A DICTIONARY OF HUNTING TERMS

Polish and Lithuanian hunting terminology sheds considerable light on ancient times.

K. Būga

We have not had a similar publication before, so the idea of compiling a five-language (Lithuanian-English-German-French-Russian) dictionary of terms in this field¹ is indeed a good one. Especially since hunting and its traditions have been familiar to Lithuanians since time immemorial.

The dictionary is organized thematically: its terms are divided by subject into 8 sections, covering about 1,000 alphabetically arranged general terms and expressions used by hunters, as well as names for types and methods of hunting, hunting equipment, hunting-dog breeds, birds and animals and their body parts, trophies, and hunting firearms. The last two sections are illustrated. Some Lithuanian terms are accompanied by explanations in parentheses, and Latin names are also given after many animal and bird names. A considerable number of terms have subentries, though it is not entirely clear what principle governs their arrangement: for example, herd, population; herd of hoofed game; wild-animal population; herd of game animals are presented as separate head terms, whereas the terms brood of ducks, brood of wolves, brood of geese in the same section appear together under the head term brood. Such inconsistency in structure is characteristic of the dictionary as a whole. It is good that all head terms and subordinate terms (except those in sections 7 and 8) are numbered, so the alphabetical indexes for all five languages at the end of the publication can help readers find the desired term; the numbers assigned to terms in the indexes correspond to those in the dictionary. However, there are inaccuracies here too. For example, the term duck hunting, listed as number 196 in the indexes for all languages, does not appear in the dictionary text (it has been omitted), while terms numbered 95 and 308 appear neither in the indexes nor in the text (either the terms or their numbers have been omitted). It should be clarified that the index number assigned to a term

¹ Petružis G. Medžioklės žodynas. Vilnius: Enciklopedija, 1997. 128 p.

77

is written not “next to each headword,” as stated in the preface (after all, these indexes contain no subentries!), but next to each term, because hunting area or yearling roe buck with branched antlers is not a word but a compound term. It is also unclear what the dictionary’s author intended to explain by saying that “the word order in compound terms in the indexes has been left as it was in the dictionary.” One wonders whether it could have been any different. Moreover, even before one begins to examine the dictionary itself, the first sentence of the preface contains an unnoticed proofreading error, along with several inaccuracies: for some reason, subentries are called “poly-nests”; and “neuter gender” would be better replaced by “common gender.”

A few remarks should also be made about the terms themselves. One of the most conspicuous shortcomings of this dictionary is that the Lithuanian terms in it are not marked for stress. Stress is very important for users of the Lithuanian language, both in words generally and in terms; therefore, marking stress in Lithuanian terms is no less important than indicating the gender of the main word in German and French headwords or marking plural-only words. There are also some minor inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the presentation of terms. For example, although the word to train (20) is listed, the term well-trained (=trained) dog (267) is used. The term kill (147) is explained as follows: “the number of animals that may be killed or have been killed.” How can the word “kill” mean a number? In fact, it is merely the name of an action. It is strange that a hunting dictionary includes the term rooster (330), but not the term ruff (Philomachus pugnax). We find ornithological terms black stork (Ciconia nigra), whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus), but not the interesting Lithuanian term gargatūnas. Nor do we find the names of recently extinct game animals, such as lynx, wildcat, and so on. If terms such as magpie, crow are included, then rook (Corvus frugilegus) and harrier (Circus) would also be appropriate. Alongside (or instead of) international words and terms, Lithuanian equivalents are sometimes lacking. Why not use check, inspect instead of “inspect, control” (38); potato sunflower instead of “Jerusalem artichoke” (169); shoulder-blade defects instead of “scapular defects” (p. 62), and so on?

78

It would be interesting to know which lexicographical sources and term-selection criteria the dictionary’s author relied on, since the “Hunting Dogs” section lists only a few breeds, whereas the encyclopedia “Dogs” (V., 1995) contains over 50 hunting-dog breeds, for example: Afghan Hound, English Foxhound, Golden Retriever, Azawakh (South Russian Hound), Bloodhound (St. Hubert’s Hound), Estonian Hound, Clumber Spaniel, Kurzhaar (German Shorthaired Pointer), Laikas, Langhaar (German Longhaired Pointer), Latvian Hound, Lithuanian Hound, Russian Longhaired Sighthound, Sloughi (Arabian Greyhound), Taigan (Kyrgyz Sighthound), terriers, Weimaraner (Weimar Pointer), Hungarian Greyhound, and others.

These may not be all the publication’s shortcomings, but overall they do not diminish the dictionary’s value. Perhaps they will prove useful in preparing a more complete and improved edition.

Nijolė BANEVĮČIENĖ

79