The author presents a critical evaluation of some more recent works which discuss the typology of loan translations, notably those written in the last two decades by W. Betz (1949), U. Weinreich (1953), E. Haugen (1953 and 1958), and K. Schumann (1965). Since not even the world languages have worked out a standard terminology applicable to all types and sub-types of loan translations, and as the terms often vary from author to author, the writer of the present article has attempted to establish the link between German and English technical terms and to suggest new Serbo-Croat an equivalents. The previous work done by the Croatian 'scholars M. Deanović (1934), P. Skok (1953), and V. Vinja (1951 and 1957) was of partial help only. With the works of these linguists as the starting point, as well as with those of B. Unbegaun (1932 and 1961) and from his own personal practical experience in examining foreign, notably Romance models of loan translations current in, the dialects of the Croatian seaboard region, the author has systematized his own observations and has arrived at his own definition of loan translation which, while eliminating what is irrelevant, emphasizes that the essence of a loan translation consists in the transfer from the language-model to the language-replica of at least two elements. A loan translation can be a linguistic sign consisting of at least two monemes or it can be a monomonemic linguist c sign whose meaning consists of at least two semes. Between these two basic types, i. e. the loan translation proper and the semantic loan, there is a whole range of intermediate types,. Their number is reduced to size, In accordance with E. Haugen. The so-called hybrid loans or loan blends are rare because their »foreign« component had almost regularly become an integral part of the native lexical .stock at the time when the transfer occurred. The author emphasiszes the necessity of a detailed study of the so-called erroneous loan translations. Although., perhaps, not deserving their place in the typology, they are important for etymological investigations, because bilinguals have erroneously reproduced the wrong interpretations from the language-model in the language-replica. Thus the results of folk etymology can serve as a peculiar source of loan translation. Investigations of folk etymology have mainly neglected this aspect. The author also emphasizes the importance of changes in the hierarchy of semes.
