsystem of very limited usage has been formed: meaning, signify, imbue with meaning, overemphasize, deprive of meaning, devalue, lose meaning, desemanticize, e.g.:

Terminologija | 2016 | 23

139

“Every compositional figure, while demonstrating the speaker’s mastery, also strengthens and gives meaning to information <...>” (Regina Koženiauskienė, 2001);

“When sadness and despair are culturally imbued with meaning, they no longer become an illness, depression” (Vytautas Kavolis, 1996);

“For by elevating only the sensory cosmos, the sophists at the same time diminished the significance of the intelligible cosmos highlighted by earlier philosophy, but not yet separated from the sensory cosmos and therefore rendered problematic <...>” (Problemos, 2003);

“<...> if we are to believe the reasoning set out above about the relation between expression and meaning, by expressing, we are more likely to diminish meaning than to heighten or imbue it with meaning” (Darbai ir dienos, 1999);

“<...> the statement is usually derogatory. And in a poem, the creation of such mythology leads to the simplest truth-telling, the ‘expression’ of poetic senses and meanings” (bernardinai.lt 2007-05-16);

“<...> because of this circumstance, the emotional side of religion can sometimes be given too little significance” (Gintaras Beresnevičius, 1997);

“Thus the hillock, too, has been desemanticized, stripped of significance as a mythical and sacred object” (Giedrius Viliūnas, 2001).

Although they differ somewhat in their derivation (between value and to value one might discern mutual derivational motivation, whereas meaning is clearly the base word for the verb to give meaning, since the suffix -m- is carried over), value and meaning are words belonging to the same semantic field. Also added to this group are sense, to make sense, to imbue with meaning, to deprive of meaning, to extract meaning (a), as well as essence, to essence¹², to give essence, to essence together, to deprive of essence, to extract essence, to lose essence (b), for example:

a)

“<...> she diligently embodied her vision; no doubt, he had found a fragment of a dream: a speck of sleep that ‘gave meaning’ to his existence” (Viktoras Katilius, 1996);

“Here the opposition between ‘before’ and ‘now’ becomes apparent: formerly aesthetics gave meaning to reality, whereas now it strips it of meaning” (Literatūra, 2003);

“That is why faith should be regarded as the opposite of giving meaning; that is why faith is a burst of meaning being stripped away” (Arvydas Šliogeris, 1999);

b)

“More significant for them still is the creation of thoughts and concepts and the declaration of one’s inclinations in life, to create oneself through them, to give oneself essence—that is, to create the will” (Vydūnas 2013: 23–24);

“<...> distances him ‘from Aristotelian-Thomism, these essentially “essence”-based philosophies, but at the same time also from Platonism, which, having posited a realm of ideas beyond, deprived the world of essence by transferring the essences of things outside them’” (Respectus Philologicus, 2001);

“And the greatest task set before us humans is to give being essence” (Peteris Wustas, 2000);

“<...> every seeing and not seeing, every doing and not doing, every giving essence and removing essence, every creating and destroy-

¹² The verb to essence does not occur in DLKT, but an example by Vydūnas was found.

140

Alvydas Umbrasas

Nuo nuriebalinimo iki nuprasminimo: teik(yba ir vartosena

... takes place here, on the crest of the hill, between the sensory and the supersensory” (Arvydas Šliogeris, 1999);

“Seen in this way, cult is a factor of extraordinary importance in life, helping a person avoid <...> and shallowness” (Vincas Vyčinas, 2001).

The words cited are found mainly in philosophical, literary-studies, and similar texts. The derivatives ai reikšminti, pras m i n t i, esminti are used more often with prefixes. In general, one gets the impression that the non-prefixed forms of such neologisms are sometimes coined later than their prefixed forms. An opposition between active and spontaneous action is evident (nuvertinti – nuvertėti, nureikšminti – nureikšmėti, nuesminti – nuesmėti; only nuprasmėti was not found alongside nuprasminti). An opposition between imparting and removing a quality or content is also apparent. The latter opposition is formed by contrasting derivatives with the prefixes su-, į- with those bearing the prefixes nu-, iš- (sureikšminti, įreikšminti – nureikšminti, išreikšminti; įprasminti – nuprasminti, išprasminti; suesminti, įesminti – nuesminti, išesminti). Although one might expect oppositions su- – nu- and į- – iš-, the examples show that the pairs are mixed up. For instance, the well-known opposition įvertinti – nuvertinti (“<...> we tend to doubt ourselves and underestimate ourselves more than we evaluate ourselves” (bernardinai.lt 2008-01-13); “In a literary work, re-evaluation, underestimation and evaluation take place” (Literatūra, 2003)). In LKŽe, the verb išvertinti is identified with įvertinti, “to acknowledge someone’s worth, value, or respect them,” but išvertinti was not found in the sources examined. In current usage there are established oppositions formed with different prefixes, e.g. (words from DLKŽ₆ 2006): sumontuoti – išmontuoti, sutuokti – ištuokti, įregistruoti – išregistruoti, įjungti – išjungti; sutautinti – nutautinti may also be mentioned here. Prefixes are also used to express opposition between words with different roots, e.g.: sutankinti – išretinti, sutaupyti – išėikvoti, įmirkyti – išdžiovinti, sujaudinti – nuraminti. Oppositions between denominal verbal neologisms were codified: įelektrinti, “to give an electric charge,” – išelektrinti, “to remove an electric charge from a body”; įmagnetinti, “to impart magnetic properties,” – išmagnetinti, “to remove a body’s magnetic properties” (DLKŽ₆ 2006). Since the language has many oppositions su-, į- – iš-, apparently it was considered that the form iš- + -inti is more Lithuanian than nu- + -inti. Consequently, the verb nubuožinti, previously included in DLKŽ₃ 1993, was changed to išbuožinti¹³, although when revising verbs with a meaning of removal

¹³ This change may also have been prompted by the fact that the Russian equivalent does not use the suffix обез- (обес-), which indicates removal, but rather the suffix раз- (рас-), which expresses the undoing of the result of an earlier action, i.e. раскулачить. Also compare išmagnetinimas – размагничивание, išsandarinimas – разгерметизация (RTŽ 2000).

Terminologija | 2016 | 23

141

Derivatives with un- + -ize were sometimes corrected, as were neologisms with ex- + -ize; for example, instead of de-Sovietize, it was suggested that desovietize be used instead (Rudaitienė 1993: 13), and instead of depoliticize – depoliticize (KK 2003: 84). The latter recommendation was justified on the grounds that there is no politicize, although in fact this word had already emerged in usage, and, when needed, politicize is also coined (see Table 3). Incidentally, ex- + -ize is generally not used with the meaning ‘remove material’, but ATTŽ 2001 records bur-removal—‘removal of vegetable impurities from wool’ (обезпенивание), bur-removal machine—‘a machine for mechanically removing vegetable impurities from wool’ (обезпенивающая машина). Clearly, bur-removal has thus been corrected. J. Klimavičius said that bur-removal machine sounds comical, but did not propose a preferred term (Klimavičius 1974: 19). The change of prefix in the dictionary seems rather odd. Apparently, other solutions should have been sought (the definitions do not make this clear, but perhaps it could simply have been bur removal, bur-removal machine). Cf. обезпенивание – bur removal (RLKPŽ 1984). The occasional use of deforestation also seems rather odd, e.g., “This is not d e f o r e s t a t i o n, not the destruction of a forest, but a small, responsible thinning of the forest in places <...>” (lrytas.lt 2016-04-24).

As already mentioned, in preparing DLKŽ₃ 1993, many nu- + -inti derivatives with a meaning of removal were dropped, but nuasmeninti was retained. The reason for keeping this word in the dictionary was presumably that suasmeninti, įasmeninti were also included alongside it; the argument that “we have nothing with which to replace such a formation” (Paulauskienė 2001: 95) may also have played a part, as may usage tradition¹⁴. Admittedly, some instructors of language for specific purposes correct nuasmeninti by analogy with the model used to correct similar derivatives, recommending the phrase padaryti beasmenį (“make impersonal”) (Kazlauskienė et al. 2010: 62; Bielinskienė et al. 2014: 187). However, this is unlikely to affect the usage of a word that has been recommended for a long time, especially since it is used quite frequently (see Table 5) and appears in terminological dictionaries (e.g., nuasmeninimas SŽ 1993, nuasmenintasis programavimas ITŽ 1997). Another tendency is more apparent: if users are allowed to use nuasmeninti, they do not hesitate to use nužmoginti as well, particularly since these words often occur in similar contexts or right next to each other (e.g.,

¹⁴The word was already used during the first period of independence, for example: “Capitalism, seeking profit by every means, depersonalized work, depersonalized man, and thereby depersonalized life” (Naujoji Romuva, 1937, No. 29–30), “<...> the creative work of a nation rests on the conscious gathering of strong personalities, not on a forced crowd of depersonalized people” (XX amžius, 1939-03-31).

1 4 2

Alvydas Umbrasas | Nuo nuriebalinimo iki nuprasminimo: teikyba ir vartosena

“I think with horror about closed-type collective institutions. They dehumanize and depersonalize” (Tėviškės žinios, 1996)). The microsystems of words from the same semantic field (they also have the international equivalents depersonalizuoti, dehumanizuoti) develop in very similar ways: nuasmeninti, suasmeninti, įasmeninti, suasmenėti, nuasmenėti and cf. nužmoginti, sužmoginti, įžmoginti, išžmoginti, nužmogėti (examples found in usage are given in Table 4). Some of these words are also recorded in LKŽe. The article noted that nužmoginti was corrected by linguists, but some language-advice publications say that nužmogėti¹⁵ is not censured (KK 2003: 137), and compare it with nutau­sti, nutautėti. If it is possible to nužmogėti, then it is also possible to nužmoginti. The State Commission of the Lithuanian Language’s Language Consultation Bank already says that both words are possible, citing the Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian (BLKŽ); however, the letter N has not been published in this dictionary, and these words have only been included in its headword list, which is still to be edited. The headword list of BLKŽ also includes person-related words nukatalikinti, nukrikščioninti (both are in LKŽe). Although usage is not extensive, it shows that word groups are formed as needed: nukrikščioninti, sukrikščioninti, įkrikščioninti, sukrikščionėti, nukrikščionėti. LKŽe records nukatalikėti, sukatalikėti, but the sources examined yielded only nukatalikinti, sukatalikinti (see Table 4). In a similar way, usage sometimes produces other neologisms expressing oppositions between active and spontaneous action, for example: nubažnytinti – nubažnytėti, nudvasinti – nudvasėti, nupilietinti – nupilietėti, nuvalstybinti – nuvalstybėti. DLKŽ₆ 2006 records sukultūrinti – sukultūrėti; usage also yields nukultūrinti – nukultūrėti, as well as įkultūrinti, iškultūrinti. The opposition between active and spontaneous action is sometimes evident both in derivatives with the prefixes su– and in those with the prefixes nu–, but when the prefix iš– is chosen to express removal, a spontaneous-action counterpart is usually absent. For example, išvalstybinti is used quite frequently, but išvalstybėti is not found. Admittedly, a few instances of iškultūrinti – iškultūrėti were found. LKŽe records ištautinti – ištautėti, ištausti, but usage yielded only an occasional instance of ištautinti; nutautinti is the usual form. Incidentally, the opposition nutautinti – nutautėti also prompts the formation of nulietuvinti – nulietuvėti (examples of these and other similar words can also be found in Table 4).

¹⁵ Since the international word dehumanizuoti was proposed instead of nužmoginti, there were proposals to use degraduoti instead of nužmogėti (Balčienė 1979: 15).

Terminologija | 2016 | 23

143

Table 4. Derivatives expressing the removal of a characteristic or another intangible entity

Nu– + –inti

Cf.

Examples

nuasmeninti

personalize, personify, become personalized, depersonalize, depersonalize

“One of Mieželaitis’s poems voices resentment at encountering such depersonalized, anonymous, unidentifiable authors, possessing only something like a code name, etc. <...>” (Literatūra, 2001) “<...> The internet provided an opportunity to create individualized products and send personalized messages separately to each user.” (Arvydas Bakanauskas, Vytautas Liesionis, 2008) “<...> Abstract, intangible things—in this case, the spirit of the nation—are personified, given personal form through the life story of a specific person, namely a book smuggler.” (Nemunas, 2004) “And here, according to the philosopher, the most important thing is not to become depersonalized (which is especially easy when caught in a crowd), but to become personalized.” (Dienovidis, 1996) “<...> in the first case we have what is, as it were, a personalization of the moral source, while in the second, various standards of conduct and stereotypes are depersonalized, objectified.” (Problemos, 1995)

nubažnytinti

make church-affiliated, make church-affiliated, become secularized

“From the Reformation to the first half of the 19th century, this kind of ‘unchurching’ of the visible Church was popular throughout Europe.” (Darbai ir dienos, 2003) “A characteristic feature of this period emerged—the churching of marriage. The Church began to regulate marriages <...>.” (Soter, 2003) “Already with King Mindaugas’s baptism, Lithuanian was narrowly, and with the general baptism of the Lithuanians broadly, brought into the Church.” (Terminologija, 2003) “The Church itself, unable to adapt to a new society, is largely to blame for the decline in church affiliation and alienation from faith, rather than secularization.” (Naujasis židinys, 1996)

nubuožinti

make a serf, emancipate a serf

“We really didn’t know much about Stalin’s actions. The information that reached us was: dekulakization. That was all.” (Galina Dauguvietytė, 2002) “Our family was classed as kulaks; the authorities imposed unbearable obligations on us.” (Stasė Kiselienė, 2002) “It seemed that the dark memories of dekulakization, deportations, collectivization, and hopeless labor on collective farms would haunt us all our lives.” (Dienovidis, 1996)

144

Alvydas Umbrasas

Nuo nuriebalinimo iki nuprasminimo: teikyba ir vartosena

De- + -ize

Cf.

Examples

de-bourgeoisify

become bourgeois

“Between bourgeoisness and religiosity lies a deep and fundamental contradiction. The bourgeoisie cannot be made religious: it can be de-bourgeoisified.” (Alfonsas Eidintas, 2001) “Elections are elections, but isn’t the bourgeoisified working class merely a fat-laden replacement for the new bourgeoisie?” (Gintaras Beresnevičius, 2003)

de-deify

deify, deify

“The secular thought of the Renaissance sought to de-deify historical space <...>.” (Baltos lankos, 1995) “God becomes human in order to deify us; he impoverishes himself in order to enrich us <...>.” (Algimantas Kajackas, 1997) “<...> the process of Becoming is imbued with meaning through the Meaning of the Supreme, deification (theolysis) takes place.” (Mindaugas Tomonis, 1995)

de-spiritualize

spiritualize, become spiritual, lose spirituality

“We will gain little by preserving a standardized, spiritless, ‘dehumanized’ person.” (Albertas Zalatorius, 1997) “An intensive process of de-spiritualization and materialization of life is under way.” (Arvydas Šliogeris, 1996) “In our creative process, both nature and human nature are spiritualized through the human idea.” (Kęstutis Pukelis, 1995) “In this way, the relations between the material world and human beings are imbued with spirit. Unfortunately, in our days they are changing in the direction of de-spiritualization <...>.” (bernardinai.lt 2006-01-01) “<...> the writer vividly reveals the human being’s loss of spirituality, depersonalization, and conformism.” (Literatūra, 2003)

de-Catholicize

Catholicize

“Only the strong unity of all Catholics in this area can withstand the attempts of the enemies of Catholicism, who were particularly aggressive at the time, to de-Catholicize Lithuania.” (Alfonsas Eidintas, 1995) “The Catholicization of Lithuania in the state changed the balance among faiths: from then on, the Lithuanian confession influenced the Russians, rather than the other way around, as before.” (Edvardas Gudavičius, 1999)

de-Christianize

Christianize, initiate into Christianity, become Christianized, dechristianize

“Catholic leaders have repeatedly asserted that their clergy in Russia first and foremost seek to serve Catholics or work among people of Catholic background who were dechristianized by the long years of Communist dictatorship.” (XXI amžius, 2002) “The baptism of Samogitia was carried out not as the final Christianization of Lithuania, but as that of the remaining unchristianized—

Terminologija | 2016 | 23

145

De– + –ize

Plg.

Examples

čionintos srities sukrikščioninimo aktas.“ (Edvardas Gudavičius, 1999)

“From the theological and liturgical point of view, there are three sacraments of initiation into Christianity: Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist.” (Soter, 2003)

“<...> our hero’s story began a dozen or so years ago, when the last bastion of Christianized European pagans, the national community, had not yet been captured.” (Arvydas Juozaitis, 2003)

“Although we live in a post-Christian world, the dechristianization of contemporary society makes it necessary for us to look back to the pre-Christian era and explore how the apostles evangelized it.” (bernardinai.lt 2008-06-29)

“Now it is necessary not only to implant faith in cultures, but also to breathe new life into a dechristianized world, whose relations with Christianity are often merely cultural in nature.” (Pontifical Council for Culture, 2000)

deculturalize

culturalize, inculturate, exculturate, become exculturated, become cultured, become deculturalized, deculturalize

“How can the ongoing ‘deculturalization’ of the countryside be stopped, when libraries or small schools are being closed because of limited funds?” (Rimantas Laužackas et al., 2004)

“Does this mean that it is not nature that is culturalized, but culture that is naturalized?” (bernardinai.lt 2008-12-13)

“The inculturation of religion and the evangelization of culture are not realities of the same order.” (Soter, 2001)

“We very often fail to care for culture; we exculturate a great many things, and we exculturate politics itself.” (lrytas.lt 2011-06-07)

“For many young people attending educational institutions in various countries, despite their teachers’ good will and competence, may often be fully educated yet partly exculturated.” (Pontifical Council for Culture, 2000)

“We have no other choice but to join the race, the competition, the search for new paths, so that society’s cultural development may increase even further.” (Naujosios tėviškės žinios, 2003)

“The author answers positively, though not particularly boldly, the question of whether we believe in the power of culture, which alone can help overcome the downward slope of the nation’s deculturation.” (lrytas.lt 2011-06-02)

146

Alvydas Umbrasas

Nuo nuriebalinimo iki nuprasminimo: teikyba ir vartosena

De- + -ize

Cf.

Examples

“<...> such cultured subjectivity is suddenly torn from its customary and fitting existential milieu and thrown into an anti-human, deculturated world founded on primitive instinct <...>. ” (Šiaurės Atėnai, 1996)

de-Lithuanize

Lithuanize, become Lithuanian, cease to be Lithuanian

“<...> Lutherans in Lithuania carried the silver torch through the darkness of de-Lithuanization.” (Švyturys, 1995) “Land reform in the villages greatly reduced the influence of foreigners in the region, while not a single law was passed to Lithuanize Kaunas.” (Juozas Keliuotis, 2004) “<...> the Curonians early mingled with Lithuanian farmers and became Lithuanian, while later many of them became Germanized.” (Darbai ir dienos, 1999) “The origins of the Tuteiši and their role in the de-Lithuanization of the Vilnius region are enigmatic; linguists are still debating the matter.” (lrytas.lt 2011-07-09)

de-citizenize

make a citizen, cease to be a citizen

“Finally, we must understand that the depoliticization of society leads to the stripping of citizenship, to the decline of democracy and of the state itself.” (Dienovidis, 1995) “<...> the naturalized Black man Craig Robinson (204 cm) proved to be a truly courageous fighter for the rebound (he grabbed 15).” (Lietuvos aidas, 1997) “The first symbolic ‘record’ is baptism, the acquisition of a name, through which the small individual is personalized and incorporated as a citizen, entered into the nation’s cultural and confessional space.” (lrytas.lt 2011-05-06) “<...> in post-socialist states, the syndrome of de-statization, de-socialization and, finally, loss of citizenship is becoming increasingly apparent.” (Istorijos studijos, 2003)

drive mad

drive sane, go mad, become demented

“<...> such visual information hypnotizes both the viewer and, apparently, the author, and unwittingly drives the observer mad.” (Dienovidis, 1997) “No, she isn’t insane—I can tell the insane apart—she’s just driven mad.” (Lietuvos rytas, 2001) “The exhaustion of morality, the miscarriage of culture, the derangement of the human being...” (Petras Dirgėla, 2004) “Cultural space and the ability to make use of it acculturate and habituate barbarism—it becomes demanding of itself and selective about things <...>. ” (Respectus Philologicus, 2000).

Terminologija | 2016 | 23

147

De- + -ify

Cf.

Examples

depersonalize

personalize

“The epitaph’s creator thinks that he should depersonalize himself a little, say more about the other person—the most important, perhaps even familiar things, and easily imaginable associations.” (bernardinai.lt 2005) “I can believe not in God in general, but only in God incarnate and personified.” (Arvydas Šliogeris, 1996) “The apprehension of finitude is the same as individualization and personification.” (Arvydas Šliogeris, 1996)

despiritualize

spiritualize oneself, spiritualize

“Empiricism becomes the initial point of departure from which positivism begins its campaign to despiritualize, mechanize, and deify human life.” (Švyturys, 1994) “If each mode of the corporeal world corresponds to a certain mode of the psychic side, then the spiritualization of all nature should follow from this.” (Johanas Štrauchas, 1995) “It is better to say that for Thomas man is an ensouled body, while for Descartes he is an embodied soul.” (Naujasis židinys, 1997)

denationalize

nationalize, instill national identity, lose national identity, become denationalized, become denationalized

“Denationalization and the instilling of national identity take place simultaneously, and that is enough to prove that nationality nowadays is certainly no longer a necessity, but has become a need.” (Šiaurės Atėnai, 1996) “Most Lithuanians who emigrated to South America because of government policy quickly lost their national identity. S. Magonis notes: ‘thanks to such a system of denationalization, the second generation of immigrants is almost indistinguishable from the native inhabitants of that country.’” (Istorija, 2003) “The hungry need bread—not art, the blind need light—not art, young people losing their national identity need their nation—not art. <...> When we stand on the path of losing our national identity, not lofty ideas but concern for survival is paramount.” (Kauno diena, 1995) “Lithuanian society, comprehensively Sovietized and severely harmed over five decades, is now being Europeanized—secularized, denationalized, and stripped of its statehood <...>.” (lrytas.lt 2016-01-23)

de-realize

make real, bring into reality, make fully real

“<...> the world turns into an accumulation of formless, de-realized sensory entities, and its distinguishing feature becomes radical groundlessness and meaninglessness.” (lrytas.lt 2012-08-30)

148

Alvydas Umbrasas

Nuo nuriebalinimo iki nupasminimo: teikyba ir vartosena

Nu– + –inti

Cf.

Examples

“He reveals his nomenclatural origins and nature by trying to establish these values politically and ideologically, that is, he seeks to <...> and bring up to date cultural models taken from the past, but, unfortunately, dead. “ (Kultūros barai, 1997) “<...> everyday life is the situation in which we deal with reality in itself and from which alone all other situations can be made real?” (Soter, 2003) “The present state is described as unrealized, simulacral, devoid of a realistic reference; thus truth can be spoken of only as a certain construct, a role <...>. “ (Filosofija ir sociologija, 2000)

de-state-ize

state-ize, enstate, exstate, de-state

“<...> neither Marxism nor its founder offered any positive answer to the question of industry and workers, proposing only an exclusively negative program of expropriation and de-statization, envisaging only the destruction of bourgeois society and its liberal and democratic system.” (Naujasis židinys, 1996) “In Lithuania, there is no need to state-ize anything for now (who knows what tomorrow will bring); on the contrary, education and healthcare need to be de-stated, and the pension system reformed.” (Verslo žinios, 2008-11-24) “The Lithuanian language was statified, truly schooled and universitized only after another two difficult decades.” (Terminologija, 2003) “The initial stage of privatization (de-statization) of state and collective-farm property through investment vouchers in 1991–1993 made it possible to create a large supply of former public property <...> in the secondary market <...>. “ (Žemės ūkis, 1997) “Bearing in mind that the state itself is merely an ‘organ of class domination,’ de-statization should primarily be understood as a reduction in any coercive, suppressive authority and the socialization of human activity <...>. “ (lrytas.lt 2014-12-08)

dehuman-ize

humanize, dehumanize, become dehumanized, dehumanize

“<...> the philosophers’ God becomes less and less like the mythological gods until at last it separates entirely from religion and turns into an impersonalized and dehumanized supreme being <...>. “ (Arvydas Šliogeris, 1996) “Practical action and thought have meaning only because a human being comes into contact with a reality that is not absolutely transparent and resists every effort to humanize and dehumanize it.” (Arvydas Šliogeris, 1996)

Terminologija | 2016 | 23

149

Nu− + −inti

Cf.

Examples

“<...> the first step in the process of dehumanization is the aforementioned deconstruction—which is essentially nothing other than an unceasing effort to destroy or at least destabilize the image of the human being, which is the moral and intellectual core and foundation of their identity.” (lrytas.lt 2012-09-10)

“The fact that society is threatened by ever-greater depersonalization, its transformation into a mass—in other words, dehumanization—and the fact that it itself will act in a dehumanizing way <...>.” (John Paul II, 1994)

“<...> The world has gone mad, the world has approached some dangerous threshold, humanity is becoming dehumanized or someone is finishing the job of ‘dehumanizing’ it, because we see the image as if through some lens <...>.” (Lietuvos aidas, 1996)

“In the dehumanized art of modernism, only a false (artificial, an artifact) or dead body remains, exhibited on the surface of a shattered painting <...>.” (Menotyra, 2000)

The desire to express oppositions through language is apparently one of the more important reasons why new nu- + -inti (–inimas) derivatives arise with the meaning of removal. Such words are needed in journalistic writing, especially in reflective, philosophical texts, which devote much attention to new means of expressing thought, and to word form itself. After all, in ordinary texts we neither make existent nor make nonexistent (e.g., “Perhaps Vytautas Rubavičius is right to call for making our world, rendered nonexistent, existent again <...>” (Vytautas Martinkus, 2003)); generally, we do not speak much about philosophical being. Juxtaposing neologisms in a single sentence further highlights their content and stylistic functions, helping to create an effect of surprise, for example: “The disappearance of one form of being is connected with the emergence of another form of being; dis-formation is at the same time in-formation, de-sensualization is at the same time sensualization, disappearance is at the same time becoming, and the dissolution of a thing is at the same time its crystallization” (Arvydas Šliogeris, 1996). Alongside the pair to sensualize – to desensualize, there also occur to sensualize together – to desensualize together: “The first interpretation unfolds in the forms of flesh, skin, carrion. The second—in sculpture and machine. Such a body is either hyper-sensualized or excessively desensualized <...>” (Šiaurės Atėnai, 1996).

One also creates one-off, entirely occasional formations, which may even be incomprehensible without context, for example:

150

Alvydas Umbrasas

Nuo nuriebalinimo iki nuprasminimo: teikyba ir vartosena

to deprive of language – “The nation is gradually being deprived of its language. It was possible to resist the Russian language imposed by force. There is no way to resist English, prestigious in everyday life and indispensable in institutions: you choose for yourself.” (Romualdas Ozolas, 2003)

to decaffeinate – “And I knew people who, frightened by earlier doctors’ recommendations, had switched to decaffeinated coffee, although they greatly liked caffeinated coffee, and drank that expensive, nauseating ersatz for twelve long years, paying even more because decaffeinating coffee costs more than serving it natural.” (bernardinai.lt 2006-06-21)

to de-literaturize – “<...> we can easily identify as characteristic features of a postmodernist work, as are the poems’ lack of coherence, their decentered structure, or literature’s de-literaturization in general.” (Nemunas, 1996)

to de-intellectualize – “<...> the USA, poisoning and killing everyone, created such an ideology of ‘de-intellectualization’ and emotional numbing that no one reflects even on what they see and experience.” (bernardinai.lt 2007-05-16)

to de-paradoxify – “Luhmann describes religion as a system of forms that society creates in order to ‘de-paradoxify the world.’” (Robert Wuthnow, 1996)

to depoliticize – “That is why the Lithuanian Front’s associates can be urged to distance themselves from complete ‘non-worldview’ and speak of ‘true democracy,’ in which political activity would be depoliticized (the influence of worldview on activity reduced). This ‘depoliticization’ should take place not only in culture but also in the economy.” (Dienovidis, 1995)

to disenchant – “After all, there is still the entire domain of non-church, non-institutional religion. Or should it be rationalist disenchantment (Antzauberung)?” (Filosofija ir sociologija, 1996)

to de-bird – “<...> refers no longer to a particular bird into which the deceased is transformed, but to a soul that retains the essence and self-awareness of the deceased, the truth appearing in the form of a bird. In later times this form may have become somewhat of an impediment; apparently, some physical ‘de-birding’ of the ancestor took place <...>.” (Gintaras Beresnevičius, 2004)

to de-Rakauskas – “Another deliberate ‘de-Rakauskas-ing’ by R. Rakauskas: no girls, no cult of naked bodies, no stylistic flashes and glimmers, no portraits of famous and not-so-famous girls with a clearly graphic line defining the oval of the face.” (Kauno diena, 2001)

to de-poeticize – “Open and subdued self-irony. <...>. Even a rather risky un-crowning, de-poeticization. De-heroization.” (Dienovidis, 1995)

to de-brain – “And we no longer had the strength or faith to enter into open confrontation with the system—the mechanisms of brainwashing had done their work well here.” (Valentinas Sventickas, 2008)

to de-Žiovulis – “Stylistically, a Maironis-like description of the rustling of the forest is parodied—‘de-Žiovulis-ing’ <...>.” (Darbai ir dienos, 2003)

Understandably, rules may be deliberately broken in such formations in pursuit of originality or impact (sometimes as if to excuse themselves with quotation marks), but both formations with well-developed micro-systems and occasional formations merely confirm that derivatives formed with nu- + -inti have, in actual usage, de facto a meaning of removal; text creators believe readers will understand them. The derivatives can be replaced by words

Terminologija | 2016 | 23

151

with phrases and prepositional constructions using be, but the emphasis on the action would not always be retained, and sentences would sometimes have to be substantially rephrased.

Among non-codified derivatives with nu- + -inti (-inimas) denoting the removal of a property or another immaterial, abstract thing, the most notable in terms of frequency of use are nukenksminti and nuskausminti (the most frequent derivatives are presented in Table 5¹⁶; the frequency of all the other derivatives mentioned in the article that denote the removal of an immaterial thing is lower in the sources examined; the DLKT column gives the number of occurrences of the words, including verb forms (also including substantivized participles, since there is no way to distinguish these programmatically), and abstracts with -imas, while the lrytas.lt column gives the number of publications in which the word occurs). Morphologically, they can be linked to the nouns kenksmas, skausmas, although a connection with the adjectives kenksmingas, skausmingas cannot be ruled out either (the stem has been disintegrated). Derivatives without a prefix are generally not used (they are listed in LKŽe), although they do occur occasionally, e.g.: “<…> he would follow me around and keep saying: ‘Brother, press harder here, ease off the brush here, so the line “vibrates,” so that it is “alive,” so that it “h u r t s”’ (Kauno diena, 1995); ‘The mayor promises that this way Vilnius residents will save hundreds of hours in traffic jams, while officials intend to p u n i s h the clueless with fines’ (lrytas.lt 2015-08-21).”

Table 5. The most frequent derivatives denoting the removal of a property or another immaterial thing

Nu- + -inti | DLKT | lrytas.lt | Nu- + -inti | DLKT | lrytas.lt nuvertinti | 1349 | 1281 | nureikšminti | 29 | 13 nukenksminti | 557 | 331 | nupilietinti | 21 | 2 nuskausminti | 453 | 683 | numitinti | 19 | 1 nuasmeninti | 235 | 80 | nudievinti | 18 | 1 nutautinti | 225 | 70 | nupra sminti | 16 | 2 nužmoginti | 187 | 58 | nubūtinti | 13 | 1 nudvasinti | 37 | 6 | nubuozinti | 10 | 1

There are no more similar derivatives in broader usage that could be linked to abstract nouns with the suffixes -smas, -mas. Only the very rare forms nuveiksminti, nujausminti were found, e.g.: “It was noted¹⁷

¹⁶ Clearly adjectival derivatives have not been included in the table; they are all rare, and their frequency has already been mentioned.

¹⁷ Sometimes derivatives are formed from nouns with the suffix -me, for example, nugrėsminti—“Man, like a branch of the ape, is the result of greatly deteriorated living conditions and the need to overcome them through reflection (overcoming the threat, ‘de-threatening’ it through oneself, through the warmth of one’s inner self)” (Romualdas Ozolas, 1997).

152

Alvydas Umbrasas | Nuo nurie balinimo iki nuprasminimo: teikyba ir vartosena

an interesting, polemical process of de-energizing nature, of d i s a b l i n g it, as European civilization develops” (Baltos lankos, 1996): “<...> somewhat overemphasized laser projections, kinetic scenography, and digital imagery. Yet this only heightened the impression of absolute d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n and depersonalization” (bernardinai.lt 2007–10–17). One may also mention the probably accidental coinage nutriukšminti, e.g.: “<...> I have a collection of very old Soviet recordings, including works such as Tchaikovsky’s First Piano Concerto. Without any n o i s e - r e d u c t i o n?” (7 meno dienos, 2005-12-02). Nukenksminti seems to have no opposites, whereas other derivatives give rise to forms such as iškausminti, įjausminti, įveiksminti (the last is the most frequent), e.g.:

“If we all understood the word at once, if we found no paradoxes or hidden meanings in it that would cause us pain intellectually, then it would express only the will of man, not of God” (Donaldas Kajokas, 2007);

“Therefore it [the act of perception] always encompasses what is given and what is not given (in this sense, what is transcendent). It is at once imbued with feeling, emotional” (Problemos, 1996);

“Indeed, it is obvious that the human effort that puts thought into action and defines activity can, without greater risk, dispel the sadness of sycophantic service and overcome the fear of supposedly voiceless speech” (Algimantas Valantiejus, 1997).

There have been proposals to use the international words pasterizuoti, anestezuoti instead of nukenksminti, nuskausminti, since “there is no need to replace international words established in the language with native ones. Sometimes, even when one wishes to dispense with an international word, this is impossible, because the Lithuanian neologism is inferior to the international equivalent” (Rudaitienė 1993: 13). Lithuanian phrases have, of course, often been proposed: make harmless and remove, alleviate pain. It is interesting that a study was conducted in 1987–1989, surveying nearly 100 people working in science (most held academic degrees and titles). Asked what terms they used, 60 informants chose nukenksminti, 11 chose pasterizuoti, and 7 chose padaryti nekenksmingą. Correspondingly, 53 people chose nuskausminimą, 19 chose anesteziją, 12 chose anestezavimą, while not one chose anestezacijos (the Lithuanian phrase was not offered in the questionnaire) (Rudaitienė 1991: 35–36). No such surveys are conducted today, but we probably would not be surprised if nukenksminti, nuskausminti continued to predominate in surveys. Both words are heard in spoken language and, as the data collected for this study show, are also abundant in current written sources.

Nuskausminimas, alongside anestezijos, anestezavimo, was formerly recommended in some terminology dictionaries (e.g., RLKŽŪTŽ 1971; MTŽ 1980; the latter also included nujautrinimas¹⁸ alongside desensibilizavimo). One of the pro-

¹⁸ Vietoj nujautrinti siūlyta šalinti jautrumą, daryti nejautrų (Kaulakienė 1992: 9).

Terminologija | 2016 | 23

153

The reason for maintaining nuskausminimą in usage is that the participle is convenient for expressing an adjective describing medicines, and is often used substantivally (e.g., “Only at the Pain Centre can a patient undergo an invasive pain-relief procedure. During it, pain-relieving medications are injected directly into the focus that triggers the pain” (Lietuvos rytas, 2001), “I don’t understand how they can treat people better if almost everyone is prescribed nearly the same medicines, ‘Betalok-Zok’ and ‘Cardace,’ along with sedatives and painkillers” (Filomena Taunytė, 2004)). Nuskausminimas is a word used in the health context, whereas nukenksminimas is used in various contexts, and derived words are occasionally formed from it as well (e.g., “If your car has an exhaust-gas purifier, you must not use petrol containing lead, because after a few thousand kilometres the purifier will become clogged” (Mokslas ir technika, 1995)). The DLKT shows that in usage the environment, soil, pollutants, microorganisms, clothing, cargo, weapons, people, and so on are nukenksminama. The word is fairly common in military and public-safety contexts, where people speak of the nukenksminimą of mines, bombs, and other explosives. In military dictionaries one could previously find, for example, nukenksminimas (специальная обработка), šaudmenų nukenksminimas (обезвреживание боеприпасов), nukenksminimo mašina (дегазационная машина) (KTŽ 1993); later, šaudmens ištaisymas appears, defined as “placing ammunition in a state in which its accidental detonation is impossible. This is done in various ways: the ammunition is detonated, its charges or fuses are removed, the fuses are set to the safe position, and so on.” (обезвреживание боеприпаса, rendering safe, deactivation, neutralization of ammunition) (KŽ 1995). Dictionaries not reviewed by linguists still show nukenksminti – defuse, disarm, deactivate; nukenksminti bombą – defuse/deactivate a bomb (ALKTŽ 2004); linguists sometimes overlook it too, e.g., nukenksminti – decontaminate, although the same dictionary has padaryti nekenksmingą (miną ir pan.) – deactivate; padaryti nekenksmingą – neutralize (LAKKTŽ 2015). In current edited dictionaries, the removal of harmfulness is usually expressed by phrases, e.g.: disarm – 1. nu(si)ginkluoti, 2. padaryti nekenksmingą; perjungti (miną, ginklą) į saugią padėtį; ištaisyti (miną); decontaminate – 1. švarinti; degazuoti; dezaktyvuoti; deactivate – 1. dezaktyvuoti, 2. padaryti nekenksmingą (miną ir pan.); deactivation – 1. dezaktyvavimas, 2. darymas nekenksmingo (minos ir pan.); defuse – daryti nekenksmingą; šalinti sprogdiklį; defuse a bomb – padaryti bombą nekenksmingą (ALKK TŽ 2013). Still, it must be acknowledged that the construction daryti nekenksmingą, which requires a double accusative, is awkward in terms, and now the recommended forms are

154

Alvydas Umbrasas

Nuo nurie balinimo iki nup rasminimo: teik yba ir vartosena

such terms, for example: šaudmenų darymas nekenksmingo (ammunition disposal), sprogmenų ir šaudmenų darymo nekenksmingų tvarka (explosive ordnance disposal procedure) (EKŽ 2008), sprogstamųjų šaudmenų darymas nekenksmingų (explosive ordnance disposal), sprogstamųjų šaudmenų darymo nekenksmingų atvejis (explosive ordnance disposal incident), sprogstamųjų šaudmenų darymo nekenksmingų tvarka (explosive ordnance disposal procedure) (NATO 2006). Looking at these terms, it is not surprising that usage is reluctant to abandon nukenksminimo.

Linguists’ writings have repeatedly contained hints that nukenksminti, nuskausminti ought to be accepted. For example, Aldona Paulauskienė groups the verbs nuasmeninti and nukenksminti among those for which we have no substitute (Paulauskienė 2001: 95). Discussing how the derivational pattern nu– + –inti, with the meaning ‘removal’, fits poorly with the norms of prefixal word formation in Lithuanian, she hopes that a few more words will take root, first of all nuskausminti (Paulauskienė 2004: 262). By saying “take root,” she presumably means “linguists will allow them,” since there is no need to establish this word in the language: it has long been established. Jonas Šukys likewise cautiously says that “perhaps an exception should be made only for very convenient, constantly used” words such as nukenksminti, nuasmeninti (Šukys 2006: 75).

Usage shows that although criticized by linguists, derivatives in nu– + –inti with the meaning ‘removal’ continue to be used, and new ones are also formed. Although unrecognized, the de facto pattern exists. Since the BLKŽ is being prepared, it would be appropriate for its editors to reassess these words. First, words denoting the removal of a substance or some other material thing should be distinguished (nuriebalinti, nugeležinti, etc.). Earlier criticism of the derivational pattern was aimed primarily at such words. These words do not have elaborate microsystems and generally lack words forming oppositions. The tradition of correcting them can be maintained. Words denoting the removal of a property or some other immaterial, abstract thing should be considered separately. Usage shows that these words often have elaborate microsystems. Even if the emergence of words formed according to this pattern is acknowledged to result from the influence of other languages, the inclusion of some of them in the BLKŽ may be considered in light of usage trends, especially since a few such words are already codified or were codified earlier, but their codification was later changed. The correctors’ oft-repeated argument that nu- should express an excess of a property, not its removal, does not work very well with words in the pattern under discussion: readers might be misled, but the authors of texts believe they will be understood correctly. Of course, context matters a great deal. Moreover, the language already has

Terminologija | 2016 | 23

155

codified verbs in which the same prefix gives opposite meanings, for example, nudabinti, “1. to decorate very beautifully” and “2. to remove decorations,” nuvainikuoti, “1. to remove a wreath” and “2. to cover with wreaths, to decorate” (DLKŽ₆ 2006).

CONCLUSIONS

Derivatives of the pattern nu– + –inti (–inimas), with the meaning ‘removal’, began to be corrected by linguists half a century ago. The terminologist K. Gaivenis was probably the first to draw attention to their use in the press of the time and their inclusion in dictionaries, and to propose correcting them. From the adjectival derivative nuriebinti, which otherwise means “to make too fatty” in the language, correctors moved on to nominal neologisms (such as nuriebalinti), arguing that these too could express excess. Such word formation was sometimes criticized wholesale in scholarly works because it arose on the model of other languages (mostly Russian); the denominal verbs formed were generally not used without a prefix, and so the formation was considered mixed (the prefix nu– and suffix –inti are added simultaneously).

The first edition of the Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyno included only a handful of words formed according to the pattern under discussion, but many more were included in the second edition, even though correction of these derivatives had already begun. Perhaps this was because the derivatives were not only widespread in the press, but were also included in the terminology dictionaries of the time. Nevertheless, the dictionary’s norm continued to be disputed; linguists did not stop correcting these words, and nearly all the derivatives were removed from the third edition of the Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyno (subsequent editions made no changes on the issue in question). Thanks to linguists’ efforts, the derivatives were gradually dropped from terminology dictionaries as well, where they were mostly replaced with phrases containing the word šalinimas ‘removal’. While the second edition of the Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyno was being followed, derivatives of nu– + –inti with the meaning ‘removal’ could spread, because the principle was to avoid strictly correcting anything published in the dictionary.

In linguists’ publications issued even before the third edition of the Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyno appeared, uncertainty about evaluating derivatives of the pattern under discussion is sometimes apparent. It is said that the derivatives have already taken root in scientific terminology, that they are needed in the language, and that the needs of linguists and users of these derivatives cannot be reconciled. Even in current linguistic works, it is sometimes cautiously suggested that exceptions should be made for some derivatives of nu– + –inti, because there is no convenient way to replace them.

Most of the derivatives discussed in the works of language correctors and examined in this article are denominal and denote the removal of a particular, usually material, thing. An examination of current usage,

156

Alvydas Umbrasas

Nuo nuriebalinimo iki nuprasminimo: teik yba ir vartosena

Based on the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language and the popular news website lrytas.lt, it is apparent that some derivatives corrected in the past may no longer be relevant, while others continue to be used. It is also apparent that current usage includes various derivatives of the model under discussion that are not mentioned in the works of language editors. They express the removal of a quality or some other immaterial, abstract thing. Morphologically, some of them are related to adjectives, others to nouns, and it is often possible to interpret them in either way. Their emergence may now be encouraged not by Russian, but by international words containing the element de-; the principle of analogy also plays a role, since some derivatives formed with nu- + -inti have well-developed microsystems that serve as models for creating other lexical microsystems. The desire to express oppositions between imparting and removing a certain content through derivatives from the same root may be one of the main reasons why new formations with nu- + -inti are needed. The opposition model is particularly favored in philosophy, literary studies, and similar texts of a reflective nature, which devote much attention to the novelty and unconventionality of linguistic means of expression. Moreover, in these and other texts, oppositions between an active action (nu- + -inti) and a spontaneous one (nu- + -ėti) are relevant; in the latter case, nu- indicates not removal, but spontaneous loss.

In preparing the Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian, the results of correcting derivatives formed with nu- + -inti over half a century, as well as usage tendencies, should be assessed. To ensure stability of the norms, the non-codification of derivatives meaning removal of material may be maintained, but derivatives meaning the removal of a quality or other immaterial things should be assessed separately. Codifying some of them would bring the norm closer to reality. The gap between the norm and usage is particularly clearly seen in the widespread use of the words nukenksminti, nuskausminti and nužmoginti.

ŠALTINIAI

ALKKTŽ 2013: Kisinas E. Anglų–lietuvių kalbų karo technikos žodynas, Vilnius: Generolo Jono Žemaičio Lietuvos karo akademija.

ALKPŽ 1958: Novodvorskis A. Anglų–lietuvių kalbų politechninis žodynas, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

ALKTŽ 2004: Laugalienė G., Mironaitė M. Lietuvių–anglų kalbų karybos žodynas: eksperimentinis leidinys, Vilnius: Generolo J. Žemaičio Lietuvos karo akademija.

ALKŽŪTŽ 1977: Anglų–lietuvių kalbų žemės ūkio terminų žodynas. Sudarė D. Čėponienė, R. Gelūnienė, J. Kažėnas, R. Kelbauskienė (atsak. redaktorė), Vilnius: Mokslas.

ATTŽ 2001: Čiukas R., Katunskis J., Kaulakienė A. ir kt. Aiškinamasis tekstilės terminų žodynas: su vokiečių, anglų, prancūzų ir rusų kalbų atitikmenimis, Kaunas: Technologija.

BLKŽ – Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Vyr. red. D. Liutkevičienė. Prieiga per internetą: http://bkz.lki.lt.

ChAŽ 1997: Daukšas K., Barkauskas J., Daukšas V. ir kt. Chemijos terminų aiškinamasis žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

ChŽ 1960: Daukšas K. Chemijos žodynas, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

Terminologija | 2016 | 23

157

DLKT – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos tekstynas, sud. Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto Kompiuterinės lingvistikos centras. Prieiga per internetą: http://donelaitis.vdu.lt.

DLKŽ₁ 1954: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Ats. red. J. Kruopas, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

DLKŽ₂ 1972: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. 2-asis papild. leid. Ats. red. J. Kruopas, Vilnius: Mintis.

DLKŽ₃ 1993: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. 3-iasis patais. ir papild. leid. Vyr. red. St. Keinys, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

DLKŽ₅ 2003: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. 5-asis (2-asis elektroninis) patais. ir papild. leid. Vyr. red. St. Keinys, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

DLKŽ₆ 2006: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. 6-asis (3-iasis elektroninis) leid. Vyr. red. St. Keinys, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

EKŽ 2008: Čiočys P. A., Janukevičius J., Jasiulionis E. ir kt. Enciklopedinis karybos žodynas, Vilnius: Generolo Jono Žemaičio Lietuvos karo akademija.

FTŽ 2007: Palenskis V., Valiukėnas V., Žalkauskas V., Žilinskas P. J. Fizikos terminų žodynas: lietuvių, anglų, prancūzų, vokiečių ir rusų kalbomis. 2-asis patais. ir papild. leid., Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

GFGTŽ 1956: Gudelis V. Geologijos ir fizinės geografijos terminų žodynas, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

ITŽ 1997: Informatika: lietuvių–anglų–rusų–vokiečių kalbų terminų žodynas. Parengė Z. Kudirka ir kt., Vilnius: Matematikos ir informatikos institutas.

KTŽ 1993: Rusų–lietuvių ir lietuvių–rusų kalbų karybos terminų žodynėlis. Parengė A. Smetona, Vilnius: Valstybinis leidybos centras.

KŽ 1995: Smetona A. Karybos žodynas, Vilnius: Lietuvos karo akademija.

LAKKTŽ 2015: Kisinas E. Lietuvių–anglų kalbų karo technikos žodynas, Vilnius: Generolo Jono Žemaičio Lietuvos karo akademija.

LKŽė – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas (I–XX, 1941–2002): elektroninis variantas. Vyr. red. G. Naktinienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2008. Prieiga per internetą: http://www.lkz.lt.

LRTB – Lietuvos Respublikos terminų bankas. Prieiga per internetą: http://terminai.vlkk.lt.

MTŽ 1960: Čeičys J. Melioracijos terminų žodynas, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

MTŽ 1980: Astrauskas V., Bizulevičius S., Pavilonis S. ir kt. Medicinos terminų žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas.

NATO 2006: NATO terminų aiškinamasis žodynas. 3-iasis patais. leid. Ats. redaktorius J. Norgėla, Vilnius: Lietuvos Respublikos krašto apsaugos ministerijos Generalinė inspekcija.

RLKMTŽ 1975: Mikalajūnas M. Rusų–lietuvių kalbų meteorologijos terminų žodynas, Vilnius: Mintis.

RLKPŽ 1959: Rusų–lietuvių kalbų politechninis žodynas. Red. kolegijos pirmininkas A. Novodvorskis, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

RLKPŽ 1984: Rusų–lietuvių kalbų politechnikos žodynas. Sudarė G. Daugėla, Vilnius: Vyriausioji enciklopedijų redakcija.

RLKŽŪTŽ 1971: Anskaitis V., Kilas M. Rusų–lietuvių kalbų žemės ūkio terminų žodynas, Vilnius: Mintis.

RTŽ 2000: Gaivenis K., Juška G., Kalesinskas V. Radioelektronikos terminų žodynas, Vilnius: Litimo.

SŽ 1993: Leonavičius J. Sociologijos žodynas, Vilnius: Academia.

Vydūnas 2013: Asmenybė ir sveikata. Parengė R. Palijanskaitė, Kaunas: Vydūno draugija.

LITERATŪRA

Balašaitis A. 1969: Kaip verčiame terminus. – Lietuvių kalbos sekcijos sąsiuvinis 10. Terminų kūrimo principai, 9–10.

Balčienė B. 1979: Po kelerių metų. – Mūsų kalba 3, 14–20.

Bielinskienė A., Kazlauskienė A., Rimkutė E., Tamutšaitė A. 2014: Lietuvių bendrinė kalba: normos ir vartosena. Vadovėlis aukštųjų mokyklų studentams, Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas.

Būda V. 1973: Ilgai lauktas žodyno leidimas. – Pergalė 7, 161–166.

Gaivenis K. 1964: Keletas pastabų dėl mokslo veikalų kalbos. – Kalbos kultūra 7, 26–30.

Gerulaitis V., Lukėnas S. 1983: Terminų darybos standartizacija ir specializacija. – Kalbos kultūra 44, 26–37.

Girdenis A., Rosinas A. 1977: Pastabos „Kalbos praktikos patarimų“ paraštėse. – Kultūros barai 11, 69–70.

158 Alvydas Umbrasas │ Nuo nuriebalinimo iki suprasminimo: teik yba ir vartosena

Kaulakienė A. 1979: Priešdėliniai ir priesaginiai darybiniai vertiniai lietuviškoje politechnikos terminijoje. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 19. Socialinės lingvistikos problemos, 143–153.

Kaulakienė A. 1988: Terminų daryba pagal analogijos principą. – Lietuvos TSR Mokslų akademijos darbai. A serija 1, 128–133.

Kaulakienė A. 1985: Словообразовательное калькирование как способ образования современных литовских физико-технических терминов. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 24. Mokslo kalbos ir kultūros problemos, 67–78.

Kaulakienė A. 1992: Nudruskintas vanduo? – Gimtoji kalba 4–5, 9.

Kazlauskienė A., Rimkutė E., Bielinskienė A. 2010: Bendroji ir specialybės kalbos kultūra, Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas.

Kinderys A. 1982: Kaišti ar numesinti? – Kalbos kultūra 43, 47–49.

KK 2003: Kalbos konsultacijos. Sudarė A. Kupčinskaitė-Ryklienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.

Klimavičius J. 1974: Ar vartotinos nužievinimo staklės? – Mūsų kalba 3, 19.

Kniūkšta P. 1980: Dėsningumai, taisyklės ir paskiri kalbos faktai. – Kalbos kultūra 38, 23–37.

Kniūkšta P. 1986: Apie „Kalbos kultūros“ principus, metodiką ir siūlymų poveikį. – Kalbos kultūra 51, 12–37.

KPP₁ 1976: Kalbos praktikos patarimai. Sudarė A. Pupkis, Vilnius: Mokslas.

KPP₂ 1985: Kalbos praktikos patarimai. II pataisytas ir papildytas leidimas. Sudarė A. Pupkis, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Labutis V. 1973: Kalbos praktikos atramos ir slenksčiai. – Kultūros barai 9, 74–75.

LKG II 1971: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 2. Morfologija (veiksmažodis ir kt.). Redagavo K. Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mintis.

Montvilienė A. 1978: „Maisto prekių“ vertimo terminai. – Kalbos kultūra 34, 37–41.

Nemickaitė G., Paulauskienė A. 1984: Pastabos dėl „Mokslo ir technikos“ kalbos. – Mūsų kalba 2, 21–23.

Paulauskas J. 1974: Aktualios leksikos norminimo problemos ir žodynas. – Kalbos kultūra 27, 40–49.

Paulauskienė A. 2001: Lietuvių kalbos kultūra, Kaunas: Technologija.

Paulauskienė A. 2004: Teisininkų kalba ir bendrosios normos, Vilnius: Justitia.

Paulauskienė A., Tarvydaitė D. 1986: Gramatikos normos ir dabartinė vartosena, Kaunas: Šviesa.

Piročkinas A. 1990: Administracinės kalbos kultūra, Vilnius: Mintis.

Pupkis A. 1980: Kalbos kultūros pagrindai, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Pupkis A., Zinkevičius Z. 1978: Praėjo pusantro metų, kai pasirodė „Kalbos praktikos patarimai“. – Mūsų kalba 4, 50–51.

Rosinas A. 1971: Ką reiškia nužmoginti žmogų. – Mūsų kalba 4, 14–17.

Rudaitienė V. 1991: Apie priešdėlinių žodžių vartojimą. – Kalbos kultūra 61, 35–39.

Rudaitienė V. 1993: Svetimų žodžių vartojimas spaudoje. – Kalbos kultūra 64, 12–20.

Šukys J. 2006: Kalbos kultūra visiems. Papildytas leidimas, Kaunas: Šviesa.

TT 1992: Terminologijos taisymai. Parengė K. Gaivenis, A. Kaulakienė, St. Keinys, J. Klimavičius, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Urbutis V. 1978: Žodžių darybos teorija, Vilnius: Mokslas.

FROM NURIEBALINIMAS TO NUPRASMINIMAS: CODIFICATION AND USAGE

The paper deals with derivatives with the prefix nu- and the suffix -inti (-inimas) which express the elimination of something (which is indicated by the root of the word). There is quite an old tradition of correcting such derivatives, but in spite of this some of these derivatives are still widely used, therefore the history of correction and codification as well as the current situation are researched. The paper shows the opinions of the Lithuanian linguists in regard to these derivatives, the development of norms in dictionaries and overviews the current usage, its (non-)compliance with codification and points out possible changes in codification.

About fifty years ago Lithuanian linguists started correcting derivatives having the structure of nu- + -inti (-inimas) and meaning the elimination of something. The

Terminologija | 2016 | 23

159

word-formation of such derivatives was criticized because it emerged by the analogy with other languages (mainly Russian). In the first edition of Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas (Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian) (1954) there were very few words of that kind, but in the second edition (1972) their number increased quite a lot in spite of attempts to correct them. Lithuanian linguists insisted on correcting them, therefore nearly all of such derivatives were removed from the third edition of Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas (1993) and in terminological dictionaries they were gradually substituted with complex terms containing word šalinimas (elimination).

In the papers of Lithuanian linguists published a few decades ago one could sometimes see uncertainty about the evaluation of this derivational model. There are some observations that such derivatives are starting to become established in the scientific terminology and that they might be necessary for the language. In the current works of linguists there are sometimes cautious suggestions to make an exception about some nu- + -inti (–inimas) derivatives and to allow their usage, because there are no convenient substitutes.

The majority of corrected derivatives are made from nouns and mean the elimination of a certain thing, usually a material. The research of the current usage based on data from Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos tekstynas (Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language) and the popular news website lrytas.lt shows that some of the previously corrected derivatives have lost their topicality and some of them are still being used. At the same time it can be seen that there are various derivatives of this particular derivational model which have not been mentioned in the works of language standardizers. They express the elimination of a characteristic or of some immaterial, abstract thing and are derived from adjectives or nouns. The appearance of such derivatives is probably caused not by equivalents in Russian, but by international words with the prefix de- as well as the principle of analogy, because some of these derivatives have developed microsystems, which participate in the creation of other microsystems. The wish to express the oppositions between acquisition and elimination of a particular content using words with the same root could be one of the main reasons for using new nu- + -inti (–inimas) formations.

It is necessary to evaluate the results of the correction which lasted about fifty years and tendencies of the usage of researched derivatives, because currently Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas (Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian) is being compiled. In order to maintain the stability of the norm the restriction on usage of these derivatives can be retained, but derivatives with the meaning of eliminating a characteristic or an immaterial thing ought to be evaluated separately. The codification of some of these derivatives would bring the norm closer to the actual usage.

Gauta 2016-11-21

Alvydas Umbrasas Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius E. paštas [email protected]

160 Alvydas Umbrasas | Nuo nuriebalinimo iki nuprasminimo: tekyba ir vartosena