Kazimieras Gaivenis – a Man and a Scholar

(18 January 1934, Stučiai, Tauragnai County – 11 July 2003, Vilnius, Lazdynai)

JONAS KLIMAVIČIUS

As a person, he was Lithuanian (a great patriot), an East Aukštaitian from Utena (without pronounced openness or any strong regional or dialectal patriotism). As a scholar, he was a linguist and terminologist (in the broadest sense), also a lexicologist (adding “-grapher” to both), a dedicated worker for linguistic culture, and an educator and cultivator of language.

We come from childhood as from a country. It is tempting to turn and broaden in Lithuanian the universally known truth of the twentieth-century French humanist Antoine de Saint-Exupéry: we come from our nation and its history, our land and birthplace, from our parents’ hearth and our mother’s lap—and that is childhood, and all of us. As a young man, Jonas Basanavičius, then a child of a diminished, impoverished yet resilient nation, gazed from the broad “view <...> with its prospect <...> as far as <...> beyond <...> Vilkaviškis,” his gaze following “the smoke from the engine on the railway, <...> stirring unspeakable feelings in my heart,” and a longing arose to see the wider world (Basanavičius 1997: 36–37). Having seen Lithuania, Prussia, Russia, Bulgaria, Europe as a whole, and America, he had already spread his wings far and wide, and looked deeply back into antiquity to discern his birthplace: “My birthplace lies in the village of Ožkabaliai, <...>. The fields of this village extend along the northern edge of the so-called Valdai–Baltic uplands,<...> running west <...> toward Prussia. <...> northward <...> as far as the banks of the Nemunas, <...>. Southward <...> as far as Možūrija, <...>” (Basanavičius 1997: 7). And so on for 11 pages, right back to his infancy! Is this awakener and inspirer of patriotism, patriarch of a reborn nation, not also a great universalist—a citizen of the world? His tiny birthplace lies in the wide universe! Kazimieras Gaivenis’s Tauragnai, with Stučiai Street leading to his village of Stučiai, situated on the borderland of the gentle Selonians and the energetic Lithuanians who later assimilated them, with Molėtai and Labanoras assigned to them through baptism, dating back at least to the eighth century—from the age of the aurochs—in the wooded, hilly lake district of East Aukštaitija, with Taurapilis, a church and an estate, nearly all burned down in 1944, only the rectory remaining, soon handed over to the school.

218 Jonas Klimavičius | Kazimieras Gaivenis – žmogus ir mokslininkas

with Molėtai and Labanoras, at least eight centuries old—from the age of the aurochs—in the wooded, hilly lake district of East Aukštaitija, with Taurapilis, a church and an estate; almost everything burned down in 1944, leaving only the rectory, which was soon given to the school. Kazimieras’s deep feelings for his native home, nature, family, and neighbors, which poured vividly into stories and excursions for children through memories and moods, were conveyed with great sensitivity and eloquence by his daughter (Gaivenytė-Butler 2004: 15–25). He remained the same in the city, in Utena. After one “youthful folly” by some classmates, which earned them a lower conduct mark, the quiet Gaiveniokas “said regretfully that we would bring our parents good news” (Šimkūnas 2004: 46). Beloved by his parents, he loved them in return. Does this not remind us linguists of something? Twelve-year-old Jonukas Jablonskis, while drowning, was most afraid “that his mother would grieve and weep when she lost him” (Balčikonis 1932: XIII). That same evening, the wounded J. Basanavičius writes “My dearest Mother!” “perhaps for the last time” (Basanavičius 1970: 744), because she, his firstborn and then only son, who had “been born in asphyxia” and revived only after an hour, had “grown very accustomed to spoiling and loving him” (Basanavičius 1997: 17, 12). At the funeral of his six-year-old sister Marutė, “unspeakably beautiful” and “infinitely dear,” the eighteen-year-old man was “so terribly overcome with grief” after she had been buried that he nearly collapsed (Basanavičius 1997: 12). The sorrowful lyric poet, the great neoromantic, the resilient Lithuanian Jonas Aistis, left in France without a dear Homeland and without a place of his own, falls asleep from exhaustion on the floor of Lyon station and wakes from a “heavy dream: a drained pond or lake full of half-suffocated Breughel-like fish and other grotesquely repulsive creatures; beyond that mud and water, on the other slope, my father desperately calls to me to come home. And so for several years, night after night...” (Aistis 1991: 354).

That was what our humanist breed was like!..—and that is the legacy it left. And—thank God!—we are not alone. One notable example is Epaminondas, the great commander of Theban democracy, whom Michel de Montaigne considered the “third and, <...>, the most distinguished” of “three most distinguished men”; “no man knew more or spoke less than he did” [as little as he did], yet “no one could say better what he said” (Montenis 1983: 130). He always proposed a peaceful settlement before battles, and afterward always released the prisoners—but without their weapons—while the greatest joy of his life was not his greatest and decisive victory at the Battle of Leuctra (he himself died of his wounds), but the joy it brought his parents (Монте́нь 1979: 672). There are people of heart everywhere in the world, at all times. But almost always too few...

Terminologija | 2014 | 21

219

Toks ir K. Gaivenis. „Gabus artistas“ (Iv onis 2004: 59), „poetiškos dvasios žmogus“ (Keinys 2004: 38), Universitete – gal ir ne be gerbiamo profesoriaus Juozo Balčikonio įtaigos – palinksta į kalbą – į gimtąją tarmę (Gaivenis 2004: 71), nors pasidomi ir Konstantino Sirvydo, rytiečio anykštėno, morfologinėmis tarmybėmis (Gaivenis 2004: 67). Gyvenimas „vienodas, bet nenuobodus“ (Gaivenis 2004: 67). Pirmakursio pareiškimas laiške mokyklos draugui – „tampu pesimistu ir materialistu <...> skeptiku“ (Gaivenis 2004: 65) – veikiau tik platesnė gyvenimo, taigi ir jo tamsiosios pusės, tarp kita ko, ir įsistiprėjančios silpnosios lyties pajauta. Tolydžio ji įvairiapusiškesnė – yra ir „slapčiomis pasiųsti žvilgsniai“ (Gaivenis 2004: 69), ir – po pusantrų metų, baigiant studijas: „praeities nesugrąžinti, o dabartis šioje srityje nieko gero nežada“ – lieki „Dobilėlio penkialapio“ draugijoje (Gaivenis 2004: 72).

After completing his studies in 1959 and beginning scholarly work at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature, he spent a very short time as an onomastician (onomast)—that, too, left its mark—then quickly became a terminologist and remained one for good, an “inclusion.”

Dar užgriebęs darbovės dalyką – afiksų terminizaciją (1964), jau nuo 1963-iųjų pradeda skelbti straipsnius apie sudėtinius terminus, o 1969 m. apgina labai savarankiškai parašytą šios temos disertaciją (išsamiausi disertacijos straipsniai – 1968 m. ir po gynimo – 1975 m. ir net 1998 m.). Greitai susirgęs, ilgai sveiko.

Returning to the ranks of scholarship, he worked even harder and in a variety of directions. His language examination for the candidate’s minimum, which he passed with excellent marks, was singled out as one of the very best. His dissertation honed his theory and practice of scholarly research; after countless sessions and consultations on terminology, he had tasted every kind of bitterness in the work of creating and correcting terminology. From the journal Logos, brought by Jonas Kruopas, he learned about Stasys Šalkauskis’s theory of terminology (1983), as well as numerous works on Russian and Latvian terminology and some on Western terminology, and prepared to develop a theory of Lithuanian terminology himself. But his work was not confined to one principal undertaking pursued methodically: alongside it—not before or after, but concurrently, and even interwoven with it—he carried out extensive, almost daily practical scholarly work in creating, standardizing, and developing terminology, as well as in providing its theoretical foundation and evaluation; during the years of independence, he also worked on terminography, terminology standardization, and the terminology bank.

The great guiding aim was always in view, but K. Gaivenis took a long and wide-ranging path toward it—he was concerned with various theoretical questions of the language of science as a whole, including the nonspecific expression of modality (1986) and an attempt to choose one of two professionalisms

220

Jonas Klimavičius | Kazimieras Gaivenis – žmogus ir mokslininkas

sampratą ir nušviesti jų santykį su terminija ir žargonizmais (1985), taip pat terminų vaizdingumas (1991) ir antropomorfiniai terminai (1989), terminų antonimija (1989) ir jų pragmatika (2000). Eita ir ne be atodairos į liaudinę specialiąją leksiką (1983) ir sąsajas su ja – terminizaciją ir determinizaciją (1997). Tai buvo ilgi ir įvairiapusiai, bet daugeliu atžvilgių nuodugnūs, grįsti paskui jau ir tarptautine patirtimi tyrinėjimai. Taip prieita prie principų – tai str. „Bendrieji lietuvių terminijos kūrimo ir norminimo principai“ (1979) – pirmieji mėginimai juos kurti, šiuolaikiniai tarptautiniai ir šiuolaikiniai lietuvių. Dviem straipsniais rėpia kalbinius ir loginius terminų reikalavimus – taisyklingumą, tikslumą, darbinį patogumą (1994) ir du terminų norminimo principus – grynumą ir pastovumą (1996) ir priduria ekstralingvistinius – grynumo, autoriteto, efektyvumo, arba paveikumo, sistemiškumo ir paplitimo (statistinį) (1996, su Angele Kaulakiene).

The history of terminology broadened the horizon of terminology theory. Somewhat earlier than the discussion of S. Šalkauskis’s theory mentioned above, the article “J. Jablonskis’s Work on Terminology Commissions” (1982) was published. K. Gaivenis’s abundant and successful terminological neologisms by J. Jablonskis himself went unnoticed, unexamined (while others’ were examined), and unevaluated. In my view, elevating S. Šalkauskis above J. Jablonskis is purely formalistic—J. Jablonskis did not write a theory. But he had one, followed it himself, and passed it on. S. Šalkauskis’s theory lies in Logos; today it is in his collected works, and will presumably remain in history. Formal evaluations are unfounded and cannot be substantiated. K. Gaivenis himself also very aptly notes that “S. Šalkauskis’s practical work in terminology management in several cases contradicts the theoretical principles of terminology he proclaimed” (Gaivenis 1983: 136); and, having reviewed his dictionaries of philosophy (1983) and pedagogy (1996), he concludes not only that many of his neologisms failed to catch on, but also that some were “poorly formed” (Gaivenis 1996: 90). Unlike more than a few simpletons, K. Gaivenis does not think, it did not catch on, therefore it was bad; rather, he also considers that this may sometimes be because the meaning had not yet matured or been grasped (for example, žiūra came back into use perhaps half a century later and took root quite firmly, even with more than one meaning). But K. Gaivenis aptly observed a certain formalism in S. Šalkauskis too, though he did not call it by that name: “he named artificial concepts” (Gaivenis 1996: 90). K. Gaivenis never did this—his theory and practice of terminology went hand in hand.

Besides S. Šalkauskis, K. Gaivenis highlighted Ramūnas Bytautas’s substantial beginnings in terminology and Jurgis Elisonas’s vernacular and scholarly terminography.

Terminologija | 2014 | 21

221

Įdomus ir netikėtas straipsnelis „Vydūnas ir fizikos terminija“ (1993). Surasta terminijos įvairenybių Vinco Kudirkos, Vaižganto, Zigmo Žemaičio, Tado Ivanausko veikloje (2000). Pastebėti ir įvertinti Pauliaus Slavėno, Kazio Daukšo, Leono Mulevičiaus, savo mokytojo Jono Kruopo terminologijos darbai ir darbeliai.

And the monograph Lietuvių terminologija: teorijos ir tvarkybos metmenys appeared only in 2002, after the author had completed all his other work. Chapter I, “Characteristics of Terms and Requirements for Them” (13–49), compared with the articles, also includes new topics; in the section “Methods of Terminology Management” (63–87), the subsection “Computerized Terminology Management” had by then been added; and in the section “Principles and Rules for the Creation and Standardization of Terminology” (89–108), these had already been divided into general (as for the language as a whole) and special principles and rules. The substantial chapter “Directions and Schools of Terminology, and Notable Researchers” (110–135) is entirely new. Some material in the monograph is an altered version of material from articles, sometimes, in my view, needlessly and without justification.

Between the dissertation and the monograph, he wrote a great deal on terminology in all its variety, and quite a lot on other areas of linguistics as well. It would be impossible to list everything; evaluating it all requires a careful reading of the Rinktinius raštus. We can highlight only what even then seemed especially characteristic of K. Gaivenis and truly significant for Lithuanian terminology.

He did not have the opportunity to study term formation—whether in a dissertation or a scholarly study. Yet he was the one who, more than anyone else in the small circle of terminologists, consistently took an interest in neology (new words) and neologism formation (which he clearly distinguished): he collected examples from dictionaries, encyclopedias, and other sources, published selected lists—several hundred in all—and corrected or rejected spurious forms: “Not all neologisms are alike” (1974).

He regularly published various timely miscellanies, almost always with some kind of theoretical underpinning, for example, “The Twists and Turns of Terminology Development: – A Couple of General Characteristics of Terminology. – What Is and Is Not Possible in Terminology. – The Pros and Cons of Affix Specialization” (1973).

When we look at the terminologies of individual fields, almost everywhere we see the terminologist Kazimieras Gaivenis first or most prominently; but he covered the natural sciences most broadly and systematically. These include innovations in plant taxonomy (1985), names of genera and species (1985), notes on the terminology of taxonomy—of plants and insects (2001), as well as names of insects (1979) and fish (1995). On several occasions and from several perspectives, he also examined technical terminology (1972, 1975,

2 2 2 Jonas Klimavičius | Kazimieras Gaivenis – žmogus ir mokslininkas

1981, 1990, 1994). And what of physics, chemistry, military affairs, music...? When translating the fifth part of Filosofijos žodyno (1975, 488 pp.), he was undoubtedly looking at it through the eyes of an experienced terminologist.

K. Gaivenis looked for terminology-related matters everywhere and found terminology problems everywhere, even, for instance, in the writings of Kazimieras Būga and Ernst Fraenkel. While writing his dissertation, he also produced what was in effect a special review on terminology, “On the Presentation and Definitions of Compound Terms in the ‘Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian’” (1966). In the 1972 edition of this dictionary, “K. G a i v e n i s revised the terms, supplemented them, and read the entire text.” In the faulty 1969 Tarp-tautinių žodžių žodyne, criticized and defended by reviewers, K. Gaivenis found 100 necessary words missing (1981). He noticed words from Vydūnas’s journalistic writing that lexicographers had overlooked (1993). He also checked how terms were presented even in bilingual dictionaries. He wrote numerous reviews—not only of terminology dictionaries (sometimes ones he had consulted on), but also of two volumes of the Lietuvių kalbos žodyno, dictionaries of synonyms and comparisons, a bibliography of linguistics... With the fire of his criticism, he demolished freewheeling terminographic hackwork: “MS-DOS – little use; ‘The Businessman’s Dictionary’ or a dump of words?”

In Kalbos kultūroje, Mūsų kalboje, Gimtojoje kalboje, specialist periodicals (Moks las ir technika, Žemės ūkis, Mūsų gamta...) and general periodicals, he published more than a hundred corrections and suggestions concerning the meanings, forms, formation, and syntax of Lithuanian and international terms, along with more general observations and advice; nearly a hundred specific matters and details of standard Lithuanian, as well as quite a few witty and playful linguistic curiosities.

K. Gaivenis’s articles are characterized by clear, but not blunt, rather nuanced exposition, stylistic polish, and logical rigor—he even wrote a short article entitled “Expressing Oneself Logically and in Lithuanian” (1987). Their sound composition—coherence, subsections, conclusions, and often an epigraph—serves as a kind of key both to the article and to a broader horizon.

K. Gaivenis himself produced a great many diverse terminographic works, several of them very substantial. The most notable—on the scale of Lithuanian linguistics as a whole—is the dictionary of his own field, Kalbotyros terminų žodynas (1990, 280 pp.; K. Gaivenis, 10–121; St. Keinis, 121–243), prepared together with Stasys Keinis and published by Šviesa, hence intended for schools. The first dictionary for students had been published in Pennsylvania in 1971 by William R. Schmalstieg and Antanas Klimas; it was Lithuanian–English and 116 pages long (large format). The school dictionary was more scholarly. W. R. Schmalstieg also wrote a positive review. The dictionary contains about 1,800

Terminologija | 2014 | 21

223

terms. In 2007, the seven-linguist team led by Valentina Skujiņa’s Valodniecības pamatterminu skaidrojošā vārdnīca (624 pp.) contained about 2,000 terms.

K. Gaivenis devoted an immense amount of time and effort to terminological dictionaries, glossaries, collections, and reference books in other fields, working on them as compiler, consultant, reviser, standardizer, and reviewer. Yet perhaps in only three cases was it noted—not on the title page—that consulted or reviewed by K. Gaivenis, while dozens of times it said reviewed by the LKLI Terminology Commission (later, group, section), or coordinated with the Terminology Commission, considered by the Terminology Commission (in one case, written arbitrarily, approved: the Institute’s group had no such authority). Such was the routine... Perhaps in some cases K. Gaivenis himself did not want his name included, because linguistic quality was impossible to achieve amid the entanglements of a collective of compilers or reviewers. It is not hard to imagine how much “without the team of authors, <...>, the Terminology Commission’s responsible editor K. Gaivenis participated very actively in <...>” when the Trumpas kriminalisto žinynas was being compiled at the Forensic Science Research Institute (1970, 184 pp., 243 illustrations, each featuring anywhere from a few to dozens of terms). K. Gaivenis is listed among the 15 members of the commission that compiled the Fizikos terminų žodyną (1979, ed. Prof. P. Brazdžiūnas). He was also on the editorial boards of the Lazerių fizikos terminų žodyno (1984, 2nd ed. 1990) and the Mokslinės ir techninės informacijos terminų žodyno (1983). Only the Radioelektronikos terminų žodyno (2000, 1,342 pp., 19,000 terms), published in the years of independence, listed the linguist Kazimieras Gaivenis among its 12 authors, first alphabetically (and two other linguists as well—an absolute majority of terminologists!...) and with the copyright mark.

Terminologijos taisymai (1992), į kuriuos sudėtas keturių in corpore tuometinių taisytojų ilgų metų triūsas, sudėstytas daugiausia A. Kaulakienės, bet sumanytas, rodos, K. Gaivenio, jo ir palaimintas, nors be ats. redaktoriaus. Beje, kai kurių recenzentų pasirodyta nesuprantant terminologijos.

After lexicographer Antanas Lyberis invited the terminologist K. Gaivenis to join him, and Russian-language specialist Vytautas Šernas later came on board, their Mokyklinis lietuvių–rusų kalbų žodynas was published in 1985. It was issued again in 1989 and 2002 under the title Trumpas (instead of mokyklinis).

He was a member of the editorial board for the terminology, specialist vocabulary, and language of science volumes of Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimų (vols. 16, 22, 24), served as responsible editor (vol. 29), was responsible editor of Terminologijos (vols. 2–7), and edited Kalbos kultūros.

224

Jonas Klimavičius | Kazimieras Gaivenis – žmogus ir mokslininkas

He was a member of its editorial board (issues 36–74) and wrote extensively for it, publishing about 110 articles and shorter pieces across 50 issues, as well as the overview “Terminų tvarkybos ir norminimo dalykai „Kalbos kultūroje“ (1986). His workload in terminology review—impossible to measure precisely either in hours or in numbers of terms—was immense: less at the Institute, more in meetings held outside it, sometimes even on the road. This work went on for more than 40 years. Meetings were minuted, incidentally, but only the terms adopted were recorded. And then there were the people interested in terminology who came by, called, and sent letters. And not only those interested in terminology. To one very methodical lady who came to have some document edited, he nevertheless said, politely: — I have a feeling that document will come to me anyway (through the Institute’s administration)... Most people were satisfied and grateful; many came to say goodbye, and several grateful people wrote about him (Trečiokaitė 2004: 48–49; Dudlauskienė 2004: 26–32), including one of the younger terminologists (Zemlevičiūtė 2004: 56–58). But there was all sorts of things—once, the restrained and patient Kazimieras, paraphrasing Edward Murphy’s law, wrote: “If everyone criticizes it, then it’s terminology.” Twenty years later, I would add: and the whole standard language.

At the Institute he was the first full-time terminologist devoted solely to terminology (without working in other branches of linguistics); for quite some time he was the only one, and later he headed the group and eventually the department. He was the soul of terminology—first to get down to work, he disliked being sent out on assignments; as a manager, he was first to send others into the work, into cold water and fire, and last to retreat from the little thunderbolts and devils. He even took time from his days and hours of rest. Nevertheless, from his restorative little projects he put together a delightful, appealing book, Margas žodžių pasaulis (1987), and also took care to provide his daughter with a sizeable collection for children, Nuostabioji žodžio šviesa (2014).

I picture K. Gaivenis and all his work as a large, richly varied mosaic, in which several bright, well-centered stones can be seen, never fading; despite all its variety, a unity can still be sensed, and the enduring image of a seeker of scientific truth, resolute and devoted, shines through. Was he perhaps even a hero of science? Each of you must decide; I will only cite the two criteria J. Aistis set out in 1935: 1. “A hero must be willing to sacrifice.” 2. “A hero must break through the crust of routine” (Aistis 1991: 165). Well, was he not? But J. Aistis’s essay was not called “A Path for the Hero!” for nothing, and it also said: 1. “It is hard to be a hero no one is waiting for.” 2. “The way should be cleared for heroes.” 3. “A hero must be recognized while alive” (Aistis 1991: 165). He lived among us, and we were alongside him. Such was our lot as humanists; K. Gaivenis left behind this legacy, and so do we. For 12 years now, with K. Gaivenis’s warp-

Terminologija | 2014 | 21

225

threads. It is already easy to spot some misstep or flaw, but surely the warp, the fabric, is what matters most—and don’t we still need more of them? Not to mention the weft. How many more years until a new fabric of terminological theory? Will dissertations on the history of terminology, Terminologijos articles, and the pragmatics of terminography and term banks be enough? Who among the younger generation now has such a strong, close connection between theory and practice? We have had the Kalbotyros terminų žodynu for 24 years now. The word challenges is declined daily in all six cases of both numbers, and is this particular one not a challenge? When will an answer come? These questions are for you, neoterminologists! Those who have earned doctorates and those working toward them! And for the language-culture workers, already left without Kalbos kultūros—since the difficult year of 1961, the year of subordination, so more than 50 years now. We are the front line, you and us, of linguists’ living engagement with society and the nation. The 25th year of independence is ending, as is the 14th year of this new millennium of all kinds of freedoms, rights, and goods; so time passes—speeding by. Virgil knew well, and said for all time, what happens then:

— — — Thus does fate drag everything toward the worse and force us only to keep stepping backward.

Will post-terminology and the post-culture of a post-language arrive, with roots dried up and branches withered? Enough words and questions! Time for greater deeds!

ŠALTINIAI

Gaivenis K., Lyberis A., Šernas V. Mokyklinis lietuvių–rusų kalbų žodynas, Kaunas: Šviesa, 1985.

Gaivenis K., Lyberis A., Šernas V. Trumpas lietuvių–rusų kalbų žodynas, Kaunas: Šviesa, 1989; 2002.

Gaivenis K. Margas žodžių pasaulis, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1987.

Gaivenis K., Keinys St. Kalbotyros terminų žodynas, Kaunas: Šviesa, 1990.

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

Gaivenis K. Lietuvių terminologija: teorijos ir tvarkybos metmenys, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 2002.

Kazimieras Gaivenis. Bibliografijos rodyklė. Sudarė A. Noreikaitė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 2003.

Iš Kazimiero Gaivenio laiškų klasės draugui Jonui Ivoniui. – Terminologijos istorijos ir dabarties problemos, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 2004, 62–74.

Gaivenis K. Rinktiniai raštai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 2014 (naudotasi redaguojamu rankraščiu).

Gaivenis K. Nuostabioji žodžio šviesa, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 2014.

LITERATŪRA (TIK CITUOTA)

Aistis J. 1991: Dievai ir smūtkeliai. Apie laiką ir žmones. Mil fordo gatvės elegijos, Vilnius: Lietuvos rašytojų sąjunga.

Balčikonis J. 1932: Trumpas gyvenimo aprašymas. – Jablonskio raštai 1. Red. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas: Švietimo ministerijos leidinys, XI–XXVIII.

226 Jonas Klimavičius | Kazimieras Gaivenis – žmogus ir mokslininkas

Basanavičius J. 1970: Rinktiniai raštai, Vilnius: Vaga.

Basanavičius J. 1997: Mano gyvenimo kronika ir nervų ligos istorija. 1851–1922 m., Vilnius: Baltos lankos.

Dudlauskienė N. 2004: Prisimenanti lietuvių terminologijos puoselėtoją m. dr. Kazimierą Gaivenį. – Terminologijos istorijos ir dabarties problemos, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 26–32.

Gaivenis K. 1983: S. Šalkauskio terminologijos teorija. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 22. Lietuvių specialioji leksika, 128–136.

Gaivenis K. 1996: Apie du tarpukario laikų terminų žodynėlius. – Terminologija 3, 89–96.

Gaivenytė-Butler J. 2004: Yra ten namas mėlynom langinėm vienišas... – Terminologijos istorijos ir dabarties problemos, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 15–25.

Ivონis J. 2004: [Iš klasės draugo dienoraščio]. – Terminologijos istorijos ir dabarties problemos, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 59–61.

Keinys S. 2004: Žiupsnis minčių apie Kazimierą Gaivenį ir jo metą. – Terminologijos istorijos ir dabarties problemos, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 33–40.

Montenis M. 1983: Esė. Vert. D. Drobytė, Vilnius: Mintis.

Šimkūnas R. 2004: Kazimierui našų nereikėjo. – Terminologijos istorijos ir dabarties problemos, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 45–47.

Trečiokaitė A. 2004: Kazimierą Gaivenį prisimenant. – Terminologijos istorijos ir dabarties problemos, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 48–49.

Žemlevičiūtė P. 2004: Žmogus, kurį visuomet atsiminsiu. – Terminologijos istorijos ir dabarties problemos, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 56–58.

Montėn M. 1979: Onmbi 1–2, Москва: Наука.

KAZIMERAS GAIVENIS AS A PERSON AND A SCIENTIST

As a person – patriotic Lithuanian from Rytų Aukštaitija (East Highland) region (without the openness characteristic to this ethnic group and without a clear regional and dialectal patriotism). As a scientist – a linguist as well as terminologist and terminographer, an educator on the issues of language. Such linguists establish contact with the society. His most prominent works are his doctoral thesis Sudėtiniai terminai dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje (Complex terms in the modern Lithuanian) (1969), a monograph Lietuvių terminologija: teorijos ir tvarkybos metmenys (Lithuanian terminology: an outline of the theory and ordering) (2002) and Kalbotyros terminų žodynas (Dictionary of linguistics) (together with Stasys Keinys, 1990). A close relationship between the theory and practice of terminology and terminography is a feature of Gaivenis’ scientific activities. Being a head of the Terminology Department (previously Terminology Group) at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language he was a soul of Lithuanian terminology and its spiritus movens. In many aspects he was the first or the only.

Gauta 2014-12-10

Jonas Klimavičius Erfurto g. 56-14 LT-04107 Vilnius, Lietuva

Terminologija | 2014 | 21

227