According to established practice in the world, national academies are invited to work on dictionaries, and some have been established with such a goal in mind. Unfortunately, that undertaking in CANU was apparently approached late, primarily due to coexistence in SFRY and FRY. When the Dictionary of the Montenegrin Folk and Literary Language was published, that event attracted a lot of attention, especially from the daily newspaper Pobjeda, certain portals, as well as a part of the Montenegrin public. Of course, it would be desirable if the reactions were expressed without hatred, spite, malice, or evil intent, but as suggestions for improving the content of the Dictionary.
The first serious lexicographical work in Montenegro - the Dictionary of the Montenegrin Folk and Literary Language - was made entirely according to established lexicographical principles and the usual methodology, which, as shown by many texts published in Pobjeda, was not known to the "critics" of the Dictionary. It is certain that such works are met with critical reception by part of the public primarily due to a misunderstanding of lexicographic principles, which imply that the meaning of a word is defined on the basis of its use value, and not on the basis of subjective attitudes and feelings. Namely, in the Dictionary, the meanings of words and all the examples that illustrate these meanings are based on literary and other texts that have never been interpreted in the way that some "critics" do these days. Of course, another example could have been used in the Dictionary as an illustration of the meaning of the word, but that does not mean that the meaning of the word would have changed. It is obvious that the "critics" of the Dictionary strove for a nihilistic approach and ignored everything positive in it. However, even if all the criticisms of the "philologist" from Cetinje were correct, they would still be negligible compared to what is covered in the Dictionary.
In a situation where a group of "philologists" from Cetinje are trying to turn Pobjeda into a professional journal in which they can easily construct, rewrite, invent, subvert and show their ignorance, we are obliged to announce for the sake of the public, without getting involved in politics, regarding the issues that concern professions and sciences, and which the "linguists" from Cetinje placed in the form of axioms.
1. What is the difference between phoneme and voice? and
2. On what is the knowledge that phonetics, phonology and morphonology are synonyms based? It is clear that by repeating the question without giving an example of a mistake, the public wants to create an impression of the unprofessionalism of the author's team. Of course, in the content of the Dictionary, phoneme and voice are not treated as synonyms, nor do phonetics, phonology and morphonology have the status of synonyms.
3. According to which methodology is the literary and folk lexicon classified? In lexicography, the use of the qualifier nar. (folk), as well as the type designation conversational, unusual, dialectical, archaic, historical, outdated, etc., reflect stylistic peculiarities that are conditioned by the socio-historical development of the language and constant changes within the lexical fund. Changes and peculiarities are determined in relation to the lexical fund of the current language standard. In the practice of writing dictionaries, determining the criteria for the use of qualifiers is solved differently, not only in different dictionaries but also within one dictionary; therefore, we cannot talk about systemic solutions - concrete problems are solved "case by case". Certainly, in this part, the work of the editors was made easier because they had 34 dictionaries of Montenegrin vernaculars at their disposal.
4. By which modern methodology are "folk" lexemes given in a standard accented character? The principle that guided the author's team is common in the practice of creating dictionaries of this type - for words from folk speeches, the original accent is recorded if it is recorded in the dialect dictionary, but only if it does not deviate from the model of Novostokavian accentuation. The presentation of one word in the accented characters of different languages would burden the Dictionary, especially if you take into account the accentual variations in the declension or conjugation of certain forms. For those who are interested in the original accented characters, numerous dictionaries of Montenegrin vernaculars are available.
5. How does iotation affect accentuation? It is frivolous, based on one example (sermon/sermon) and that in which the non-iotized form has two accent characters, and the iotated one, to talk about the systemic phenomenon of the influence of iotation on the accent. In all other cases, the iotated and non-iotated forms of the same words have the same accent character.
6. Which contemporary literature recommends the synonymous use of suffixes and suffixes? Here we can refer to "experienced philologists from Serbia", as the "critic" recommended, and confirm that in the literature the terms (formative) continuation and suffix are used as synonyms - their parallel use is not problematic for Ž. Stanojčića, Lj. Popović (Gramatika srpskog jezik, 1992, p. 129), (of course, it was not even for Mihailo Stevanović: Contemporary Serbo-Croatian language, 1986, p. 389); we will also mention P. Ivić, I. Klajn, M. Pešikan and B. Brborić, who in the Serbian Language Handbook (2007, p. 130) do not identify -ski as a suffix but as a continuation. The terminology of the authors of the Dictionary is also consistent with the terminology of renowned Croatian authors such as E. Barić, M. Lončarević, D. Malić and others. Maybe they don't distinguish between a continuation and a suffix, so they say that "a series of sounds that comes at the end of a word, and is neither a word nor its basis" is a continuation or a suffix (Croatian grammar, 2005, p. 291)?
7. When will we find out which verbs in the Montenegrin language do not have infinitives? "Jezikoslovac" did not hide his surprise in his first reaction regarding the Dictionary: "Truth, the compilers also discover verbs 'that do not have an infinitive' and even mention verbs of 'different form, but the same meaning'!" It's a pity that the famous Montenegrin linguist Mihailo Stevanović died before such verbs were discovered." However, even though he is not with us, the great M. Stevanović lives on in his works: "According to the VI type, the incomplete (defective) verb velim is also changed, which in addition to the present form (...) has only one verb. the present participle (...) and the imperfect (...), however, he lost the infinitives and all other forms except those listed." (Savremeni Serbo-Croatian language I, 1986, p. 348)
8. What are the verbs with different forms and the same meaning? The authors of the Dictionary will not usurp the media space by explaining language categories from the domain of basic linguistic knowledge and referring to professional literature. Nevertheless, we will satisfy the scientific curiosity of the "critics" with the answer - these are verbs "that do not differ in meaning but only in the form of the verb" (cf. P. Mrazović, Z. Vukadinović, Grammatical of the Serbo-Croatian language for foreigners, 1990, p. 67).
9. Whose research has shown that the Montenegrin language inherits a systemic ekavica? and
10. If the Dictionary was made on the basis of the corpus, why were there not also equaisms among the determinants, which are abundant with examples to illustrate those determinants? Evidence of ekavica in Montenegrin speeches, although not as a systemic phenomenon, can be found in numerous monographs of those speeches. Nowhere in the Dictionary is it said that ekavica is a systemic heritage in Montenegro. Determinants consistently have an Iekavian character, and the examples also depict Montenegrin literature, in which some authors use the ekavic.
11. On the basis of which methodology and literature did CANU lexicographic experts come to the conclusion that the writer's language affiliation is the same as his nationality? On what basis did the author of the question conclude that the lexicographers equated the linguistic and national affiliation of the writers? Montenegrin writers such as Pekić, Šćepanović, Kovač, Bulatović, Đurović and others who troubled the "critics" of Rječnik belong to Montenegrin literature (this is also confirmed by the FCJK website), and as Montenegrin literature is an inseparable part of Montenegrin culture, the descriptive dictionary must include lexicon from creativity of these writers.
12. Why does the corpus not include the works of VP Nikčević and the collection of words of MT Latković? Enriching the dictionary corpus and adding new sources is a constant process during the creation of the Dictionary, and terms such as brdunati, brmaknuti, bucoglavac, vračevnik, vresta and others from Latković's collection testify to careless reading of the Dictionary and unfounded criticism.
13. Why was the complete linguistic heritage up to Peter the First amputated? The Dictionary Development Council determined the corpus. It was considered that the period of the last two centuries is representative for the creation of a lexicographic description of the Montenegrin language, so the work of Petar I Petrović was determined as a boundary.
In the Dictionary, Draža is not an anti-fascist
14. What is the name of the physicist in the CANU team who amined the discovery of the planet Moon? The definition of Venus, as an astronomical term, in the Dictionary reads: "the second planet in terms of distance from the Sun, it has no natural satellites in its orbit; the brightest planet in the sky after the Moon; popularly known as Danica, Zornjača, Večernjača". Therefore, the Dictionary does not say that the Moon is a planet - such an implication is possible due to the inaccuracy of the language formulation, but it is not certain and implied.
15. What reasons led to the inclusion of the villain Draža Mihailović in the context of the word anti-fascist? The controversial example was taken from the daily newspaper Pobjeda (October 30, 2010), from a text signed by Vlatko Simunović. For the sake of clarification, we quote the entire sentence: "Revisionist historians and a good part of the national political elite are trying to rehabilitate the Chetnik movement of Draža Mihailović and prove that Draža was a true anti-fascist." It can be stated that the choice of examples is not good, but it cannot be said that it was chosen tendentially and ideologically, nor that Draža Mihailović was declared an anti-fascist by the lexicographical definition.
16. What contemporary sociological and anthropological research supports the view that Islam is not a religion? Users of the CANU Dictionary cannot read in it that Islam is not a religion, as "critics" from FCJK tend to misrepresent. This interpretation shows lexicographic ignorance - namely, separating the terms of the Islamic religion and marking them with the qualifier etc. is a common procedure, and it is also used by two modern dictionaries of the Bosnian language (S. Halilović, I. Palić, A. Šehović: Rječnik bosanskoga jezika, 2010 and Dž. Jahić, Rječnik bosanskog jezika, 2012). The philologists and political parties there did not mind such a lexicographic procedure, nor did they declare the mentioned dictionaries a "scientific disgrace" because of it.
Incorrect dates in the interpretation of historical events are typographical errors and their correction is implied
17. What historical sources were used to discover that the October Revolution was in 1918? Who revised the knowledge of the year of the fall of the Western Roman Empire? Is CANU ashamed of the participants in the April War because they don't even know when it started? Incorrect dates in the interpretation of historical events are typographical errors and their correction is implied, as well as the correction of omissions when downloading historical data from the literature. These data were taken for the most part from the Historical Lexicon of Montenegro, signed by respected local authors.
18. According to what criterion was the material selected, so that Albanians of the Islamic religion are presented as cunning Arnaut scumbags who lie a lot? On what basis are Muslims presented as godless, Agarians, as chelads who change their religion for the sake of interest, but are so aware of their new impurity that they neither perform ablution nor leave childbirth behind? Such and similar formulations, unfortunately, could also be heard from those who do not recognize sentences from their own work. That's how the sentence of prof. Novak Kilibarde: "Numan Pasha told a lot of truth to the virtuous emperor, but Arnaut's cunning trickster lied a little too much!" (Kilib. IV)" contextually related to the adjectival lexeme Arnautski. According to the same principle, the following sentence by the same author was found in the Dictionary: "Both a Latin woman and a Russian woman were captured, and one was bought for treasure, she was an angry Arnaut woman!" (Kilib., IV)". And the sentence of Stefan Mitrov Ljubiša: "Becoming a Turk, he gets a horse, weapons, a suit, but he will by no means marry or perform ablution... (Ljub. I)", which served as an illustration for the use of the lexeme ablution, "critics" maliciously and boldly interpreted and presented as part of the lexicographical definition.
It is evident from the above explanations that many objections of "critics" are completely unfounded, some are tendentiously constructed, and a small part are really justified. The author's team, as it has already informed the public, which is also its duty, will do everything to eliminate argued omissions and misunderstandings. After all, that is why there are second and subsequent editions in lexicography.
Gallery
Bonus video:
