Teisės terminijos kaita 1918–1940 m. Lietuvoje veikusio Civilinio kodekso vertimuose

TERMINOLOGIJOS ISTORIJA Alvydas UMBRASAS Institute of the Lithuanian Language CHANGES IN LEGAL TERMINOLOGY IN TRANSLATIONS OF THE CIVIL CODE IN FORCE IN LITHUANIA FROM 1918 TO 1940 1. Review of Sources In Lithuania, which restored its independence in 1918, the laws of the Russian Empire remained in force. Part I of Volume X of the Digest of Laws of the Russian Empire (Сводъ законовъ Россійской имперіи) (the last official edition of 1914) became Lithuania’s civil law code. The press contains references to efforts to translate this code into Lithuanian as early as the beginning of independence. In early 1918, a special commission of lawyers was formed under the Council of Lithuania to translate the laws inherited from the Russian Empire. A. Sugintas undertook to translate Part I of Volume X of the Digest of Laws of the Russian Empire. As he himself states (Sugintas 1958: 27), the work was very difficult, particularly because of the lack of Lithuanian legal terms. After translating a little, he abandoned the work. In the autumn of that same year, at the request of Justice Minister P. Leonas, he resumed the translation, but in the spring of 1919 he was sent to work in Samogitia. The translation most likely remained unfinished, since a few years later V. Mačys, in Lectures on Civil Procedure, lamented that the civil laws had not been translated (Mačys 1924: 3). The code in question was first printed in Lithuanian only around 1928—Civil Laws: Digest of Laws, Vol. X, Part I: Translation (abbreviated Ct). It was published by the Ministry of Justice. Neither the translator nor the year is indicated; in fact, the book had no title page. Only scant information about this edition could be found in the bibliography provided in Police Journal (Budrevičius 1929: 144). It states that the translation was made in 1927–1928 and printed at different times, in fascicles (perhaps this refers to the initial version, since the surviving books do not appear to have been printed in fascicles). The text was slightly altered in translation: Russia was replaced with Lithuania, and articles irrelevant to Lithuania were omitted— 55 relevant articles. Some copies were also issued with a Lithuanian-Russian and Russian-Lithuanian legal terminology glossary inserted at the back. The print run was relatively small—about 390 copies. The publication does not appear to have been sold in bookshops; most likely, only lawyers received it at the ministry. The fact that this translation was insufficient, or perhaps even regarded with mistrust, is indicated by the publication in Kaunas in 1930 of Civil Laws (CI₃₀), in the original Russian, compiled by L. M. Rotenberg. A few Lithuanian supplements and commentaries were also inserted into the text (on distinctive yellow pages). They were prepared by L. Veržbavičius. The translation by K. Šalkauskis, which appeared five years later, became the most widely circulated: Civil Laws: Volume X, Part I, Kaunas, 1933 (abbreviated CI₃₃). It also included numerous supplements (decisions of the Supreme Tribunal and the Russian Senate) and a substantial subject index. Irrelevant articles were omitted, and amendments enacted by law were incorporated. It is stated that the language was edited by St. Češūnas. The relationship between these translations is problematic. Contemporary literature makes no mention of the first translation, published in 1928. It is not even mentioned in the preface to the book compiled by K. Šalkauskis or in the book’s annotation (G. R. 1933: 222). The impression is created that the latter book was the first translation. This is understandable to some extent: the earlier translation was apparently not readily available, and perhaps few people even knew of it. A comparison of the two translations clearly shows that K. Šalkauskis used the first book. More precisely, he rewrote it, changing only some passages and adding supplements. Many articles are identical throughout. This may indicate one of two things: either K. Šalkauskis was also the translator of the first book, or his translation was not original but merely an edited version of the first translation. The former is most likely, since from 1922 K. Šalkauskis worked as an associate professor in the Department of Civil Law of the university’s Faculty of Law and wrote on various questions of civil law. Lithuanian Encyclopedia mentions Civil Laws, translated by K. Šalkauskis in 1930 (Puzinas 1963: 321). This most likely refers to the first published translation. It is unclear, however, why the year 1930 is given. It was probably an error, since no year is printed in the book. The possibility that there was another published translation is unlikely, although the manuscript collection of the Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences 56 In the K. Šalkauskis collection, the manuscript of part of another translation was found—Civil Laws. Book Two (F 281–59; abbreviated PĮ). It is a translation of one of the books making up Part 1 of Volume X. Also found there were fragments, in another hand, of a translation of the first book of this code (F 281–178). The latter text comprises only seven incomplete pages, whereas the second book is translated in its entirety—101 closely written pages. The handwriting resembles K. Šalkauskis’s, though the translation may not be his. There are editorial notes (probably by K. Šalkauskis): passages to be omitted are marked (they were omitted in the published books), and some words are underlined and question marks added (usually where the text differs from the published books). Overall, however, the manuscript differs considerably from the books—it is certainly a different translation. A ten-page typescript appended to the manuscript (whose text is almost identical) shows that a typescript of the manuscript also existed. K. Šalkauskis unquestionably made use of this text, but the circumstances of its origin are unknown. It is possible that several people translated the laws in question at the Ministry of Justice (the small manuscript was written on sheets bearing an embossed Vytis), and that K. Šalkauskis then finalized those texts. The changes in the language of the translations can be seen by comparing one article of the code (spelling as in the original): 694. Claims, like complaints, are subject to the general ten-year limitation period applicable to landowners. Anyone who failed to bring an action during that period, or, having brought one, did not pursue it in public offices, forfeits their right (PĮ). 694. Claims, like litigation, are subject to the general ten-year period of land-possession prescription (= land-possession prescription). Anyone who did not begin to seek redress during that period, or, having begun, did not pursue it in the authorities’ offices, forfeits their right (CĮ28). 694. Claims, like litigation, are subject to the general ten-year limitation period. Anyone who did not begin to seek redress during that period, or, having begun, failed to pursue it in government institutions, forfeits their right (CĮ3). It is evident that the manuscript translation differs the most. The latest translation merely corrected the 1928 text. The first two translations are also the ones that invite the most criticism, mainly of an editorial nature. It should be mentioned that, in early 1937, a special commission of the State Council undertook to draft an original Lithuanian civil code and, according to P. Stravinskas, by the time it was dissolved in 1940 it had already prepared and considered the most difficult parts of the code (Stravinskas 1958: 16), but 57 political circumstances prevented its completion. Although the original plan was to draft the code fairly quickly, the work proceeded slowly and irrationally (which prompted criticism—Dakutis 1939: 171–172), and the public never got to see it. 2. Relationship to the manuscript The code in question comprises 2,334 articles. The second book, whose manuscript has been found, runs from Article 383 to Article 933 (the manuscript also translates articles irrelevant to Lithuania, which are omitted in the published editions). Comparison of the second books in the manuscript and the two published editions revealed about 160 differences in legal terminology. Since these are translations, the terms used in corresponding passages of the articles were compared. In about half of the cases identified (nearly 80), only the manuscript text differs, while CĮ28 and CĮ33 agree. This indicates that the latter two translations are closely related, while the manuscript is a separate translation (by the same or another author). Most often, these are differences in one-word (a) or two-word (b) legal terms (there are roughly equal numbers of each), for example: a) 582 valuation PĮ – appraisal CĮ28, CĮ33, 644 loss PĮ – damage CĮ28, CĮ33, 425 receipts PĮ – income CĮ28, CĮ33, 646 claimant PĮ – plaintiff CĮ28, CĮ33, 539 proof PĮ – evidence CĮ28, CĮ33, 581 trustee PĮ – authorized representative CĮ28, CĮ33, 687 authorizer PĮ – authorizing party CĮ28, CĮ33, 542 pledge – undertaking CĮ28, CĮ33, 653 young person PĮ – minor CĮ28, CĮ33, 581 witness PĮ – summoned witness CĮ28, CĮ33, 533 marriage PĮ – matrimony CĮ28, CĮ33, 542 alienate PĮ – expropriate CĮ28, CĮ33, 653 parents PĮ – birth parents CĮ28, CĮ33; b) 542 installment compensation PĮ – periodic compensation CĮ28, CĮ33, 402 present capital PĮ – living capital CĮ28, CĮ33, 714 heraldic duty PĮ – stamp duty CĮ28, CĮ33, 542 heraldic fee PĮ – stamp fee CĮ28, CĮ33, 695 exclusive right PĮ – exclusive right CĮ28, CĮ33, 383 movable property PĮ – property subject to encumbrance CĮ28, CĮ33, 853 valuation act PĮ – appraisal act CĮ28, CĮ33, 698 charitable institution PĮ 1Therefore, the article number is given before the examples. 58 – charitable institution CI28, CI33, 695 permitted contract PĮ – license contract CI28, CI33, 666 marital union PĮ – marriage union CI28, CI33, 383 immovable property PĮ – real estate CI28, CI33, 593 purchase equipment PĮ – purchased act CI28, CI33, 420 civic laws PĮ – civil laws CI28, CI33, 707 hiring memorandum PĮ – hiring act CI28, CI33, 707 partnership memorandum PĮ – contract act CI28, CI33, 513 letter of donation PĮ – deed of gift CI28, CI33, 580 value of property PĮ – property value CI28, CI33, 713 instrument of confirmation PĮ – instrument of establishment CI28, CI33, wedding memorandum PĮ – marriage act CI28, CI33 Attention should be drawn to terms used in the manuscript that are now unusual: blėdis (a Slavicism from Belarusian блядь “damage, loss,” later and still žala); moterybė (cf. Latin matrimonium “marriage”); the element gerbinis (žyminis) in the phrases gerbinė rinkliava, gerbinis mokestis (in both cases the original has гербовый сбор; the concept is associated with special heraldic marks used to collect fees for document processing (RLKŽ, SRJ). Periodicity is also expressed by a borrowing: atlyginimas ratomis (cf. Polish rata, German Rate; incidentally, instead of periodinis leidinys, PĮ 695 has r atinis leidinys, but this is not a legal term). Variation between the terms kilnojamas turtas – judamas turtas was common during the independence period (the latter was probably translated from Russian). It is curious, however, that civil legislation used kilnojamas turtas (judamas turtas appeared only in the manuscript), while penal codes gradually adopted judamo turto (the term kilnojamas(is) turtas, used in the 1919, 1930, and 1931 translations, was replaced by judamuoju turtu in 1934) (Umbrasas 2002: 92). Indeed, the manuscript of civil legislation also uses manta in the sense under discussion (PĮ 401). The reason for all this was the lack of official terminology: the term was approved neither by the Ministry of Education nor by the terminology commission of the State Council. Only L. Dargis and A. Salys proposed single-word terms in their Dictionary of Commercial Correspondence: kilnojamybės (Mobilien), nekilnojamybės (Immobilien) (Dargis 1938: 166, 169). Indeed, CI28, CI33 also uses the analogous term nejudamybės (2200 P²), but probably by oversight, since it does not agree with kilnojamu turtu. 2P denotes an appendix appearing alongside the article, which was already present in the original. Appendices added in the translation are not compared. 59 The term civil laws also had its share of synonyms. The manuscript used citizen laws; proposals have appeared in print to replace the element civil with substantive (Sąmajauskas 1934: 27). Instead of CĮ₂₈, CĮ₃₃’s civil procedure (at the time, the term civil proceedings was also common), the manuscript used the original citizen’s course of court proceedings (PĮ 709), which may well have been used nowhere else. Also unusual is the use of memory in the sense of a legal instrument. About a third of the terms collected (approximately 50) differ across all the translations of Book 2, Part 1 of Volume X of the laws. Only a few single-word terms differ in every translation, for example: 402 vow PĮ – obligation CĮ₂₈ – bond CĮ₃₃, 629 to cost PĮ – to cost CĮ₂₈ – to set one back CĮ₃₃, 446 concord PĮ – agreement CĮ₂₈ – concord CĮ₃₃, 546 management PĮ – administration CĮ₂₈ – ordering CĮ₃₃ (“disposal”), 390 firmness PĮ – consolidation CĮ₂₈ – durability CĮ₃₃ (“a document confirmed and entered into the accounts?”), 525 long-term possession PĮ – taking up residence CĮ₂₈ – prescription CĮ₃₃ (“limitation period”), 542 landowners PĮ – land community CĮ₂₈ – municipality CĮ₃₃. Most differences involve two-word terms, for example: 825 deed duty PĮ – deed tax CĮ₂₈ – document tax CĮ₃₃, 646 destitute debtor PĮ – insolvent debtor CĮ₂₈ – unable-to-pay debtor CĮ₃₃, 669 criminal complaint PĮ – criminal complaint CĮ₂₈ – penal complaint CĮ₃₃ (the unusual spelling “criminalinis” may also be an error), 568 law of vows PĮ – law of obligations CĮ₂₈ – law of bonds CĮ₃₃, 533 undivided property PĮ – indivisible property CĮ₂₈ – non-divisible property CĮ₃₃, 825 firmness duty PĮ – consolidation duty CĮ₂₈ – durability tax CĮ₃₃, 557 term of long-term possession PĮ – term of prescription CĮ₂₈ – period of aging CĮ₃₃ (“limitation period”), 525 forcible possession PĮ – violent possession CĮ₂₈ – forcible holding CĮ₃₃, 695 government order PĮ – government regulation CĮ₂₈ – government arrangement CĮ₃₃. There are also differences in longer terms or terms with a different number of elements, for example: 513 perpetual possession by oneself and one’s descendants PĮ – perpetual possession by descendants CĮ₂₈ – perpetual possession left to descendants CĮ₃₃, 405 perishable chattel PĮ – perishable movable property CĮ₂₈ – destructible movable property CĮ₃₃ (in the current Civil Code (2000), this corresponds to a consumable thing (Art. 1.99)), 405 non-perishable chattel PĮ – non-perishable movable property CĮ₂₈ – indestructible movable property CĮ₃₃ (in the 2000 Civil Code, this corresponds to a non-consumable thing (Art. 1.99)), 541 the right to act as a suitable 60 as a suitable Civil Code term – the right of administration CĮ₂₈ – the right of disposal CĮ₃₃ (“right of disposition”), 396 ancestral immovable property PĮ – kindred real estate CĮ₂₈ – lineal real estate CĮ₃₃, 542 compensation paid all at once PĮ – lump-sum compensation CĮ₂₈ – one-time compensation CĮ₃₃. Such change clearly shows that this was a period in which legal terminology was taking shape. Approximately 20 cases (about 13 percent) were found in which a manuscript (PĮ) term was adopted in the 1928 translation, but replaced by another term in the corresponding passages of the 1933 edition, for example: 826 deed duty PĮ, CĮ₂₈ – document tax CĮ₃₃, 710 burdening with debts PĮ, CĮ₂₈ – indebtedness CĮ₃₃, 542 right of separate participation PĮ, CĮ₂₈ – right of private participation CĮ₃₃, 399 relative PĮ, CĮ₂₈ – kinsman CĮ₃₃, 390 gromata³ PĮ, CĮ₂₈ – document CĮ₃₃, 413 institution PĮ, CĮ₂₈ – establishment CĮ₃₃, 428 law of the shores PĮ, CĮ₂₈ – riparian law CĮ₃₃ (“law regulating land boundaries along bodies of water”), 923 testator PĮ, CĮ₂₈ – decedent CĮ₃₃, 420 confirmatory right PĮ, CĮ₂₈ – right of firmness CĮ₃₃, 420 possessor PĮ, CĮ₂₈ – holder CĮ₃₃. Apparently, the manuscript did not have a significant influence on later translations. Only one case was found in which the manuscript and the 1933 translation use the same term, while the 1928 edition uses a different one: 770 guardian PĮ – adviser CĮ₂₈ – guardian CĮ₃₃. It is difficult to say why CĮ₂₈ chose the term adviser, but it is clearly inappropriate. The text refers (as it does today) specifically to a guardian. The Citizen Laws manuscript also contains several passages where terms have not been translated; space has merely been left for them to be filled in. It appears that the translator had difficulty, for example, with the following terms, which were later translated in the corresponding passages: 663 to defile CĮ₂₈ – to rape CĮ₃₃, 664 offense CĮ₂₈, CĮ₃₃ (beside it, CĮ₂₈ also has sin); 568 rank CĮ₂₈, CĮ₃₃ (“rank”); 707 declaratory act CĮ₂₈, CĮ₃₃; 568 delivery CĮ₂₈ – supply CĮ₃₃ (“provision”); 452 servitude CĮ₂₈, CĮ₃₃; 432 law of servitudes CĮ₂₈, CĮ₃₃. 3The foreign word gromata is used perhaps only in this one passage. Its adoption in CĮ₂₈ as well (perhaps through oversight) may indicate that the manuscript was indeed consulted. Incidentally, the list of corrections added at the end of CĮ₂₈ amends gromata to document. 61 In conclusion, it should be noted that the manuscript of the second book of the Civil Laws is not very relevant to the practical development of legal terminology (it only reveals the initial ideas behind the terms), since it was not available to the general public and could not influence common usage. It is of interest only as an early text that may have led to the emergence of certain terms; however, its terminology (and language in general) was substantially revised in Cl28 and Cl33. 3. Differences in legal terminology in the 1928 and 1933 Civil Laws This article seeks to examine in greater detail the terminology in the translations of Part 1 of Volume X of the Digest of Russian Laws published in 1928 and 1933, entitled Civil Laws. The last translation is the best known and had the greatest impact on the language of law, but it was prepared on the basis of the little-known 1928 translation. To trace the development of terminology, it is appropriate to discuss the differences between these translations. As noted, this code consists of 2,334 numbered articles. A comparison of the translations article by article revealed just over 350 differences in legal terminology. The data are first divided by parts of speech into noun and verb terms, then classified by the number of components, and finally by their expression. To make the meanings of the terms and the reasons for the differences easier to understand, the original equivalent is sometimes also provided alongside the examples. For comparison, a term from the first printed dictionary of legal terms (by A. Žiurlys) is sometimes added. Most, of course, were differences in noun terms—about 320 (i.e., about 89 percent). The remainder (about 40 changes, i.e., 11 percent) were differences in verbs and verb phrases. First, the nouns. As is customary, differences in one-word, two-word, and multiword terms are distinguished. Changes in which the number of components does not correspond are discussed separately. 1. Comparing the codes under discussion revealed about 110 differences in single-word terms (approximately 35 percent of all changes to noun terms). Of these, about two thirds (66 percent) were substantially changed, that is, replaced by words with a different root, for example: 553 co-owner Cl28 – holder Cl33 (совладелец ZG, бендравалис TŽ), 560 acquisitive prescription Cl28 – prescription Cl33 (“limitation period”), 621 institution Cl28 – enterprise Cl33 (заведение ZG), 62 2100 cargo Cl28 – safekeeping Cl33 (поклажа ZG), 647 oversight Cl28 – negligence Cl33, 269 deficiency Cl28 – shortfall Cl33 (безнедоимочно ZG), 644 wrongdoing Cl28 – offense Cl33 (преступнок ZG), 98 judgment Cl28 – ruling Cl33 (приговоръ ZG), 695 arrangement Cl28 – ordering Cl33, 533 heir Cl28 – successor Cl33 (наследникъ ZG), 187 obligation Cl28 – bond Cl33 (обязательство ZG), 42 party Cl28 – party Cl33, 668 complaint Cl28 – claim Cl33 (искъ ZG), 102 official Cl28 – citizen Cl33, 420 manager Cl28 – holder Cl33 (владѣлецъ ZG). Įdomu, kad beveik nuosekliai naujajame vertime užstatytojas keistas įke (1630), užstatymas – įkeitimu (1554), užstatas – įkaitu (1631) (originale залогъ) ir, atvirkščiai: įkeitėjas – užstatytoju (1664), įkeitimas – užstatymu (1554), įkaitas – užstatu (1665) (originale закладъ). (Beje, 1928 m. vartosena sutampa su rankraščio PĮ.) 1928 m. vertime įkeitimas, įkaitus vartojami kalbant apie kilnojamąjį turtą, užstatymas, užstatas – apie nekilnojamąjį; 1933 m. vertime – atvirkščiai. Pirmajame vertime kartais platesne reikšme vartojamas užstatymas (kaip apimantis įkeitimą), antrajame – įkeitimas (apima užstatymą). Confusion about these terms persists to this day. Lawyers still sometimes distinguish between the mortgage of immovable property and the pledge of movable property (e.g., at a pawnshop), as in the 1933 translation; however, the current Civil Code uses only the terms mortgage and pledge, and the former term pledge has disappeared altogether (bail is used only as a preventive measure in criminal law). A mortgage of immovable property is called a hypothec (2000 Civil Code). The disappearance of the term pledge from Lithuanian civil law should most likely be linked to the fact that заклад likewise disappeared from Soviet Russian codes, which use only залог (e.g., GK₄₁). Older Russian legal dictionaries still list заклад with a cross-reference to залог (JS), while newer ones list only залог. Although, for example, заклад is still used in Belarus. One of the most recent dictionaries explains that pledge (заклад) is a type of mortgage (залог) in which the pledged property is transferred to the pledgee, that is, the creditor (NJS). Incidentally, from a terminological perspective, the definition of mortgage in the current Civil Code is tautologically flawed: “A m o r t g a g e is that which secures the fulfillment of an existing or future debt obligation 63 “a pledge of movable property or property rights [emphasis added—A. U.], where the object of the pledge is transferred to the creditor or a third party, or left with the pledgor” (4, Art. 108). It is unsatisfactory that a pledge is defined as a pledge, since one might think that two meanings of the term are being used: one is defined, while the other (in the definition) is treated as self-evident, perhaps even non-terminological—that is, what anyone knows about a pledge. In the definition, the term should be explained in other words, although that would be difficult in this case. The 1933 book may also have influenced the establishment of the terms guardianship (212), guardian (220), since CĮ₂₈ would have curatorship, curator. In place of guardian, CĮ₂₈ also used the highly questionable adviser (6) (only in the corrections at the end, in the appendices, was it changed to curator). CĮ₃₃ also shows other forms of Lithuanianization, for example: 928 testator in CĮ₂₈ – legatee in CĮ₃₃; 708 P original in CĮ₂₈ – authentic document in CĮ₃₃; however, these replacements did not become established. The 1933 translation also substantially changed some terms related to kinship, for example: 201 grandchild (203 grandchild) in CĮ₂₈ – son’s child in CĮ₃₃ (внук ZG); 1119 išūnis in CĮ₂₈ – adopted child in CĮ₃₃ (усыновленный ZG; the Russian text also uses this for an adopted daughter, but the CĮ₃₃ term is, of course, the appropriate one in Lithuanian); 197 generation in CĮ₂₈ – degree in CĮ₃₃ (степень ZG); 1116 ancestral generation in CĮ₂₈ – lineage in CĮ₃₃ (колено ZG); 254 relatives by marriage in CĮ₂₈ – kin in CĮ₃₃ (свойственники ZG); 1120 relationship by marriage in CĮ₂₈ – affinity in CĮ₃₃; 194 parents in CĮ₂₈ – progenitors in CĮ₃₃ (apparently following родители in ZG); 196 ancestor (1118 ancestor) in CĮ₂₈ – forebear in CĮ₃₃ (родоначальник ZG). The former wedding in CĮ₂₈ was replaced with marriage (CĮ₃₃ 22), marrying (CĮ₃₃ 31) (венчание ZG). There are no terms for divorce or separation here; where the original has развод, we find the following changes: 94 separation in CĮ₂₈ – divorce in CĮ₃₃; 132 dissolution in CĮ₂₈ – divorce in CĮ₃₃. A third of the one-word terms (about 34 percent) were changed only partially, that is, the term has the same root, but adjacent parts of the word were changed. Most often, the suffix differs, for example: 132 relative in CĮ₂₈ – kinsman in CĮ₃₃; 49 claim in CĮ₂₈ – seeking in CĮ₃₃ and, conversely, 1066 seeking in CĮ₂₈ – claim in CĮ₃₃; 2048 testimony in CĮ₂₈ – witness statement in CĮ₃₃; 407 taxes in CĮ₂₈ – charges in CĮ₃₃; 202 great-grandfather in CĮ₂₈ – great-grandfather in CĮ₃₃; 695 married person in CĮ₂₈ – spouse in CĮ₃₃. The former guardian (12) in CĮ₂₈ was most likely changed to guardian in CĮ₃₃, by analogy with caregiver. The latter is more suitable morphologically as well, since the form used as a legal term is to guard (guar- 64 dianship), rather than to protect (protection). It is true that the current CK nevertheless has morphologically inconsistent terms, guardian and caregiver (these were recommended for use by the Terminology Commission of the State Council (TTP 1940: 74)). In CĮ₃₃, the former person under guardianship (12), alongside the guardian in CĮ₃₈, was justifiably replaced by person being guarded (consistent with to guard, guardian). Only a few differences in prefixes were found (here this includes the presence or absence of a prefix), for example: 125 holding in CĮ₂₈ – maintenance in CĮ₃₃; 207 great-grandfather in CĮ₂₈ – great-grandfather in CĮ₃₃; 457 reinforcement in CĮ₂₈ – establishment in CĮ₃₃. Sometimes the later translation differs both in the suffix and in the prefix of a term, for example: 2015 non-monetary nature in CĮ₂₈ – non-monetary quality in CĮ₃₃ (безденежность ZG); 390 establishment in CĮ₂₈ – solidity in CĮ₃₃; 2200 P multiplier in CĮ₂₈ – insurer4 in CĮ₃₃ (страхователь ZG); 207 great-grandmother in CĮ₂₈ – great-grandmother in CĮ₃₃; 1740 supplier in CĮ₂₈ – provider in CĮ₃₃ (поставщик ZG, supplier TŽ: provider, apparently formed by analogy with contractor, which occurs in both translations (1740)). Among the differences in endings, perhaps only one case can be counted: 690 self-rule in CĮ₂₈ – self-will in CĮ₃₃ (самоуправство ZG). Incidentally, the manuscript also had the form self-will (PĮ 700), which J. Jablonskis criticized (Piročkinas 1986: 104). It is true that these words also exhibit morphonological differences. Sometimes not only the parts of words differ, but also the word-formation method as a whole, for example: 529 deceit in CĮ₂₈ – forgery in CĮ₃₃; 699 exchange in CĮ₂₈ – bartering in CĮ₃₃; 49 disability in CĮ₂₈ – incapacity in CĮ₃₃; 1737 preparation in CĮ₂₈ – contracting work in CĮ₃₃ (подряд ZG, contract work TŽ); 1737 delivery in CĮ₂₈ – supply in CĮ₃₃ (поставка ZG, delivery TŽ); 12 marriage in CĮ₂₈ – marrying in CĮ₃₃; and, conversely, 24 marrying in CĮ₂₈ – marriage in CĮ₃₃. A pair of spelling differences can also be classified as partial differences, for example: 4 The alternation of these suffixes is particularly dangerous, since both then and now they distinguish the provider of a service from its recipient. Today’s use of страхователь in the sense of “service recipient” corresponds precisely to the CĮ₂₈ term insurer. In CĮ₃₃, the suffixes were assigned the opposite meanings. 5 Самоуправство is translated as self-governance in TŽ, whereas savivalė means arbitrariness, willfulness. 65 921 certificate Cl28 – certificate Cl33, 98 claim Cl28 – претензия Cl33. 2. In almost 130 cases (about 40 percent of all noun substitutions), two-word terms were replaced (meaning here those that were also replaced by two-word terms). In replacing these terms, the syntactic structure was most often left unchanged, i.e. agreement was replaced by agreement (e.g., 542 supplementary sheet Cl28 – enforcement writ Cl33 (исполнительный лист ZG)), government by government (e.g., 1006 execution document Cl28 – enforcement document Cl33). There are 100 such pairs (about 78 percent). Thus, in only almost 30 cases (about 22 percent of all substitutions of two-word terms) did the syntactic structure differ: agreement was replaced by government, government by agreement. Government was replaced by agreement about twice as often, e.g.: 2128 shareholders’ company Cl28 – joint-stock company Cl33, 825 act fee Cl28 – act duty Cl33 (актовая пошлина ZG), 533 family property Cl28 – lineage property Cl33, 1238 P Commercial Court Cl28 – Commercial Court Cl33, 568 law of obligations Cl28 – obligations law Cl33, 991 testamentary act Cl28 – testamentary act Cl33. The reverse substitution (from agreement to government) is less common, e.g.: 119 kinship union Cl28 – kinship union Cl33, 2054 payment entry Cl28 – payment entry Cl33, 390 possessory order Cl28 – possession order Cl33 (владѣнный указ ZG)). Perhaps most often, a noun in the genitive was replaced by an adjective with -inis (see the examples just mentioned), but the predominant direction is opposite to that of today. In the 1933 translation, the genitive was more often replaced by an adjective with -inis, whereas today, as P. Kniūkšta has observed, one can see a fear of the suffix -inis, and language editors try to avoid it wherever they can (Kniūkšta 2000: 40–41). But even without apprehension, the emergence of substitutions such as act duty, Commercial Court, lineage property, testamentary act must be regarded as a regression. Most often, the dependent component of a two-word term was changed (75 cases; about 59 percent of all substitutions of two-word terms), e.g.: 209 status act Cl28 – estate act Cl33 (акт состояния ZG), 1045 place of residence Cl28 – place of stay Cl33 (мѣсто пребывания ZG), 146 adopter of an adopted son Cl28 – adopter of an adopted child Cl33 (усыновитель ZG, not the adoptive parent), 1324 indivisible property Cl28 – undivided property Cl33, 2014 interest-bearing loan Cl28 – usurious loa- 66 n Cl₃₃ (помощнический заем ZG), 94 divorce certificate CI₂₈ – matching certificate CI₃₃ (разводное письмо ZG), 418 borrowed property CI₂₈ – debt property CI₃₃ (долговое имущество ZG), 1630 pledge act CI₂₈ – mortgage act CI₃₃, 1674 securities CI₂₈ – interest-bearing papers CI₃₃ (процентные бумаги ZG), 79 monogamous cohabitation CI₂₈ – one-partner cohabitation CI₃₃ (единобрачное сожительство ZG). There were considerably fewer changes to the head component—about 30 (23 percent), e.g.: 2204 personal certification CI₂₈ – personal certificate CI₃₃, 678 severity of punishment CI₂₈ – harshness of punishment CI₃₃, (строгость наказания ZG, “strictness of punishment”), 1068 kinship pair CI₂₈ – family stem CI₃₃, 2050 loan undertaking CI₂₈ – loan bond CI₃₃, 1259 debt document CI₂₈ – debt obligation CI₃₃ (долговое обязательство ZG), 1066 testamentary disposition CI₂₈ – testamentary arrangement CI₃₃, 1428 stamp duty CI₂₈ – stamp tax CI₃₃. The least frequent changes were to both components. Such changes account for only about 18 percent of all substitutions of two-word terms (a little over 20 cases), e.g.: 826 act duty CI₂₈ – act fee CI₃₃ (актовая пошлина ZG), 22 marital status CI₂₈ – marital condition CI₃₃ (брачное состояние ZG), 707 pledgeable fortification CI₂₈ – mortgage security CI₃₃, 557 land-based prescription CI₂₈ – possession by prescription CI₃₃ (земская давность ZG, “limitation period”). It is interesting that the 1928 translation used the term uncontrollable forces 683 (непреодолимая сила ZG). In the later translation it was changed to irresistible force (this is also the form in TŽ and in some current dictionaries, e.g., ALTŽ). Both CI versions also used irresistible obstacle (2123). Today, the international term force majeure. Its equivalent, circumstances of irresistible force, was proposed for replacement with insurmountable circumstances (Urnėžiūtė 2000: 6). One of the most recent dictionaries proposes using unforeseen circumstances (LTAŽ). If we also count changes to both components, it turns out that, overall, the dependent component of two-word terms was changed most often. 6 Aitr uma s may also be a typographical error, since only one letter differs from aštrumas. 67 There are almost 100 such cases (regardless of whether the head constituent was changed). Of these, about 54 percent are substantial changes: a word with a different root was used, e.g.: 920 attestation of authenticity CI28 – attestation of genuineness CI33, 116 lineal property CI28 – family-line property CI33 (общий родовое ZG), 433 exclusive right CI28 – private right CI33 (частное право ZG), 200 younger line CI28 – descending line CI33 (нисходящая линия ZG), 2119 owner of cargo CI28 – custodian CI33, 533 indivisible property CI28 – indivisible property CI33, 95 unlawful separation CI28 – irregular divorce CI33 (неправильный развод ZG), 87 separation case CI28 – divorce case CI33 (бракоразводное дело ZG), 212 individual person CI28 – private individual CI33, 541 right of management CI28 – right of disposal CI33 (право распоряжения ZG), 1700 contract of hiring CI28 – lease contract CI33 (договор найма ZG), 92 corded book CI28 – book with a binding cord CI33 (шнуровая книга ZG, referring here to books of documents bound with special cords (CI33 28), 568 negotiated contract CI28 – oral contract CI33, 200 elder line CI28 – ascending line CI33 (восходящая линия ZG). Partial changes to dependent constituents are slightly less common—about 46 percent. Since dependent constituents are expressed by several parts of speech, it is difficult to classify them according to the differing parts of the words. Formally speaking, as with one-word terms, the suffix is most often different. In fact, however, these constituents are mostly formed in different ways. Only a small number of changes of this kind can be considered genuine suffix differences: 1505 payment deadline CI28 – payment deadline CI33, 1006 notarial procedure CI28 – notarial procedure CI33. Also worth mentioning are cases where the suffix is either present or absent, e.g.: 1699 formal contract CI28 – formal contract CI33, 982 private person CI28 – private person CI33, 107 head of household CI28 – head of family CI33 (глава семейства ZG), 542 one-time payment CI28 – one-time fee CI33. Most often, although a suffix difference can formally be discerned, there is also a difference in word formation. One example is the variation of a participle with an adjective or noun: 1505 act of giving CI28 – deed of gift CI33, 156 acquired property CI28 – acquired property CI33, 658 fatal wound CI28 – fatal 68 minor wound C₃₃ (смертельное повреждение ZG), 2054 payment entry C₁₂₈ – payment entry C₁₃₃, 1049 written statement C₁₂₈ – written statement C₁₃₃, 1683 confirmatory fees C₁₂₈ – confirmation fees C₁₃₃, 420 confirmatory law C₁₂₈ – confirmation law C₁₃₃ (крепостное право ZG). The variation between an adjective formed with -inis and a noun in the genitive, despite their different formations, could conditionally be mentioned among suffix differences, e.g.: 825 deed tax C₁₂₈ – documentary tax C₁₃₃, 826 deed duty C₁₂₈ – documentary tax C₁₃₃, 35 register act C₁₂₈ – register-of-records act C₁₃₃, 967 family-line property C₁₂₈ – lineage property C₁₃₃, 1006 percentage papers C₁₂₈ – percentage documents C₁₃₃, 991 testamentary act C₁₂₈ – testamentary act C₁₃₃. There are also other differences in the formation of dependent constituents where the root is the same, e.g.: 558 defended possession C₁₂₈ – disputed ownership C₁₃₃, 1674 unnamed shares C₁₂₈ – registered shares C₁₃₃, 1742 preparation contract C₁₂₈ – contract for work C₁₃₃, 1742 delivery contract C₁₂₈ – delivered contract C₁₃₃, 1030 confirming will C₁₂₈ – confirmation will C₁₃₃. There are only a few cases in which just the prefix of the dependent constituent differs, e.g.: 277 non-perishable things C₁₂₈ – imperishable things C₁₃₃, 713 valuation commission C₁₂₈ – appraisal commission C₁₃₃, 557 limitation period C₁₂₈ – period of aging C₁₃₃. Differences in prefixes often occur alongside other differences in word formation. No extensive mismatch of pronominal forms was observed either; only a few cases were found: 54 place of residence C₁₂₈ – place of residence C₁₃₃, 2200 P credited premium C₁₂₈ – creditable premium C₁₃₃, 542 immovable property C₁₂₈ – immovable property C₁₃₃, 1526 public auctions C₁₂₈ – public auctions C₁₃₃. The head constituent of two-word terms changed almost half as often as the dependent constituent—over 50 cases (including changes to both constituents). However, the number of substantial changes here is considerably greater. Substantial and partial changes to dependent constituents were roughly equal (54 and 46 percent, respectively), whereas substantial changes account for two-thirds of changes to head constituents (about 66 percent). A few examples not yet cited: 2201 domestic services C₁₂₈ – household services C₁₃₃ (домаш- 69 nue usługi ZG), 1238 P buyer’s assistant Cl₂₈ – buyer’s agent Cl₃₃ (приказчик ZG), 132 written testimony Cl₂₈ – written certification Cl₃₃ (письменное удостоверение ZG), 1008 dissolution of marriage Cl₂₈ – incapacity for marriage Cl₃₃ (несостоятельность брака ZG), 533 term obligation Cl₂₈ – term bond Cl₃₃, 2064 provision of property Cl₂₈ – loan for use of property Cl₃₃ (ссуда на содержание ZG), 109 management of property Cl₂₈ – possession of property Cl₃₃ (владение имущества ZG), 563 seizure of land Cl₂₈ – appropriation of land Cl₃₃ (завладение ZG). There are probably more changes to dependent components because they are easier to make. There is also greater scope for variation here: alternating definite and indefinite forms, changing agreement and government, and so on. In addition, there are more modifiers of type than terms in which the generic term most often serves as the head. The fact that head components were more often substantially changed accords with the general trend of changing one-word terms in the Civil Laws—about two-thirds of them were also substantially changed. As with single-word terms, the principal components of two-word terms differ in only about a third of cases (approximately 34%). The methods also correspond. The following differences can be observed: suffixes (e.g., 37 blood relative Cl₂₈ – blood relative Cl₃₃, 420 private affiliation Cl₂₈ – private affiliation Cl₃₃, 1259 property recovery Cl₂₈ – property claim Cl₃₃); prefixes (e.g., 533 inventory of property⁷ Cl₂₈ – inventory of property Cl₃₃, 581 listing of property Cl₂₈ – description of property Cl₃₃); word-formation type (e.g., 707 gift inscription Cl₂₈ – gift document Cl₃₃, 683 uncontrollable forces Cl₂₈ – irresistible force Cl₃₃). Spelling differences also coincide, e.g.: 920 attestation of authenticity Cl₂₈ – attestation of genuineness Cl₃₃, 98 civil claims Cl₂₈ – civil claims Cl₃₃. 3. Few differences were found among nominal terms longer than two words—only about 40 (approximately 13 percent). Most are three-word terms. The difference is usually minimal: one constituent is changed— 7 Note that the word formation here is not by prefixation; the only difference is the prefix. 70 muo, pvz.: 2200 P akcininkų draudimo bendrovė Cl28 – akcinė draudimo bendrovė Cl33, 542 atsk iro dalyvavimo teisė Cl28 – privatinio dalyvavimo teisė Cl33 (abiejose Cl skliaustuose prirašyta servitutas), 2012 paskola be užstato Cl28 – paskola be įkeit o Cl33, 542 pirmesnio pirkimo teisė Cl28 – pirmumojo pirkimo teisė Cl33, 420 pirmutinis turto įgytojas Cl28 – pirmutinis turto įsigijėlis Cl33 (первый приобретатель имущества ZG, įgijėjas TŽ), 1184 tolydinio pelno bilietas Cl28 – nuolatinio pelno bilietas Cl33 (непрерывно-доходный билет ZG). Rečiau keičiami du dėmenys (pvz.: 146 bendras pilietinis teis lumas Cl28 – bendras civilinis teisga-lingumas Cl33 (общее гражданское правоспособность ZG), 1300 paveldėtojas iš įstatymo Cl28 – įpėdinis pagal įstatymą Cl33 (наследник по закону ZG)) arba terminas pertvarkomas dar ir sintaksiškai (pvz.: 134 negalėjimas santuokiškai gyventi Cl28 – negalingumas santuokos gyvenimui Cl33 (неспособность к супружескому сожитию ZG), 54 santuoka naik inamoji byla Cl28 – byla santuokai panaikinti Cl33, 533 tolydinis nuosavybiškas valdymas Cl28 – nepertraukiamas turėjimas nuosavybe Cl33). Beveik visi besiskiriantys tr žodžių terminų dėmenys jau minėti kalbant apie vienažodžių ir dvižodžių terminų skirtybes. Raiškos požiūriu skirtybės analogiškos. The following changes are noteworthy: 1527 purchase and sale by instalments Cl28 – instalment purchase and sale Cl33, 1527 purchase and sale agreement Cl28 – purchase-and-sale agreement Cl33. Where the original has купля-продажа, the 1928 translation does not use a hyphen. In the later translation, the form now customary, with a hyphen, is used (although recently, instead of the construction with “by instalments,” an attempt has been made to revive A. Salys and L. Dargis’s term sale by instalments (Dargis 1938: 165)). Among four-word terms (e.g., 1668 instrument of mortgage over movable property Cl28 – instrument for pledging movable property Cl33, 1642 mortgage security over immovable property Cl28 – immovable-property mortgage security Cl33) and five-word terms (e.g., 774 instrument for purchase and pledge security Cl28 – instrument securing purchase and mortgage Cl33, 533 life tenant of property Cl28 – holder of property for life Cl33), only a few differences in legal terms were found. Here too, components discussed earlier are changed. 71 4. The fewest are the changes in which the number of term components differs—nearly 40 (12%). In three quarters of the cases, the 1933 translation uses shorter terms. Most often, two-word terms are replaced by one-word terms (a), or three-word terms by two-word terms (b), for example: a) 922 įgaliojimo raštas CI28 – įgaliojimas CI33 (вбрющее письмо ZG), 2311 panaudojimas piktan9 CI28 – piktvarta CI33 (злоупотребление ZG, пиктнаудžiavimas TŽ), 1680 sukальbetasis pardavimas CI28 – užpardavimas CI33, 923 testamento davėjas CI28 – patikėjas CI33, 542 užstato laikytojas CI28 – įkaitininkas CI33, 1549 žemietybinis senėjimas CI28 – senėjimas CI33; b) 78 retroactive effect CI28 – retroactive effect CI33 (обратная сила ZG), 1302 heir by law CI28 – statutory heir CI33, 1679 contract of sale concluded by agreement CI28 – resale contract CI33, 774 agreed sale deed CI28 – resale instrument CI33 (запродажная запись ZG). Other correspondences also occur, for example: 150 person of full age CI28 – adult CI33 (совершеннолетний ZG) (3→1), 1243 property of a person whose whereabouts are unknown CI28 – property of a missing person CI33 (5→3), 186 right to assume monetary loan obligations CI28 – right to incur monetary loans CI33 (5→4). Some kinship terms were also shortened, for example: 114 husband and wife CI28 – spouses CI33 (супруги ZG) (3→1), 145 adopted son and adopted daughter CI28 – adopted children10 CI33 (усыновленные ZG) (3→1), 156 adoption as son and daughter CI28 – adoption11 CI33 (усыновление ZG) (4→2), 1140 maternal half-brothers and half-sisters CI28 – maternal half-siblings CI33 (5→4), 1140 paternal half-brothers and half-sisters CI28 – paternal half-siblings CI33 (5→4). Cases in which terms were lengthened account for only a quarter. More often, one-word terms were replaced by two-word terms, for example: 1008 penalty for withdrawal CI28 – penalty for non-performance CI33 (неустойка ZG, netesybos TŽ), 201 descendants 8 Possibly an error. Logically, it should be вбрющее письмо (see RLKŽ). 9 This may be a typographical error – panaudojimas piktam. 10 Įteis appears in both translations, whereas įvaikis occurs only in CI33. 11 It could have been įvaikinimas, but it is not—and neither is there įvaikinio. 72 Cl₂₈ – children’s children Cl₃₃ (потомство ZG), 202 successors Cl₂₈ – parents’ parents Cl₃₃ (предки ZG; at the end of Cl₂₈ corrected to protėviai), 677 official Cl₂₈ – person of authority Cl₃₃ (должностное лицо ZG). There are also other relationships, e.g.: 529 acquisition by prescription Cl₂₈ – uninterrupted possession over the period of prescription Cl₃₃ (1→6) (indeed, in the Cl₂₈ corrections, at this point įsigyvenimas has already been changed to continuous possession over the period of acquisitive prescription), 668 dishonour tax Cl₂₈ – payment for dishonour Cl₃₃ (намного безчестия ZG) (2→3), 1097 testamentary possession Cl₂₈ – possession under wills Cl₃₃ (2→3), 513 perpetual possession by descendants Cl₂₈ – perpetual possession to be left to descendants Cl₃₃ (владение вечное и потомственное ZG) (3→5), 420 perpetual and inheritable possession Cl₂₈ – perpetual possession to be left to descendants Cl₃₃ (4→5). 5. Finally, differences in verbal terms should be noted. It has already been stated that about 40 such terms were found (i.e., about 11 percent of all the material examined). Most often these are single-word terms that were substantially changed, e.g.: 221 apsimiloti Cl₂₈ – undertake obligations Cl₃₃ (вступать во обязательства ZG), 132 atsieiti Cl₂₈ – compensate Cl₃₃ (возмѣстить ZG), 663 išgedinti Cl₂₈ – rape Cl₃₃ (изнасиловать ZG), 420 rędyti Cl₂₈ – arrange Cl₃₃ (распоряжаться ZG), 117 pledge Cl₂₈ – mortgage Cl₃₃. Only mismatches in prefixes can be regarded as partial differences, e.g.: 1011 aprašyti Cl₂₈ – užrašyti Cl₃₃ (записать ZG), 53 pasmerkti Cl₂₈ – nusmerkti Cl₃₃ (подвергнуть ссылке ZG), 38 perskirti Cl₂₈ – išskirti Cl₃₃. There are also differences involving verbal terms longer than one word (most often substantial), e.g.: 542 forcibly expropriate Cl₂₈ – expropriate compulsorily Cl₃₃, 2107 accept cargo for safekeeping Cl₂₈ – accept cargo for custody Cl₃₃, 1068 incur an obligation Cl₂₈ – incur a duty Cl₃₃ (обязывать ZG), 66 renounce service Cl₂₈ – leave service Cl₃₃ (оставить службу ZG), 37 bind by a marriage union Cl₂₈ – join in a marriage union Cl₃₃, 533 possess for life Cl₂₈ – have for life Cl₃₃. In some verbal terms in the 1933 translation, the number of components is greater or smaller. More often they are shorter, e.g.: 94 impose a duty Cl₂₈ – obligate Cl₃₃ (2→1), 98 dissolve marriages Cl₂₈ – divorce Cl₃₃ (2→1), 45 disappear to an unknown destination Cl₂₈ – vanish Cl₃₃ (3→1), 2106 give cargo for safekeeping Cl₂₈ – give for custody Cl₃₃ (3→2), 73 145 take adopted sons and daughters Cl28 – take adopted children Cl33 (4→2), 191 deal with property as a person entitled to do so Cl28 – arrange property Cl33 (распоряжаться имуществом ZG) (5→2). There are only a few replacements by longer terms. Either an independent component is added (e.g., 420 use heritably Cl28 – use in a manner to be left to descendants Cl33), or a prepositional construction is formed (e.g., 707 introduce into possession Cl28 – introduce into possession Cl33, 56 fall into captivity Cl28 – fall into captivity Cl33). 4. Standardization and correction of terms Comparing the translations of the 1928 and 1933 Civil Codes shows that the differences did not arise solely from a desire to improve terminology by changing it; they were also intended to standardize terms. In the first translation, many terms in the original had more than one equivalent. In the 1933 book, a considerable number of inconsistencies were eliminated. For example, act fee (актовая пошлина ZG) is used instead of Cl28 act duty (826), act fee (825); divorce document (разводное письмо ZG) instead of divorce paper (46), separation paper (94); testator (завещатель ZG) instead of the person described (1039), testator (985), testament-maker (932); ancestral property (имѣніе родовое ZG) instead of lineage property (116), family property (533), ancestral property (967); discretionary condition (произвольное условие ZG) instead of contingent condition (1425), free condition (1427). The term to disappear without a trace (безвѣстно отсутствовать ZG) appeared, replacing the varying forms to be who knows where (1243), to be missing, location unknown (54), to disappear (45). The adverb strictly was selected in the phrase strictly prohibited (строго воспрещается ZG) instead of severely prohibited (690), sharply prohibited (1499). The term inability to consummate marriage (неспособность к супружескому сожитию ZG) was also standardized, replacing inability to live as spouses (134), unfitness for married life (47). Only indivisible property was retained, since Cl28 used this term (393) as well as the definite and indefinite forms indivisible property (533), indivisible property (1324). The term half (Cl28 42) alongside party (542) (сторона ZG) was also dropped. Instead of relative (23), kinsman (132) (родственник ZG), relative is used. The kinship term great-grandfather was also standardized, as the earlier translation had great-grandfather (207), great-grandfather (202). The 1928 transla- 74 in the same sense, the terms jaunesnysis giminaitis (207), žemutinis giminaitis (132) were used. These were replaced by žemutinis giminaitis or, in a single word, žemutinis (низходящий ZG). To denote marital (non-blood) kinship, CI₃₃ uses the term gentýstė (свойство ZG), and the persons are gentys (свойственники ZG). CI₂₈ had svainystė (1120), while the persons were svainiai (254), gentainiai (1054) (indeed, the corrections standardized this as svainiai). The term приданое was translated in CI₂₈ as dalis (66), kraitis (1001); in CI₃₃ it was replaced with the unusual išranga (LKŽ išranga does not have the meaning ‘dowry’). The CI₃₃ term rikiuoti (распоряжаться ZG) was also not established. Instead, CI₂₈ most often used rėdyti (420), but also elgtis kaip tinkamam (191), tvarkyti (192), or, depending on the situation, daryti santarius (114). Today, disponuoti is generally used in this sense. Overall, CI₂₈ made extensive use of the loanwords rėdymas, parėdymas, which were later corrected. CI₂₈ also used various forms for terms corresponding to the original сделка: santaris (117), sandora (1540), santoris (1401); CI₃₃ retained only santoris. In 1933, užpardavimas (запродажа ZG) and the compound terms užpardavimo raštas, užpardavimo sutartis were used consistently. CI₂₈ used the coined term pardavimas (1680) for this purpose, but also had sukalbėtojo pardavimo raštas (1680), sutarto pardavimo aktas (774), sukalbėtojo pardavimo sutartis (1679) alongside it. Užpardavimas resembles a calque from Russian. Perhaps for this reason, at the time, Gimtojoje kalboje proposed replacing užpardavimą with sulymgimą parduoti, and užpardavimo sutartį with lygstamąją sutartį (Zimanas 1933: 36–37), but the term survived (it is found in TŽ, DŽ). The CI₂₈ term sukalbetasis pardavimas is not bad, but the same book also uses sukalbetinė sutartis (568), whereas CI₃₃ has saky­tinė sutartis. Such potential ambiguity in the component sukalbetinis is undesirable. The translation of the original term обязательство varies perhaps more than any other. CI₃₃ translates it as obligacija, whereas CI₂₈ renders it in various ways: most often prievolė¹² (187), but also apsiėmimas (1531), raštas (1521), santaris (117), sąsaja (2200 P), and sutartis (921). Where CI₃₃ uses the loanword obligacija (2050), 12 There is also a possible ambiguity. CI₂₈ uses prievolė where CI₃₃ has priedermė (in the original, повинность). Incidentally, in the corrections at the end of CI₂₈, prievolė is generally changed to sąsają. 75 debt bond (1259), Cl28 translates it respectively as loan undertaking, debt instrument. Apparently, no effort was made to translate the same term consistently; instead, the choice was adapted to the situation, especially since the Russian обязательство is also ambiguous. It is true that in both translations bond is used where the original likewise has облигация (708 P). In one instance, Cl33 terms were standardized even where they differ in the original. Cl28 had workshop (549), factory (717) (заводъ ZG), institution (621) (заведение ZG), enterprise (1738) (предприятие ZG). In all the instances listed, Cl33 uses enterprise. This change was apparently based not only on linguistic but also on legal considerations: the term was rendered uniformly, since there was no legal need to distinguish these concepts. Standardizing terminology is, of course, a good thing, but that does not mean that choosing the aforementioned terms in the 1933 translation—recording fee, ancestral property, arbitrary condition, relative—was not a step backward. The earlier translation also had better alternatives. Some inconsistencies nevertheless remained. For example, the original искъ is translated in Cl28 as claim (49), pursuit (1066), and complaint (668). In Cl33, only complaint was dropped in this sense, while claim and pursuit both remain, and even in the cited passages they are substituted for one another. Perhaps the intention was to distinguish an action from its result. Cl33 introduced the terms husband, wife, spouses (супругъ, супруга, супруги ZG), but in some places 28married person (37) and married couple (1113), carried over needlessly from Cl, still remain. In addition to these, Cl28 also uses the married party (44), married people (37), those who are married (102), and quite often husband or wife (41), husband and wife (114). In both translations, the use of the terms official and citizen varies. In some places in Cl33, official was changed to citizen (102), while elsewhere official was retained (695), possibly through oversight. It is interesting that in one article (695) common to both translations, citizen is used of people in Lithuania, whereas official refers to foreigners. Here it should be noted that the emergence of citizen is connected with the change in political order, that is, Lithuania's liberation from the Russian Empire and its becoming a republic. In Cl, the original term процентные бумаги28 was translated as interest-bearing papers (1006), interest-bearing securities (2200 P), and securities (1674). In Cl33, the term was standardized as interest-bearing securities, but the variants securities (2200 P) and securities (2200 P) remained; they are used in the sense of the original цѣнные бумаги (as was also the case in Cl28). 76 A few inconsistencies were even introduced. In the earlier translation, heir by statute (наследник по закону ZG) was changed to heir under the law (1300) and statutory heir (1302). The component shareholders’ company, shareholders’ corporation, shareholders’ insurance company was also rendered inconsistently. In C₃₃, joint-stock company (2128) and joint-stock insurance company (2200 P) appeared, but shareholders’ corporation (268) remained. The contemporaneous equivalents for prescription deserve separate discussion. The original uses the terms давность and земская давность. C₂₈ gives: acquisition by long use (560), zemstvo-based acquisition by long use (557), zemstvo-based becoming time-barred (692), zemstvo-based lapse of time (694 P), zemstvo-based prescription (1549) (the corrections at the end of C₂₈ show a preference for the unprefixed form senėjimas, although acquisition by long use is replaced by becoming time-barred). C₃₃ no longer has the components zemietybinis, žemietiškas (Russian земский means countrywide, common to the state (RLKŽ, SRJ); incidentally, in the 1920 handwritten draft of the Glossary of Legal Terms and Other Words Needed by Lawyers, земская давность is translated as “zeminis įse-nėjimas”); acquisition by long use¹³ is also absent, but variation in prefixes remains: senėjimas, įsisenėjimas, nusenėjimas (the index also includes pasenėjimas, though it was not found in the text). It is true that the presence or absence of a prefix does not always correspond across the translations (but the prefixes į-, nu- are not interchangeable). The same variation occurs in compound terms: 557, period of becoming time-barred in C₂₈ – prescription period in C₃₃; 659, period of lapse in C₂₈ – prescription period in C₃₃; 565, period of zemstvo-based acquisition by long use in C₂₈ – time limit for becoming time-barred in C₃₃. Although the terminology varies, a rationale can be discerned. At the end of independence, an attempt was made to establish this definitively by assigning distinguishing terminological meanings to the prefixes. In 1939, the State Council’s Terminology Commission proposed the term senatis (Verjährung, давность) for prescription, but retained the existing variants as well, assigning them 13 Settlement by prescription is close to the prescriptive settlement used in the PĮ manuscript (525). The following terms also occurred: prescriptive possession of management, term of prescriptive possession, prescriptive possession by landholders (557). These terms were apparently also used at the beginning of independence—in the 1924 Supreme Tribunal ruling appended alongside article 694 in C₃₃, the term is acquisitive possession. 77 special meanings: senėjimas (tečėnije davnosti, corresponds to the course of prescription in TŽ), įsisenėjimas (ewerbende Verjährung, ‘davnost’ vladeni-ja, corresponds to acquisitive prescription (приобретательная давность)) TŽ; Cl28 this meant the prescriptive acquisition of possession (later corrected to senėjimas of possession), whereas Cl33 – senėjimas of holding (557)), pasenėjimas (erlöschende Ver-jährung, Anspruchsverjährung, iškova davnost’, corresponds to limitation of actions TŽ; in the translations under discussion – nusenėjimas) (TTP 1939: 387). This confusing proposal, although it had already gained a tradition, is highly questionable. The prefix was intended to be given too much distinguishing significance, especially since both prefixed and unprefixed forms varied in usage. These terms were abandoned during the Soviet period, although exile communities still maintained them. Although senatis appears in the Lithuanian Encyclopedia, preference is nevertheless given to įsisenėji-mui. Senėjimas and pasenėjimas are also mentioned (Butkys 1956: 77–78). The understanding partly corresponds to the proposal made in 1939, but further confusion arose, since terms were also needed for what TŽ calls the limitation period for criminal prosecution, and the limitation period for enforcing a decision (and sentence), so the distinguishing function of the prefixes faded. Further attention should be drawn to the varying equivalents of the Russian original term крѣпность and the derivative крѣпностной. In present-day dictionaries, крепость is usually translated as tvirtumas, tvirtovė, and sometimes baudžiava is also added. TŽ likewise translates крепостное право as serfdom, but a different meaning was used in the Civil Laws. Крѣп-ность Cl33 is translated as tvirtybė (390), tvirtybinis raštas (188). In Cl28 this corresponds to įtvirtinimas (in some places later corrected to sutvirtinimas), sutvirtini-mo raštas (while PĮ has tvirtuma). Other places in Cl28 also contain įtvirtini-mų raštas (774), sutvirtinamasis raštas (1388). Крѣпностной актъ corresponds to įtvirtinamas (707) / įtvirtinimo (922) / sutvirtinamasai (1424) ak-tas Cl28 – tvirtybinis aktas Cl33. Indeed, Cl33 also contains įtvirtinimas (457). In Cl28 this passage has sutvirtinimas, but the original has укрѣпление. Also, valdymo įtvirtinimai Cl28 – turėjimo įtvirtinimai Cl33 (укрѣпле-ния на владѣние ZG 390). These are apparently related matters. In all these cases, the terms most likely refer to certified documents. The following terms also seem related to certification: 1030 sutvirtinamacai testamentas Cl28 – tvirtybinis testamentas Cl33 (крѣпностное завѣщаніе), 542 sutvirtina-moji byla Cl28 – tvirtybinė byla Cl33 (крѣпностное дѣло), 1683 tvirtina-mieji mokesniai Cl28 – tvirtybiniai mokesčiai Cl33 (крѣпностныя поц- 78 linų), 420 tvirtinamoji teisė Cl28 – tvirtybinė teisė Cl33 (крепостное право). The Cl33 element крепостной was regularly translated as tvirtybinis (variously in Cl28, as we have seen), but the word is absent from LKŽ. Incidentally, in RLKŽ крепость is translated not only with the aforementioned meanings of tvirtumas, tvirtovė, baudžiava, but also (3) as a sale-and-purchase deed, while the adjective крепостной (4) means sale-and-purchase-related. Since the PĮ manuscript used perkama tvirtuma, perkamoji tvirtuma, corresponding in the published translations to pirkimo aktas (399), perkamasis aktas (593), or perkamasis įtvirtinimas Cl28 – perkamoji tvirtybė Cl33 (707), this translation is appropriate, but considering the other terms cited, it apparently does not cover the full range of meaning. This is also supported by the fact that закладная крепость was translated at 542 as užst atomasis raštas Cl28 – įkeitamasis raštas Cl33. A mortgage is not a sale and purchase. Thus, there is reason to argue that RLKŽ lacks a meaning: крепость, крепостной should apparently also be associated with certified, relating to certification, and, if we take the word from Cl33, also with tvirtybinis. One etymological dictionary of Russian also states that крепость means “oath, confirmation” (KESRJ: 220). There is also a slight possibility that in some cases the original referred to serfdom, but that the translation was standardized; this is unlikely, however. The terminology of both translations has quite a few differences compared with that of today. In terms of linguistic correctness, the translations are roughly on a par. However, the 1933 book stands out for its consistent use of terminology. The 1928 Civil Laws also contained some translation errors or inaccuracies. These were eliminated in the later translation. For example, hiring contract was changed to leasing contract (1700; cf. договор найма ZG, which here refers to the leasing of objects; although in spoken language, especially in dialects, hiring is sometimes used in this sense, the standard language favors leasing), the right of special participation was changed to the right of private participation (441; cf. право участия частного ZG). The Russian награда Cl28 was translated as gift (539), but here it refers to a reward for finding an object, so Cl33 replaced it with the more suitable Lithuanian term finder’s fee. In a couple of cases, Cl28 also translated the wrong sense of the term. Instead of поклажа, Cl28 uses cargo (2100). The Russian term means “load, freight,” but a different sense was needed here: safekeeping, “temporary custody of an object” (as in Cl33). Оборок Cl28 was translated as tribute (620). This translation is possible: tribute would mean “tribute, tax” 79 (this sense is found in LKŽ), but it is not appropriate here. Although RLKŽ gives ob-pok no other meaning, оборотное имение is translated as leased estate. Thus CI33 gives a more appropriate translation: rent, оборочная ста́тьи – income-yielding real property (CI33 had sources of income (1503), income-yielding things (1699)). The emergence of the term accessories (CI33, 390, принадлежности ZG) is noteworthy. In CI28, instead of this term, properties was used (later corrected to things); even more unusually, the PĮ manuscript has no term at all, expressing the idea through the syntactic construction “genitive + belongs.” What CI33 calls accessories of immovable property, PĮ calls belongs to immovable property. Such a construction is generally common in PĮ for expressing possession, e.g., “movable property that belongs to them” in CI28, CI33 406, while PĮ has “their movable property that belongs to them.” 5. Conclusions 1. The translator of the Civil Laws published by the Ministry of Justice around 1928 was most likely K. Šalkauskis. Although the new translation of this code, which appeared in 1933 and names K. Šalkauskis as its author, contains some terminological differences, the language, compared with the earlier translation, has essentially not changed, and many articles coincide verbatim. Thus, either there was one author, or the second translation is not an original work. 2. More than 350 differences in legal terminology were found in the 1928 and 1933 Lithuanian translations of the Civil Laws, mostly involving one- and two-word terms. Single-word terms and the principal components of two-word terms were most often substantially changed, replaced by terms with a different root. The dependent components of two-word terms were changed nearly twice as often as the principal components. This may have been due to the greater expressive possibilities of the dependent component. 3. It is difficult to say which translation is more correct and precise from a terminological point of view. No obvious difference is apparent, and both translations can be faulted with regard to certain terms. It is evident that the 1933 translation is somewhat more modern, contains fewer errors, and is better edited; some terms have been improved, although there has also been terminological regression. Only one conclusion can be stated with greater confidence: in the newer translation, terms have been made more uniform, that is, the number of different translations of the same term has been considerably reduced. 80 4. Both translations of the code, especially the later one, undoubtedly had a considerable impact on the development of Lithuanian civil-law terminology. Since there was no official translation, legal theorists and practitioners relied on them. The official text, of course, was in Russian. LITERATURE AND SOURCES14 ALTŽ: O. Armaly­tė, L. Pažusis. Anglų–lietuvių kalbų teisės žodynas, Vilnius, 1998. Budrevičius K. 1929: Policijos bibliografija. – Policija 8, 143–144. Butkys Č. 1956: Įsisenėjimas. – Lietuvių enciklopedija 9, South Boston. CĮ₁: Civil Laws: Collection of Laws, vol. X, part 1: Translation. CĮ₃₀: Законы гражданские: (св. зак. т. X, ч. 1): съ позднѣйшими узаконениями по официальному изданію 1914 г. и съ объяснениями по рѣшеніямъ граждан. кас. деп. Правительствующаго Сената по 1915 годъ включительно. Составилъ Л. М. Ротенбергъ / Civiliniai įstatymai (X t. 1 d.) su pakeitimais, papildymais ir paaiškinimais ir su Žem. Ref. Įstatymu. Papildymus sutvarkė L. Veržbavičius. Kaunas, 1930. CĮ₃₃: K. Šalkauskis. Civiliniai įstatymai: X tomo 1 dalis, Kaunas, 1933. CK 2000: Lietuvos Respublikos civilinis kodeksas. – Lietuvos Respublikos pagrindiniai įstatymai, Vilnius, 25–303. Dakutis T. 1939: Lietuviškosios teisės kelias. – Vairas 9, 171–173. Dargis L. 1938: Prekybinė korespondencija: vadovėlis mokyklai ir gyvenimui, Kaunas. DŽ: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Vyr. red. S. Keinys, Vilnius, 2000. G. R. 1933: K. Šalkauskis, V. D. U-to docentas, Civiliniai įstatymai; X t. I dalis [Anotacija]. – Teisė 23, 222. GK₄₁: Гражданский кодекс: с изменениями на 15 ноября 1940 г.: официальный текст с приложением постатейно-систематизированных материалов, Москва, 1941. JS: Юридический словарь. Глав. ред. С. Н. Братусь и др., Москва, 1953. KESRJ: Н. М. Шанский, В. В. Иванов, Т. В. Шанская. Краткий этимологический словарь русского языка, Москва, 1971. Kniūkšta P. 2000: Iš priesagos -inis būdvardžių praeities ir dabarties. – Kalbos kultūra 73, 35–47. LKŽ: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–20, Vilnius, 1941–2002. LTAŽ: A. Garalis. Logistikos terminų aiškinamasis žodynas, Šiauliai, 2003. Mačys V. 1924: Civilinio proceso paskaitos, Kaunas. 14 In titles, the original spelling and abbreviations are retained. 81 NJS: B. Г. Гавриленко и др. Национальный юридический словарь, Минск, 2000. PĮ: Pilietiniai įstatymai: Antroji knyga. – MABRS, f. 281, saug. vien. 59. Piročkinas A. 1986: Jono Jablonskio kalbos taisymai, Kaunas. Puzinas J. 1963: Kazys Šalkauskis. – Lietuvių enciklopedija 29, South Boston. RLKŽ: Rusų-lietuvių kalbų žodynas 1–4. Sudarė Ch. Lemchenas ir kt., Vilnius, 1982–1985. Sąmajauskas K. 1934: Lietuviškasis teismas. – Teisė 25, 25–35. SRJ: Словарь русского языка 1–4. Глав. ред. А. П. Евгеньева, Москва, 1981–1988. Stravinskas P. 1958: Kaip mes ruošėme Lietuvos civilinį kodeksą. – Teisininkų žinios 25–26, 15–16. Sugintas A. 1958: Šis tas iš darbuotės teismo srity. – Teisininkų žinios 23–24, 27–28. TTP 1939, 1940: P. Stravinskas. Teisinės terminijos projektas. – Teisė 48, 385–387; 49, 475–480; 50, 73–74; 51, 184–185. TŽ: Teisinių terminų žodynas. Sud. A. Žiurlys, Vilnius, 1954. Umbrasas A. 2002: Lietuvos Respublikoje (1918–1940) vikusių Baudžiamojo statuto vertimų teisės terminijos skirtybės. – Terminologija 9, 78–94. Urnežiūtė R. 2000: Seminaras Lietuvos banke. – Gimtoji kalba 2, 5–7. ZG: Законы гражданские: (сводъ законовъ, т. X, ч. I, изд. 1914 г., по Прод. 1914 г.): со включением узаконений послѣдовавшихъ въ порядкѣ 87 ст. осн. зак. и разъясненій Правительствующаго Сената с 1866 г. по 1 октября 1915 г. Составилъ В. В. Исаченко, Петроградъ, 1916. Zimanas G. 1933: Keletas pasiūlymų teisininkams jų terminologijos reikalų. – Gimtoji kalba 3, 35–38. CHANGES IN THE TERMINOLOGY OF LAW IN THE TRANSLATIONS OF THE CIVIL CODE THAT FUNCTIONED IN THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA IN 1918–1940 Summary In 1918 when independence of Lithuania was restored the laws of the Russian empire were kept. The first part of Volume 10 of the Collection of Russian Laws (Сводъ законовъ Россійской имперіи) (the last official edition of 1914) became the Civil Code of Lithuania. This article deals with differences in the terminology of law in translations of this Code into Lithuanian. Some data about the manuscript translation of one of the four books of the first part of Volume 10, which was found in the Manuscript department of the Library of the Academy of Sciences of Lithuania, is presented. Terms of translations of Civiliniai įstatymai (Civil laws), published in 1928 and 1933 are analysed more exhaustively. The translator of the first edition is not indicated and the translator of the second is K. Šalkauskis. In the translation from 1933 there are some differences in terminology in comparison with the earlier translation, but the language in principle is the same, many paragraphs correspond 82 word for word. Therefore it is concluded that either the translator was the same or the second translation was not original. In the translations of Civiliniai įstatymai of 1928 and 1933 there are about 350 differences of terminology of law. Terms are divided into groups according to the number of components and within these groups – according to their expression. Attention is drawn to more interesting changes in terminology, for instance, the development of terms įkeitimas (mortgaging) and senatis (prescription). It is difficult to judge which of those two translations is more correct and precise from the terminological point of view. There is no obvious difference and both translations have some shortcomings. It seems that the translation from 1933 is more contemporary, there are fewer mistakes, the text is better edited, some terms are improved, but also there is some terminological regress. One thing is clear – terms in the newer version of translation are more uniform, i.e. there are fewer different translations of the same term. The present terminology of law has changed, but both translations of the Code, especially the later, undoubtedly, had an influence on the development of Lithuanian civil law terminology. Alvydas UMBRASAS Received 2003-09-15 Institute of the Lithuanian Language 5 P. Vileišio St., LT-2055 Vilnius Email: [email protected] 83