Būdvardiniai būdvardžiai technikos terminijoje

Stasys ZAJANKAUSKAS ADJECTIVAL ADJECTIVES IN TECHNICAL TERMINOLOGY The state and development of language determine the state of technical terminology. The terminology of electronics is certainly no exception, and new developments are constantly emerging in electronics, bringing new terms with them. Most new terms come via English and Russian, and the concepts in question must be named appropriately in Lithuanian. This requires both an understanding of technology and linguistic knowledge. It is easy to go astray. We often find that a concept could have been named much more precisely. It is very important to be able to state precisely the distinguishing features of various material structures and their concepts, especially when naming them according to their specific characteristics. For this purpose, pronominal adjectives and adjectives with the suffix -inis are generally suitable. Adjectives with the suffix -inis are easy to understand if their base words can be readily identified. These are most often nouns, and much less frequently words from other parts of speech. Adjectives derived from adjectives with the suffix -inis are also used, but it is doubtful whether they are necessary, or whether we need an ever-growing supply of them. A key feature of a perfect term is that it points precisely to what it denotes. Yet it is often impossible to tell whether an adjectival adjective points to anything at all. In A. Kvedaravičius and R. Navickas’s book “Silicon Integrated Circuit Manufacturing Handbook” (Vilnius: Mokslas, 1989), negative and positive photoresists are used throughout, although they should be named as they have long been in phototechnology: negative and positive, negative and positive images, negative and positive photosensitive layers—and photoresists of the same kinds. Here, the forms used should be not pronominal adjectives but nominal adjectives derived from negative and positive. The intentions were, of course, good: adjectives with the suffix -inis can be both incorrect and otherwise unjustifiable. But not every one is. Many people have entirely forgotten pronominal adjectives. They have to be practically forced on the authors of standards and technical specifications. Many adjectival adjectives have already been eliminated, though unfortunately not all, 47 including those that, besides an adjective suffix borrowed from elsewhere -al-, -yv-, -at-, -ar-, also have the Lithuanian adjective suffix -inis. However, not all “super-adjectives” have been eliminated—let us use that name for brevity to refer to adjectives with double suffixes, such as: visualinis (=visual, the visual one, visible), lokalinė (=local, the local one, regional), globalinis (=global, the global one, all-encompassing), and so on. Incidentally, the aim here is not to give every possible Lithuanian equivalent. That would be a separate discussion. Not long ago, every sentence in technical language teemed with “super-adjectives,” for example: sumarinis (=sum), dvidis, efektyvinė (=effective) value, selektyvinis (=selective, the selective one) amplifier, elementarinės (=elementary) particles, elementarinės (=elementary) mathematics handbook. Of course, adjectives formed with the suffix -inis from international words belonging to other parts of speech are a different matter. The most natural, necessary, and numerous are nominal adjectives with the suffix -inis, for example: integralinis: integral, diferencialinis: differential, personalinis: personnel, personalija. Presumably, these do not have double adjective suffixes. Here are some new, convenient tools: adjectives with the suffix -inis, readily formed by the author from participles, for two-word terms: integruotinė schema (or perhaps integruotinis ar telktinis grandynas, since what is meant is not a schematic but a product containing many electronic circuits), integruotinis jautrumas, programuotinis valdas, refiuotinė informacija. Terms of this structure have long been widely used: input resistance, rammed-earth floor, printed circuit board, inserted word, inflected adjective, translated literature. Incidentally, there is usually more than one way to form these words; the terms the integrated schema or the integrated circuit, integral sensitivity could also be suitable (the previously used integralinis jautrumas); coaxial cable (the previously used koaksialinis kabelis would also work), formed without any contrivance: the suffix -inis is added to the stems of the nouns integral.as, koaksialas, and pronominal forms of adjectives and participles are used. But perhaps these were considered too plain, so now such unsuitable, non-descriptive terms are being imposed, such as integrinė schema, integrinis jautrumas, koaksinis kabelis. Such adjectives are 48 to derive from words not used in Lithuanian; cf. also artezinis, juridinis. It is quite rare and undesirable for the base word to be unused in Lithuanian: “if no word used in Lithuanian supports a form without the formant, we must use an adjective with a formant”1. True, some claim that the adjective integrinis mentioned above derives from integrus, but that points to easy integration rather than consolidation or unification. But integruotinės schemos were, after all, called integralinės schemos; it was proposed that they be called not only integrinėmis schemomis but also integraliosiomis schemomis, and most recently integrschemomis. The confusion continues. A look at international standards shows that an integruotinė schema is neither an entirely indivisible nor an entirely integral device. Integrality is usually specified with the additional adjective monolitinis, for example, puslaidininkinė monolitinė integruotinė schema. In many languages, the modifier in the term integruotinė schema indicates integration, consolidation, but not integrality—integrated circuit (English), integrierte Schaltung (German), circuit intégré (French). What is meant is multidimensional integration—technological, structural, and circuit-design integration. In Russian there was no convenient way to say it: it would have had to be интегрированные схемы. The terms bipoliarinis tranzistorius and unipoliarinis tranzistorius were unsuccessful, but the substitutes dvipolis tranzistorius and vienpolis tranzistorius, imposed by someone, are completely unsuitable and unacceptable because they emphatically misrepresent the essence. A dvipolis is a two-terminal device, while a vienpolis is a one-terminal device; for example, vienpolis jungiklis is a device for connecting or disconnecting one wire, whereas a dvipolis jungiklis is for two wires. Every student should know that either of those transistors is a three-pole or even four-pole element. These transistors were developed outside Lithuania and were first given English names. So we could also replace their international names, say, with bipoliarusis tranzistorius and unipoliarusis tranzistorius. Of course, these terms would misrepresent the essence just as much. More accurately, the first should be called a bipoliarų (dvipoliarų) sandūrų tranzistoriumi. But, as noted, the terminology has taken a different turn. That is why for six years now, 1 Kniūkšta P. Priesagos -inis būdvardžiai. V.: Mokslas, 1976. P. 50. Toliau trumpinama PIB. Dar žr.: Sližienė N. Atsakome medikams // Kalbos kultūra. V.: Mintis, 1972. Sąs. 23. P. 71 49 my students have been hearing what I consider sufficiently meaningful neologisms: dvikrūvis tranzistorius and vienkrūvis tranzistorius. Incidentally, krūvnešį is used to refer collectively only to a mobile electron and a mobile hole. Any electron, hole, or ion—mobile or not—could be called a charge carrier. The operating principle of a Dvikrūvio tranzistoriaus is based on two types of krūvnešiais, whereas that of a vienkrūvio is based on only one type of krūvnešiais. This is also how international standards specify it. So, are there any rules or strategies for forming and using adjectives that express a distinctive feature? Perhaps there are. On the need for pronominal adjectives in terminology, linguist A. Kaulakienė says: “when it is the distinguishing (terminological) meaning of an object, rather than its quality, that one wishes to emphasize, pronominal forms should be used throughout”2. Incidentally, one should bear in mind that the simple form of international adjectives ending in -us (integralus, personalus, vizualus) and the genitive of international nouns (integralo reikšmė, personalo sudėtis) also have their place. And if we leaf through the Dictionary of International Words (1985), we will notice that it uses “superadjectives” in place of many related adjectives. Regarding competition in terminology between pronominal forms and international adjectives with the suffix -inis, A. Paulauskienė and D. Tarvydaitė’s book “Gramatikos normos ir dabartinė vartosena” (Kaunas: Šviesa, 1986) says that one should not “strive at all costs to standardize everything completely and for all time”3 and that “the class of pronominal forms, which only recently began to take shape, is now already dying out”4. Nevertheless, it notes that “adjectives have already been created (was there really a need to create them?! – S.Z.) that could (!? – S.Z.) also have pronominal forms (aktyvus – aktyvusis, pasyvus – pasyvusis, formalus – formalusis, vertikalus – vertikalusis)”5. Thus, instead of “superadjectives” aktyvinis, pasyvinis, formalinis, vertikalinis, which are clearly regarded as being like the first— 2 Kaulakienė A. Politechnikos terminijos negėrovės // Kalbos kultūra V.: Mokslas, 1979. Sąs. 37. P. 35. 3 Paulauskienė A., Tarvydaitė D. Gramatikos normos ir dabartinė vartosena. K.: Šviesa, 1986. P. 139. 4 Ten pat. P. 136. 5 Ten pat. P. 139. 50 …-like forms, the simple forms are “just created.” Here, there is also no suggestion of “creating” atonalus, globalus, demonstratyvus and so on. As mentioned, linguist A. Kaulakienė advocates more frequent use of pronominal adjectives. In her view, however, “adjectival” adjectives can also be formed selectively. The duplication of adjectival suffixes is avoided, but there is no consistency and no rules; there is only an additional incentive to use the suffix -inis. It is simply unclear whether the base word is the basis for understanding these derivatives; after all, “terms formed without a system have to be memorized individually, which is difficult even for a specialist in the field, let alone for those just beginning to study the subject”⁶. Moreover, is the variety of foreignisms really defensible? Dictionaries are a great help to users. Unfortunately, dictionaries make room for promoting “super-adjectives,” while it is unusual to give pronominal forms, supposedly because everyone knows they exist (or perhaps that they are disappearing?). The Polytechnic Dictionary (Vilnius, 1984) gives: нормальный 1. normalinis (the first, or perhaps the main meaning?! When is it used?). 2. нормalis. 3. norminis. This makes it clear that it cannot be translated with just one word! Alongside the first, it would also be useful to have the genitive normalės (e.g., normalės krypties); alongside the second, the simple form normalus; and alongside the third, the genitive normos (e.g., normos lygis). But then not a single adjectival adjective with the suffix -inis is needed! Of course, one might think that there is now reason to rejoice on finding aktyvusis (rather than aktyvinis) element and laidamas, aktyvioji ir reaktyvioji varža, galia, induktyvioji varža and even reaktyvusis lėktuvas in the Dictionary of Physics Terms (Vilnius, 1979). Unfortunately, in most cases the dictionaries published later are “back to square one.” Incidentally, this dictionary also gives stacionarinis (=stacionarus+is) svyravimas, laidumas ir judesys (as if everything were taking place in some kind of stacionare), kvazistacionarinis (=kvazistacionarus+is) lygmuo ir laukas, absoliutinis (=absoliutus+is) minimumas, lygis ir laikas; lokalinis (=lokalus+is). There are quite a few inconsistencies in the aforementioned Polytechnic Dictionary, including, for example, transversalinis (=transversinis, transversalus+is) filtras. Not to mention the “Dictionary of International Wor- 6 V. Gerulaitis, Dictionary of Physics Terms // Mūsų kalba. 1980. No. 5. P. 30. 51 ds” (Vilnius, 1985). As is well known, the suffix -inis can often be avoided by using a noun in the genitive. Unfortunately, this often results in genitives appearing one after another, obscuring the meaning. The suffix -inis helps avoid confusing sequences of genitives, which encourages its more frequent use. Here is one novel sequence of genitives: lygiagrečiųjų virpesių kontūrų savybės. It is the oscillations, not the circuits, that are parallel (or series-connected, coupled). Not so long ago, we successfully called those “oscillation” circuits rezonansiniais, or virpamaisiais. Once everyone understands the standard formation of adjectives that denote a distinctive feature, it will be clear even without dictionaries that ekvivalentinė schema must mean “a circuit of an equivalent,” while ekvivalenčioji schema means “an equivalent circuit”; stacionarinis prietaisas means “a device of a stationary facility,” whereas stacionarusis prietaisas means “a device that does not change” (such nuances must exist to make it possible to specify exactly what is being discussed). Then everyone will also understand the difference between negatyvusis and negatyvinis, dogminis and dogmatinis, and many others. International adjectives can and should certainly be regulated by stricter rules. An important strategic principle would be avoiding adjectival adjectives and using pronominal adjectives much more frequently. We should not sit back and wait for “traditions” to become established; we must avoid setbacks. 52