ONOMANTICS AND TERMINOLOGY .3. FORMATS, BORROWED TERMS AND OMISSIONS

Third part of a series of articles of which Pt.1 was published in KO 2 3(1996)No.1, p.25-33, Pt.2 in No.3, p.157-168. Pt.4 will follow in KO 24(1997)No.1. In addition to the important distinctions between the fu ndamental concepts and terms (tags) used in Onomantics and Terminology , as reported in the first two parts of this essay, several other inte resting comparisons can be made. First, with reference to formats, bot h the structure and nomenclature used for terminological entries (reco rds) in ISO 1087 parallel those found in dictionaries and suggest a se mantic rather than an onomantic point of view. Second, a large number of borrowed terms taken from Lexicography and Linguistics can be found in this glossary for the terminology of Terminology. Sometimes the de finitions for these terms identify them as borrowed concepts drawn fro m the vocabulary used by lexicographers. However, sometimes new meanin gs are stipulated for these terms without any markings to show that th ey are not borrowed concepts. Moreover, in all these cases, since the original and the newly stipulated concepts are similar, ambiguity is u navoidable. Third, some concepts that might be useful for terminologis ts are not included in ISO 1087: a few examples are explained. They ar e all concepts which lexicographers do not need and, consequently, the y have no terms for them. It seems apparent that they have been omitte d from the vocabulary of Terminology simply because they are new conce pts without established terms. To explain the reasons for the formats, terms and omissions found in the leading glossary for the terminology of Terminology takes us into a realm of speculation that is too compl icated for inclusion here, but I will discuss it in Part IV of this se ries, with a focus on the problems of neologisms.