Any academic, scientific and well-argued pointing out of possible omissions in the Dictionary of the Montenegrin Folk and Literary Language is desirable, but declaring the dictionary of the national language a "culturocide" work, calling for its withdrawal and "burning", wantonly slandering the author's team and CANA as the publisher, constructing falsehoods and spreading inter-ethnic hatred, as the "philologists" from the Faculty of Montenegrin Language and Literature from Cetinje do, are actions that are more suited to the street than to the university, and certainly not to the XNUMXst century. Instead of contributing to the most important national project with their own scientific results and constructive proposals and thus justifying the spending of considerable funds obtained from the state budget, "philologists" defame. Unfortunately, some political representatives of the Albanian national minority believed those slanderers.
The best defense against an attack on the CANU Dictionary is the Dictionary itself and what it contains. However, for the sake of the public, we are obliged to explain certain lexicographic procedures that are common, and which may be the cause of misunderstandings, in the very complex work of creating a dictionary article, in order to show that there is no mention of "culturocide procedures" in the Dictionary, nor any evil intentions towards anyone. , and especially not towards the Albanian or any other national minority. We are objected to because of the definitions of three defining words: the noun Albanian and albanization and the verb albanize.
In the Dictionary, there are thirteen determining words that basically have alban-: Albanian, albanization, albanizing, albanizing, albanizing, albanizing, Albania, Albanian woman, albanologist, albanology, albanological, albanian (adjective) and albanian (adverb), seven with arnaut- based on: Arnautin and Arnaut, arnautiti se, Arnautka and Arnautkinja, arnautkinja, Arnautluk, arnautski (adjective) and arnautski (adverb) and seven with arban- in the basis: Arbanas, arbanaski, Arbanaskińska, Arbanaška, arbaški (adjective), arbaški (adverb) ), from Arbanashka.
In lexicographic practice, there are established procedures and procedures that the author's team applied in full when creating the Dictionary. One of them is the unification of definitions in order to form a single system, since the Dictionary is created as a product of the collective work of a large number of editors. In this sense, the definitions of words from the same semantic field or words created by the same creative model are being made uniform.
Definitions of ethnonyms Albanian: inhabitant of Albania; one who is originally from Albania and Albanian: a resident of Albania; the one who is originally from Albania, represent one of the typical definitions, which are given according to an agreed and established form. American is defined in the same way in the first volume of the Dictionary: a resident of America; one who is of American origin and American: a resident of America; the one who is originally from America. Other examples will be cited only in the masculine gender, to save space - Australian: one who lives in Australia; one who is originally from Australia; Austrian: one who lives in Austria; one who is originally from Austria; Balkan: inhabitant of the Balkan Peninsula; one who originates from the Balkan Peninsula; Bosnian: one who lives in Bosnia; one who is originally from Bosnia; Bulgarian: one who lives in Bulgaria; the one who is originally from Bulgaria…
Thus, the ethnonyms Albanian and Albanian are defined according to the same model as other ethnonyms in the first volume of the Dictionary. We absolutely reject insinuations that there were evil intentions or hidden motives when defining the ethnonym Albanian.
Another defining word that has attracted attention is albanization with the definition: imposing the Albanian language, culture and customs on other peoples. Definitions and meanings are derived from the examples provided by the selected corpus. Lexicographers do not invent meanings, nor do they change or shape them according to their own taste or liking. What the corpus and objective reality offers is brought into the definition. Namely, the word is defined based on its use in the selected corpus, which was also the case with the given determinant. It should also be emphasized that the lexeme imposition is in no way semantically the same as aggression, as it is maliciously interpreted. Someone or something can be imposed by quality, reputation, authority, prestige, superiority... In the same way, as in the previous case, the term Anglicization is defined - the imposition of the English language, literature and culture on other nations. The critics of the Dictionary did not refer to the term anglicization, the definition of which coincides with the definition of the term albanization, but they emphasized that albanization is not defined in the same way as americanization and balkanization. As for balkanization, it cannot be semantically equated with the other two determinants, since the Balkans is a territorial, not an ethnic term. Also, it is a scientific fact that nouns derived with the suffix -ization do not imply the same semantic content, which is influenced, among other things, by sociolinguistic factors. It is obvious that the critics of the Dictionary are neither lexicographically nor linguistically educated, which is clearly shown when making such remarks.
An important segment in the correct interpretation and understanding of dictionary articles, when using the Dictionary, is the correct understanding of examples of the contextual use of defining words. Namely, interpreting the examples from which the meaning of the word is extracted as the personal views of the author team, and not the material of the corpus, is not and must not be the case in lexicographic practice. An example as an illustration of the use of the determinant is chosen exclusively from the established corpus, which, in addition to literary texts, contains texts from the journalistic-publicist and administrative-legal register, texts from science and historiography, ethnology, anthropology, which obviously those who do not know what lexicography is understood. Thus, the example with the determiner "Albanize" is only a confirmation of the contextual use of that word, and in no way an interpretation of the specific term by the author's team or the publisher of the Dictionary.
The author's team expresses its readiness to consider all remarks and suggestions concerning the profession and lexicographic methodology applied in the Dictionary, but in no case does it intend to get involved in politics or pre-election campaigns, whatever they may be. Also, we invite all those who feel offended by some of the solutions in the Dictionary that the doors of the Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts are always open to them for discussion and explanations, and that any suggestion aimed at improving the final text of the Dictionary is always welcome.
Of course, the author's team will consider the suggestions with great care and in the repeated and new editions will have more sensibility in order to avoid misunderstandings arising from the interpretation of certain determinants. Otherwise, the author's team will take into account all professional and well-intentioned remarks and do everything necessary to make the Dictionary the property of all citizens of Montenegro. Certainly, we would be happy with a similar or better contribution to Montenegrin lexicography and culture.
(Author team of the Dictionary of the Montenegrin Folk and Literary Language)
Bonus video:
