Terminas prie termino. X

Term after Term. X JONAS KLIMAVIČIUS Noble people do not seize what belongs to others, nor do they tolerate their own being lost through neglect Dionysius of Halicarnassus THEATER, THEORY, THEOREM, HISTORY: BORROWING AND CREATION: PLAYHOUSE AND VIEWING PLACE, SIGHT AND INSIGHT, BEING AND NARRATIVE – CORRESPONDENCES AND DISTINCTIONS The study of several related (in origin and motivation for naming), yet semantically very distant, international words and the semantic induction they have induced, as well as its results, should not seem to have come out of nowhere or been kicked from some old stump. On the contrary, this is one of many culturally, dialinguistically, terminologically, and determinologically complex yet topical cases in an immensely broad complex, particularly relevant to the special phenomenon of interaction between international terms and their equivalents—one type of desynonymization—not the elimination of one or another synonym, but their separation, that is, differentiation of meaning. HISTORICAL APPROACH The borrowing of international words as a process and a (regulated) action (the phenomenon itself is more precisely termed borrowing) is at least twofold— 1) meeting the need for indispensable foreign words with essential meanings—taking them up and incorporating them definitively into the lexical (and terminological) system of one’s own language (unless some later meet the fate of archaisms or occasionalisms), 2) successfully creating and using native substitutes in accordance with the resources or development possibilities available in one’s own language, or, more broadly, in response to an understood need to cultivate what is one’s own. Under normal conditions, when only linguistic factors are decisive, the choice of method is determined by need (demand), not by blind supply. In that case, the first method is the most common. The need for the international character of life has always existed and is growing, while national languages are found to have admitted into their own needs of national identity 208 Jonas Klimavičius | Terminas prie termino. X and resources. However, the international character of vocabulary varies greatly—not only by field (most so in science and culture in the broad sense, least in poetry and nature), but even more by language and especially by language family (and these are, after all, different cultures and civilizations). Therefore, especially when supply exceeds the language’s demand, borrowing is often not a completed process but only its first stage: 1) a short, signaling stage—the foreign word knocks at the door, but not of the system, only of texts; therefore, words already at our disposal can easily replace them linguistically (aukštas – etažas, griuvėsiai – ruinos, kaukė – maskė, pievagrybis – šampinjonas, raumuo – muskulas, raupsai – lepra, sprogimas – eksplozija, šiltinė – tifas, pentinas – šporas), even with abundant synonyms (kaprizas – aikštis, įgeidis, įnoris, nikis, užgaida); 2) a longer, signaling stage—the replacement of foreign words with words already at our disposal, adapted to the borrowed meaning (kūgis – konusas, lagaminas – valiza ir čemodanas, lingė – resoras, pusiaujaus – ekvatorius), sometimes quite remote (l štelė – celė, židinys – fokusas); 3) a lengthy, even protracted stage—the creation of neologisms (substitutes, or at least equivalents) (juodraštis – bruljonas, dviratis – velosipedas, įvartis – golas, kalnodara – orogenezė, kryžiažodis – krosvორდas, laikraštis – gazieta ir caitunga, palydovas – konduktorius, palydovė – stiuardesė, rankraštis – manuskriptas, slapyvardis – pseudonimas, slidės – ski, staigmena – siurprizas, užtrauktukas – ziperis, vairuotojas – šoferis, vandenilis – hidrogenas, variklis – motoras, viešbutis – hotelis, viešnamis – bordelis). For lexicology and terminology, the results of neologism formation themselves are more important, while data from calquing, borrowing and other forms of linguistic induction matter more for selecting better alternatives—for example, replacing calques (at least in part) with translations (krepšia sūvydis → krepšinis, įtaka → / poveikis). A protracted stage may become genuinely delayed, while equivalents may turn into substitutes—or be entirely eliminated, even with relapses after codification or approval. But the linguist must look at the s y s t e m, not at t e x t s, even if some usage has been cemented by an order from a central institution’s director or a commission’s resolution. These three actions have been known since the time of Martynas Mažvydas, were grounded in patriotism and linguistics by Mikalojus Daukša, and were practiced extensively by Konstantinas Sirvydas, a professor at Vilnius University (note the memorable auklėtinis instead of alumno!). Sadly, the widespread flood of foreign-language and foreign-word usage could not be stopped even as the standard language was emerging; nor could it be stemmed by the notoriously unqualified efforts of the Aušrininkai and—as an unfortunate relapse a few decades later- Terminologija | 2016 | 23 209 -by the neologisms coined by some (though not all) non-linguist terminologists, which piled mountains of work onto Jonas Jablonskis. The father of the modern written—standard—language was also the founder of scientific neologism formation and, let us not be mistaken, of creating and using complete substitutes rather than parallel equivalents, as well as a prolific and successful creator (over 600 of his neologisms are in use!) (Piročkinas 2000: 10 6). During the brief years of the First Republic, this process did not develop and mature as much as it should have, owing to the small number of linguists and insufficiently strengthened editorial work; in a new wave it emerged in dispersed form abroad (LKV 1950: 113 ir 159–604 – Žodynas), and became especially topical under the conditions of bilingualism in exile, with “the needs of the wider public in view” (Skardžius 1998: 438). It was therefore developed in a concentrated and concise form by Pranas Skardžius in his 1973 booklet (in Chicago), Lietuviški tarptautinių žodžių atitikmenys. In the homeland, during the years of subjugation, there was no new stage of neologism formation; efforts were made only to preserve the legacy. In the Second Republic, as the codification of lexical and terminological norms became increasingly urgent, the booklet mentioned above also became widely available in the homeland (Skardžius 1998: 428–507), and in the same year a substantial (200 pp.) and timely lexicographic work by Vida Rudaitienė and Vytautas Vitkauskas was published, Vakarų kalbų naujieji skoliniai. A work produced in haste to meet an urgent need has not yet fulfilled the role required of it (Klimavičius 2015: 44–47). The abundant material presented calls for the work of readers who are not lazy and who have time and qualifications; moreover, the “efforts of intellectuals to preserve the language as correct, inherited, and purposeful” (Rudaitienė, Vitkauskas 1998: 29) must be sustained by continuous work, not abstract declarations. Thus, there are results. But the situation has become such that even these are being undermined. Much preparatory work remains—variants that are under way or have only reached the preliminary stage of decision-making: selecting alternatives, less often strengthening norms, and least often making a final record of codification. The broad field of work also calls for semantic ambition. By following one lengthy and ramified process, this time the aim is also to show a less common stage, though one already observed in practice (fabrikas ↔ gamykla, objektas ↔ dalykas, enchiridionas ↔ manualas ↔ vadovėlis)— 4) the development of semantic relations between international words and their equivalents, leading to the differentiation of meanings. THEATRE The beginning of the action is far away and long ago, we might say, and nothing out of the ordinary: The Greek theatre consisted of three parts: the orchestra, the stage, and the amphitheatre. — — — The spectators’ places constituted the theatre in the narrow sense of the word (theastai – to watch) 210 Jonas Klimavičius | Terminas prie termino. X (Dambrauskas 1974: 299). The word “theatre” (θέατρον), formed from the verb “to watch” (θεασθαι) and meaning a v i e w i n g p l a c e, initially referred to the s p e c t a t o r s’ places. They were called this elsewhere too, for example in a stadium. Later, the term encompassed the entire complex of the t h e a t r e building and the e v e n t s held there (SenGrK 2007: 168). The place for acting (and dancing, singing) was the circular orchestra (ὀρχήστρα); later, a platform was erected in front of the tent, the skene (σκηνή), called the proskenion (προσκήνιον); and it was only the Romans who established it in the form we have today – the stage (scaena) – as the most important part of the theatre (hence “stage art”—the art of the stage—is a very meaningful term). The Romans also contributed the Latin spectac(u)lum – 1. “a s i g h t, a v i e w” → 2. a performance, a play, 3. usually plural: “s p e c t a t o r s’ places”, 4. figuratively theatre, amphitheatre, even 5. “a w o n d e r o f t h e w o r l d”: septem spectac(u)la – the seven wonders of the world LoLieŽ 2007. The broad semantics of theater—not the art of the stage—are all grounded in this primordial motivation of Greek θέατρον and Latin spectac(u)lum: theater of astronomy, “the vault of heaven”; anatomical theater, “dissecting room” (and English operating theater – operating room), theater of war; more recent examples, closer to the stage, include theater of politics IQ 2010 42 (cf. political theater actor IQ 2011 4 14, puppets of political theater Vd 2010 33 62) and election theaters IQ 2010 7 6. A very remarkable theater of the world, “world history,” and theater as world: I am a c o m e d i a n! Oh, I shall p e r f o r m a c o m e d y for you, so that you will all weep <...>. My t h e a t e r is the w o r l d; in it I p l a y the r o l e of m a s t e r and a u t h o r; and you are all my c o m e d i a n s: popes, kings, nations! The thread by which I pull you is fear! (Bonaparte) PrRAp 1979 185 (Alfred de Vigny). There are also historicisms, for example: <...> The Museums of Mathematics and Physics, established at Vilnius University in the mid-18th century, have not survived. <...> for conducting scholarly work and illustrating teaching. In the mechanics hall of the Physics Cabinet museum stood a m a c h i n e t h e a t e r—a structure assembled from heliolithic instruments and devices on a large platform TechEnc IV 2010 752. It turns out that Lithuanian, too, has some not unheard-of examples, such as: All the parts, once perceived by the senses, are true i m p r e s s i o n s in the t h e a t e r o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s J.GaarSP 1998 211. C o n s c i o u s n e s s is a kind of t h e a t e r, in which various c o n c e p t s a p p e a r one after another J.GaarSP 1998 213. Given such a variety of theatres, it is not so strange that the main theatre, too, may acquire (even officially) a qualifying adjective – Moscow Art Theatre (1898) – художественный, although its principal co-founder, K. Stanislavski, failed to adhere to the system: it was simply a drama theatre, and only later (1928–1941) did it also have its own opera theatre. Fine arts in the early 20th century meant “art,” but Terminologija | 2016 | 23 2 1 1 even now to call them “artists” L. Mal, I. GitČ 1989 517 is already an anachronism. Alongside the Roman theater, national substitutes (or equivalents) arose during the era of national movements: Czech divadlo, German Schaubühne (more in the sense of “stage”), Schauspiel, “performance,” as well as Kriegsschauplatz, “theater of war,” and English playhouse (something like “a house for performances”). The work written by Matthäus Prätorius in the late 17th century, Deliciae Prussicae oder Preussische Schaubühne, was translated into Lithuanian as Prussian Delights, or the Prussian Theater (L. Gineitis – LlitEnc 2001); in 1999 it was published under the title Prussian Curiosities, or the Prussian Playhouse (Vilnius: Pradai). Neither K. Sirvydas’s regyklė (widok/dźiowowisko krotofilne. Spectaculum, theatrum, Regikle SD 1642), regykla (in later writings, “a performed play, performance”; Vydūnas’s “stage,” LKŽ XI 1978), nor the pre-dawn era’s S. Daukantas’s žaiminyčia, his and L. Ivinskis’s vypsonė, M. Valančius’s vypsosena, or the later Tėvynės sargo’s similar vypsosenė (1896) LKŽ XIX 1999 took root in Lithuanian culture; they disappeared without much trace, like other similar words—teplionė, tepliorius, tepliorystė, skaptorystė—but the ambition was greater! It reached into the early 20th century as well. In Jurgis Šlapelis’s SNŽŽ 1907: theatre – regykla; “a place or building where comedies, dramas, and tragedies are shown and watched”; whereas regykla – a picture, stage; stage – “the place in a theatre from which one acts”; spectacle, viewing place; performance – spectacle; in the theatre, acting, the showing of comedies. STŽŽ 1923 has neither theatre nor performance. SNŽŽ 1924 has no entry for theatre; performance – a spectacle, an act performed in a theatre. The Drama Playhouse and Opera Playhouse, established in 1920, were nationalized in 1922 and renamed the State Drama Theatre (from 1925, the State Theatre) and the State Opera. In TŽŽ 1936, theatre means only 1. “<...> building” (2. “a place where military operations or other major events take place,” 3. “anatomical <...>”), although teatralas means “a theatre [building? – J. K.] enthusiast; a frequent theatregoer,” while performance means 1. “a theatrical performance” (2. “spectacle”). Thus only acting and role remained (“role” is pressing its way back in...). The theatrical viewing place is already a distant memory: MairR III₂ 1992 661 (1908). But it can be used not as a term, but as a descriptive, explanatory word: Drama means “action” in Greek. Theatre means “viewing place.” Action must also be visible KV 1977 35 11. Just as the world can be a theatre, so sometimes it is also a viewing place: <...> Calvin wrote: “For we shall not miss the opportunity to draw godly refreshment from the works of God, revealed and set before us in this wondrous viewing place” NŽA 2009 12 456. Theatrical spectacle IQ 2010 5 25—necessarily a phrase—is also entirely natural. 2 1 2 Jonas Klimavičius | Terminas prie termino. X THEORIKON For us, the pure historicism of the theater is particularly important here: theorikon: <...> Pericles is also credited with introducing theatrical money (theorika), which was issued to citizens to buy a token or ticket for theater performances (SenGrI 1955: 206). By introducing the theorikon, Pericles made the theater accessible to all Athenian citizens (277). Historicism, but it ought to remain just that, rather than becoming the descriptive phrase money for the theater (τὸ θεωρικόν) (193). THEORY, THEOROS, THEOREM The theater money theorikon plainly demonstrates to everyone the common origin of theater and theory. Only the history and semantic development of the latter are longer still. This is not culturally unexpected either—the roots of both lie in the same so-called Axial Age, reached in the brightest lands of Eurasia around the seventh to fifth centuries BC. Yet the world’s first light of reason was neither a sudden revelation nor an illumination: it emerged gradually, and only through the difficult overcoming of the darkness of primitive cults and mythic mists. Theater’s dimly familiar development has been left aside here, since it matters only to tragedy and comedy, not to the semantic development of theater. Theory traces a paradoxical path from cult to both athletics and philosophy, to science: etymologically, the word θεωρία is related to the word theos, meaning god. The Greeks called theoroi the envoys sent by cities to religious festivals, who held sacred authority A.ŠliogD and M 1988 30. The Olympic Games of all Greeks and of individual poleis, as well as the Athenian Panathenaea and the Spartan Gymnopaedia, the gymnastics of all Greeks, were closely connected with religious cult and the whole of spiritual life. Yet in Jan Parandowski’s historical novella The Discus of Olympia this is not prominent and is even unclear: The third new moon after the summer solstice arrived <...>. <...>. <...> winding paths and little roads <...> – – – Processions went by, solemn theoriai sent by states and cities, while ordinary pilgrims walked alongside the official representatives OD 1984 110. First to arrive were the architheoroi, the leaders of the processions, <...>, and they negotiated for a place to stay OD 1984 114–115. In the novella, architheoros (179, 236, 237, 242–2x) is used without equivalents, while theoria is rendered either only alongside procession (151, 157, 234, 236, 237–2x, 242, 243–2x, 244), or simply as procession (112, 234, 277), even cortège (111), and often with a full explanation, for example: The procession ended with pilgrims from Elis bringing up the rear (150). The explanations are far from comprehensive: theoria—“a solemn procession, pageant”; theoros—“a participant in it” (278); architheoros—“leader of a theoria” (273). This is a partial usage, leaning toward Lithuanization— Terminologija | 2016 | 23 213 probably the well-known translator Dominykas Urbas’s excessive effort in this instance, restricting the necessary historical accuracy1. The Sports Terminology Dictionary’s explanation of theoria, 1. “in ancient Greece, a group of citizens sent by a city-state to the Olympic Games” (STŽ 1996), was later refined to: 1. “<...> a religious group of attendants (Greek theōria)” (STŽ 2002). A precise and comprehensive explanation had appeared much earlier: theoros—“in ancient Greece, a person representing a state or city at religious festivals and games, or authorized to consult an oracle, present gifts to a temple, and make sacrifices” (TŽŽ 1985, 2001, 2013); only Greek theōros means not “spectator” but a kind of ritual “attendant,” the performer of special leiturgies: “Since the Olympics was first and foremost a religious festival of all the Hellenes, the poleis sent to Olympia sacred embassies called theoriai (θεωρία), to make offerings to Zeus on behalf of their city” (SenGrK 2007: 247). This primordial theoria (with its theoroi and architheoros) cannot be separated from the present-day, ordinary scientific theory—on the contrary, it is in a sense its prototype: Theoria is both simple looking and the gaze of the soul. The phenomena and systems we see with our inner eyes are also called theoriai by the Greeks HŠv 1994 22. Greek θεωρέω—“to be a spectator, to look; to inspect, visit; to observe; to conduct an inspection; to examine, reason, investigate; to judge” (GrLŽ 1979)—shows a development of meanings leading from the (in)spection of participants or visitors to a more abstract and specialized activity: observing, contemplating, and discerning not an appearance but an essence: “The Ionian natural philosophers thought that theōria meant thinking about abstract things. <...>. For Aristotle, bios theōretikos (theoretical life) is the life of the philosopher-researcher, devoted to reflecting on various subjects. Hence theōria means scientific inquiry, science (as opposed to practice, activity, Greek praxis; only in modern times did theory come to mean an individual scholar’s viewpoint or views; in its pejorative sense, a dry theory” (AntŽ 1998: 503). “In Greece, sci- 1 J. Parandowski’s novella (probably in translation) missed a good opportunity to use thesaurus in its true ancient sense—in the novella, it is not even a treasury but a warehouse-like storehouse for treasures (235, 237, 261, 270), a storehouse of riches (177, 197), and simply a storehouse (177, 178,179, 195, 236, 271). Greek thēsauros, in its primary sense—“wealth, treasure; treasury; treasury-house”—was slow to find its way into Lithuanian; even AntŽ 1998 defines thesaurus > as a treasury: “Greek cities had their treasuries at Olympia and Delphi, where they kept gifts dedicated to Zeus of Olympia and Apollo Pythios. <...>. Δ were locked with many locks, and each key was guarded by a different person. <...>” Although this is not systematic—there is no basis for it, while the derivatives are technical terms—thesaurization, “saving money at home instead of depositing it in a bank or savings bank” (TŽŽ 1951); thesaurizing, “accumulating gold as treasure. <...>” (TŽŽ 1969): gold thesaurization, capital thesaurization (ETŽ 1966); thesaurization—hoarding—1. usually “storage of precious metals,” 2. “accumulation of wealth in the form of precious metals” (B and KŽ 1997); and also to thesaurize (TŽŽ 1985, 2001, 2013). But the lexicographical sense of thesaurus—“in modern times, a large dictionary (lexicon) for a particular field” (AntŽ 1998)—was recorded relatively late, in TŽŽ 1985, 2001, 2013. Yet as early as 1921 Kazimieras Būga wrote: “We are not yet able to publish a perfect and complete dictionary, one we would not be ashamed to call ‘Thesaurus linguae Lituanicae.’ <...>. Thesauri are compiled by people over several decades and across more than one generation” (Būga 1959: 379). 214 Jonas Klimavičius | Terminas prie termino. X The uselessness of theories was regarded not as a shortcoming, but as an advantage. – – – The observer’s life (βίος θεωρητικός) was regarded as an ideal” (SenGrK 2007: 298). Thinking begins with observation, but this special activity is not confined to thinking: “Having grasped the structure of the cosmos through thought, the people of antiquity would feel its beauty and experience θεωρια, that is, aesthetic pleasure. Since it was precisely the determination of the structure of the cosmos that induced this state in them, θεωρια (theory) gradually acquired the meaning of the structure itself, while θεωρειν (to theorize) acquired the meaning of mental acts directed toward elucidating such a structure” (Jankauskas 1987: 36). In European history, theory came to turn toward the ascendancy of logos, and later of praxis as well. Only in Romanticism were there still reminiscences of the primordial Greek metaphysics—the true theory—for example: <...>I would dare to write a theory of the novel that would be theory in the primordial sense of the word: the calm, clear-sighted view of a homogeneous spirit upon an object, as befits the solemn joy of contemplating the significant joy of divine images. Such a theory of the novel ought itself to become a novel, <...> (Friedrich Schlegel – P and LE I 1978: 270). In modern times, the essential distinction of the human sciences—as disciplines that understand and interpret, rather than measure and (cal)culate—has been sufficiently recognized. The Romans, who drew abundantly from the storehouse of Greek culture, received the loanword theōria only at the sunset of Antiquity—rather, not in Christianity’s earliest dawn—from the hands of one of the Church Fathers, St. Jerome (347–419), translator of the Vulgate (see LoLieŽ 1996). Boethius (born around 480 into the Roman aristocratic family of the Anicii – defeated around 524 by Theodoric, the Arian king of the Ostrogoths), “the last Roman and first scholastic, the last philosopher of Antiquity and the first of the Middle Ages” (L and I 1980: 242), translator of Aristotle, borrowed a meaning from that Greek word and gave it to the Latin word speculation – 2. philos. speculation (1. looking out, reconnaissance Ammianus Marcellinus, 4th c.) LoLieŽ 1996 – cf. speculation – “observation, looking upon with the mind, in late antiquity and the Middle Ages meant the same, or almost the same, as the concepts theoria, contemplatio, meditatio; <...>” (FilŽ 2002). Later, the meanings of both theory and speculation changed and diverged from one another: theory – 1. “an explanation of phenomena of reality in abstract logical form,” 2. “a system of scientific propositions explaining the subject under investigation” TŽŽ 1985, 2001, 2013; speculation 3. philos. “entirely abstract, theoretical thinking intended to obtain knowledge of objects that lie beyond the bounds of experience” TŽŽ 1985 (less precisely, “abstract, theoretical thinking unrelated to practice or experience” TŽŽ 2001, “abstract reasoning unrelated <...>” TŽŽ 2013), “the transcendence of (sensory) experience and its scientific verifiability, moving into what is in principle unexperienced, unknowable, and unsubstantiated, is merely something imagined (‘pure speculation’)” (FilŽ 2002). Terminologija | 2016 | 23 215 The lexical meaning of contemplation [Latin contemplari – 1. to look closely, observe (corresponding to Greek θεάσθαι), 2. figuratively, to (con)template, consider LoLieŽ 2007], motivated by the same naming rationale, is freer (and ambivalent): 1. “deep concentration, absorption, reflection” (2. in mysticism, “a supreme kind of knowledge based on intuition; passive apprehension of reality”) TŽŽ 1985, 2001, 2013; but it is not a term in either philosophy or psychology2, and the definition “deep concentration, reflection, m e d i t a t i o n” in RelŽ 1991 is fundamentally incorrect. Meditation, by contrast, first of all means 1. “reflection, i m m e r s i o n in one’s own thoughts, a state of deep concentration” (RelŽ 1991); moreover, it is “one of the types of altered states of consciousness [others include dreaming, hypnotic trance, psychedelic states, sensory-isolation states, etc.]—a state of deep concentration,” practiced in Eastern religions and used in psychotherapy to reduce stress, relax, and calm oneself (PsichŽ 1993). In philosophy, it is “r e f l e c t i o n upon the principles of true cognition and activity that often remain unexpressed and distorted in everyday life” (FilŽ 2002), since Latin meditari means 1. to (con)template, (re)flect, (con)sider, ponder LoLieŽ 2007. Thus, theory begins with observation (looking), speculation is wholly abstract, without it; contemplation is reflection while concentrating on reality; meditation is reflection while focusing on oneself and life. Of the same origin as theory is theorem (Greek theōrēma – teaching, rule; < theōreō – I reflect) – “a t h e o r e t i c a l proposition whose truth can be or has been logically proved on the basis of previously established scientific propositions” TŽŽ 1985, 2001, 2013. However, theorem is restricted to mathematics and logic. Some languages have their own terms—Polish twierdzenie (and teoremat), Czech věta, poučka (and teorém), German Lehrsatz (and Theorem). 2In terms of motivation, skepsis, skepticism also belongs here—its Greek source σκέπτομαι underwent a very similar development of meanings: “to look; examine, reconnoiter, find out; investigate; think, consider; reason out, decide; anticipate” (GrLŽ 1979), “I look around, I look closely,” skępsis – observation SWO 1997 (although many dictionaries of international words fail to give the essential original meaning, to which the seme “doubting, critically examining, verifying” is added only later). However, the lexical meaning of skepticism has deviated completely: “philos. a school of thought that rejects the possibility of knowing the truth or obtaining reliable, well-founded knowledge” TŽŽ 1985, 2001, 2013. The philosophical term is especially complex: content skepticism is distinguished from the method of skepticism—“a critical e x a m i n a t i o n of assumptions generally present in thought and action (especially in Kant’s philosophy, where it is thereby set against dogmatism)” (FilŽ 2002). In everyday life, healthy skepticism 2. (and skepsis) simply means “critical-mindedness, doubt about something” TŽŽ 1985, 2001, 2013. It is important not to confuse these aspects. 216 Jonas Klimavičius | Terminas prie termino. X HISTORY A step from theory to history is no leap aside or across an abyss, but the natural second step after the first. For Herodotus, the father of history, was the first to write it—or, more precisely, them—not from accounts by participants in events (wars), but—at someone’s behest!—from his own observations. So perhaps it is not without reason that he is sometimes called the first member of the journalists’ guild Vd 2009 12 14, if he had also rejected the testimonies of those involved in the events. But it was he who made that significant connection: “According to Herodotus, theōrein—to observe, to look—and historein form the foundation of the science of history”—for history <Greek historia is “an Ionian word meaning inquiry: Herodotus made inquiry, together with theory (Greek theōria)—looking, seeing (cf. histōr—one who has seen with his own eyes)—the basis for investigating events of the past” (AntŽ 1998: 503, 212). In fact, the meaning of Greek ἱστορέω is broader still: “to ask, inquire; inspect; visit; investigate, learn; consult; transmit, d e s c r i b e, r e l a t e”; ἱστορία means “questioning; investigation; i n f o r m a t i o n, d a t a; knowledge, s c i e n c e; a c c o u n t o f t h e p a s t, h i s t o r y” (GrLŽ 1979). Taigi dalykui plėtojantis ir žodžio reikšmei plečiantis, ir žodis plito į kitas sritis: „Graikai sukūrė istorijos mokslą; jų žodis historia reiškia tyrinėjimą“ (SenGr 1995: 62). <...> Aristotelis <...> Stageirietis laikomas biologijos m o k s l o pradininku. <...> apie 330 m. pr. Kr. parašytas zoologijos traktatas „G y v ū n ų i s t o r i j a“ <...> SenGrK 2007 309. Aristotelio mokinys ir bendramintis Teofrastas <...> laikomas m o k s l i n ė s botanikos pradininku. Jis išdėstė augalų anatomijos ir fiziologijos p r i n c i p u s, <...>. Iš devynių knygų susidedančios „A u g a l ų i s t o r i j o s“ skyriuose Teofrastas aprašo <...> SenGrK 2007 310. Knygos autorė Dalia Dilytė čia vietoj istorijos siūlo žinios, bet jeigu m o k s l a s ir p r i n c i p a i, tai kodėl ne mokslas: gyvūnų ir augalų mokslas? Tradiciją tęsė ir romėnas Plinijus Vyresnysis savo 37 knygų įvairiapusišką (net etnografijos, antropologijos) Naturalis Historia – Gamtos istorija (77, spausdinta 1469) VLE XVIII 2010 – mokslinė knyga, o ne istorijų (nors yra ir jų – pasakojimų, net pramanytų, kiek ir anekdotų) rinkiniu. A story is an event or information about an event; stories are events, but the totality of events is expressed by the collective singular history—like grass, meaning “a field or heap of grass, a swath,” or seed, meaning “a bin or sack of seeds.” What is distinctive about the word history is that where one would ordinarily expect to find terminologization, there is in fact more likely a preterm, for example: The Story of Doctor Johann Faust, the Famous Sorcerer and Black Magician (Vilnius: Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore, 2006), but this is s t o r i e s a b o u t Faust (191, L. Citavičiū- Terminologija | 2016 | 23 217 tė). Petro Cvirka’s Everyday Stories (short stories) and the short story Stories of Marriage. Vladimir Korolenko’s four-volume memoir The Story of My Contemporary. The Instructive Stories (Vilnius: Mintis, 1984) by the thirteenth-century Assyrian writer (and scholar) Yuhanon bar Ebraya, and its chapter Funny Stories about Actors and Comedians. A person’s “life is first and foremost a story; and where there is a story, there is a storyteller” (G. K. ChestO 1998: 69); if it is a description, then it is also a biography, and its author a biographer. Even before Herodotus, there were already certain writers of stories: logographers—“ancient Greek writers of history who recorded folk traditions and poems in prose” TŽŽ 1936, or more precisely, “creators and recorders of old tales and fables (all of which are Greek logoi). In Ionia in the seventh and sixth centuries BCE they succeeded the epic poets, telling ordinary citizens in spoken prose about the kings and rulers of other lands, about adventures, distant countries, <...>. When written prose emerged in Ionia, they began recording their own <...> stories; <...>” (AntŽ 1998); later, logographer meant 1. “a Greek chronicler of the sixth–fifth centuries BCE who wrote the history of a polis, based on myths and traditions, and genealogies of families, sometimes relating travel impressions,” and, quite differently, 2. “a compiler of speeches for Athenian courts (from the beginning of the fifth century BCE), working on behalf of litigants” TŽŽ 1985, 2001, 2013. But here is the problem: one who writes history (the science) is not an historiographer. No such person exists, nor ever has. But there is historiography, though the term is used in several ways. Most often it is given two meanings: 1. “the science that studies the development of historical science,” 2. “historical bibliography” TŽŽ 1985, MĮstŽ 2000; it then becomes threefold: 2. “historical literature,” 3. “historical bibliography” TŽŽ 2001, 2013, until a fourth meaning appears—perhaps the most justified?—“the science of history” VLE VIII 2005 (cf. geography). Then historian would remain “the author of a historical source.” In reaching a final decision, one more—systemic—matter must be borne in mind: the relation of history to the polysemous (from Antiquity to our own time) historica (rarely year-history)—as of synonymy to synonymics, liturgy to liturgics—while its relation to historiography is like that of lexis to lexicography (then the relation to an historiographer would be like that of comedy to a comediographer). The polysemy of history and its partial synonym narrative also extend beyond the domain of history (as does logographer). Narrative (1. → to narrate) also means 2. “a short prose work in the folk tradition depicting events” DŽ 1972. Later, DŽ 1993 establishes its terminological status—adding the label lit.—and seeks systematicity by also including storyteller, “one who relates various incidents, recites folk works, and so on.” 218 Jonas Klimavičius | Terminas prie termino. X The dictionary is given a very matter-of-fact reinforcement by the encyclopedia—here, tales and memoirs—“a genre of narrative folklore. Works depicting memorable and strange events and people from the p a s t are included. — — — has cognitive, h i s t o r i c a l value, — —” VLE XVII 2010. VLE XVI 2009 does not include semiotic narrative, let alone narration or narrator, but the entry on semiotics does have the synonymous d i s c u r s i v e, n a r r a t i v e t e x t u a l l e v e l, but here there is also the pragmatic dimension of n a r r a t i o n, and the s p e a k e r’s c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h t h e a d d r e s s e e o f t h e u t t e r a n c e, although n a r r a t i v e s y n t a x, until Lithuanian identity ultimately takes precedence: the text is evaluated as an utterance, inseparable from the situation of speaking and the memory of speaking, preserved in the inner structure of the utterance (VLE XXI 2012 – K. Nastopka). The presentation of narration in TŽŽ 1985 had an explanatory sense—“the basis of the structure of epic works is n a r r a t i o n, the manner of narration.” Sixteen years later—a half-step—“n a r r a t i o n as the basis of the structure of epic works”; just a short step away, narrator—“a character in a literary work who recounts the course of events”; storyteller TŽŽ 2001, and twelve years later, a little further still—narrator – storyteller; “<...>” TŽŽ 2013. But no one says to narrate. I repeat what has long been said: it does not print—it is not a printer. The first Lithuanian-speaking historian of Lithuania, Simonas Daukantas, first described the W o r k s of the ancient Lithuanians and Samogitians—what “Strijkovskis, a Pole by birth, <...> w r o t e down in Polish,” and “Vijūkas-Kojalavičius (...), a Lithuanian by birth, <...> w r o t e down in Latin” (Daukantas 1976₁: 37), but whose “h i s t o r y is brief and much is still missing, above all in the part that d e s c r i b e s the works of the pagan Lithuanians and Samogitians” (Daukantas 1976₁: 38). He therefore himself tried “to show at least the greater part of the f o r m of its old-time customs and traditions” and “the r e m a i n s of that nation, still present on and beneath the earth today” (Daukantas 1976₁: 38). The aim was that women who taught out of necessity would read and tell the story correctly: “I w r o t e not for learned men and thinkers, but for those mothers who can r e c o u n t to their children the w o r k s of their forefathers and ancestors, and who often make mistakes without written accounts” (Daukantas 1976₁: 39). The Character of the Ancient Lithuanians, Highlanders, and Samogitians (1845)—“as the ancient s c r i b e s w r o t e down and left it, and as the proverbs still present in the language affirm” (Daukantas 1976₁: 409); the author thus wrote it down from sources, not made it up. While composing A S a m o g i t i a n H i s t o r y (~1836–1838), he had consulted “the earliest w r i t t e n s o u r c e s recounting it and its regions” (Daukantas 1995₁: 23), “the R o m a n s’ a c c o u n t s of the Lithuanian and Samogitian people at the birth of Christ” (33), as well as those of “northern writers” (43), “Ruthenian writers” (52), then “domestic t a l e s” (62), and “the earliest w o r k s of the Lithuanians, Highlanders, and Samogitians, found in w r i t i n g” (144). In 1846. Terminologija | 2016 | 23 219 In the theoretical and historical introduction to the translation of Phaedrus’ Fables, as opposed to a fable—simply a tale, or little story, or yarn, and a learned tale, which “teaches people how to behave”—“a tale about past deeds and famous works <...>” is called a tale of deeds, or history (Daukantas 1984: 32). Finally, he wrote A Narrative of the Deeds of the Lithuanian Nation in Ancient Times (1850). However, narration is not only for mothers (the addressees). S. Daukantas’s keen sense of the complex structure of events, their chains and branching courses spills into and flows through the syntax of his periods. Narration is the most intelligible and enduringly effective figurative expression. And this is by no means outdated; on the contrary, it is increasingly understood, explained, and substantiated, for example: A description of the paleogeographic development of Lithuania’s natural environment in the Late Glacial and Holocene (how, when, and in what direction the glacier moved, what happened as it retreated, which plants emerged and spread, how the climate changed—in other words, what happened before and after) also has a narrative textual structure, despite describing the natural rather than social world. Yet its development is (re)(de)constructed by humans themselves. It follows that the narrative of natural history, too, is constructed historically and therefore socially NŽA 2014 8 63. – A description of development is a narrative of history. Scientific history is not a description, let alone a narrative, but necessarily an explanation and interpretation of events, and an exposition of evaluations.3 From an etymological perspective, if Greek histor means one who has seen with one’s own eyes, a witness, then historia “would have testimony as its Lithuanian equivalent” FaustI 2006 196 (L. Citavičiūtė). That was not enough even for the Greeks, and only at the beginning—they needed causes and evaluations. The men of the national movement who championed Lithuanian linguistic identity, Jonas Jablonskis and Kazimieras Būga, were also notable for the neologism būtovė: We ourselves carry within us a connection with the past, with our own būtovė, antiquity LKŽ I₂ 1968 (J. Jablonskis). Antanas Vireliūnas took its meaning “past, antiquity” and created a new one—“history”: Būtovė, or history, follows people’s lives from the perspective of time LKŽ I₂ 1968. The well-known Lithuanian television series Secrets of Būtovė (A. Bumblauskas with E. Gudavičius) most likely means “antiquity.” Yet K. Būga’s Romos būtovininkas means “historian” LKŽ I₂ 1968. Interesting words, but they were not terms and will not become terms. 3 Stated emphatically and without qualification: “Even ‘scientific’ discourse finds its firmness only in the furrow ploughed by myth. This point is truly essential: if modern humans destroy the narrative-symbolic dimension of their knowledge, they end up losing meaning and absolutely exalting rationalism and pragmatism” (RelF 1997: 138). 2 2 0 Jonas Klimavičius | Terminas prie termino. X II. VIEW Theory is motivationally (only!) fully matched by view, while the development of view also recalls theory. In philosophy, view (and looking) first appears in explanations of theory: “In Plato’s philosophy, theory means not only sensory seeing, but also a spiritual insight into immutable (eternal) ideas that guides action, ideas which, as the foundation of being, order all things, and especially an insight into the idea of ideas, the good (...). Aristotle calls theory a kind of cognition in which spiritual contemplation, like the reality it apprehends, essentially exists for its own sake. In contrast, practical cognition serves to make a person good, while creative activity (poiesis) serves to produce something useful or beautiful. Theory is free from any service, autarkic, purposeless (because it is an end in itself), ‘pure,’ since, residing only within itself, it is perfect movement (...) and thereby a ‘divine way of life’ (FilŽ 2002). Žiūra teikta jau Stasio Šalkauskio žodyne Bendroji filosofijos terminija (1938) – vue, Gesicht, зрение, t. y. kaip psichologijos terminas, nors pagrindas yra rega – irgi vue, Gesicht, зрение (su visa mikrosistema – regumas, regėjimas, regimybė). II dalyje Paaiškinimai ir pavyzdžiai bandoma grįsti: „Kaip rega yra regėjimo pajėga, taip žiūra yra žiūrėjimo pajėga, bet galima žiūrėti ir vis dėlto neregėti. Paprastai žiūrint matoma, regima“ (ŠalkR II 1991). Iš tikrųjų žiūrima akimis, regima smegenimis. II dalyje atsiranda ir žiūrus, žiūr umas: „Žiūrus yra žmogus, kuris yra linkęs ar paslankus žiūrėti. Žiūr umas, regumas ir akylumas yra artimi sinonimai“ (ŠalkR II 1991). Vėlesniame nebaigtame rengti žodyne Bendroji pedagogikos terminija – taip pat, tik be aiškinimų. Aristotelio dvasinė žiūra, kaip cituota, regima esamybė, o čia – gryna psichologija. Kazimieras Gaivenis S. Šalkauskio pateiktus žiūra, žiūrus, žiūr umas priskyrė prie neprigijusių dvily pės grupės – terminizuotų liaudies kalbos žodžių ir naujadarų (Gaivenis 1983: 135). Liko nepasakyta, kad nebuvo būtinos reikmės. Jos nėra ir dabar – žiūros psichologijoje neprireikė (žr. PsichŽ 1993). The word view certainly comes from living speech—it is used in various places and has several meanings: 1. “the ability to look, looking, seeing” (Eržvilkas, Skaudvilė, Betygala); 2. “gaze” (Raseiniai, Dusetos): The gaze of your eyes, the smile of your lips silently lures me Jurbarkas; 3. “supervision of order” (Rumšiškės, Bagotoji, Ramygala); 5. “inspection” (Palanga); 6. “appearance” (Akmenė); 7. “view” (Vilkaviškis); quite widely, žiūros menuo (time) “matchmaking” Terminologija | 2016 | 23 221 laikas“ (Kėdainių r. Pagiriai, Pociūnėliai, Vaškai, Ramygala, Ėriškiai) LKŽ XX 2002. Nuo Aušros laikų vartota ir žymesnių rašytojų, V. Kudirkos – reikšmėmis „pažiūra“ ir „panorama, reginys“. Okulisto Petro Avižonio terminizuota – žiūros kampas. Traukta į žodynus – LKRŽ 1948, LKVŽ 1950, DŽ 1954, 1972 (žiūros linija – med. linea visus), net dvikalbius: смотрение psn. – žiūrėjimas, veizdėjimas, žiūra RLKŽ II 1967, žiūra – смотрение, глядение, net žiūrus (ir įžiūrus – проницательный) LRKŽ 1971, t. p. 1988 (be įžiūrus). Ir žiūrus yra iš gyvosios kalbos – 2. „akylas, gerai matantis“: žiūrus katinas Kupiškis, žiūrus kaip vanagas Vilkaviškis (nors 3. „žvairas“ Vabalninkas), 4. „gerai matomas, perregimas“ Anykščiai (LKŽ XX 2002). Pateikiama ir DŽ: 1. „linkęs žiūrėti“, 2. „gerai matomas, aiškus“ DŽ 1954, 1972 (1993 vietoj „aiškus“ – „perregimas“). Of the dozen or so meanings of žiūrėti, several are important not only from the point of view of motivation but also of terminologization: 3. “to survey in order to experience what something is like, to ascertain what it is”; 5. “to pay attention, heed, take into account”; 8. “to wait, expect”; 9. “to check”; even 13. “to listen (usually with admiration or astonishment)” (Tauragnai, Smalininkai, Daugai), LKŽ XX 2002; 4. “to have formed an opinion,” 5. “to investigate,” DŽ 1993. Significant here is įžiūrėti, for example, the significance of categories I and B 1988 111; įsižiūrėti: the science of history <...> began to look more closely at the past P and LE II 8 (V. Zaborskaitė); žiūrėti į save: In general, one can say of this character’s self-image (...) that he looks at himself quite ironically and without taking himself too seriously L. JonRvb 2008 175. LKŽ XII 1981 does not yet include the recent neologism savižiūra: Emphasizing God’s immanence, we cultivate s e l f - c o n t e m p l a t i o n, detachment, a cult of tranquility, indifference to social questions—in a word, Tibet. Emphasizing God’s transcendence, we foster wonder, curiosity, moral and political adventures, righteous indignation—in other words, the Christian world G. K. ChestO 1998 155. Savižiūra is clearly distinct both from savistaba and from the method of introspection developed on its basis (PsichŽ 1993). And pažiūra, whose most widely used meaning in everyday speech is 1. “exterior, appearance,” and, less often, 4. “way of looking, gaze,” 5. “looking, observation,” also means 2. “opinion” (I chose myself a maiden according to my own views Jankai), LKŽ IX 1973 (whereas požiūris as a whole—1. “regard, point of view” and 2. “view, position, stance,” LKŽ X 1976—is a neologism of written language). A long and unhurried, steady yet branching, but irreversible path, from the beginning of the elevation of the most important human sense into abstraction to the greatest expanses and depths. At the beginning of Metaphysics, Aristotle states: “Looking is a pleasure, 222 Jonas Klimavičius | Terminas prie termino. X we enjoy simply looking.” <...>. <...>. The pleasure of looking shows that there is a kind of knowledge that is an end in itself, <...> M.-D. PhilTI 2009 105. Augustine’s thought: The present of the past is memory, the present of the present is observation, and the present of the future is expectation AurAugIšp 2004 281 is echoed almost exactly by a modern thinker—a researcher of the self-awareness of the feudal era: For comprehending the past, we are given memory; for the present, insight; and for the future, hope and expectation A. GurVKK 1989 104. But he also observes a development: European society gradually shifted from viewing the world in terms of eternity to an active relationship with it in terms of time A. GurVKK 1989 136. A monk of our time, too, draws a particular distinction: <...> it is dangerous to confuse the theological and philosophical approaches to morality. The former inherently encompasses the contemplation of wisdom, while the latter must culminate in the contemplation of wisdom M.-D. PhilTI 2009 84. Natural law fundamentally depends on the contemplation of wisdom: <...> (84). And one final important distinction: For more than one humanities discipline, the subject’s perspective is the sole mode of cognition, wholly unacceptable in the exact sciences, but naturally responsive to the individuality of human existence and the boundlessness of the spirit—this is what grounds artistic creation KB 1999 5 12. Perspective is a matter of standpoint: According to H. Kardelis, “This kaleidoscopic, constantly changing point of view is the basis of cognitive grammar” (...) A. GudE 2000 34. “<...>. This part of culture [language] <...> provides characteristic ways of conceptualizing and categorizing things in that culture, a system of values, points of view, and a socially established relationship with the world” (...) A. GudE 2000 35. <...> Č. Miloš and his work are most often understood from a Lithuanian point of view MkslL 2011 15 7. There is not even a serious analysis of female characters from the male point of view LitIšv II 1997 74 (V. Kelertienė). <...> reconsider our literary canon from new points of view LitIšv II 1997 76 (V. Kelertienė); shifts in viewpoint NŽA 2013 3 230, change the point of view NŽA 2014 6 22. The point also determines the angle: <...> in conceptualization <...> one can distinguish a more concrete, empirical part and a more abstract, conceptual domain. In the latter, the aspect of profiling—the angle of view—is very important, a parameter that becomes essential in a particular situation when an object or phenomenon is identified, <...> A. GudE 2000 49. I think the combination of the British inclination to look cheerfully at phenomena and the Lithuanian temperament and reality makes it possible to imagine such an angle of view, too IQ 2010 410. An unusual angle of view enabled him to approach those topics NŽA 2014 4 72. All concepts <...> immediately provide a one-sided point of view Schopenhauer 1995 107. <...> seek new angles of view and assessment MkslL 2014 13 5. Very close here Terminologija | 2016 | 23 223 is the alternation of near and distant perspectives SLL XXIII 2007 315. There is also field: everything falls within the field of semiotic inquiry (...) NŽA 2016 5 68, expands the field of view NŽA 2015 3 58. Those angles and fields also give rise to fields of view: The reflections of a writer, teacher, photographer, and artist create a diversity of perspectives and a succession of characters L and M 2013 45 14. <...> a philosopher reflecting on technology from a theological point of view IQ 2010 7 112. <...>, Lelewel and his Hystorika stands between the Enlightenment and Historicism, as two distinct traditions of viewing the science of history NŽA 2015 8 57. The discovery of ethical values is guaranteed to a person by their axiological perspective. It is part of a sense of reality through which the subject continually evaluates life situations and moral phenomena EtEt VI 1982 172. Also found are methodological perspective M.–D. PhilTI 2009 176, non-methodological perspective MksIL 2016 8 8, static perspective NŽA 2011 7 489. There may be more4. However, most important, already known to Plato, is the contemplation of essences: “<...> the object of knowledge is not what is perceived by the senses, but what exists according to its own idea, which seems to shine through those perceptible things. Knowledge, as the process of acquiring understanding (episteme), is the ascent of the soul endowed with reason (nous) into the realm of non-sensible and timeless essences, and at the same time a detachment (katharsis) from everything sensible (...). This ascent is driven by eros (the divinity of the soul, daimonion), the striving for eternally perfect being in the spiritual contemplation of essences (theoria), which means blessedness for the soul” (FilŽ 2000: 162). Even before embodiment, the soul “beheld the ideas”—only for this reason “seeing and remembering through contemplation is possible” (162). However, whether comprehensible or not, acceptable or not, this belongs to the history of disciplinary terminology. But in specialized texts, though rarely, we find contemplation, not spiritual but intellectual, that is, pure thought: Knowledge acquired through pure thought, by way of intellectual contemplation, is always knowledge of eidos, of ideas (Nekra šas 2004: 140). Equally rare is theoretical contemplation: He understands postmodernity itself as a self-reflective stage of modernity, when modernity seems to shed its conceptual and ideological habits and “subjectivize” them in the field of theoretical contemplation A. BaumG 2007 20 (V. Rubavičius). But the explanation of žiūra 4 in DŽ 1993 and LKŽ XX 2002—“sensory cognition; <...>”—refutes all of this. 4 Although dictionaries do not record this meaning, žiūra also has the synonym rega: to establish one’s own point of view MksIL 2011 16 10, infinity can be apprehended from an infinite number of points of view RelF 1997 38, the point of view changes RelF 1997 45, having formed their dominant points of view <...> academics NŽA 2014 4 37, there is a marked departure from an intuitionist vision of the world LitIšv II 1997 176. But this seems more like the old-fashioned point of view and fashionable vision. Might it make sense to distinguish between vision and contemplation? 224 Jonas Klimavičius | Terminas prie termino. X When attempting to define that meaning—or, more precisely, those meanings—we must first rely on the primary meaning in the living language. Then we must understand that Aristotle’s philosophical theory, as a spiritual contemplation of all that exists for its own sake—for the bliss of a worldview—belongs to history; but today we have long lived in a world of scientific theories that explain phenomena, establish laws, and even provide benefits (the theories of art remain close to Aristotle’s conception), and instead of that one theory we have a diversity of perspectives—not sensory ones at all, but interpretive, contemplative ones. This was undoubtedly determined by the “turn to the subject characteristic of modern philosophy” (Anzenbacher 1992: 150), and by a subject for whom what is needed is not a scientific worldview (202), but a comprehensive one—that of a human worldview (214), although it is inevitably linguistic and only native-speaker-based (167), always concretely historical and somewhat subjective. For Kant, “a person has a single way of viewing the world, determined by the forms of space and time characteristic of them and independent of their experience, that is, a priori, as well as by a priori pure intellectual concepts (categories)” (Nekrašas 2004: 181). Thomas Kuhn (1922–1996), by contrast, believes that “there are many ways of viewing the world,” because this is determined by a paradigm—“a way of thinking about the world, a network of concepts through which scientists view reality” (181). It is disputed that each of them is equally correct, but certainly not all are equally significant. This perspective is widely used, though not universally (Anzenbacher 1992 does not include it). But its definition appears neither in Alois Halder’s Filž 2002 nor in William Raeper and Linda Smith’s book Into the World of Ideas: Religion and Philosophy Past and Present (Vilnius: Alma littera, 1996), in the glossary (219–258). It is clear that this perspective does not extend beyond the bounds of philosophy and spiritual science. We now turn to aesthetics, since the second part of this explanation remains: “aesthetic observation.” This particular perspective also has its own history. It begins in the earliest centuries of Antiquity: “<...> In Homer’s conception, art nevertheless remains nothing other than art, evoking purely artistic delight, as though it were created only for the listeners’ contemplation5, admiration, and enjoyment” (Stoškus 1981: 23). The twentieth-century phenomenological philosopher Nicolaiaus Hartmann begins his monumental work Aesthetics (published posthumously in 1953) precisely there: “Aesthetic thinking is in every case secondary. It can begin only after aesthetic contemplation and immediate perception have come to an end—” 5 Here let us recall the previously mentioned meaning of to listen—13. “to listen (usually with delight or wonder).” Terminologija | 2016 | 23 225 davimas gėrėjimuisi grožiu, <...>“ (GrožK 1980: 335–336). Nors pavadintas estetiniu mąstymu (tiksliau būtų – suvokimas), tuoj pervadinamas žiūra ir atskiriamas nuo mąstymo: „<...> daug pražūtingesnė klaida manyti, kad estetinis suvokimas (žiūra) apskritai esąs vienas iš pažinimo būdų, to paties lygio, kaip ir racionalusis pažinimas“ (336). Bet kas tada lieka – juk „grožis nėra daikto ontinė savybė“ (345). Tada prasideda antroji žiūra: „Estetinė žiūra yra tik pusiau pojūtinė žiūra. Virš jos yra dar antropo laipsnio žiūra, kurią pojūčiuose sukelia įspūdis, bet kuri su juo nesusilieja ir akte yra aiškiai nuo jo priklausoma. Ta antroji žiūra nėra nei esmežiūra, nei platoniškasis bendrybės suvokimas, nei intuicija, <...>. Ji tebėra nukreipta į vienintelį ir individualų atskirą objektą, bet įžvelgia jame tai, ko pojūčiai betarpiškai nepasiekia: <...>“ (312). Antroji žiūra yra vidinė žiūra (343), pojūtinę žiūrą iš vidaus apšviečia viršpojūtinė žiūra (344), kuri yra kurianti ar bent jau atkurianti žiūra (343). Galima suprasti, kad „tai, ką ji įžiūri, nėra duota pojūčiuose, pojūčiai tai tik įgalina“ (343), nors lieka klausimas – kaip? Trūksta visai mažai, o visa – labai reikšminga6. N. Hartmanno bendraamžis ir bendramintis Vosylius Sezemanas savo studijoje Estetika (1970, parašyta 1962) esmingai papildo, paryškina ir apibendrina: „Mūsų asmenybės emocinis atsiliepimas į objekte pasireiškiančią gyvybę arba jausminį tonalumą nekliudo tam, kad mes to objekto atžvilgiu išlaikytume kontempliatyvų nusistatymą, pajungdami jam ir tą nuotaiką, kurią mus užkrečia pats objektas. Tokio pobūdžio yra kaip tik estetinė žiūra, estetinis atsidėjimas, atskleidžiąs mums ir objektyvią, antiindividualinę jausminių išgyvenimų reikšmę“ (Sezemanas 1970: 256). Vis dėlto estetinės ir teorinės žiūros tapatybė, kartais skelbiama visai tiesmukai, susilaukia neigimo: <...> teigti, kad teorinė ir estetinė žiūra iš esmės sutampa, kad tai vienodai objektyvus žvilgsnis, yra netikslu. <...>. <...>. Teorinei žiūrai rūpi pats konkretus, individualus daiktas, objektas, jo būtis – <...>. Teigti, kad estetiniu žvilgsniu mes suvokiame grynąjį daikto būtį ir pan., vadinasi, pasiduoti iliuzijai L ir M 1989 49 10 (K. Rastenis). 6 Much earlier, Arthur Schopenhauer, who distinguished in philosophy intellectual contemplation or absolute thought (Schopenhauer 1995: 30 / rational contemplation (73) and sensory contemplation (131), had already distinguished in aesthetics two “inseparable components of what he called aesthetic observation: knowledge of the object (not as an individual thing, but as a Platonic idea—that is, as a constant form characteristic of an entire particular class of things); and self-awareness on the part of the knower (not as an individual, but as a pure, will-less subject of cognition) (286). He calls the first objective contemplation (288), that objectivity—genius, while the subjective side of beauty prompts one simply to “sink into pure aesthetic contemplation” (317). 226 Jonas Klimavičius | Terminas prie termino. X INSIGHT The Lithuanian word *žiūra* is derived from *žiūrėti* ‘to look’, but is semantically inseparable from *žvelgti* ‘to gaze’ as well; it is also related to the words *žvilgsnis* ‘glance, look’ and the rarer *požiūlgis*: 1. ‘glance’ (S. Daukantas’s *požvilga*); 2. see *požiūris* 1 (i.e. ‘viewpoint, perspective’); 3. see *požiūris* 2 (i.e. ‘outlook, attitude, position’) LKŽ X 1976, e.g.: Practicality is the principal feature by which reality looks at us, that is, radiates and says that it is just like this GrožK 1980 217 (M. Heidegger). To gaze, cast a glance, look around is processual, not final, not resultative, and thus fundamentally different from to look, because then one sees. Nevertheless, alongside sight (and, rarely, vision), *žvalga* has also been tried: *Žvalga*: Immortality is the ultimate fulfillment of individual existence <...>. <...>. This is a *žvalga* that has put deep roots into the soil of Christianity K. BradPvs 1990 452–453 (V. Zaborskaitė). Č. Miloš is assessed from a different standpoint MkslL 2011 18 9. <...> everyone judges from their own standpoint MkslL 2014 11 7. <...> an aspect of *žvalga* untouched <...> in studies MkslL 2013 5 12 (here it seems to mean *žvalga*... glance / perspective!..). This *žvalga* is not recorded in dictionaries⁷, and perhaps never will be. There seems to be no terminological need for it. The meanings of event and direction in to discern and discernment are quite another matter. It is no surprise that the word is even compared with to perceive: “In the beginning was the Word. This can be perceived only without words; ‘human words will not help one discern it. – – –’” KatKŽ 1989 256. <...> with his great insight, he perceived in them a symbol of the history of science T. ManLV 1969 253. *Įžvalga* ‘insight’ and *įžvalgus* ‘insightful’ are not words of colloquial speech (the LKŽ IV 1957 meaning ‘far-seeing’, from Raseiniai, is not among the reliable attestations). They originate in dictionaries and only very gradually enter usage. RLŽ 1924 проницательный – gusty (wind), shrill; penetrating; insightful, ingenious; прозорливый – insightful, sharp-eyed; прозорливость – insight; о провидные – one is providence, the other foresight, even RLKŽ II 1967 – foresight, foreseeing and only RLKŽ III 1984 – foresight, prediction, insight (the other, religious, sense is providence). Here we most likely see the original underlying the calque: Latin providere – 2. figuratively 1) to foresee, providus – 1. foreseeing, insightful, providens, entis – 2) adjective insightful, prudent, cautious, sensible, providentia – 1. insight, foresight LoLieŽ 2007. LKRŽ 1948 has only *įžvalgus* (‘insightful’); LKVŽ 1950 *įžvalgus* (‘insightful’) means ‘able to discern’; ‘sharp-eyed, clever’, while *įžvalga* means ‘perception, introspection,’ 7 Another matter is the computing term *žvalga* (‘scan’ or ‘survey’)—used instead of scanning (without reading); though *peržvalga* (‘overview’; literally, ‘survey’) is clearer (the term *žvalgytuvas*, ‘scanner’, hardly warrants abandoning it). Terminologija | 2016 | 23 2 2 7 although introspection – insight, self-inspection, self-observation (but self-observation is just introspection, while self-inspection means “looking at oneself”; self-observation). Introspection, “observation of one’s inner life” (the method of introspection – in psychology, “knowing another person’s mental phenomena by inference from one’s own inner experiences”), appears only in TŽŽ 1936—and immediately as self-observation: it adopted a neologism coined by Jonas Jablonskis (LKŽ XII 1981). Treating insight and self-observation / introspection as synonyms might suggest that introspection (Latin introspectare – to look around (from within) LoLieŽ 2007) could also be the original source of insight, were it not for its closer and broader connection with the much older providence. Introspection is considered obsolete in psychology because of its subjectivity (PsichŽ 1993), but it is worth remembering that it means self-observation Šalk II 1991 329, Skardžius 1998 461, since it is entirely possible outside technical terminology. Providence, too, is recorded only in TŽŽ 1936 (only as Providence); it was not until later that it came to mean 1. foresight TŽŽ 1969, 1. foresight, prudence TŽŽ 1985, and finally 1. insight, foresight, prudence TŽŽ II 2000. In normative lexicography and modern terminography, insight first appears in its ordinary sense—“perception, understanding, close observation” DŽ 1954 (although insight, literary—1. “close observation, insight,” 2. “gaze”). LKŽ IV 1957 and DŽ 1972 also include scientific insight. Not merely as a word, but as a genuinely s c i e n t i f i c insight in terminology dictionaries: English insight, German Einsicht, Russian инсайт—“a sudden resolution of difficulties and a problem, an unexpected emergence of clarity concerning complex relationships and connections; in the diagnosis of schoolchildren—a realization and new understanding of complex personality traits, emotions, and motives that were previously unclear. <...>” (PT 1993). Psychologists decided differently from educators, siding with the Russians: insight (Russian инсайт, English insight)—otherwise ↗ insaitas, although the explanation is similar: insaitas (Russian инсайт, English insight), insight—“a sudden understanding of the essential relations and overall structure of a situation, seemingly unsupported by prior experience, and the solution of a problem. – – – Δ The preparatory stage is important for its emergence: the person’s previous activity, inherited social experience, and the social and historical means through which that experience is transmitted (language)” (PsichŽ 1993). Educators confirmed their position—insight EncEdŽ 2007. Thus, the immediate, though secondary, original is English insight. Subject specialists reasonably chose intuition, insight, intuition (Rudaitienė, Vitkauskas 1998) from among the equivalents proposed by linguists. Insight did not take hold in usage; its foreignness is even pointed out, for example: Vipassana means clear, pure seeing, characterized by special revelations, insights, and what psychologists call “insight” J. IvanTM 2004 27. 228 Jonas Klimavičius | Terminas prie termino. X In Plato’s philosophy, alongside sensory seeing, there is also spiritual insight into eternal Ideas, especially the Good—this is theory (FilŽ 2002). Insight itself begins with the “narrow meaning”—“the direct sensory perception by sight of an individual phenomenon of reality” (FilŽ 2002), which can hardly be insight at all. True insight is, for some reason, called a “figurative meaning” (in linguistics, when a transfer is no longer felt—it has faded—the meaning is no longer called figurative, but derived or something similar). The kinds of insight are distinguished first: “the non-singular sensory presence of the fundamental forms of singular perception”—Kant’s pure intuition (observation), that is, “the intuition of the forms of space and time that conditions the possibility of all experience”; the entirely non-sensory intellectual intuition (mental, conceptual), and Husserl’s categorical intuition, especially the intuition of essences (similar to Plato’s intuition of Ideas). Nevertheless, there is a generalized insight into life and the world—“a general spiritual, ethical, religious, etc. conception of reality as a whole and of human existence (a picture of the world and of humanity), formed by an individual, group, or epoch. <...>. There is a marked tendency to treat insight as possessing here and now that which remains eternally unchanged and identical, and on which one can in principle rely at any time” (FilŽ 2002). Also worth mentioning is the most extraordinary kind—God’s infallible insight, visio infallibilis—a kind of a priori knowledge NŽA 2014 1 50—not experiential knowledge (52). Amid the immense diversity of usage, one should first remember Aristotle’s “inclination toward sensory insight arising from the very essence of the human spirit (intellectus animae humanae)” (FilŽ 2002: 218). Perhaps immediately grounded insight is close to it Schopenhauer 1995 127. But also in contemporary usage: Politicians make many important decisions but cannot explain them scientifically. They seem to sense reality, to possess political intuition, grounded not in scientific calculations but rather in a sensory relation to reality. This is called “intuition,” “hunch,” “insight,” and “practical wisdom.” A “sense of reality” is not something mystical IQ 2010 3 40 (A. Jokubaitis). Writers today are engaged in <...> literature. Their intuition, artistic discernment, and insight can, of course, sometimes say more than the reasoning of journalists who cover everyday affairs or political analysts Sav su TV 2015 29 22. Artistic creativity is an intuitive insight into the truth of being GrožK 1980 14 (B. Kuzmickas). Another group revolves around self-knowledge through self-observation and the like: This programmatic encyclical shows the path of today’s Church: the path of self-knowledge and insight, the path of renewal, and the path of dialogue KatKŽ 1988 122. His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama’s book “How to Know Yourself” is dedicated to cultivating self-observation. Love and insight carry us toward enlightenment <...> Sav Terminologija | 2016 | 23 229 with TV 2012 5 81. Related are the charismatic and (pseudo-)poetic uses: The gifts of charisma, <...>, Christianity also calls gifts of revelation, miraculous gifts. These are gifts of knowledge (wisdom, knowledge, spiritual insight), gifts of speech (...), and gifts of power (...) Sav su TV 2016 38 18. This is why bards are so fond of wine, mead, drugs, coffee, tea, opium, sandalwood incense, tobacco, or whatever else can make one feel a surge of energy. <...> these are <...> substitutes for nectar, the true drink of the gods, which acts on the human mind as it approaches genuine insight. – – – The spirit of the world, the immense peace characteristic of the Creator’s being, is not revealed through the enchantments of wine and opium R. W. EmP 2000 48–49. True insight truly comes from thought: <...> no account of the universe can be true unless it leaves open the possibility that our thinking may become genuine insight C. S. LewS 2007 22. These are theoretical insights MksIL 2012 8 8, intellectual insight H. D. TorV 1985 157, metaphysical insight A. MacR VI 1994 303 (1977)8, philosophical insight NŽA 2014 1 43, religious insight RelF 1997 64, natural philosophical insight NŽA 2013 5 370, phenomenological insight GerK 1989 8 (B. Kuzmickas), psychological and phenomenological insight SLL XXIII 2007 300, deep psychological insight R. FridG 1977 462. Often the object of knowledge is pierced through by insight SLL XXIII 2007 300; there are also penetrating insights NŽA 2013 1 11. The most serious discussion concerns penetration: <...> to penetrate life in such a way <...>. This is possible only for a person of extraordinary spiritual powers, called a genius, for only such a person can grasp the essence of being and things as a whole, make it their absolute subject, and express this special insight in a highly individual way through art, poetry, or philosophy A. ŠopGIA 1994 68. When insight is used by a philosopher, it is insight. When used by someone merely philosophizing, its meaning is dim and the concept’s definition vague: <...> he was in a state of soul that I recognized in myself and others: a state of alertness, insight, and knowledge, of spiritual grace H. HesE 1991 260. <...> many events and experiences unfolded, colored by wonderful insights L. JonRvb 2008 150. <...>—all of this is conveyed with remarkable literary persuasiveness, insight, and wisdom L. JonRvb 2008 150. Entirely undefined and otherwise vague are philosophical and literary insights A. JasmK 2001 12 (M. Martinaitis), the beginnings of contemporary literary insights NŽA 2012 4 218, artistic insight NŽA 2012 5 307, spiritual insight Sav su TV 2016 38 18. We could not even say that these are simply perception or perceptiveness. 8 Termino įžvalga vis dėlto nėra A. Maceinos knygos Religijos filosofija (1975) priede Retesnių lietuviškų žodžių paaiškinimas (A. MacR VII 1994 341–345) ir knygos Asmuo ir istorija (1981) priede Retesnių žodžių paaiškinimas (A. MacR VI 1994 372–374). 230 Jonas Klimavičius | Terminas prie termino. X Not the genuine kind, but entirely clear and intelligible, are insights that are not at all philosophical or psychological insights into technological development (“foresight”) Vd 2006 16 10 (E. Vilkas); “futurology” as an insight into the future A. MacR VI 1994 464; had considerable common sense and some insight NŽA 2011 6 396. Pure spiritual / intellectual insight is described in terms of its objects, but especially its qualities: deep insights Sav su TV 2014 35 32, intellectually deeper insights NŽA 2013 4 269, great insight R. W. EmP 2000 35, meaningful insights NŽA 2013 4 293, exceptional insight A. ŠopGIA 1994 68. Much more often, insight here means “vision; guidelines; programme”: the development of the Lithuanian science and studies insights ‘Moksloji Lietuva 2030’ MksIL 2013 10 11. <...> an insight into Lithuania’s economy prepared by a group of researchers Vd 2009 38 34. <...> wrote intriguing guidelines for cultural strategy. <...>. Conditions were right for a rapid move from strategic insights to implementation IQ 2010 5 89. The national integrated programmes were intended to formulate certain strategic insights—what to put in order and change MksIL 2013 10 5. The same meanings are probably also conveyed by a tolerant insight Sav su TV 2012 37 4, a more considered insight NŽA 2013 1 14, a successful insight Vd 2011 4 29, an impressive insight NŽA 2013 5 370, a positive insight IQ 2011 7 17, radical insights NŽA 2011 8 536, the insights of skeptics NŽA 2014 5 26. In some places, the meaning is “conclusions; statements; opinion”: analysts’ insights NŽA 2011 6 419, insights from the latest research MksIL 2015 8 10, insights from structural analysis LitŠv II 1997 83. No one wants to be without insights: the insights of fortune-tellers and psychics Sav su TV 2010 40 25. Proper terminological use also requires suitable grammaticalization—without final grammatical formulation, it seems incomplete. In this case, it would be a prepositional construction: insight into inner essence and meaning Schopenhauer 1995 236; unsuitable would be a case construction: insights on the questions of identity and imagology MksIL 2013 5 12; still more so, a participial or adverbial-participial construction: insights that reach deep NŽA 2015 8 24, considerable insight is needed to distinguish, <...> Vd 2011 8 43; or even a conjunction construction: it will depend on our insight that one’s own thinking can be expressed only in one’s own language A. MacR VI 1994 309. Particularly parasitic is insight about: St Thomas’s insights about the beatific vision show his desire to be a true contemplative—a person who gazes upon God in His own light and love, and who therefore sees everything in the light and love of God M.-D. PhilTI 2009 513. Czesław Miłosz’s brilliant insight in “The Captive Mind” about <...> fear IQ 2011 5 13. The author’s insights into the phenomenon of the crowd Vd 2011 25 57. <...> recalls Hannah Arendt’s classic Terminologija | 2016 | 231 insights into the lies of totalitarian movement propaganda NŽA 2014 2 64. Incidentally, what is meant here most often is not genuine insight: insights into the possibilities and limits of knowing the past NŽA 2011 6 429, insights into trends and prospects for the development of research fields MksIL 2009 7 2, insights into the current state of Lithuania NŽA 2011 3 158, insight into another Lithuania IQ 2010 4 9, insights into the cultural connections between Vilnius, <...>, and Prague MksIL 2014 12 12, insights into the formation of farm marketing MksIL 2016 7 5, even insights into the Galindians Vor 2014 3 10, simply—about that Vd 2011 18 37, Vor 2014 13 11. A theory has to be created; it can be possessed; a viewpoint is given or simply exists. Insight must be possessed, but one can also make it MksIL 2013 10 5; in the style of the era, form it MksIL 2013 10 5; for others, present it Vd 2011 18 37, Sav su TV 2012 3 5, Vor 2014 3 10; often, scatter it NŽA 2013 5 370, share it Vd 2014 13 11, MksIL 2016 7 5; rarely, experience it Sav su TV 2014 35 32. A rare collocation is express in a distinctive way A. ŠopGIA 1994 68. One can arm oneself with insight, in a military sense, NŽA 2012 2 129; it may run short Vd 2005 6 28. It may be replenished Vd 2011 10 35, Vor 2013 11 15. Clearly, insight is derived from to discern, although the main point is that it is a calque (English insight, Latin providentia). It is quite understandable that in DŽ 1972 and 1993, 2000 to discern still means only “to see, notice.” LKŽ XX 2002 ¹to discern 2. figuratively, “to understand through deeper consideration”; this meaning is already known from early writings—the Wolfenbüttel Postil (1573), the dictionaries of F. W. Haack, P. Ruigys, and K. Milkus—and, of course, from more recent writings by Maironis, Šatrijos Ragana, Vydūnas, V. Mykolaitis-Putinas, and others. The verb to discern (with a direct object) is often chosen precisely to avoid the lifeless phrase to make an insight, e.g.: Art, in its essence, is said to be a disinterested, intuitive observation of reality, a distinctive kind of cognition that authentically discerns reality GrožK 1980 15 (B. Kuzmickas). Historicism (...) is a mode of thought that emerged in the nineteenth century from philosophical and historical-scientific interpretations of history, and later drew on Dilthey’s understanding of historical phenomena, which seeks to discern the different and changing interrelations of meanings in life across various epochs FilŽ 2002 97. <...> criticizes the positivist conception of language, which sees in the word only a linking function, but fails to discern in it “its metaphysical depth and meaning” A. MacR VI 1994 461 (1977). This <...> is a serious poetic effort, using a distinctive, highly resonant poetic word to convey the spiritual state of a person today who knows that God is mysterious. In other words, the poet Maceina wants to discern at least a little of God’s mystery, to somehow draw nearer to Him Sant 1992 2 31. <...> a person 2 3 2 Jonas Klimavičius | Terminas prie termino. X capable, by means of their intellect, of discerning the good that is universal (knowable to a normal mind) NŽA 2012 4 229. <...> I felt that I needed better [intellectual] vision if I wanted to discern the essence of all this PrRAp 1979 191. When what is meant is not genuine insight but ordinary insight, only the verb “to discern” is possible: to discern: to discern possibilities for innovation Sav su TV 2014 31 5, the threat of environmental destruction KB 2012 7–8 7, something bad NŽA 2011 6 464, simply something NŽA 2012 5 307, or a great deal V. Jer M–P 1992 45. The whole picture is further supplemented and sharpened by the epithet insightful: <...> bringing forth a much freer and livelier manner of philosophizing, rich in intuitive insight and irony A. ŠopGIA 1994 15 (A. Andrijauskas). God said to him [Solomon]: “Since <...> you asked for perceptive insight so that you might know what is right, <...> I give you a wise and discerning heart” (...) VL 1997 101 4. That man is no writer who does not make a person’s eyes (=eyes) a little more perceptive K. PaustAR 1958 29. Not only eyes, but also an insightful consciousness NŽA 2014 5 65, deep, insightful thought Vd 2016 26 41. And so too the abstract noun for the quality: “Insight, which we call Imagination, is a very sensitive inner vision that cannot be learned; it is a faculty of the intellect by which one is able to see everything that truly needs to be seen” R. W. EmP 2000 46. Rarely does one encounter to perceive insightfully KB 1991 11 44, MkslL 2013 10 5. The two Lithuanian terms, induced by the international theory, historically equivocal in meaning theory, are neither its equivalents or substitutes nor synonyms of each other. The word žiūra, polysemous in dialects and rather rare in the standard language, has been terminologized with a highly remote, specialized meaning. The neologism įžvalga (though derived from the ordinary įžvelgti and alongside the long-established, common įžvalgus) likewise has a highly specialized terminological meaning, but is considerably overshadowed by broad, not always well-defined, overdetermined and even extremely overused, almost meaningless usage. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Words are not commodities. The need for internationalism in life is secondary: what is primary and innate is national distinctiveness—culturally and civilizationally, historically and structurally very diverse. The same is true of lexical internationalism: although words cost nothing, there is nevertheless a constant striving for a quality—to preserve it, to multiply it, to create more. A language is most alive when it gives birth, nurtures, and honors the ancient, cherishing it. Waves of lexical induction from ancient and Western languages (and through them, from the East as well) bring us not only necessary international words and difficult-to-avoid international calques, but also unnecessary excess that destroys this quality— Terminologija | 2016 | 23 2 3 3 equally unnecessary layers and residues of splendid, pretentious—and, dare we tell ourselves, uncultured—accretions. From the very beginning of the Lithuanian standard, or old written, language, and at every significant period, uninterrupted and diverse streams of international words (and other borrowings, even foreignisms) have woven themselves in various ways into the spiritual, cultural, and social systems and complexes of native self-awareness and self-understanding, worldview, and outlook, into values and self-esteem, changing them—filling them out, restructuring them, and imperceptibly and markedly undermining them—fruitfully, profoundly, superficially, threateningly, even dangerously. It has rightly been observed before that Lithuanians—perhaps eternally, for all we know—readily and efficiently digest what is foreign (a culinary analogy that suggests an unhealthy lack of discernment), but it must be added that they do not easily cook their own pot. Creativity, of course, is much harder. But whoever settles for what is easy is going downhill and onto the wayside. A more thorough, systematic study of the waves of induction into Lithuanian of one group of international terms (based on the most important sense, “to look”) first brings to mind and heart the semantic vitality, creativity, motivational freedom, and inventiveness of the donor languages, as well as the sound basis and connectedness of their development and, of course, its wonderful fruits in every respect: everything is named, but something else is renamed; the new is adopted and the old is not forgotten. Could this not be an impulse and an example for us, the receiving language? In many places in the history of our own language, including the standard language, we see that this has been lacking, at times even absent, or that unnecessary, unsuccessful, or barely adequate neologisms have been cobbled together. But did S. Daukantas not already encourage us and teach by his example: “<...> has its own particular language, necessarily [that is, wholly] diverse [that is, extraordinary, different] from other languages, <...>, in which everything can be understood and everything expressed” (Daukantas 1976₁: 407–408)? P. Skardžius adds substantially to our hope: “<...> quite a few neologisms in Lithuanian have been formed more spontaneously than, say, in Latvian, Russian, or German” (Skardžius 1998: 435). Unfortunately, the language is already veering toward the wayside and the byways: Lithuanian has shifted toward Polish, where terminologies (in science!) abound in substitutes for international words, while ordinary, even colloquial, speech is full of international pretentiousness. These are the worm-eaten fruits of the vanity of a way of life. Still, we also have the increasingly frequent būtovė and the rapidly spreading žiūra—motivated like a theory, yet distinct, thus our own word and our own semantic result, even though prompted (induced) from afar. Again, let us not all rush blindly over one another into dubious determinization or simply into an indescribable, undefined extermin(iz)ation—as happened with insight (where it is competing unattractively with challenge). 234 Jonas Klimavičius | Terminas prie termino. X Therefore, as a guiding principle for all kinds of normalization (standardization), regulation, and cultivation, it would be fitting to choose this maxim of G. K. Chesterton: “<...>if we feel a special passion for putting everything in order, we must continually insist that everything can go wrong” (G. K. ChestO 1998: 158). When there is more than enough capacity to ruin everything, the attempt by someone entirely new to terminology theory and practice to redirect it at once toward some kind of market-oriented, opinion-driven linguistics (Vladarskienė 2015) is more than surprising—especially given the very imprecise handling of concepts (for example, stylistic linguistics 98—instead of linguistic stylistics) and a failure to understand the terminologist’s role (for example, “methods of term regulation are important for one competitor’s gaining a foothold in usage” 100). There are already enough people willing to belittle terminology and undermine the authority of linguist-terminologists. ŠALTINIAI AurAug Išp 2004 – Aurelijus Augustinas. Išpažinimai. Vert. E. Ulčinaitė ir V. Staliorait y tė, Vilnius: Aidai. A. BaumG 2007 – Bauman A. Globalizacija: pasekmės žmogui. Vert. V. Rubavičius, Vilnius. B ir KŽ 1997 – Buračas A. Bankininkystės ir komercijos terminų aiškinamasis žodynas, Vilnius–Kaunas. K. BradPvs 1990 – Bradūnas K. Prie vieno stalo, Vilnius: Vaga. DŽ 1954 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Ats. red. J. Kruopas, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. DŽ 1972 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Ats. red. J. Kruopas, Vilnius: Mintis. DŽ 1993 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Vyr. red. S. Keinys, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. DŽ 2000 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Vyr. red. S. Keinys, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. R. W. EmP 2000 – Emerson R. W. Poetas. Vert. N. S. Pukinskaitė, Vilnius: Vyturys. ETŽ 1966 – Rusiškai lietuviškas ekonomikos terminų žodynas. Red. kol. K. Meškauskas (ats. red.), A. Poviliūnas, V. Puronas, A. Skupeika, Vilnius: Mintis. FaustI 2006 – Daktaro Johano Fausto, <...>, istorija. Vert. L. Citavičiūtė, Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas. R. FridG 1977 – Fridentalis R. Getė. Vert. E. Vengrienė ir J. Kilius, Vilnius: Vaga. J. GaarSP 1998 – Gaarder J. Sofijos pasaulis. Vert. E. Išganaitė, Vilnius: Tyto alba. A. GudE 2000 – Gudavičius A. Etnolingvistika, Šiauliai. H. HesE 1991 – Hesė H. Esė. Vert. Z. Ardickas, Vilnius: Mintis. HŠv 1994 – Dilytė D. Heladės šviesa, Vilnius: Lietus. I ir B 1988 – Istorija ir būtis, Vilnius: Mintis. IQ – IQ (žurnalas). J. IvanTM 2004 – Ivanauskaitė J. Tibeto mandala, Vilnius: Tyto alba. A. JasmK 2001 – Jasmantas A. Kla jūnas, Vilnius: Aidai. V. JerM–P 1992 – Jerofejevas V. Maskva–Petuškai. Vert. R. Vanagas, Vilnius: Lietuvos rašytojų sąjungos leidykla. L. JonRvb 2008 – Jonušys L. Rūmas virš bedugnės, Vilnius: Lietuvos rašytojų sąjungos leidykla. KatKŽ 1989 – Katalikų kalendorius žinynas, Kaunas–Vilnius. KB – Kultūros barai (žurnalas). KV – Kalba Vilnius (laikraštis). C. S. LewS 2007 – Lewis C. S. Stebuklai. Vert. J. Kriūnienė, Kaunas: Verba vera. Terminologija | 2016 | 23 235 L ir M – Literatūra ir menas (laikraštis). LitIšV II 1997 – Lituanistika XXI amžiaus išvakarese 2, Vilnius: Pasaulio lituanistų bendrija. LKRŽ 1948 – Lietuvių kalbos rašybos žodynas. Red. K. Gasparavičius, N. Grigas, J. Lazauskas, K. Ulvydas ir A. Žirgulys, Kaunas: Valstybinė enciklopedijų, žodynų ir mokslo literatūros leidykla. LKŽ I₂ 1968 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1, Vilnius: Mintis. LKŽ IV 1957 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 4, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. LKŽ IX 1973 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 9, Vilnius: Mintis. LKŽ X 1976 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 10, Vilnius: Mokslas. LKŽ XI 1978 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 11, Vilnius: Mokslas. LKŽ XII 1981 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 12, Vilnius: Mokslas. LKŽ XIX 1999 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 19, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. LKŽ XX 2002 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 20, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla. LLitEnc 2001 – Lietuvių literatūros enciklopedija, Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas. LRKŽ 1971 – Lyberis A. Lietuvių–rusų kalbų žodynas, Vilnius: Mintis. LRKŽ 1988 – Lyberis A. Lietuvių–rusų kalbų žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas. A. MacR VI, VII 1994 – Maceina A. Raštai 6, 7, Vilnius: Mintis. MairR III₂ 1992 – Maironis. Raštai 3 2, Vilnius: Vaga. L. Mal, L. GitČ 1989 – Maliuginas L., Gitovič L. Čechovas. Vert. J. Vaitkus, Vilnius: Vyturys. T. ManLV 1964 – Manas T. Lota Veimare. Vert. V. Petrauskas, Vilnius: Vaga. H. MelvEK 1987 – Melvilis H. Enkantados. Kelionė po Europą ir Levantą. Vert. O. Armalytė, Vilnius: Mintis. A. MickLBP 1975 – Mickevičius A. Lyrika. Baladės. Poemos, Vilnius: Vaga. MIstŽ 2000 – Mokyklinis istorijos žodynas. Sudarė A. Endzinas, II pat. leid., Vilnius: Biblion. MkslL – Mokslo Lietuva (laikraštis). NŽA – Naujasis židinys–Aidai (žurnalas). OD 1984 – Parandovskis J. Olimpijos diskas. Vert. D. Urbas, red. A. Gailius, Vilnius: Vaga. K. PaustAr 1958 – Paustovskis K. Aukso rožė. Vert. E. Murkienė, Vilnius: Valstybinė grožinės literatūros leidykla. M.–D. PhilTI 2009 – Philippe M.–D. Trys išmintys, Vilnius: Agapetos. P ir LE I 1978 – Poetika ir literatūros estetika 1, Vilnius: Vaga. P ir LE II 1989 – Poetika ir literatūros estetika 2, Vilnius: Vaga. PokAk 1991 – Pokalbių akiračiai, Vilnius: Vaga. PrRAp 1979 – Prancūzų romantikų apysakos. Vert. R. Ramunienė, Vilnius: Vaga. RLKŽ II 1967 – Rusų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas 2. Paruošė V. Baronas, V. Galinis, red. B. Larinas, J. Macaitis, Vilnius: Mintis. RLKŽ III 1984 – Rusų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas 3. Sudarė J. Kardelytė, J. Macaitis, A. Mankevičienė, Vilnius: Mokslas. RLŽ 1924 – Baronas J. Rusiškai lietuviškas žodynas, Kaunas. Sant – Santara (žurnalas). Sav su TV – Savaitė su TV (savaitraštis). SD 1642 – Pirmasis lietuvių kalbos žodynas: Konstantinas Sirvydas. Dictionarium trium linguarum [fotografinis tekstas], Vilnius, 1979. SLL XXIII 2007 – Senoji Lietuvos literatūra 23, Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas. V. ŠeksR VI 1965 – Šekspyras V. Raštai 6, Vilnius: Vaga. A. ŠliogD ir M 1988 – Šliogeris A. Daiktai ir menas, Vilnius: Mintis. A. ŠopGIA 1994 – Šopenhaueris A. Gyvenimo išminties aforizmai. Vert. A. Tekorius, Vilnius: Pradai. ŠRSdv 1969 – Šatrijos Ragana. Sename dvare, Vilnius: Vaga. TechEnc IV 2010 – Technikos enciklopedija 4, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras. H. D. TorV 1985 – Toro H. D. Voldenas, arba gyvenimas miške. Vert. R. Pavilionis, Vilnius: Vaga. Vd – Veidas (žurnalas). VL – Valstiečių laikraštis (laikraštis). Vor – Voruta (laikraštis). 2 3 6 Jonas Klimavičius | Terminas prie termino. X LITERATŪRA9 AntŽ 1998: Antikos žodynas. Vert. R. Kumžienė, A. Tekorius, A. Trakymas, ats. red. D. Staškevičienė, Vilnius. Anzenbacher A. 1992: Filosofijos įvadas. Vert. A. Degutis, D. Macevičienė, T. Raudeliūnas, T. Sodeika, A. Sverd iolas, G. Žukas, Vilnius: Katalikų pasaulis. Būga K. 1959: Rinktiniai raštai 2, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. G. K. ChestO 1998: Chesterton G. K. Ortodoksija. Vert. R. Drazdauskienė, Vilnius: Aidai. Dambrauskas A. 1974: Graikų teatras ir Sofoklis. – Sofoklis. Tragedijos, Vilnius: Vaga, 295–305. Daukantas S. 1976₁: Raštai 1, Vilnius: Vaga. Daukantas S. 1984: Vertimai ir sekimai, Vilnius: Vaga. Daukantas S. 1995₁: Istorija žemaitiška 1, Vilnius: Vaga. EncEdŽ 2007: Jovaiša L. Enciklopedinis edukologijos žodynas, Vilnius: Gimtasis žodis. EtEt VI 1982: Etikos etiudai 6, Vilnius: Mintis. FilŽ 2002: Halder A. Filosofijos žodynas. Vert. A. Tekorius, Vilnius: Alma littera. Gaivenis K. 1983: S. Šalkauskio terminologijos teorija. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 22, Vilnius: Mokslas, 128–136. GērK 1989: Gėrio kontūrai, Vilnius: Mintis. GrLŽ 1979: Graikų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas. Sudarė R. Mironas, Vilnius. GroŽK 1980: Grožio kontūrai, Vilnius: Mintis. A. GurvGK 1989: Gurvičius A. Viduramžių kultūros kategorijos. Vert. V. Nekrašienė, Vilnius: Mintis. Jankauskas S. 1987: Antikinės filosofijos ištakos. – Problemos 1987 36. Klimavičius J. 1975: Tarptautinių ir lietuviškųjų terminų sinonimija terminografijoje. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 16, Vilnius: Mokslas, 91–123. Klimavičius J. 1996: Kuo prasik alto „mūsų kalbininkai“ ir rinkodara? – Gimtoji kalba 8, 5–8. Klimavičius J. 2014: Kazimieras Gaivenis – žmogus ir mokslininkas. – Terminologija 21, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 218–227. Klimavičius J. 2015: Smarkus žemaitis. – Atsiminimai apie Vytautą Vitkauską, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos draugija, Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 31–51. L ir I 1980: Laikas ir idėjos, Vilnius: Mintis. LKV 1950: Lietuvių kalbos vadovas. Tartis ir rašyba. Kirčiavimas. Kalbos dalykai. Žodynas. Sudarė prof. dr. Pr. Skardžius, St. Barzdukas ir J. M. Laurinaitis, [Miunchenas]: Ventos leidykla: Lietuvių tremtinių bendruomenė + Ž.: Žodynas, 159–604. LoLieŽ 1996: Kuzavinis K. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. LoLieŽ 2007: Kuzavinis K. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Nekrašas E. 2004: Filosofijos įvadas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Piročkinas A. 2000: Jonas Jablonskis – naujų žodžių kūrėjas. – Gimtasis žodis 10, 2–6; 11, 14–16; 12, 7–12. PsichŽ 1993: Psichologijos žodynas. Spec. red. R. Augis ir R. Kočiūnas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. PT 1993: Jovaiša L. Pedagogikos terminai, Kaunas: Šviesa. RelF 1997: Jacopozzi A. Religijos filosofija. Vert. R. Šerpytytė, Vilnius: Aidai. RelŽ 1991: Religijotyros žodynas. Ats. red. A. Rybelis, Vilnius: Mintis. Rudaitienė V., Vitkauskas V. 1998: Vakarų kalbų naujieji skoliniai, Vilnius: Enciklopedija. Schopenhauer A. 1995: Pasaulis kaip valia ir vaizdinys. Vert. A. Šliogeris, Vilnius: Pradai. SenGr 1995: Kleras Dž. D. Senovės Graikija. Vert. N. Skliutaitė, Vilnius: Alma littera. SenGrI 1955: Sergejevas V. S. Senovės Graikijos istorija. Red. Vyt. Petrauskas, Vilnius: Politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. SenGrK 2007: Dilytė D. Senovės Graikijos kultūra, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Sezemanas V. 1970: Estetika, Vilnius: Mintis. Skardžius P. 1998: Lietuviški tarptautinių žodžių atitikmenys. – Rinktiniai raštai 3, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 428–507. SNŽŽ 1907: Svetimų ir nesuprantamų žodžių žodynėlis. Sudarė J. Šlapelis, Tilžė. 9 Kai kurios literatūros pozicijos kartu yra ir kalbos duomenų šaltiniai. Terminologija | 2016 | 23 237 SNŽŽ 1924: Norkus J. Svetimų ir nesuprantamų žodžių žodynėlis, Kaunas: „Vaivos“ b–vė. STŽŽ 1923: M. ir S. Svetimų ir tarptautiskų žodžių žodynėlis, Šiauliai: „Vilties“ dr–ja. Stoškus K. 1981: Hedonistinė estetika ir meno rangai. – Estetinė kultūra 1, Vilnius: Mintis, 21–74. STŽ 1996: Sporto terminų žodynas. Parengė S. Stonkus, Kaunas. STŽ 2002: Sporto terminų žodynas. Parengė S. Stonkus, 2-asis pat. ir pap. leid., Kaunas. SWO 1997: Słownik wyrazów obcych. Red. E. Sobol, Warszawa. ŠalkR II 1991: Šalkauskis S. Raštai 2, Vilnius: Mintis. TŽŽ 1936: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Sudarė K. Boruta, Pr. Čepėnas, S. Sirutytė-Čepėnienė, redagavo J. Žiugžda, peržiūrėjo Vacl. Biržiška, Pr. Dovydaitis, Kaunas: Spaudos fondas. TŽŽ 1951: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Redagavo I. V. Liochinas ir F. N. Petrovas, vertė O. Katinskaitė, Ch. Lemchenas, J. Talmantas, lietuviškąjį leidimą redagavo Ch. Lemchenas, Vilnius. TŽŽ 1969: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Redagavo I. Liochinas, S. Lokšina, F. Petrovas (vyr. redaktorius) ir L. Šaumianas, vertė O. Dovėikienė, J. Kabelka ir Ch. Lemchenas, lietuviškąjį leidimą redagavo Ch. Lemchenas, Vilnius. TŽŽ 1985: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Ats. redaktorius V. Kvietkauskas, Vilnius. TŽŽ 2001: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Ats. redaktorius A. Kinderys, Vilnius: Alma littera. TŽŽ 2013: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, Vilnius: Alma littera. TŽŽ II 2000: V. Vaitkevičiūtė. Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. L–Ž, Vilnius. Vladarskienė R. 2015: Skolintų ir lietuviškų ekonomikos terminų konkurencija. – Terminologija 22, 98–109. VLE VIII 2005: Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija 8, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. VLE XVI 2009: Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija 16, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. VLE XVII 2010: Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija 17, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras. VLE XVIII 2010: Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija 18, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras. VLE XXI 2012: Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija 21, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras. Gauta 2016-10-17 Jonas Klimavičius Erfurto g. 56-14 LT-04107 Vilnius, Lietuva 2 3 8 Jonas Klimavičius | Terminas prie termino. X