Alvydas UMBRASAS

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

COGNATE SYNONYMS AND VARIANTS OF TWO-WORD LEGAL TERMS IN THE LITHUANIAN CODES OF 1918–1940

The article analyzes legal terms in the codes that were in force in Lithuania in 1918–1940. All the codes analyzed¹ were translated from Russian (there were no originals); they were supplemented with translated and original Lithuanian appendices. In the author’s earlier articles published in Terminologijoje (nos. 9 and 10), the legal terminology of translations of the criminal and civil codes of the period was compared. This time a larger range of sources is covered, but the focus is not on the relationship between the terminology of particular translations, but on their terms as a whole. The study revealed that two-word legal terms in the codes of 1918–1940 had the greatest number of synonyms and variants. Approximately one-third of all the two-word terms identified belong to synonym and variant series. There were especially many synonymous terms containing words with the same root, so it was decided to show the prevalent types of their expression.

In Lithuanian terminology, the boundary between synonyms and variants of terms is not clearly drawn. Research focuses more on practical issues concerning the different naming of terms and, when necessary, draws on general linguistic theory. To date, most attention has been paid to the synonymy of Lithuanian and international terms (Klimavičius 1975); sometimes their structure is considered, but the principal and most relevant aspect remains the correspondence between native and borrowed synonymous terms (Keinys 1974).

Russian terminology has had the greatest influence on all Lithuanian terminology to date, and there synonyms are most often associated with variants in analyses and are sometimes equated with one another (Moschitz-Hagspiel 1994: 146).

¹ See the list of codes at the end of the article.

100

When discussing synonymous terms that have the same root, it is worth noting the view that only words with different roots can be synonyms. If the root (and part of speech) is the same, then the words are either polysemous or variants (Молодец 1983: 15). O. Achmanova, M. Nikitin, N. Semeniuk, and V. Vinogradov have attempted to draw the boundary between variants and synonyms on the basis of the root. There have also been dissenting voices, whose proponents hold a different view, for example A. Jevgenjeva, F. Filin, E. Ivannikova, and V. Grečka (for a fuller discussion, see Vaskelienė 2000: 12–13).

Lithuanian linguistics tends not to take the root into account, although doing so would be quite useful in terminology (especially when analyzing compound terms). Following general Lithuanian linguistic theory, we must regard many root-sharing terms as synonyms (in fact, they occupy an intermediate position between indisputable synonyms, i.e. those with different roots, and variants), because variants are understood very narrowly—as “a variation of the same linguistic unit. Variants usually have an identical function and differ only in expression; for this reason, they are often said to be different realizations of the same individual linguistic unit” (Gaivenis, Keinys 1990: 225). Theoretically, this seems clear enough, but in practice it is not always easy to say when a particular linguistic unit is merely a variant of another unit and when it is a different unit. Linguists acknowledge that the boundary between variants and synonyms can sometimes be blurred (Pikčilingis 1988: 47). If we bear in mind that both a term’s synonym and its variant designate the same concept (unlike in general linguistic theory, where synonyms often have differences in meaning), we can assume that their function is essentially the same. In terms of meaning, variants are also synonyms (they are included in synonym dictionaries; see Lyberis 2002: IX). Thus, to distinguish variants from synonyms in terminology, all that remains is to consider differences in expression (although lexical meaning cannot be disregarded either). Terms composed of the same words that have only inessential differences should therefore be considered variants, such as differences in spelling, phonetics, morphonology, morphology, inflection, adaptation to Lithuanian, and the like (differences in word formation usually indicate synonyms rather than variants).

The article does not seek to strictly distinguish variants from synonyms, so some variants are presented interspersed with synonyms (especially since terms sometimes have both synonyms and variants). In general, variants are part of synonymy in the broad sense, so in terminology there is no great

101

there is no need to draw a strict distinction between them, since they refer to the naming of the same concept. The classification presented in the paper is not fine-grained; some types are grouped according to their characteristic features. Some synonyms and variants were used at different times (e.g., court of appeal BS₃₄ 68 T, BPI₃₃ 180/12 – appellate court CTI₃₈ 202, BPI₂₄ 291 P, BPI₃₃ 33 P; the numbers following the abbreviations indicate years), so they are presented² not chronologically but by the type named (in this case, a noun in the genitive – an adjective with the suffix -inis, -ė). Where the chronology is apparent, it is taken into account when presenting the terms.

Synonymic expression of dependent constituents

Most of the synonyms for terms used with the same meaning in the 1918–1940 codes differ in their dependent constituents. The most typical expression pattern is the synonymous use of a noun in the genitive and an adjective with the suffix -inis, -ė (or variants of this suffix, e.g., -tinis, -ė) for the same purpose, e.g.: administrative body CTI₃₈ 1222/18, BPI₃₃ 1, BPI₂₀ 1226 – administrative body CTI₃₈ 1 S, BS₃₄ 37 S, BPI₃₃ 852/20; alimony pension CPI_31v 1554 – alimony pension CTI₃₈ 1554; court of appeal BS₃₄ 68 T, BPI₃₃ 180/12 – appellate court CTI₃₈ 202, BPI₂₄ 291 P, BPI₃₃ 33 P; personal hiring CPI_31c 138, CTI₃₈ 138 – personal hiring CTI₃₃ 1737 S; reserve capital CTI₃₃ 2200/2 – reserve capital CTI₃₃ 2200 P; stock-exchange price CTI₃₃ 2200 P – stock exchange price CTI₃₃ 1674/1, CTI₃₈ 615, BPI₃₃ 779 S; diplomacy agent BS₁₉ 478 – diplomatic agent CTI₃₈ 225, BS₃₄ 5 R, BPI₃₃ 230; mortgage creditor CPI_31v 1563 – mortgage creditor CTI₃₈ 1563; military authority CI₃₃ 56 – military authority CI₃₃ 56, BPI₃₃ 272; appeal in cassation CPI_31v 813, CTI₃₈ 29 T, BS₃₄ 74 T, BPI₂₄ 199, BPI₃₃ 175 – cassation appeal CPI_31v 1460/21, CTI₃₈ 191, BPI₃₃ 894; liquidation commission CI₃₃ 2200 P – liquidation commission CTI₃₈ 4 T; distinction mark BS₁₉ 28 – mark of distinction BS₃₄

² If a term is found in several sources, the abbreviations are listed in the following order: Civil Code and Code of Civil Procedure (CI, CPI, CTI), Criminal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure (BS, BPI).

102

28; monetary fine BS₃₄ 2 V – fine CTI₃₃ 684 S, CTI₃₈ 91, BS₃₄ 2 V, BPI₃₃ 52/1: mutual insults BPI₃₃ 219 S – mutual insults BS₃₄ 477 S; municipal institution CTI₃₃ 698, BS₁₉ 30/8 – municipal institution CTI₃₈ 1219; official order BPI₃₃ 279 P – service order BS₃₄ 44; witness to a will CTI₃₃ 1048 – testamentary witness CTI₃₃ 1054 S; language of the state BPI₃₃ 579 V – official language BPI₃₃ 579 V; state service BS₁₉ 30/2, BPI₃₃ 238/1, CTI₃₈ 893 – public service BS₃₄ 532 S; institution of the public CTI₃₃ 2012, BS₁₉ 30/8 – public institution CTI₃₃ 173. Here we should also mention derivationally distinct synonyms: inheritance from the deceased CTI₃₈ 1749 – testamentary inheritance CTI₃₃ 1246 T; neighbour law CTI₃₃ 442 T, CP₃₁₃ 34, CTI₃₈ 29 T – neighbourhood law CP₃₁₃V 29, CTI₃₈ 34. Some of the terms presented here are no longer used at all today³, others are used with a genitive (e.g., reserve capital, stock-exchange price, mark of distinction, municipal institution), and still others with an adjective (e.g., court of appeal, diplomatic agent, appeal in cassation, fine). Even today, different forms are sometimes unavoidable; for example, alongside the prevalent mortgage creditor, the unnecessary form mortgage creditor is also occasionally found; alongside the prevalent liquidation commission – liquidation commission (the latter may even be more appropriate). Terms that differ only by a noun in the genitive or by an adjective with the suffix -inis, -ė rarely acquire different terminological meanings; for example, state enterprise and state-owned enterprise could be interpreted differently, that is, the former could be understood as the opposite of a municipal enterprise, and the latter as the opposite of a private enterprise (KKP 1998: 313), but in fact they are used synonymously, with a gradual shift toward state enterprise (this choice may have been determined by comparison with a municipal enterprise). In general, terminological inconsistency with the words state and of the state has existed in the past and persists today—we have the State Council Act, but the Constitution mentions public service. Interestingly, the term language of the state was used in the constitutions of 1922 and 1928, while the 1938 Constitution (and today) uses official language (LVTA 1996: 7, 14, 21).

³ Current usage was checked in the Seimas legal acts database.

103

There are relatively many cases in which cognate synonyms arise from the naming of a noun in the genitive and a passive participle (definite or indefinite), e.g.: protective measures BS₃₃ 245 – means of protection CPI₃₈ 824; security of a pledge CĮ₃₃ 1647 – pledgeable security CĮ₃₃ 707; probative force CĮ₃₃ 120 S, CTĮ₃₈ 469 – evidentiary force CTĮ₃₈ 467; instrument of accusation BPI₃₃ 520 T – indictment BPI₃₃ 519; payment slip CĮ₃₃ 2054, BS₃₄ 552 S – payable slip CĮ₃₃ 2054 S, BS₃₄ 552 S; criminal event BPI₂₄ 328 – event of a crime BPI₃₃ 315; inheritance law CĮ₃₃ 132 S – inheritable law CĮ₃₃ 1123 S; purchase instrument CĮ₃₃ 579 – purchase deed CĮ₃₃ 692 T, CTĮ₃₈ 1439; investigative actions BPI₃₃ 144 – actions under investigation BPI₃₃ 1038; enforcement case CTĮ₃₈ 1187 T – enforceable case CTĮ₃₈ 1154 T. As can be seen, in such cases the genitive of a verbal abstract noun is most commonly used, although other forms also occur, e.g.: seizure of a claim CTĮ₃₈ 69 T – sought seizure CTĮ₃₈ 266 S; debt instrument CĮ₂₈ 1259, BS₃₄ 68 S – loan instrument CĮ₃₃ 2052 PT; guarantee instrument CĮ₃₃ 1562 S, CPI₃₁V 649 – instrument of guarantee CTĮ₃₈ 645 – guarantee instrument CTĮ₃₈ 649. Current usage shows that genitives have become more established (e.g., instrument of guarantee, event of a crime, inheritance law, purchase deed, investigative actions), but some participles are more appropriate in meaning (e.g., probative force, indictment, enforceable case).

Quite often in the material under study, the dependent constituents of two-word terms are expressed synonymously by adjectives (mostly with the suffix -inis, -ė) or various participles, e.g.: account booklet CPI₃₁V 471 – settlement booklet CTĮ₃₈ 161/1; mortgaged debt CPI₃₁V 1575, CTĮ₃₈ 816 T – mortgage debt CTĮ₃₈ 1575; false application BS₁₉ 160 – fraudulent application BS₁₉ 158; declaratory procedure CĮ₃₃ 1531 – procedure for declaring CĮ₃₈ 1374; inherited property CĮ₃₃ 1011 – inherited property CĮ₃₃ 188; transferred entry CĮ₃₃ 2058 S – transferable entry CĮ₃₃ 2059; supplementary summons CTĮ₃₈ 943 – supplementing summons CTĮ₃₈ 1096; written explanation CPI₃₁V, CTĮ₃₈ 145 – written explanation CPI₃₁C 145, CTĮ₃₈ 313; term payment CĮ₃₃ 1086 S – periodic payment CTĮ₃₈ 593 S; confirming

104

taxes Cl₂₈ 1683 – security taxes Cl₃₃ 1683 – security taxes CPI₃₁V 1162, CTI₃₈ 1573 S. Among the terms presented here that have survived to the present day, those whose secondary component is an adjective are more common (e.g., responsible supervision, declaratory procedure, written explanation), although participles are also used (e.g., account book, inherited property).

Differences in the expression of terms arising from different adjectives functioning as secondary components are worth noting:

1) an adjective with the suffix -inis, -ė – an adjective with the suffix -iškas, -a, e.g.: personal responsibility BPI₃₃ 20 – personal responsibility CTI₃₈ 1097 T; physical violence BS₃₄ 589 R – physical violence BS₃₄ 507 R; conclusive acts BS₃₄ 51 R – conclusive acts BS₃₄ 591 R; microscopic examination BPI₂₄ 625 – microscopic examination BPI₃₃ 691. Although they differ morphologically, the terms terrorist act BPI₃₃ 226 P – terrorist act BS₃₄ 2 P are also worth mentioning here. Incidentally, legal terms whose secondary component is an adjective form with the suffix -inis, -ė are nearly 20 times more numerous in the codes than terms with -iškas, -a. In some other fields of scholarly terminology of that period, the ratio was different. For example, according to St. Keinys, among the two-word literary studies terms used by Maironis, there are more with secondary components in the -iškas, -a form (Keinys 2002: 42–43). The synonymy of these two suffixes is already known from sixteenth- and seventeenth-century texts (Ambrazas 2003: 20), but today their meanings are usually distinguished.

2) an adjective with the suffix -inis, -ė – an adjective with the suffix -inis, -ė (-tinis, -ė), e.g.: interrogation of the accused BS₁₉ 157 – interrogation of the accused BS₃₄ 38 T; written undertaking Cl₃₃ 220 – written undertaking Cl₃₃ 2052 S, BS₃₄ 611 S; designated paper BS₁₉ 433 – designating paper BS₃₄ 433. The adjectives in terms of this type are formed with the same suffix, but their base words differ considerably.

There are also several synonymous terms whose different adjectives do not form any prominent types; these are isolated cases, e.g.: non-monetary bill BPI₃₃ 29 S – bill without money BS₃₄ 591 T – a derivative with the suffix -inis, -ė and the prefix ne-, versus a noun derivative with the prefix be-. The current term is only non-monetary bill (cf. also TT 1992: 26). Morphologically different, but close to this case, is the pair interest-free loan Cl₂₈ 2014 – non-monetary loan Cl₃₃ 2014. In a later-

105

translation of the Civil Code it occurs … successfully, but unilateral undertaking CP₃₃₁V 161/24 was unnecessarily replaced by unilateral undertaking CT₃₈ 161/24.

Although relatively few, there are also some synonyms whose secondary components are different (usually of different types and tenses) participles, e.g.: punishable attempt BP₃₃ 852/1 – criminal attempt BS₃₄ 4 P; acts of corruption BP₁₂₄ 103 – corrupting acts BP₃₃ 89; executive act CP₃₁V 161/10, CP₃₁C 161/10, CT₃₈ 161/11 T – act to be executed CT₃₈ 161/10. The participle type may be the same, but the verbs sharing the same root differ, e.g.: prisons BS₃₄ 24 – detention facilities BS₃₄ 174 T (cf. to imprison – to detain). Of the terms listed here, probably only corrupting acts (pronominal form) is still in use.

Some synonyms were also found that differ in the position of the secondary component (before or after the main component). Some of them can clearly be transformed into one another: 1) an adjective with the suffix -inis, -ė – noun in the instrumental case, e.g.: written testimony BP₃₃ 88 S – testimony in writing BP₃₃ 88 S; verbal insult BS₃₄ 475 S – insult by word BS₃₄ 530 S. A noun in the genitive case may also be added to these terms (verbal contract CĮ₃₃ 1702 S – contract by word CĮ₃₃ 1531 S – word contract CĮ₃₃ 1700 T) or a participle (active insult BS₃₄ 475 S – insult by action BS₃₄ 475 S – insult inflicted BS₃₄ 475 S); 2) noun in the genitive case – verb infinitive, e.g.: right of management CĮ₃₃ 387 T, CP₃₁C 73, CT₃₈ 32/1 – right to manage CP₃₁V, CT₃₈ 73, BS₁₉ 255. The following pairs also have the same meaning, despite having different prefixes: requirement to leave BP₁₂₄ 289 – requirement to depart BP₁₂₄ 288, requirement to recuse oneself BP₁₃₀ 275 – requirement to withdraw oneself BP₁₃₀ 273. A participle may also be added to such pairs, e.g.: entry of execution CP₃₁C 161/10 – order to execute CT₃₈ 161/10 – enforceable order CP₃₁V 161/10, CT₃₈ 942; 3) noun in the dative case – noun in the genitive case, e.g.: houses for detainees BS₃₄ 21 S, BP₃₃ 395 – detainees’ houses CT₃₈ 528, BP₃₃ 950; 4) noun in the locative case – noun in the genitive case, e.g.: ap-

106

inspection on site CPI_31V 82/2 – inspection of the premises CPI_31C 119, CTI₃₈ 119, BPI₃₃ 48 V.

Some of the terms mentioned here are now used with a dependent constituent preceding the head (e.g., right of management, inspection of the premises), some with it following the head (e.g., verbal insult, written insult), while some are no longer used at all.

A separate group consists of terms whose dependent constituents are nouns—derivational synonyms. In general, the term derivational synonyms is not established in linguistics, and its interpretation varies somewhat across studies (see Vaskelienė 2000: 5–10). J. Vaskelienė proposes understanding derivational synonyms as follows: they are formations of similar meaning belonging to the same derivational category and having the same root (2000: 75). The criterion of derivational category is convenient in most cases. Most often, the material under study contains terms used synonymously that have verbal abstracts with the same root but different derivational forms, e.g.: inspection report CPI_31V 511 – report of inspecting CTI₃₈ 511, BPI₃₃ 687; place of origin BPI₃₃ 396 V – place of origin CTI₃₈ 62; penalty money CPI_31V 161/5 – money for failure to perform CPI_31C 161 5, CTI₃₈ 161/5; lease term CPI_31V 161/1, CI₃₃ 542 S – term of leasing CI₃₃ 1691; hiring contract CI₂₈ 1700, CPI_31V 125, CTI₃₈ 155/1 – contract of hire CI₃₃ 106 T, CPI_31C 125, CPI_31V 157, CTI₃₈ 125; danger of explosion BS₁₉ 224, BS₃₁ 224 – risk of explosion BS₃₄ 224. Of those listed here, terms without the suffix -imas are now more common, for example, inspection report, hiring contract, although alongside the prevailing place of origin, lease term, place of coming, term of leasing are still encountered.

Derivational synonyms may also include, for example, nominal abstracts (immoral act BS₁₉ 280 – act of immorality BS₃₁ 280, BS₃₄ 280; proofs of virginity BPI₂₄ 841, BPI₃₀ 935 – proofs of innocence BPI₃₃ 935; restriction of capacity CPI_31V 1681, CTI₃₈ 1460/13 T – restriction of capability CTI₃₈ 1681); names of agents (witness’s testimony CPI_31C 102 – testifier’s testimony CI₃₃ 78 S, CPI_31V 102, CTI₃₈ 101, BS₃₁ 158, BS₃₄ 158); names of the result of an action (claim price CPI_31C 15/1 – price of the claim CPI_31V 15/1, CTI₃₈ 15/1). Perhaps compound nouns used as dependent constituents in terms may also be considered derivational synonyms, differing in the order of their components, such as-

107

mutual settlements CPI_31V 36/3 – reciprocal settlements CPI₃₃ 36/3. Here one may also discern variants; clear synonyms occur only with derivatives formed from them: mutual agreement CT₃₃ 1528 S – reciprocal agreement CT₃₈ 1638.

There are cases where formations from different derivational categories are used in phrases of the same meaning, for example: right of precedence CPI_31V 814/5 – right of priority CT₃₃ 1301 T – right of preference CT₃₈ 814/5. Here, alongside two nominal abstracts (derivational synonyms), an abstract of a verb with the same root is also used, respectively. Taken separately, they would not be considered derivational synonyms, but all the phrases are used synonymously. The following pairs are similar: deed of donation CT₃₃ 570 S – deed of gift CT₃₈ 258 T, BS₃₄ 419 T; mortgage deed CT₃₃ 1670 – deed of mortgage CT₃₈ 106 T. It is true that the latter case may also have arisen because in Russian заклад means both the action and its result, whereas in Lithuanian this word has two equivalents. Thus, one can speak of terminological synonymy where the constituents are completely different (otherwise non-synonymous) cognate words, cf. also: title of respect BS₁₉ 28, BS₃₁ 28 – honorary title BS₃₄ 28; charitable institution BS₁₉ 578 – charity institution CT₃₃ 698; register book CT₃₃ 78 T, CT₃₈ 1647, BP₃₃ 1013 T – registers book CT₃₃ 78, CT₃₈ 1341, BS₃₄ 667 T; subsidiary circumstance CT₃₃ 1539 S – incidental circumstance CT₃₃ 1536, BS₃₄ 108 T.

Finally, terms whose difference lies in the mismatch of prefixes (including whether a prefix is present or absent) should be mentioned, e.g.: right of defense BP₃₃ 1186 S – right of self-defense BS₃₄ 45 T; evidentiary document BS₁₉ 159 – document serving as proof CT₃₈ 261 T, BS₃₁ 159; interested⁴ party CT₃₃ 693 PT – interested party CPI_31V 241, CT₃₈ 1164 – interested party CT₃₃ 919 S, CT₃₈ 1215 S. It is unclear whether such cases should be regarded as synonyms or variants. Since the differences are derivational, they should probably be considered synonyms. The terms also use (insurance) synonymously, e.g.: insurance company BS₁₉ 325 – insurance company CT₃₃ 2199 S; insurance-

⁴ J. Jablonskis as early as 1914 corrected užinteresuoti to suinteresuoti (1935: 129).

108

premium Cl₃₃ 1509 S – insurance premium BS₃₄ 589 T. Since the event aspect is not intended here, the prefix ap- is unnecessary. The first of these terms was corrected in KPP 1976 and KPP 1985.

Variant expression of subordinate constituents

A characteristic feature of legal terminology in 1918–1940 may be considered the variation between pronominal and simple forms, e.g.: separate resolution CT₃₈ 712 – the separate resolution CT₃₈ 705; punishable liability BP₁₂₄ 666 – criminal liability BS₃₄ 51 R, BP₁₃₃ 16; joint police BP₁₃₃ 249/3 – the joint police BP₁₃₃ 279 P; current account Cl₃₃ 694 PT – the current account BS₃₄ 321; restraining measure BP₁₃₃ 257/1 – the restraining measure BS₃₄ 54 P, BPI₃₃ 77/2, BPI₂₄ 277; qualified murder BS₃₄ 455 R – the qualified murder BS₃₄ 455 T; criminal attempt BS₃₄ 122 S – the criminal attempt BS₃₄ 122 S; ordinary imprisonment BS₃₄ 2, BPI₃₃ 250 – ordinary imprisonment BS₃₄ 2 V; full partnership CPI₃₁V 67/1, CTI₃₈ 67/1, BS₃₄ 578 T – the full partnership Cl₃₃ 2128, CPI₃₁V, CTI₃₈ 26; mandatory order BS₃₄ 197 T, BPI₃₃ 1214 T – the mandatory order BS₃₄ 125; preliminary investigation BS₁₉ 305, BPI₁₃₃ 212 – preliminary investigation BPI₃₃ 483; grievous injury BPI₃₃ 349 P – grievous injury BS₃₄ 45 T; property sold at auction Cl₃₃ 1679 S – property sold at auction Cl₃₃ 1679 S; public notice CTI₃₈ 58/1 – the public notice CPI₃₁₀ 58/1, CTI₃₈ 294; writ of execution Cl₃₃ 402 S, CTI₃₈ 633, BS₃₄ 440 R, BPI₃₃ 189 – writ of execution CTI₃₈ 126 S. In ordinary language, the meanings of pronominal and simple forms differ, but in the terms mentioned they designated the same concepts, with the difference being only grammatical form; these variants can therefore be considered pseudo-variants.

A small group of variants consists of terms with adjectives naturalized in different ways. They are of two types:

1) an adjective with the suffix -(al, ar)inis, -ė – a non-derived adjective, e.g.: formal contract Cl₂₈ 1699 – formal contract Cl₃₃ 1699; material law Cl₃₃ 1084 T, CTI₃₈ 1 T – material law CTI₃₈ 1273 T; official language BPI₃₃ 185 V – official language BPI₃₃ 238/1 P; private complaint BPI₃₃ 152 P – private complaint

109

aint CT₃₈, 169, BPI₃₃, 89; joint and several defendants CL₃₃ 1548 T – joint and several defendants CI₃₃, 1548 S, CTI₃₈, 1197 T;

2) an adjective with the suffix -al, yv-inis, -ė – an adjective with the suffix -inis, -ė, e.g.: administrative procedure BPI₃₃ 1125/4 – administrative procedure CTI₃₈ 1222/16 (cf. the synonym administrative procedure BPI₃₃ 1126); prejudicial question BPI₃₃ 492 P – prejudicial question BS₃₄ 68 R; procedural law CI₃₈ 1084 T, BPI₃₃ 73 P – procedural law CTI₃₈ 1 T; territorial principle BPI₃₃ 200 P – territorial principle BS₃₄ 5 R.

Terms of the first type are considered variants only provisionally, because synchronically the adjective in one of them can be regarded as a derived form, and the adjective in the other as the base word of that derivative (on this view, the terms are synonyms, as, for example, the Lithuanian terms common property CI₃₃ 543 T – common property CI₃₃ 543 S). Diachronically, the Lithuanian adjectives mentioned may have arisen simultaneously; it is possible that adjectives with the suffix -inis, -ė appeared earlier than those without this suffix.

Both types show that when naturalizing adjectives of foreign origin, there is a tendency either to remove foreign adjective suffixes -al-, -yv- or to retain the suffixes -al-, -ar-, but not to add -inis, -ė.

Lithuanianization is also associated with rare phonetic (and spelling) variants of two-word terms in the codes, e.g.: mortgage⁵ deed BS₃₄ 445 – mortgage deed BS₃₄ 445, excise duty CPI_31V 1156/2 – excise duty CTI₃₈ 1163 S – excise duty CTI₃₈ 1156/2 (cf. also excise levy BS₃₄ 346).

No morphological variants were found in the sources studied, for example, different participial forms: insolvent debtor BS₃₄ 578 S – insolvent debtor CTI₃₈ 23, BPI₃₃ 177; sworn guardian CI₃₃ 2308 S – sworn guardian CTI₃₈ 1400 P – the sworn guardian CTI₃₈ 1400 P. The following variants may also be assigned to morphology: divisible property CI₃₃ 393 – property being divided

⁵In 1992, the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language ruled the form hypoteka to be standard (LKKN 1998: 16), although before the Second World War ipoteca was predominant.

110

CTI₃₈ 1585 T; person under guardianship CPI₃₁V 1484 – person placed under guardianship CTI₃₈ 1484; indivisible property CTI₃₈ 1585 T – undivided property CI₃₃ 393, CTI₃₈ 1188; partition deed CI₃₃ 1337 T – partition agreement CTI₃₈ 80 T; loan fund CI₃₃ 1663, BS₁₉ 318 – lending fund BS₃₄ 318; terms of borrowing BS₁₉ 608 – terms of lending BS₃₄ 608.

Morphonological variants can be considered the pair of terms: arbitrary actions CI₃₃ 687 T – arbitrary actions BS₃₄ 507 S, CTI₃₈ 29 T.

Worth noting is the use of singular and plural forms in the same terms, e.g.: author’s right BS₁₉ 620 – authors’ rights BPI₃₃ 297 S; sheet fee CTI₃₈ 200/3 – sheets fee CTI₃₈ 200/3; delivery contract CTI₃₈ 1300 S – deliveries contract CTI₃₈ 409 S; successor in title CI₃₃ 695/4 – successor to rights CI₃₃ 1650 S, CTI₃₈ 457; subject of the right CI₃₃ 543 S – subject of rights CI₃₃ 698 S. Terms differing in number may otherwise denote different things, but in these instances they apparently refer to the same concepts. These, too, are pseudo-variants.

Alongside variants differing in number, synonyms are also used (noun in the genitive – adjective), e.g.: servitude right CI₃₃ 420 T – rights of servitude CI₃₃ 432 – servitude right CTI₃₈ 1496; securities BPI₃₃ 779 S – papers of value CI₃₃ 2200 P – valuable papers CI₂₈ 1674/1, CI₃₃ 2200 P, CTI₃₈ 1460/30, BS₁₉ 324.

Terms with or without the reflexive particle are also considered variants, e.g.: right of use CI₃₃ 514, CPI₃₁V 32/1, CTI₃₈ 32/1 – right of use CI₃₃ 387 T, CPI₃₁C 32/1, CTI₃₈ 212.

Synonymous and variant expression of the main components

Few synonymous terms sharing a root but differing in their principal components were found, so they are not classified in detail. The most common in the 1918–1940 codes are synonyms whose principal component consists of words from the same root but formed differently, e.g.: ascending relative CI₃₃ 132, BS₁₉ 455, BPI₂₄ 5, BPI₃₀ 5 – ascending relative BPI₃₃ 5 P; case belonging BPI₃₃ 1042 – belonging of the case

111

belonging BPI₃₃ 200 P – the case’s dependence CTI₃₈ 40, BS₃₄ 442 S, BPI₃₃ 37; civil consequences BS₃₁ 425 – civil consequences BS₃₄ 425; civil claim CPI₃₁₆ 5 – civil lawsuit CPI₃₁V 5, CTI₃₈ 5, BS₃₄ 38 T, BPI₃₃ 7; final determination BPI₃₃ 1034/1 – final decision CI₃₃ 678, BPI₃₃ 855; false appeal BPI₃₃ 300 S – false complaint BS₃₄ 68 S, BPI₃₃ 307; removal of a judge BPI₂₄ 99 – recusal of a judge CTI₃₈ 166, BPI₃₀ 85; valuation of property CTI₃₈ 1117 T – assessment of property⁶ CTI₃₈ 1000.

Variants differing only in the principal component of the term are also rare in the codes. Morphological variants may be noted: testimony of a person CI₂₃ 2204 – personal testimony CI₂₃ 2204. There were also varying degrees of adaptation of foreign words into Lithuanian, e.g.: birth register CI₃₃ 34 S, CPI₃₁V 1460/7, CTI₃₈ 1623 T – birth register BS₃₄ 667 T – birth register CTI₃₈ 1460/7.

[various synonym and variant series

Most synonyms and variants form pairs (nearly all the cases listed above were of this kind), but there are also longer series. They are very diverse. In some cases, both the head and dependent elements of the same term vary in form, e.g.: local custom CI₃₃ 1184 T – local usage CI₃₃ 1184 T, CTI₃₈ 10/1 T – local custom CI₃₃ 1184 T, CTI₃₈ 10/1 T; state taxes CI₃₃ 269, CTI₃₈ 1129 – state taxes CTI₃₈ 1163 T – government taxes CTI₃₈ 1150/1. Here, three synonyms were used for the same concept, but there are also longer series (especially if terms with different roots are included as well), e.g.:

course of ageing CI₂₃ 1676 S – process of becoming obsolete BS₃₄ 68 T – becoming obso-

^⁶ The distinction between kainuoti and kainoti was not easily established. In 1905, J. Jablonskis kainuoti corrected to kainoti, later changing it to kaštuoti, mokėti, atseiti, while he proposed the derivative kainoti in the sense of “to assess” (Piročkinas 1986: 84). Despite his efforts, kainuoti became established, but even today it is sometimes confused with kaĩnoti. In P. Skardžius’s view, kainoti is a late coinage; it is not popular among the public either in accentuation or in formation, so he assigns it to the class of verbs with the suffix -uoti (1997: 556).

112

course of ageing CTI₃₈ 9 T – course of becoming obsolete CTI₃₈ 692 – course of prescription CTI₃₈ 161/7 (5 synonyms); original claim CPI₃₁C 38 – initial claim CPI₃₁V 38, CTI₃₈ 226 – original claim CTI₃₈ 39 – first claim CTI₃₈ 340 S – initiating claim CTI₃₈ 258/2 – principal claim CTI₃₈ 38 (6 synonyms).

Most often, groups of three or more synonyms (or variants) arise because the form of the dependent element in a two-word term has not become established. For example, alongside a noun in the genitive functioning as the dependent element, various adjectives are used: administrative institution CI₃₃ 531 T, BPI₃₃ 1217 – institution of the administration CTI₃₈ 1527 P, BPI₃₃ 239 – administrative institution CTI₃₈ 1 T; sexual relations BS₃₄ 520 S – sexual relations BS₃₄ 517 S – sexual relations BS₃₄ 505 R; written contract CI₃₃ 1700 T – written contract CI₃₃ 571 S – written contract BPI₃₃ 27 S – written contract CTI₃₈ 409 T. The genitive and adjectives (pronominal or simple) may also have different roots, and there may be synonyms (variants) with each root, e.g.: church court BPI₃₃ 1013 P – ecclesiastical court CPI₃₁V 45, BS₁₉ 71, BPI₃₃ 218 – clergy court CTI₃₈ 45 – spiritual court CI₃₃ 24, CTI₃₈ 1338, BPI₃₃ 1013 P – clerical court BS₃₄ 412 T – ecclesiastical court CPI₃₁C 45, CTI₃₈ 86. In some cases, Lithuanian and borrowed nouns, and adjectives derived from them, are used synonymously: trade court BS₁₉ 600 – commercial court CPI₃₁C, CTI₃₈ 28 – commerce court CI₂₈ 1238 P, CPI₃₁V 1511 – commercial court CI₃₃ 1238 P, CPI₃₁V 28, CTI₃₈ 1400.

Alongside a noun in the genitive and an adjective, a participle may also be used, e.g.: declaration document CI₃₃ 1743 – declaratory document CI₃₃ 707 – declared document CTI₃₈ 438, BS₃₄ 672 S.

Sometimes a noun in the genitive is used synonymously with pronominal and simple participles (variants), e.g.: power of attorney CI₂₈ 922 – authorized document CPI₃₁V 448 – authorized document CI₃₃ 114, CPI₃₁V 248, BPI₃₃ 44 V; deed of gift CI₃₃ 987 – gift document CI₃₃ 707 – donation document CI₃₃ 514 – donation deed CI₃₃ 464. The type of participle used instead of the genitive may differ; moreover, participles may be prefixed or unprefixed (and the prefixes may also differ), e.g.: deported place BS₁₉

113

175 – place of banishment BS₁₉ 65 – place of exile BS₃₄ 175; object of proof BS₁₉ 159 – evidentiary object BPI₂₄ 356, BPI₃₃ 277 – of the object of proof BPI₃₃ 126 T; valuation commission CI₂₈ 713 – assessment commission CI₃₃ 583 – valuation commission CI₃₃ 713 – valuation commission CTI₃₈ 1117 T.

This term, more relevant to criminal law, had a large number (6) of formal variants: criminal act BPI₂₄ 6 – criminal act BPI₂₄ 15 – criminal act BPI₂₄ 12 – criminal act CI₃₃ 964 1 PS, BS₁₉ 2, BPI₂₄ 21, BPI₃₃ 6 – criminal act CI₃₃ 50, CPI₃₁V 5, BS₃₄ 1 S, BPI₃₃ 6 – act of crime BS₃₄ 39 T. Here, too, the genitive of a noun competes with participles of different types and forms. Today, these terms correspond simply to crime or criminal act.

Perhaps the longest synonym strings are two in number—one comprising as many as 7 (a) and the other 8 (b) synonyms (and variants). The genitive of a noun, participles, and adjectives compete (there are also differences in prefixes), for example:

a) written evidence BS₁₉ 159 – written evidence CI₃₃ 2054 S, BPI₃₃ 368 – written evidence BS₃₄ 507 T – written evidence CI₃₃ 1003 T, CTI₃₈ 101/1 T – written evidence CPI₃₁C 57, CTI₃₈ 438 – written evidence CPI₃₁C 105, CTI₃₈ 438 – written evidence CI₃₃ 1003 S, CPI₃₁V 57, CTI₃₈ 57;

b) certified act BS₁₉ 674 – act of confirmation CI₂₈ 922 – confirmed act CI₂₈ 707 – certifying act CI₂₈ 1424 – confirmatory act CI₃₃ 699 T, CTI₃₈ 109 – confirmative act CI₃₃ 707 – act to be confirmed BS₃₄ 440 R – confirming act CTI₃₈ 1364 S.

Incidentally, the first series contains perhaps the only instance of synonymous use of a noun in the genitive and an adjective in -iškas, -a (of a document, documentary). In contemporary law, the term is most often formed with the adjective written.

There is also a small group of terms that differ not in their participial components, but in their genitive nouns (alongside participles), for example: pledge docu-

⁷ Fortitude at that time was apparently understood as a certain approved document; for more detail, see Umbrasas 2003: 78–79.

114

tas CI₃₃ 1630, CPI₃₁V 161/7, CTI₃₈ 1129 – įkeičiamasis aktas BS₃₄ 577 S – įkaito aktas CI₃₃ 1644 S, CTI₃₈ 1168; įkeitimo sutartis CI₃₃ 1554 S, BS₃₄ 593 R, BPI₃₃ 27 S – įkeičiamoji sutartis BS₃₄ 577 S – įkaito sutartis CTI₃₈ 1514; ieškinio reikalavimas CTI₃₈ 138 – ieško reikalavimas CPI₃₁C 138 – ieškomasis reikalavimas CPI₃₁V 138; ieškovo prašymas CPI₃₁C 53 – ieškinio prašymas CPI₃₁V 197, CTI₃₈ 51 – ieško prašymas CPI₃₁C 51, CTI₃₈ 258 S – ieškomasis prašymas CPI₃₁V 51, CPI₃₁C 200/5, CTI₃₈ 54/2. Čia minėtina ir atstovavimo teisė CI₃₃ 1127 T – atstojimo teisė CI₃₃ 156 – atstojamoji teisė CI₃₃ 1123.

Some rows of synonyms and variants lack a genitive form. Only different adjectives and participles are used, e.g.: supervisory care BS₁₉ 39 – accountable care BPI₂₄ 88 – responsible care BS₃₄ 39, BPI₃₃ 77/1; written instrument CI₃₃ 711, BPI₃₃ 158 S – written instrument CI₃₃ 993 S – written instrument CTI₃₈ 456 – the written instrument CTI₃₈ 409 S. Sometimes only adjectives occur (definite and indefinite forms). Synonyms with adjectives from different roots are used with the same meaning, e.g.: joint and several liability CI₃₃ 1548 T – solidary liability CI₃₃ 684 S, BPI₃₃ 195 – joint liability BS₃₄ 627 T – solidary liability CTI₃₈ 112 T; criminal case CI₃₃ 695/25, CPI₃₁C 200/4, CTI₃₈ 5, BS₁₉ 165, BPI₃₃ 3 – punishable case BS₃₄ 156 S – criminal case CPI₃₁V 200/4, CTI₃₈ 200/4, BS₃₄ 157 T; lawful heir CPI₃₁V 1352 – statutory heir CI₃₃ 1066 PT – the statutory heir CI₃₃ 1066 PT – statutory heir CI₃₃ 1068/2 S, CTI₃₈ 1352. Incidentally, in similar combinations J. Jablonskis corrected the word įstatymiškas to įstatyminis, teisėtas (1936: 223–224).

Summary conclusions

In the 1918–1940 codes, legal terms had various synonyms and variants. Legal terminology was being developed at the time, and this was no easy task. There were hardly any established terms, so the code translators (it should be recalled that all the codes were translations) used terms they considered more suitable. The translators’ and editors’ terminological qualifications were inadequate. It cannot be ruled out that some synonyms were used deliberately—simply for stylistic reasons

115

(and perhaps not even regarded as terms). The synonymy of a considerable number of the two-word combinations (terms) presented here is natural in the language: this is made possible by the extensive range of synonymous ways to express the secondary constituents of Lithuanian word combinations. Nearly all the combinations discussed are formally correct, although some seem unusual from a contemporary perspective. It is now difficult to infer the motives behind their use at the time; sometimes there may have been no clear motives at all. It was precisely during the period under study that a tradition began to develop for the use of certain legal terms. Unsuccessful (or incidental) synonyms and variants were gradually eliminated. Today, definite adjective and participle forms are most often used in terminology to name a distinguishing feature; there is a tendency to correct adjectives with the suffix -inis, -ė when a noun in the genitive could be used instead of them in a combination; adjectives are more often formed with the suffix -inis, -ė rather than -iškas, -a; international adjectives of the -alinis, -arinis, -yvinis type are avoided; principles of Lithuanianization have become established, and so on. The fact that the terms of that period differ from those used today does not necessarily indicate that the earlier terms were incorrect or otherwise defective. It simply shows that the creation of precise, systematic terms did not always come easily at first. On the other hand, later translations sometimes needlessly introduced new terms, deliberately or through oversight disregarding those that had already been coined.

Efforts to standardize legal terminology at the time were insufficient; yet, in the absence of a legal terminology dictionary (an attempt was made to compile one, but it was not completed for unknown reasons), variants and synonyms of terms in the codes of the period were inevitable. The state did not provide official translations, and it was not mandatory to coordinate unofficial translations (as all translations were considered unofficial) with one another. Inconsistent use of terms also occurred within the same translation. These were shortcomings in editing. On the other hand, the texts and appendices of the codes (and many synonyms were taken precisely from the latter) were often handled by different people and drawn from various sources. Untranslated appendices (for example, decisions of the Supreme Tribunal of Lithuania) were often deliberately left as they were, and their terminology did not always match that used in the text of the code.

PRIMARY SOURCES (CODES)

BPI₂₄ – Code of Criminal Procedure. Ed. A. Kriščiukaitis. – Teisė 6–10 [appendix], Kaunas, 1924–1926.

116

BPI₃₀ – Code of Criminal Procedure. J. Byla, Kaunas, 1930.

BPI₃₃ – Code of Criminal Procedure with commentaries compiled from decisions of the Russian Senate and the Supreme Tribunal of Lithuania and other interpretations concerning the criminal procedure law of Greater Lithuania and the Klaipėda Region. Ed. M. Kavo-lis, Kaunas, 1933.

BS₁₉ – Penal Statute, Kaunas, 1919 // Criminal Laws, Kaunas, 1919.

BS₃₁ – Penal Statute with Supplements. K. Jablonskis, 2nd ed., Kaunas, 1930.

BS₃₄ – Penal Statute with Additional Criminal Laws and Commentaries Compiled from Decisions of the Russian Senate and the Supreme Tribunal of Lithuania and Other Interpretations, Kaunas, 1934.

CI₂₈ – Civil Laws: [Collection of Laws, vol. X, part 1: Translation.

CI_I – S a l k a u s k i s K. Civil Laws: Volume X, Part I, Kaunas, 1933.

CPI_31C – Code of Civil Procedure. Lithuanianized by M. Čepas, Kaunas, 1931.

CPI_31V – Code of Civil Procedure with appended laws and a subject index. Prepared for publication by J. Viskanta, Kaunas, 1931.

CTI₃₈ – The Civil Procedure Act, with all amendments and supplements and with the interpretations of the Supreme Tribunal and the Russian Senate. Edited by Č. Butkys, Kaunas, 1938⁸.

LITERATURE AND ADDITIONAL SOURCES

A m b r a z a s S. 2003: Historical links between adjectives with the suffixes -ingas (-a), -inis (-ė) and -iškas (-a). – Baltistica 37 (1) (2002), 2003, 17–22.

G a i v e n i s K., K e i n y s St. 1990: Dictionary of Linguistic Terms, Kaunas.

J a b l o n s k i s J. 1935: Jablonskis’s Writings 4, Kaunas.

J a b l o n s k i s J. 1936: Jablonskis’s Writings 5, Kaunas.

K e i n y s St. 1974: Terminų sinonimijos klausimu. – Leksikos ir sintaksės klausimai, Šiauliai, 44–50.

K e i n y s St. 2002: Maironis ir mūsų literatūros mokslo terminologija. – Terminologija 9, 26–54.

KKP 1998: Kanceliarinės kalbos patarimai. Parengė P. Kniūkšta, Vilnius.

K l i m a v i č i u s J. 1975: Tarptautinių ir lietuviškų terminų sinonimija terminografijoje. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 16. Lietuvių terminologija, 91–123.

KPP 1976: Kalbos praktikos patarimai. Sudarė A. Pupkis, Vilnius.

⁸ To make terms easier to locate, the article number, rather than the page number, is given alongside the code abbreviation. Many terms are taken from appendices to the articles, which contain commentaries. In such cases, a letter is also written next to the article number to indicate the type of appendix: T – a decision of the Supreme Tribunal of Lithuania, S – a decision of the Russian Senate, R – a commentary by the code’s editorial commission, V – another law, P – all other appendices, including those present in the original. Some terms are taken from post-articles. In this case, the post-article number is also written after a slash next to the article number.

117

KPP 1985: Kalbos praktikos patarimai. Sudarė A. Pupkis, Vilnius.

Lyberis A. 2002: Sinonimų žodynas, 2 leid., Vilnius.

LKKN 1998: Lietuvių kalbos komisijos nutarimai 1977–1998. Sudarė R. Dobelienė, Vilnius.

LVTA 1996: Lietuvos valstybės teisės aktai (1918.II.16–1940.VI.15). Parengė V. Andriulis, R. Mockevičius, V. Valeckaitė, Vilnius.

M o s c h i t z - H a g s p i e l B. 1994: The Soviet School of Terminology (1931–1991), Vienna.

P i k č i l i n g i s J. 1988: Synonymy. Figures of Speech, Kaunas.

P i r o č k i n a s A. 1986: Jono Jablonskio kalbos taisymai, Kaunas.

S k a r d ž i u s P. 1997: Selected Writings 2, Vilnius.

TT 1999: Terminologijos taisymai. Parengė K. Gaivenis, A. Kaulakienė, St. Keinys, J. Klimavičius, Vilnius.

U m b r a s a s A. 2003: Teisės terminijos kaita 1918–1940 m. Lietuvoje veikusio civilinio kodekso vertimuose. – Terminologija 10, 55–83.

V a s k e l i e n ė J. 2000: Derivational Synonyms, Šiauliai.

М о л о д е ц В. Н. 1983: Некоторые проблемы терминологической синонимии. – Термин и слово, Горький, 11–21.

SYNONYMS AND VARIANTS OF CONJUGATE TWO-WORD TERMS OF LAW IN LITHUANIAN LEGAL CODES OF 1918–1940

Summary

This article analyses terms of law from the Codes, which were translated into Lithuanian from Russian and were in force in 1918–1940. The analysis shows that two-word terms of law had a lot of synonyms and variants. The most frequent were synonymic and variant terms with the same root, therefore the decision was taken to show the predominant types of their expression. The most typical variants of terms are terms with simple or pronominal forms of adjectives and participles. The most typical synonyms are terms with subordinate elements in a genitive of a noun or an adjective with the suffix -inis, -ė.

The abundance of synonyms and variants shows that terminology of law was in the process of creation at that time and this process was not easy. There were hardly any well-established terms, therefore translators of the Codes used terms they thought were most suitable. Precise, systemic terms, which met needs of the users, were made not from the first attempt. On the other hand, in later translations of the Codes new terms were sometimes created needlessly, when the existing terms were deliberately or accidentally ignored. The material shows that there were not enough attempts to achieve uniformity in the terms of law.

Alvydas UMBRASAS

Received 2004-11-08

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius

Email: [email protected]

118