J. Kruopas ir lietuvių terminologija

TERMINOLOGY AND THE PRESENT Stasys KEINYS Institute of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius J. KRUOPAS AND LITHUANIAN TERMINOLOGY Beveik ketvirtis šimtmečio prabėgo po Jono Kruopo (1908–1975) mirties, bet jo darbų reikšmė bei veiklos svarba, rodos, nė kiek nenublanko. Dabar, kaip ir anuomet, kai J. Kruopas tebebarė į priekį savo paties pasirinktą ar kitų paskirtas kalbotyros vagas, galima neabejojant teigti, kad jis priklauso prie pačių žymiųjų lietuvių kalbininkų. Vidurinė ir jaunoji lituanistų karta nejuto šio šviesaus stotingo žmogaus kaip pedagogo, mokslo darbų vadovo išminties ir šilumos, tačiau ji išaugo iš tos dirvos, kurioje arė, akėjo ir sėjo J. Balčikonis, J. Kruopas ir kiti senieji bei senesnieji kalbininkai. J. Kruopas buvo ir visuomet liks pobūginės ir pajablonskinės kalbininkų kartos atstovas, kuriam kartu su J. Balčikoniu ir nedideliu būreliu mokslo draugų, Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto auklėtinių, sudėtingais pokario laikais teko pareiga ir atsakomybė ugdyti gimtąją kalbą ir jos tyrinėtojus, tvarkyti kalbos tiriamuosius darbus ir pačiam našiai į juos įsitraukti, pagaliau rengti tautos gyvybei būtinus lietuvių kalbos ir literatūros mokytojus. Visus šiuos darbus J. Kruopas dirbo rimtai, atsidėjęs ir dorai. Į lietuvių mokslo istoriją jis įėjo kaip žymus senųjų raštų kalbos bei žodynų istorijos tyrinėtojas, kaip iškilus žodynininkas, kaip nuotokus bendrinės kalbos teikybininkas. Aiškios jo pėdos ir lietuvių terminologijos baruose. The theme of terminology had already emerged in J. Kruopas’s first article, “Language Development and Our Society,” published in 1935 in Gimtoji kalba. Writing about language creation, J. Kruopas mentions, alongside writers (who at the time claimed almost exclusive status as creators of language), “one or another” terminologist in their own field (P. Avižonis, E. Draugelis, K. Grinius, St. Šalkauskis, J. Vidmantas) or collector (J. Elisona)1. This theme 1 Žr. Kruopas J. Kalbos ugdymas ir mūsų visuomenė // Gimtoji kalba. 1935. Nr. 7. P. 98. 7 did not fall silent throughout the four decades during which J. Kruopas wrote and published his scholarly works. However, it grew particularly strong from 1951, when J. Kruopas was appointed chair of the Terminology Commission of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language (from 1952, the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature). He held this public office until 1972, when the Terminology Council under the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences was established in place of the commission; J. Kruopas was also deputy chair of this council until his death. Thus, for about twenty-five years J. Kruopas guided the terminological work carried out in Lithuania and worked on it himself. Throughout this period he was at the very heart of the organizational work in terminology—he urged specialists in various fields, especially scholars at the institutes of the Academy of Sciences, to standardize the terminology of their fields and prepare terminological dictionaries or bulletins; he also worked to ensure that terminology work was included in the plans of all research institutions and higher education establishments and carried out consistently. Wanting terminology work in Lithuania to proceed more productively and purposefully, J. Kruopas wrote in 1953: “So far, our republic has no body to coordinate and direct all terminology work. Clearly, these functions cannot be performed by a three-person terminology commission based at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature, which reviews, from a linguistic standpoint, terms submitted by individual institutes of the Academy of Sciences and provides oral and written consultations to various institutions, enterprises, and organizations. The commission’s composition, purpose, and authority do not enable it to organize and develop terminology work on a republican scale. For this purpose, following the example of other Soviet republics, a republican central terminology commission should be established. It could require individual research institutions, enterprises, and organizations to contribute to the standardization of terminology in their respective fields; coordinate terminology work carried out by individual research institutions, institutes, publishing houses, and others; and make the terms it adopts binding on everyone,” adding that subject-specific terminology commissions subordinate to the central terminology commission should operate in the institutes of the Academy of Sciences or in higher education establishments2. Although the ideas expressed here 2 Kruopas J. Dėl terminologijos darbo išvystymo ir pagerinimo // „Tiesa“. 1953, sausio 11. 8 about organizing terminology work were not implemented, terminology work itself nevertheless gained noticeable momentum from the early 1950s. A large number of terminological dictionaries in various fields were compiled and published, and active field-specific terminology commissions were revived or formed; some of them, such as those in botany and physics, have been working productively for decades. The Terminology Commission chaired by J. Kruopas reviewed A. Žiurlys’s Dictionary of Legal Terms (1954), the first booklet of Library and Bibliographic Terminology compiled by I. Kisinas (1956), V. Gudelis’s Dictionary of Geological and Physical Geography Terms (1956), the Dictionary of Physics Terms edited by P. Brazdžiūnas (1958), the Dictionary of Sports Terms prepared by a team of specialists from the Institute of Physical Culture (1959), J. Čeičys’s Dictionary of Land Reclamation Terms (1960), K. Daukšas’s Chemistry Dictionary (1960), the first part of A. Jurevičius and A. Čižas’s Explanatory Dictionary of Textile Terms (1962), the Dictionary of Botanical Terms prepared by a team led by J. Dagys (1965), the Russian–Lithuanian Dictionary of Economic Terms compiled by economists under the leadership of K. Meškauskas (1966), B. Augustinas, P. Danisevičius, and K. Miecevičius’s Short Handbook for Criminalists (1970), and the Russian–Lithuanian–English Dictionary of Computing Terms by V. Kairys, A. Kaminskas, Z. Kudirka, R. Kundrotienė, M. Lipšicas, A. Mačernius, J. Norkus, J. Riaubūnas, J. Stanatys, B. Stulpinas, and A. Šliavas (1971). In the prefaces to almost all these dictionaries, their authors or compilers sincerely thanked, among others, J. Kruopas for his consultations, advice, or participation in discussions of terms. J. Kruopas also assisted in preparing S. Gecevičiūtė’s Explanations of Zoological Terms (1974), M. Mikalajūnas’s Russian–Lithuanian Dictionary of Meteorological Terms (1975), the Dictionary of Medical Terms by V. Astrauskas, S. Bizulevičius, S. Pavilionis, A. Vaitilavičius, and A. Vileišis (1980); he helped the terminology commission of the Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Energy and Electrical Engineering, which published a series of technical terminology bulletins in the 1960s, and supported other efforts to standardize terminology. With his enthusiasm, high spirits, vitality, sociability, cheerfulness, and contagious laughter, J. Kruopas drew people to him. Specialists from various fields often visited him or called him on the telephone, 9 seeking advice or even a decisive word on terms in use or missing terms. Nowadays, it would be hard to determine who J. Kruopas proposed how many and what terms himself, but he must have approved most of the terms included in the dictionaries of terminology, bulletins, and textbooks, monographs, and other publications in various fields that were considered by the Terminology Commission he chaired, and whose authors—scholars or publishing-house editors—turned to him while preparing them. More than a few of those scholars also became seriously involved in terminology work. Physicist P. Brazdžiūnas, botanist J. Dagys, geographer V. Gudelis, and others accomplished major work in terminology. Knowing that, for the use of the standard language, it is very important to present the most significant terms from various fields appropriately in general language dictionaries, J. Kruopas enlisted a group of distinguished specialists to help prepare the principal work of standard-language lexical codification, the *Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language*, its first edition (1954). The dictionary acknowledges physicist P. Brazdžiūnas, jurist J. Bulavas, physician S. Biziulevičius, chemist K. Daukšas, historian J. Jurginis, lexicographer Ch. Lemchenas, Colonel V. Lunys, biologist J. Maciukas, engineer A. Novodvorski, astronomer P. Slavėnas, physician J. Vaitilavičius, mathematician G. Žilinskas, jurist A. Žiurlys, and others. Thus, through J. Kruopas’s efforts, relations between linguists and specialists from other fields—important and beneficial to both sides—became established. Incidentally, the greatest benefit of this harmonious collaboration was to the Lithuanian language itself. J. Kruopas was a capable person, a good and creative organizer of work, able to draw people into their tasks and inspire them. He consistently supported the work of field-specific terminology commissions and, as far as he could, took part in their meetings; he organized national terminology conferences and sought to get terminology work under way and formally established in all research institutions. He repeatedly explained that terminology work in every research institution should be considered an integral part of scientific work, and that staff and other resources needed for the task must be allocated. This view seems entirely correct. After all, terminology is essential to scientific work, and it must be created and managed on a scientific basis. People determine whether work succeeds. However, any task requires a certain degree of preparation. It is impossible to manage terminology without 10 knowing the subject and having sufficient linguistic education and insight. The essence of terminology work is the codification of the language of a particular field. Thus, the terms of any field can be properly developed only by excellent, broadly educated specialists in that field, with wide-ranging knowledge, working together with appropriately trained linguists. They must work together because specialists in a field generally lack the linguistic education essential to this work, as well as, ultimately, experience in it, while linguists lack knowledge of specialized fields. Only over an extended period of collaborative work do both sides become considerably more proficient. In this respect, J. Kruopas adhered to a view that had become widespread in earlier times but remains alive even today: specialists in the relevant scientific fields should serve on terminology commissions, while linguists should “contribute linguistic advice”3. Yet without understanding the work, and relying on advice alone, one cannot build a house or an extension to it. Moreover, knowledge of just one science is not enough. Language creation, like any other kind of creation, also requires talent and a good feel for language. Not every good linguist can coin a good and appropriate term, or even an ordinary word. On the other hand, the largest and most natural part of the language’s vocabulary was formed not by linguists, other specialists, or writers, but seemingly on its own by ordinary people who felt their native language to its depths. Thus, it is clear that those who merely demand that linguists provide them with terms, which they can then use, are also wrong. Society creates language. It also refines, specifies, and gradually changes the means of linguistic expression. But it should not be forgotten that standard languages are created, developed, and regulated largely through conscious effort. Hence, the ability to manage and carry out work on language, including terminology, is essential here. J. Kruopas was committed to training professional linguists specializing in terminology. In addition to experienced linguists and members of the institute’s Terminology Commission, N. Grigas and A. Kučinskaitė, young people who worked on terminology under his direction for varying lengths of time included A. Balašaitis, V. Bartusevičius, V. Labutis, T. Valiuvienė, and others. K. Gaivenis devoted his entire life to this never-ending work on terminology, as did Ang. Kaulakienė and J. Klimavičius, who later followed in his footsteps. The author of these lines, too, had only just graduated from Vilnius University when J. Kruopas 3 Ibid. 11 had taken me to work on terminology at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature. This proved decisive, because several years later, when I entered the doctoral program at Vilnius University, my unforgettable supervisor V. Urbutis suggested a dissertation topic on word formation in terminology; and, more than a decade later, after J. Kruopas invited me again, I had to return for a long period to the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature to work on lexicography and terminology, and after J. Kruopas’s death to continue some of his work. At the time, the Institute already had a Terminology Group, established in 1972 through J. Kruopas’s efforts. All three of the dedicated colleagues mentioned above worked in it, under the leadership of K. Gaivenis and J. Kruopas, head of the Dictionary Department. Under his supervision, A. Balašaitis (“History of Lithuanian Linguistic Terms,” 1961) and K. Gaivenis (“Compound Terms in Contemporary Lithuanian,” 1969) wrote and defended candidate-of-philological-sciences dissertations on terminology, while J. Klimavičius completed postgraduate studies. Topics for future dissertations on terminology were being assembled. It should not be overlooked that J. Kruopas was deeply concerned that not only practical terminology work be done, but also research in this field be carried out. He urged younger researchers to investigate current issues and write articles, suggested topics, readily offered advice, and sometimes came to help himself as a co-author. All Lithuanian terminologists of the older and middle generations experienced his professional and personal support. In fact, not only terminologists, but probably many scholars and students who encountered J. Kruopas in the course of their lives, and especially those who had dealings with him. As terminology research expanded and the researchers themselves grew in number and maturity, publications devoted to terminology began to be prepared. In the early 1970s, almost year after year, the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature published *Instructions for Compiling a Terminology Dictionary Index* (1972), an issue of *Language Culture* devoted to terminology (issue 25. Vilnius, 1973), and a volume of *Questions of Lithuanian Linguistics* (vol. 16: *Lithuanian Terminology*. Vilnius, 1975). A methodological booklet prepared by the Terminology Committee on Science and Technology of the USSR Academy of Sciences, *Terminological Work*, was translated from Russian and published (translated by A. Kaulakienė. Vilnius, 1973). 12 J. Kruopas addressed matters of terminology continually, one might say, and often developed them further in his own scholarly articles and in short pieces published in the general press (newspapers and journals). As mentioned, he referred to several terminology workers in his first article, “Language Development and Our Society,” published before the war in *Gimtoji kalba*. Soon after the Second World War, in a study written to mark the 400th anniversary of the first printed Lithuanian book, “Slavic Loanwords in the Language of M. Mažvydas’s Writings,” he also touched briefly on matters of terminology. Having noted that Mažvydas, Vilentas, Bretkūnas, and the other earliest creators of Lithuanian writing “had to break new, difficult paths in creating and shaping the Lithuanian written language,” J. Kruopas went on to list the “difficult problems” that could and must have arisen for them. The first of these problems was “the formation of terminology for the new religion, Christianity, and for abstract concepts in general”⁴. He then looked at the sources of religious terms: some had been borrowed from other languages (bažnyčia [church], kryžius [cross], altorius [altar], etc.), while others had been taken over from paganism with new meanings (dievas [god], šventas [holy], dangus [heaven], etc.). He also expressed the truly interesting thought that “the question may be raised as to the consequences in the Lithuanian language of the collision of two cults, the disappearance of paganism, and the establishment of Christianity”⁵. The question of the formation of Christian and, more broadly, Lithuanian terminology was also touched on in an article about variants in M. Daukša’s catechism⁶ and in J. Kruopas’s largest work, “The Lexicon of Merkelis Petkevičius’s 1598 Catechism”— 4 K r u o p a s J. Slavic Loanwords in the Language of M. Mažvydas’s Writings // The Old Lithuanian Book. K., 1947. P. 220. The same idea was repeated in a study article published a dozen or so years later, “Lexical Parallelisms in the Language of Daukša’s Catechism (1595)” (see Questions in Lithuanian Linguistics. V., 1960. Vol. 3. P. 223), so J. Kruopas was evidently firmly convinced of it. However, it is hard to believe that Christianity could have existed in Lithuanian lands for a century and a half, or even two hundred years, without Lithuanian terms (for more, see the author’s article “An Overview of the Creation of Lithuanian Terminology (up to 1940)” // Linguistics. V., 1967. Vol. 18. P. 6–7). 5 Ibid. P. 253. 6 See K r u o p a s J. Lexical Parallelisms in the Language of Daukša’s Catechism (1595). P. 243, 245, 254. 13 je”7. Thus J. Kruopas assessed the role of all three Lithuanian catechisms published in the sixteenth century in the history of Lithuanian terminology. J. Kruopas published a cluster of articles on the lexicographical work of nineteenth-century cultural figures. These articles examine dictionaries and a number of other works compiled by M. Akelaitis (1829–1887), S. Daukantas (1793–1864), L. Ivinskis (1810–1881), A. Kašarauskas (1821–1882), J. Miliauskas (Miglovara, 1845–1937), D. Sutkevičius (1782–1849), and others. An article in this group on K. Drąsutavičius’s (Drąsutis’s, c. 1850–c. 1905) glossaries and lists of terms was destined to conclude J. Kruopas’s list of publications. The linguist did not live to see it in print: the sixteenth volume of *Questions in Lithuanian Linguistics* (*Lithuanian Terminology*) appeared a couple of months after the death of J. Kruopas, the book’s originator and responsible editor. In some of the articles discussed, terms found in those dictionaries and other works are examined in places, or at least mentioned. For example, the article “M. Akelaitis the Lexicographer” states that this man’s “lexicographical activity was expressed not only in efforts to compile a comparative dictionary and two bilingual dictionaries, but also in the collection of various terminological material and the creation of new terms, the insertion of Lithuanian terms into the Polish text of a Lithuanian grammar, explanations of words, and other minor notes”8. The same article discusses a 20-page handwritten index copied out by J. A. Pabrėža, but rendered in an Aukštaitian form: “Rodykle wardų sawiszkųjų, kaip kores augimes wadina Žemajti˛ai” [An index of proper names for what the Samogitians call the growth of herbs], which lists 580 Lithuanian plant names with their Latin equivalents. It also includes linguistic terms used by M. Akelaitis and quotes his note on the term *žodynas* [dictionary]: “I call it ‘Žodinas,’ not ‘Žodinis,’ as Walleniawicze [Valiūnas] and Ivinskis want; for we say—karklis, karklinas, puszis, puszinas: therefore, ‘word’ is žodis—žodinas”9. In- 7 See K r u o p a s J. The Lexicon of Merkelis Petkevičius’s 1598 Catechism // Questions in Lithuanian Linguistics. Vol. 12: From Lithuanian Lexicology and Lexicography. V., 1970. P. 144 ff. 8 K r u o p a s J. M. Akelaitis the Lexicographer // Questions in Lithuanian Linguistics. Vol. 12: From Lithuanian Lexicology and Lexicography. V., 1970. P. 172. 9 Ibid. P. 173. 14 Also mentioned is M. Akelaitis’s little work “Apej garus,” in which more than a hundred names for locomotive parts were found, mostly, in J. Kruopas’s words, adapted from folk speech; M. Akelaitis himself is considered the founder of Lithuanian technical terminology10. By the way, together with L. Gastila and A. Žitkutė, J. Kruopas also published a separate article about this little work, “A Pioneer of Technical Literature and Terminology,” in the journal “Mokslas ir technika” (1969, No. 11). J. Kruopas presented overviews of general matters concerning the development and state of Lithuanian terminology, as well as work completed and under way, at scholarly conferences and meetings. He also had occasion to take part in and speak at the then-famous all-Union meeting convened in Moscow in 1959 by the Institute of Linguistics of the USSR Academy of Sciences, on questions of terminology development and the improvement of spelling and alphabets. In the opening address to that meeting, the most influential Russian linguist of the time, V. Vinogradov, among other things, put forward the principle of minimizing differences between international terminology in the common languages of the peoples of the USSR and newly created terms based on Russian borrowings—a principle subsequently discussed on many occasions (it was also included in the recommendations adopted in the name of the meeting)11. A. Balašaitis, J. Kruopas, and Ch. Lemchenas spoke at the meeting about matters concerning Lithuanian terminology. They did not address V. Vinogradov’s principle. Having surveyed the terminological work being carried out in Lithuania and mentioned the role of the Terminology Commission of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature, as well as the instructions it had prepared for collecting, cataloguing, and explaining terms, J. Kruopas touched on the question of terminology sources. On this occasion, he noted that Lithuanian has many parallel international and Lithuanian terms, and that the position was to retain this kind of synonymy12. Like any other position, this one can be assessed in different, even opposite, ways (both favorably and unfavorably); nevertheless, it seems obvious that it expressed a clear-headed view of the foundations and state of terminology, reflecting a moderate policy on terminology and language planning in general. In that 10 Ibid. P. 173 and 162. 11 See Вопросы терминологии (Материалы Всесоюзного терминологического совещания). Москва, 1961. С. 10, 227. 12 Ibid. P. 212. 15 But this may have been a response to ardent advocates of internationalizing terminology; and who knows, perhaps also an attempt to soften the consequences of the future application of the “principle of minimal differences,” just announced and enthusiastically endorsed by more than one person. J. Kruopas’s view remains important today as well, since those who internationalize the languages of specialized fields and align them with other languages (only those on the other side of the world) are no fewer in number. The state of Lithuanian terminology, the gaps and difficulties in this work, and the types of published terminological dictionaries were discussed in a joint paper by J. Kruopas and K. Gaivenis, “Terminology Work and the Compilation of Terminological Dictionaries in the Lithuanian SSR,” delivered at the inter-republican meeting of Baltic terminologists held in Riga in 1969. Among other things, it was emphasized that the main source for creating and supplementing Lithuanian terminology is folk speech, dialects, the Lithuanian lexicon in general, and word formation13. The same linguists also surveyed the state and prospects of terminology work in a paper delivered at the 1972 republican terminology meeting organized by the Terminology Council under the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences and the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature. From the beginning of the 1950s, J. Kruopas published several articles and shorter pieces in journals, newspapers, and language-culture publications, discussing individual terms or groups of terms. These include his publications “How to Translate восприятие into Lithuanian?” (“Tarybinė mokykla,” 1952, No. 1), “Is a Hectare Not an Area?” (“Žemės ūkis,” 1966, No. 5), “On the Use of the Word ‘Reisas’” (“Žemės ūkis,” 1966, No. 6), “On the Names of Certain Metals” (“Mokslas ir technika,” 1971, No. 5), “Let Us Not Stuff Unnecessary Words into the Language” (“Mokslas ir gyvenimas,” 1973, No. 7), “On Differentiating Abstract Adjectives with the Suffix -umas and the Endings -is, -a in Terminology,” written with Ang. Kaulakienė (“Kalbos kultūra,” 1971, issue 21), and others. Some of his articles of this kind contain unfounded assertions; at times, being tolerant, he did not regard as errors what others generally regarded as such 13 Kruopas I. R., Gaivenis K. B. Terminological work and the preparation of terminological dictionaries in the Lithuanian SSR // Issues in the Development of Scientific and Technical Terminology. Riga, 1973. pp. 24, 27. 16 matters that were corrected fairly consistently. A few more inaccuracies, at times even distortions, can be found in J. Kruopas’s polemical articles. For example, in the article “Reality and... Haunting Phantoms” (“Tėvynės balsas,” 1965, No. 22), while disputing the not entirely accurate statements made by A. Salys about the state of Lithuanian terminology in the “Terminologija” article in the “Lietuvių enciklopedija,” he came close to denying outright the obvious influence of Russian on Lithuanian terminology. Incidentally, J. Kruopas himself had repeatedly emphasized that influence in his articles on other occasions14. In general, J. Kruopas never let any important or significant publication or event concerning language practice and terminology pass unnoticed. He must have viewed favorably the “Botanikos terminų žodynas,” published in 1965, devoting a whole two articles to it—the only terminology dictionary to receive such attention: “A Significant Contribution by Botanists to Terminology” (“Tiesa,” March 23, 1966) and “Botanikos terminų žodynas” (“Žemės ūkis,” 1966, No. 5). Concerns about terminology, one might say, never left J. Kruopas. Whether reviewing a book, presenting a new volume of the “Lietuvių kalbos žodynas” to the public, or examining matters of contemporary language or its history, he would at least briefly mention how those publications or subjects mattered and were useful to Lithuanian terminology. Thus, reviewing Volume II of the “Lietuvių kalbos žodynas” in 1948, J. Kruopas wrote: “Creators and editors of the terminologies of individual specialties will in no way be able to do without a dictionary. They will be able to take many terms from it without changing a thing; some terms they will readily be able to form themselves, either by narrowing or broadening the meanings of words, or by transferring words whose meanings are closest to the concepts that need to be defined,” 14 The author of these lines was also misunderstood, and apparently for that reason was reprimanded by J. Kruopas in the article “International Words in the Formation of Compound Terms” (“Tiesa,” September 9, 1967). On the other hand, a year later, a joint review by J. Kruopas and K. Gaivenis rated very favorably the candidate-of-sciences dissertation defended by that author, describing it as “the first substantial scholarly work on contemporary Lithuanian terminology.” The review also voiced doubts about “the derivational interpretation of some compound terms of the ‘international element + Lithuanian word’ structural type,” but called this a minor matter. And so the dispute ended there. 17 meaning and thereby adapting the dictionary material to their own field. The management and creation of specialized terminology is one of the most pressing tasks of language culture, and cannot be set aside. For this purpose, the dictionary is the main source. Everyone can select from it what is best and most acceptable. If one searches diligently, there will be little reason to complain about a shortage of words for expressing abstract concepts. Such words can also be found, or easily fashioned from the material provided. Here are a few native, familiar words taken from the dictionary that might serve as terms for particular purposes, for example: nespėga (from nespėti, ‘to be unable in time’)—lack of time, “zeitnot”; palydija—“retinue”; kloja—the time when flax is laid out to dry; slinkis—“sandwich”; maigūnas—“bed”; deglas—torch; esnos—gums; įdaras—minced meat, etc.15. He especially valued the “Lietuvių kalbos žodynas” and continually presented it as an inexhaustible and foremost storehouse of Lithuanian terms. On the other hand, J. Kruopas favored including terminology in the standardizing dictionary of the standard language in moderation16. J. Kruopas accomplished a great deal in both general and specialized (subject-field) lexicography. He had accumulated vast experience in this area and remained creative throughout. Under his guidance and direction, Lithuanian lexicography and terminography grew considerably and matured. In the twilight of his life, he set new, ambitious tasks for the preparation of terminology dictionaries, writing: “Until now, our work on organizing terminology has consisted mainly of inventorying terms and preparing and publishing bilingual terminology dictionaries for individual branches. However, most of the dictionaries published are small in scope; they do not explain the terms, and some lack the necessary indexes, among other shortcomings. We are now faced with the task of moving from the inventory of terms to the creation of terminology systems and the formulation of term definitions, by preparing extensive, systematic explanatory terminology dictionaries”17. As an article author and consulting editor, J. Kruopas contributed to the “Mažo- 15 Kruopas J. Lietuvių kalbos žodynas // „Tarybinė mokykla“. 1948. Nr. 12. P. 45. 16 See Kruopas J. What Should a Dictionary of the Literary Language Be Like? // “Literatūra ir menas.” 1968, October 19. 17 Kruopas J. Daugiau dėmesio terminologijai // „Tiesa“. 1972, balandžio 20. 18 sios lietuviškosios tarybinės enciklopedijos“ (1966–1971) rengimo, talkino „Lietuviškosios tarybinės enciklopedijos“ (1976–1985) rengimo pradiniame tarpsnyje. Būdamas gyvo būdo ir veiklus žmogus, jis gebėjo suspėti turbūt visur, kur kildavo terminologijos klausimų ir kur reikėjo jo paramos ir svaraus žodžio. * * * J. Kruopas’s work in the field of terminology was broad and multifaceted, keen and wise. Drawing on the traditions of work in this field in interwar Lithuania (incidentally, the works of J. Jablonskis prepared by J. Balčikonis, the complete set of “Gimtoji kalba” from that period, many other important publications, and the issues of the “Logos” journal from the 1920s and 1930s, which published St. Šalkauskis’s works on terminology, were always in J. Kruopas’s office at the institute, where young terminologists could study them at any time), and working hand in hand with specialists from various fields, scientists, and technical workers trained in those years and from the younger generation, J. Kruopas made a substantial contribution to ensuring that terminology work was carried out fruitfully and developed in the right direction during the difficult postwar years and later. The value of this work is considerable, and the contribution of J. Kruopas and his colleagues to the development of our terminology is still felt today. It can confidently be said that this bright, modest, highly cultured man, a distinguished historian of the Lithuanian language and lexicographer, was the leading authority on Lithuanian terminology in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. In the aforementioned article “Language Development and Our Society,” the young J. Kruopas wrote: “We need to understand that language is the bond of a nation, the expression of its soul, and its greatest cultural and social value, without which social progress is impossible. We must realize how important it is for language to be pure, beautiful, and perfect, and that we must all contribute to its development, because language comes into being and grows only in society”18. Through his work and activity, he too 18 K r u o p a s J. Language Development and Our Society // Gimtoji kalba. 1935. No. 7. P. 99. 19 He himself contributed considerably to the cultivation and development of the standard language, and drew others into this work. In this way, J. Kruopas erected an eternal monument, truly “stronger than bronze,” and will remain in the nation’s memory. Received 1998 07 14 20