The Names of the Balkan Peoples and the Names of the Inhabitants of Balkan Countries in Lexicography (on the Example of the Dictionary of Montenegrin National and Literary Language )

: Lexicography is yet another witness of the historic recurrence in the Balkans — fifty years after banni ng Miloš Moskovljević's Dictionary of Contemporary Serbo-Croatian Literary Language with Language Manual (1966), the distribution of the first volume of the Dictionary of Montenegrin National and Literary Language (2016) of the Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts was stopped due to political reasons. Among other things, the representatives of the Albanian and Bosniak people in the Parliament of Montenegro demanded that the Dictionary of Montenegrin National and Literary Language be withdrawn due to the "offensive" and "discriminatory" definition of the terms Albanian and Bosniak . This has shown, once again, that Balkan ethnonyms and (or) demonyms have considerable weight in the descriptions of lexical material and that they can lead to the situation where politics defeats lexicography. That is why we will deal, primarily from a linguistic perspective, with the lexicographic definitions of ethnonyms and demonyms that are controversial in Montenegro. Starting from their foundation on ethnic or civic identity, we want to examine the possibilities and justification of the definition of these concepts bearing in mind the broader socio-political framework.


Introduction
According to encyclopedic sources dating back to the times of the Yugoslav state, the geographical position of the Balkan Peninsula made this peninsula a "bridge and main road" between Europe and Asia. This is explains the "ethnic mix, diversity of cultural and political influences, and turbulent history" of the Balkans (Mala enciklopedija Prosveta, opšta enciklopedija, 1 A-Lj: 119). The same sources emphasize that "Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Yugoslavia, European Turkey, and partly Romania" were formed as independent states in the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th century, and that their "history is also the history of the Balkans" (ibid.). From today's perspective, it is certain that the last decade of the 20th century was marked by new military conflicts that paved the way for new inter-state border changes in the Balkans in the first decade of the 21st century. The geographical map of the Balkans changed again on 21 May 2006, when Montenegro seceded from the state union with Serbia, which led to its international recognition. According to the results of the 2011 population census, Montenegro had 620,029 inhabitants belonging to different ethnic groups (Montenegrins, Serbs, Bosniaks, Albanians, Muslims, Croats, Roma, etc.).
According to Article 13 of the Constitution of Montenegro (Parliament of Montenegro 2007): "The official language in Montenegro is the Montenegrin language. The Cyrillic and Latin alphabets are of equal status. Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian, and Croatian are also in official use". This means that all four mutually intelligible national varieties of the once unified Serbo-Croatian language (Montenegrin, Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian) are in official use in Montenegro. However, Montenegro is characterized by a discrepancy "between national and linguistic declaration" (Bugarski 2018: 33). Although Montenegrins (44.98%) are more numerous than Serbs (28.73%) in Montenegro, the 2011 population census (Monstat 2011) shows that Serbian is spoken by 42.88% of the population, and Montenegrin by 36.97%. Bosnian is the mother tongue of 5.33% of the population in Montenegro, where Bosniak is identified as the mother tongue by only 0.59% of the population. This implies that Bosniaks, who make up 8.65% of the population of Montenegro, predominantly call their language Bosnian. The census also shows that in Montenegro the Albanian language has a larger number of speakers (5.27%) in comparison to the number of inhabitants who declare themselves ethnically as Albanians (4.91%). The situation is different when it comes to Croatian -it is the mother tongue of 0.45% of the population, although Croats make up 0.97% of the population in Montenegro. The population census also showed that 2.03% of the population still call their language Serbo-Croatian, while 3.99% of the population did not want to declare with regard to this matter.
The complex situation with national and linguistic identity is also reflected in the educational system in Montenegro (for more on the problematic naming of subjects/courses in Montenegrin schools/faculties, see Šubarić 2018). Covering the "official language" (Montenegrin) and the languages in "official use" (Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian), a subject of instruction in Montenegrin schools was given a four-part name in 2011/2012: Montenegrin-Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian language and literature. However, the public university (University of Montenegro) offers only Montenegrin or Serbian (within separate study programs), with Montenegrin being the only general course in other study programs at the Faculty of Philology (foreign languages) from the academic year 2017/18. Unfortunately, linguists still strongly disagree on the matter of language standardization in spite of the fact that in 2009 and 2010 the Ministry of Education and Science of Montenegro helped standardize a Montenegrin language variety which (unlike Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian) has two additional phonemes and graphemes -ś, ź, recognizing, therefore, iotated forms that are unjustified from a systemic point of view. Many Montenegrin linguists do not agree with the normative variety of Montenegrin as it implies "archaization and dialecticization" (Bugarski 2018: 49).
The aim of this paper is to emphasize the importance of rethinking the lexicographic model that defines identity designations such as Albanian and Bosniak, but also the fact that correct lexicographic definitions of this type require the interdisciplinary overcoming of existing terminological and conceptual inconsistencies inherent in discussions about ethnic and/or national names. Linguistic confrontation with political attitudes towards the identity feelings of ethnic minorities in today's Montenegro showed that minorities feel they belong to both their home and domicile state, which is why they expect their double identity should also be recognized lexicographically.

2.
Rječnik crnogorskog narodnog i književnog jezika ( Moskovljević's Dictionary (as well as the DMNLL) "was anathematized and banned" (Sretenović 2008) in the same year when it was published. This was due to the negative attitude towards "socialism, [...] revolution and the establishment of socialism" (Ćorić 2008: 210). After the publication of the text by Mirko Tepavac, the then editor of the daily newspaper Politika, the Belgrade District Court decided to destroy the entire edition of the Dictionary because of only three or four words "that were disturbing for the Central Committee of Serbia" (ibid.). In an interview given on the occasion of the publication of the monograph The Life and Work of Miloš Moskovljević, 1884-1968. Momčilo Isić explained that Tepavac (in his text in Politika from March 6, 1966) found fault with Moskovljević's dictionary because the noun Croat was not given as a dictionary entry (Lakićević 2018). Nevertheless, Moskovljević's Dictionary had multiple editions -in 1990 and 2001.
Thus, half a century after banning Moskovljević's Dictionary on the territory of former Yugoslavia, history repeats itself showing, once again, that Balkan ethnonyms and (or) demonyms have considerable weight in the descriptions of lexical material and that they can lead to the situation where politics defeats lexicography. Although the edition was published by the leading research institution in Montenegro as a contribution to the modern state identity, the deputies of the Montenegrin Parliament perceived it as an attack on multi-ethnic and multi-confessional Montenegro and the collective feelings of certain minority peoples.
Lexicographic activities by MASA on the Montenegrin language were stopped one year after the publication of the first volume of the DMNLL. The first volume of the DMNLL included 12,018 entries -those starting with the letters A, B, and V (the Cyrillic alphabet, therefore such an order). In the meantime, the MASA lexicographic team also prepared the second volume, which included lexemes beginning with G and D (10,015 entries), but this volume still has not seen the light of day. MASA's controversial publication, unfortunately, once again shed light on the ethnic, demographic and even linguistic polarization in Montenegrin society, and with the interference of the Montenegrin media, it divided the general public as well. This ultimately causes an unfortunate delay in the establishment of lexical norms in Montenegrin.
Owing to the situation with the DMNLL, and our experience as both an editor and a member of the Editorial Board of the DMNLL, we will present the definitions of the lexemes Albanian and Bosniak from this Dictionary and point out their semantic structure. Bearing in mind that these definitions are based on ethnic or civic identity, we will examine the possibility and justification of their redefinition in view of the wider socio-political framework. In that sense, we will analyze the lexicographic status of the terms ethnonym and demonym, as well as their grammatical or linguistic representation (in the editions published during the official use of the former Serbo-Croatian language, as well as modern editions of the languages that are now spoken in the area of former Serbo-Croatian -Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Serbian, commonly abbreviated as BCMS). With this analysis, we want to contribute to a more stable theoretical position of both terms, but also to a better conceptual understanding of the names that this paper focuses on.
In that context, we will dwell on the semantic content of the lexemes people and inhabitant, and try to shed light on the relationship between a member of a people and an inhabitant of a country from the perspective of multi-ethnic countries. Given the offered models of their lexical descriptions, the lexicographic question will actually deal with the scope and priority of semantic components -is it ethnic or territorial, i.e. civic identity that has priority in defining these names? We will use data from the last population census in Montenegro (2011), which was carried out by the Statistical Office of Montenegro 1 . According to the results presented, it is clear that national and ethnic affiliation are equated in the census, which is why we will here treat these concepts as synonymous, without any further distinction between national and ethnic communities, that is, national and ethnic identity 2 (see Korunić 2003).

Linguistic terms ethnonyms and demonyms 3
The critics of DMNLL (including linguists) identified the names that we deal with in this article as ethnonyms in their public appearances and statements. From the linguistic perspective, this topic therefore first requires raising the question -should names as Albanian, Bosnian, Bosniak, Bulgarian, Greek, Montenegrin, Croat, Serb, Macedonian, Slovene (and their feminine forms) be defined exclusively as ethnonyms?
Considering the status of the term ethnonym in the linguistic literature, its frequent identification with the term demonym, and the way(s) of their lexicographic representation, we will tackle the question by examining the terms ethnonym and demonym. We will look into their meaning and semantic distance in lexicographic manuals, as well as their usage in grammatical or linguistic literature primarily belonging to the area of the former Serbo-Croatian language. That is how, bearing in mind the semantic content of the lexemes in question, we want to point out the inconsistencies in their defining, their unjustified identification, as well as the actual broader semantic scope of the term demonym compared to its traditional interpretation. We will also address the theoretical inconsistencies related to the nominal status of words belonging to the category of ethnonyms and demonyms, which is why they are defined both as names (proper nouns) and as appellatives (common nouns) 4 . Taking into consideration the modern orthographic standards of the BCMS language (proper nouns are capitalized), we treat these specific words as proper names or proper nouns.
At this point, we want to present the terminological distinction that we use as a theoretical background for the following study: 1. ethnonym -the name ascribed to a people or a member of a people; 2. demonym -the name denoting the inhabitants of a particular territory; the name of a person whose origin is linked to a certain territory.

Ethnonyms and demonyms in lexicographic publications
The terms ethnonym and demonym do not have an equal status in onomastic and word-formation systems, and the same holds true for their lexicographic interpretations within different languages. Their unequal treatment can be confirmed in the available dictionaries of English and French 5 , as well as dictionaries of Serbo-Croatian or Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian (although the normativity of the standard language implies rules established by the orthography, grammar, and dictionary, the Montenegrin language still does not have a standard determined by the normative inventory of lexical material). The close insight into the lexical descriptions of the above-mentioned terms in lexicographic publications of the former Serbo-Croatian language has shown the following.
Dictionaries of the Serbo-Croatian language (Rečnik srpskohrvatskog književnog i narodnog jezika; Rečnik srpskohrvatskoga književnog jezika) only offer the entry demonym, which is, without terminological designation, defined as the name of inhabitants of a particular place or a country. This is also the case with the onevolume Rečnik srpskoga jezika (Dictionary of the Serbian Language).
Essentially, the entry demonym is treated in the same way in the dictionaries of the Bosnian language, as a term (Halilović, Palić and Šehović 2010) or as a word of general meaning (Jahić 2010). According to these dictionaries, ethnonym is not part of the lexicon of the Bosnian language. Furthermore, one of the dictionaries of Bosnian (Rječnik bosanskog jezika 2007) lacks both entries.
Veliki rječnik hrvatskoga standardnog jezika (The Great Dictionary of the Croatian Standard Language) has both entries -marked as linguistic terms -and defines them as follows: demonym, "a word derived from the name of a country, region, city or some other geographical term denoting its inhabitant", and ethnonym, "a name of an ethnic community, group or people". However, Introductory comments in this dictionary designate demonym as a word for "a member of a people or inhabitants", explaining further that these words are listed as part of the dictionary entry with the place name adjectives. In that way, the already presented semantic peculiarity of demonyms and ethnonyms as linguistic terms becomes problematic.
On that basis, we can note that the Croatian dictionary does not offer the names of the inhabitants of state territories as separate entries. Instead, the names of state territories are given within the passage interpreting a certain place name adjective (derived from the name of a territory), followed by male and female forms of the inhabitants of the given territory. A special lexical description is therefore missing. Hence, the names such as Albanac, Albanka (Albanian), Crnogorac, Crnogorka (Montenegrin), Makedonac, Makedonka (Macedonian) are qualified as "demonyms" but, quite unexpectedly, the same names or their plural forms 6 as collective designations of ethnicity are not represented. According to the same principle, the entries hrvatski (Croatian)i slovenski (Slovene) are followed by the masculine and feminine forms of the demonyms Hrvat, Hrvatica (Croat), and Slovenac, Slovenka (Slovene), while the status of special lexical units is assigned to the forms Hrvati (Croats) and Slovenci (Slovenes) -plural forms are marked with the abbreviation etn -for the "specialized dictionary entry" of "ethnic communities (groups)".
The masculine and feminine forms Bošnjak, Bošnjakinja (Bosniak) are given the syntagmatic definition of "a member of a people", and they are also listed as part of the adjective entry bošnjački (Bosniak). In line with previous inconsistencies in the Croatian dictionary, the masculine and feminine forms Srbin, Srpkinja (Serb) are marked as "demonyms" within the entry srpski 7 (Serbian), but Srbi (Serbs) has the status of a separate entry, denoting the name of a people.
Thus, although Veliki rječnik hrvatskoga standardnog jezika (Great Dictionary of the Croatian Standard Language) differentiates between demonyms and ethnonyms as special lexical units or linguistic terms, the description of lexical material exclusively relies on demonyms -instead of the term ethnonym, the abbreviation etn is used or the descriptive identificationa member of a people. Bearing in mind certain segments of the specific edition, the general impression is that the semantic content of the terms demonym and ethnonym and the semantic difference between the inhabitant of a state -a member of a people are not consistently and adequately represented. On the other hand, it is surprising that Hrvatska enciklopedija (Croatian Encyclopedia) presents the terms demonym and ethnonym as synonymous.
Veliki rečnik stranih reči i izraza (Dictionary of Foreign Words and Expressions) by Klajn and Šipka (2007), defines an ethnonym as "the name of a people, a member of a people", without labeling it terminologically. The demonym, on the other hand, is marked as a linguistic term denoting "inhabitants in relation to a particular populated place or a country". The same entries, however, cannot be found in Rječnik stranih riječi (Dictionary of Foreign Words) by Domović, Anić and Klaić (2001).

Ethnonyms and demonyms in BCMS grammar books
In the part reserved for noun formation, Normativna gramatika srpskog jezika pays special attention to the so-called ethnic suffixes, calling the derivatives formed by this type of suffix only as demonyms (Piper and Klajn 2013: 223). The primary definition of the term demonym is categorically inconsistent -"broadly speaking, demonyms do not only designate nationality but are also derived from the names of cities, countries, provinces, continents, etc." (ibid.). Based on such a formulation, it could be concluded that the noun Crnogorac (Montenegrin) is not derived from the two-part toponym Crna Gora (Montenegro) when it designates nationality (cf. Šimunović 2009: 201). Nevertheless, it can also be concluded that the noun crnogorizacija (Montenegrization) is a derivative belonging to demonyms. Evidently, the given definition not only neglects the semantic specificity of the terms demonym and ethnonym but also brings into question the terminological and use value of ethnonyms.
In Gramatika bosanskoga jezika (Jahić, Halilović and Palić 2000: 314, 150), demonyms are defined as nouns denoting ethnic or geographical affiliation, namely "belonging to a place, people, country, etc." The semantic value of the concept demonym includes, therefore, what belongs to the concept ethnonym.
The term demonym is also present in Hrvatska gramatika (Barić et al. 2005) in a chapter dealing with noun formation/suffixation. It is semantically identified as "a word designating the inhabitant of a settlement, region, country, continent, or the appellative for men or women in relation to where they come from" (Barić et al. 2005: 313) 8 .
Gramatika crnogorskoga jezika deals with the word-formation of "nouns referring to the inhabitants and members of a people/country" (Čirgić, Pranjković and Silić 2010: 141, 144), but their terminological naming by means of internationalisms of Greek origin (demonyms -ethnonyms) is missing.
The above-mentioned grammar books of the BCMS language show, therefore, that none of them identifies the nouns designating "members of a people" as ethnonyms -instead, such meaning is attributed to demonyms in the grammar books of Serbian and Bosnian.

Ethnonyms and demonyms in onomastic descriptions
The fact that the names of peoples and inhabitants are neglected from a theoretical perspective is expressed in the manual of lexicology by Šipka (2006).
Regardless of the time of publication and the linguistic circumstances at the time, the manual was made with the aim of "building a coherent and simple model of a general and Serbo-Croatian lexicon" (Šipka 2006: 7). In the chapter dedicated to onomastics as a "highly autonomous lexicological discipline" that is focused on the proper names, ethnonyms and demonyms are not identified as onomastic categories (Šipka 2006: 141-149, 245).
On the other hand, in support of the frequent semantic differentiation of the terms ethnonym and demonym in the Croatian scientific context, we will mention Uvod u hrvatsko jezikoslovlje by Šimunović (2009). Ethnonyms and demonyms are singled out and defined in this truly unique contribution to the onomastics of Slavic languages as special anthroponymic categories in a separate subsection (5.2.4). Their definitions are, however, more precisely given in the previous part of the book (Šimunović 2009: 75): demonym -"the name of the inhabitant of a place, region", ethnonym -"the name of a people, nationality, ethnic group".
To a certain extent, Šimunović's interpretation of demonyms and ethnonyms is in accordance with his view that "the singular form of demonyms and ethnonyms has the characteristics of appellatives instead of names, although they retain some features of proper names in terms of their associative content," that is, their singular form does not identify a person as an individual but as a member of a particular collective/group (Šimunović 2009: 200-201) (cf. also Peti 1997). Šimunović (2009) also defines demonyms as "names" when they designate a particular "inhabitant of a place". Contrary to that, he (ibid.) does not define an ethnonym as a separate designation -as a name of a member of "a particular ethnicity/people/nationality". With regard to his definition of ethnonyms, we need to point out the (previously mentioned) theoretical disagreements in the interpretation of the nominal status of ethnonyms and demonyms (proper or common nouns), which is the reason why different lexicographic editions of Serbo-Croatian and BCMS offer different grammatical forms of ethnonyms: plural nominative naming ethnos as a group (Rečnik srpskohrvatskoga književnog jezika (Dictionary of the Serbo-Croatian Literary Language), Veliki rječnik hrvatskoga standardnog jezika 9 (Great Dictionary of the Croatian Standard Language, etc.)) or singular nominative naming a member of a particular ethnos (e.g.

Rečnik srpskohrvatskog književnog i narodnog jezika (Dictionary of Serbo-Croatian Literary and Vernacular Language), Rečnik srpskoga jezika 10 (Dictionary of the Serbian Language), Rječnik crnogorskog narodnog i književnog jezika (Dictionary of Montenegrin National and Literary Language, etc.)).
Based on the above-mentioned, it can be concluded that the term demonym has a longer tradition than ethnonym and, therefore, a more stable theoretical position in the linguistic literature of the former Serbo-Croatian language: it always appears as a lexical unit in dictionaries, and mainly as a category of wordformation in current grammar books. Although their lexicographic definitions are generally homogenous, demonyms often have incomplete definitions (they are explained as words denoting people in relation to their residence, not origin).
However, from the perspective of word formation (dominantly incomplete in the previous sense) they are sometimes interpreted as ethnonyms in terms of their semantic content. The internationalism ethnonym is unjustifiably absent from most of the consulted lexicographic editions, and its terminological value is neglected in the word-formation classifications of nouns in BCMS or descriptions of their grammatical systems.
On the basis of a broader insight into the literature related to the former Serbo-Croatian language, and considering the editions consulted in this article, it can be concluded that the terminological delineation of the terms ethnonym and demonym has a relatively stable theoretical status in the Croatian literaturethey have the status of autonomous linguistic units, and they are lexicographically defined and categorically positioned in the onomastic system. However, the lexical descriptions of the modern Croatian language show us that a theoretical demarcation is not always easily presented in lexicographic practice.
Considering the above, we can conclude that defining ethnonyms and demonyms as linguistic terms should be established and consistent (in dictionaries, grammar books, and onomastic descriptions). Ethnonyms should not be reduced to collective designations (peoples), because they also designate individuals as members of a collective (a people). As for demonyms, on the other hand, their definition should not exclude the territorial affiliation based on origin as these names identify individuals in relation to a particular place -the place of residence or origin. In the continuation of the paper, we will show that considering certain political and legal resolutions, their semantic content is wider.

The relationship between the terms a people / a member of a peoplean inhabitant of a country from the perspective of multi-ethnic countries
Observing the terminological peculiarities of the internationalisms demonym and ethnonym as they are mainly presented in linguistic literature and dictionary editions, we will also dwell on the lexicographic definitions and semantic content of the concepts a people and an inhabitant. As a lexical unit, the noun narod (a people) has several meanings. In accordance with our topic, we will only interpret the meaning identified as primary in lexicographic definitions. It is according to the primary meaning that this noun refers to a large community of people "with the same ethnic name", formed usually "on the shared origin, language, territory, tradition, culture, religion, social life, etc." (Rečnik srpskoga jezika 2007). Given the previously explained interpretations of the terms ethnonym and demonym, our impression is that their interpretations do not always take into account the semantic specificity of the concepts a people, nation, nationality. The fact that they (and other concepts related to them) are not terminologically differentiated can be proved by the results of the last population census in Montenegro, which showed that national affiliation and ethnic affiliation were perceived as one thing ("national or ethnic affiliation" 11 ) (Monstat 2011). Although the relation-ship between a people and a nation is perceived as a complex one in the literature of various social disciplines, the space constraints of the article limit the discussion thereof. Certainly, these are not categories of the same value for social science experts, and the modern age has shed light on their political and legal distinction. It is also certain, however, that lexical descriptions of their meanings are often confused (see the entry nation in Vujaklija 2007), or that the dichotomy of a people -a nation does not have a precise lexicographic form (cf. Rečnik srpskoga jezika 2007), and is not, therefore, consistently present in the definition of individual identity designations. In that context, it is important to say that adequate semantic demarcation of the concepts of a people and a nation, from today's perspective, is important for lexicographic interpretations of the individual names of peoples or nations, but also that correct interpretations of that kind can be expected only after modern social sciences solve conceptual and terminological problems that usually follow discussions of "ethnic and national identity" and social identity in general (see Korunić 2003: 163).
Unlike the lexeme people, the lexical scope of the noun inhabitant is unambiguous and defined as a person who is permanently or temporarily residing somewhere.
The semantic interpretation of the lexeme people and inhabitant also raises the question of the distinction between the name of a people from the name of the inhabitants of a country, considering that the members of the people who have their own country are mostly the inhabitants of that country.
The statement that a member of a people is the same as "a resident of the country (if one refers to it as a state)" (Vuković 2007: 172;cf. 173-174) is not realistic from the perspective of demographic reality and multi-ethnic states. In fact, the given claim is denied by the fact that representatives of different peoples usually live in one state, but also that certain peoples do not have their own state territory. This claim can be opposed with data on the "national, or ethnic affiliation" of the Montenegrin population according to the 2011 census. Of the total population (620,029), 44.98% are Montenegrins, 28.73% Serbs, 8.65% Bosniaks, 4.91% Albanians, 3.31% Muslims, 1.01% Roma, 0.97% Croats, 0.15% Macedonians, 0.15% Russians, and 0.07% Bosnians. Interestingly, some declared themselves as Yugoslavs (0.19%), but there were also people declared as Serbs-Montenegrins, Montenegrins-Serbs, Muslims-Bosniaks, Bosniaks-Muslims, Muslims-Montenegrins, and Montenegrins-Muslims.

Lexemes Albanian and Bosniak in the DMNLL
In societies with a diverse ethnic/national mosaic, the reality is heavily burdened with collective feelings. What best confirms this is the question addressed to the MASA after the publication of the first volume of the DMNLL -"Does MASA advocate ethnically pure states when it defines ethnonyms according to the state they allegedly come from?" 12 (Čirgić 2016: 788). It could be concluded that such a question resulted from the lexicographic definitions of the entries Albanian, Austrian, Bosnian, Bosniak, Bulgarian 13 and their feminine forms in Montenegrin. However, in the case of the DMNLL, both professionals and laymen problematized only the definition of the entries Albanian and Bosniak. The lexeme Albanian in the DMNLL is defined as "an inhabitant of Albania; one having their origin from Albania" (see Appendix A). The same type of definition is also used for the forms such as Bosnian, Bulgarian, etc. When it comes to the lexeme Bosniak, two meanings are identified: "1. A member of the Bosniak people, a Muslim who lives in Bosnia or one having their origin from Bosnia 2. A member of the South Slavic people who are followers of Islam, mainly residing in Bosnia" (ibid.) (see Appendix B).
Unlike Bosniak, the entry Albanian is defined as a demonym in the DMNL Dictionary (both categories -inhabitants and origin imply geographic affiliation). However, the same dictionary does not define the lexeme Albanian as an ethnonym. It is evident that the lexicographic content in question lacks a part which identifies the Albanian people as a cultural-historical category or a part by which nationality is primarily determined on the basis of perceived originon the so-called spiritual level, i.e. as a member of something "which is only a concept in linguistics" (Vuković 2007: 174). In that sense, it can be concluded that the lexicographic description is not complete. On the other hand, the noun Albanian as a derivative representing demonym (based on its constituent elements) has a proper definition from a linguistic perspective -this is confirmed by the ways in which word formation is treated in the grammatical literature of the BCMS language. In that regard, it is worth mentioning that the lexeme Albanian is, for example, defined in the DMNLL in the same way as in Fjalor i shqipes sё sotme (Dictionary of Modern Albanian) of the Albanian Academy of Sciences and Arts (2002). Although perfectly aware of that, Albanian politicians in Montenegro remained resolute that the DMNLL definition was discriminatory.
Political representatives of the Albanian and Bosniak people in Montenegro, but also some linguists, indicated strong disapproval of the definitions of Albanian and Bosniak in the MASA Dictionary because they did not recognize these two peoples as autochthonous constituents of Montenegrin society, and according to Albanian politicians, the definition of Albanian lacked yet another important segment -the fact that "Albania is the mother country of all Albanians, wherever they live" (Cafe del Montenegro 2016). After the publication of the DMNLL, political interpretations of the problematic definitions emphasized the fact that these are minority peoples who represent an autochthonous part of Montenegrin society, but that Montenegro is not their mother country. Regardless of the political and legal scope of the concept mother country, it is certain, however, that the linguistic scope of defining an Albanian as "a person of Albanian origin" does not exclude the sense of belonging of Albanians born in Montenegro to Albania as their home country. Exactly the same feeling is present in the definition in the Dictionary of Modern Albanian. In this regard, it is important to understand the lexeme origin: its semantic content implies belonging or background of a person acquired by birth -belonging to a family, nation, state, class, etc. In this case, it would imply belonging to a country acquired by ethnicity, not by place of birth.
Unlike the noun Albanian, as we have shown, the entry Bosniak in the DMNLL is primarily a designation of ethnic-religious identity; its "spiritual" dimension is partially visible in the geographical designation, and its semantic content is interpreted similarly in Rječnik bosanskoga jezika 14 (Halilović, Palić and Šehović 2010). Thus, the DMNLL does not primarily link the lexeme Bosniak with the meaning derived from its form, based on which Jahić (2020) sees it as an ethnic designation semantically identical with the form Bosanac (Bosnian) and Bošnjanin, Bošnjan ("formed from the root Bos-and the South Slavic suffix -(n)jak").
In relation to Jahić's interpretation, it is now interesting to look at the fact that in Rečnik srpskohrvatskoga književnog jezika (Dictionary of the Serbo-Croatian Literary Language) (1967)(1968)(1969)(1970)(1971)(1972)(1973)(1974)(1975)(1976), a synonymous definition is given for the entry Bošnjak (Bosniak) -"a. Bosanac" (Bosnian), whereby the lexeme Bosanac (Bosnian) is explained as "a person from Bosnia". In fact, according to the lexicographic interpretation of the time, these two lexical units designated spatial affiliation to the "province of Bosnia" instead of ethnic/national affiliation (that is why they are offered in the singular form, unlike other peoples of Yugoslavia -Macedonians, Slovenes, Serbs, Croats and Montenegrins, who were represented in the plural form 15 ). The modern perspective sheds light on the "socio-historical principle" (Ristić 2006: 97), which is why the same dictionary marks the secondary meaning of the noun Bosniak -"a Muslim from Bosnia" as "obsolete"therefore, a component of the current semantic content of the lexeme Bosniak (see Bošnjak in the Rečnik srpskoga jezika 2007) was out of date (no longer in use) in the seventies of the XX century.
Although renominations and lexical redefinitions reflect the functioning of language in a certain social environment, a linguistic fact cannot be ignored in this particular case -the country of Bosnia makes "the formal and semantic basis" of the name Bosniak (Jahić 2020). Lexical description of the entry Bosniak should thus be based on it, regardless of the demographic profile of a certain area.
Concerning the lexical definition of the lexeme Bosniak in the DMNLL, we have linguistic responsibility to pay attention to the elements that were ignored by the critics of the Dictionary: the semantic components reflecting the inclusion or hyponimic relationship are represented as different -the meaning of a Bosniak as a "member of the Bosniak people" is singled out as the primary and special one compared to the meaning expressing a Bosniak as a "member of the South Slavic people ...". In doing so, the principle of a circular definition was applied: the entry Bosniak is defined with the relative adjective bošnjački (Bosniak) which has a grammatical definition ("relating to Bosniaks") and whose lexical meaning should be revealed by the definition of the basic word -Bosniak. Circular lexicographic definitions are, however, also present in the analysis of this type of entry in the other contemporary lexicographical editions. For example, Rječnik bosanskog jezika (Dictionary of the Bosnian Language) (2007), defines the lexeme Bošnjak (Bosniak) by the adjective bošnjački (Bosniak) -as a "member of the Bosniak nation" (cf.: adj. Bosniak -"relating to Bosniaks"). Although the specific definition does not convey the specifics of the Bosniak people, the ethnic/national feelings of their members were not hurt -or the reactions were not recognized.

Designations of national and territorial affiliation and their politicallegal contextualization in Montenegro
We believe that the criticism of the given lexicographic definitions needs to be contextualized with the following data. Unlike the Constitution from 1992, which designates Montenegro as the national state of the Montenegrin people, the Constitution from 2007 (the latest one) defines Montenegro as a civic state, in which the bearer of sovereignty is the "citizen with Montenegrin citizenship", and the preamble of the Constitution stipulates that "Montenegro is inhabited by Montenegrins, Serbs, Bosniacs, Albanians, Muslims, Croats and the others who are committed to democratic and civic Montenegro" 16 . The current constitution, therefore, does not define Montenegro as a national state of Montenegrins (not even in the preamble of the above-mentioned nations); it is the "multinational state" or "national neutrality" (Stojanović 2021: 94) that is set as one of its basic principles. Of course, all residents of Montenegro with Montenegrin citizenship are Montenegrins: even if they are not part of the Montenegrin people, they are Montenegrins according to their civic identity -and their demonym is Montenegrins. In other words, all Montenegrins as citizens of Montenegro do not belong to the majority of Montenegrin people. Namely, Serbs, Bosniaks, Albanians, Muslims, Croats, etc. are members of ethnic groups in Montenegro and are united with the Montenegrin people by the demonym Montenegrins. However, as shown by the interpretations given within the 2011 population census, the demonym Montenegrin also belongs to foreign citizens and stateless persons with permanent or temporary residence in Montenegro (Monstat 2011). Even more broadly, the demonym Montenegrin also belongs to the foreign citizens who live outside of Montenegro but who have obtained Montenegrin citizenship (eg, so-called economic citizenship obtained by investing money in the local economy). This actually suggests that the contemporary meaning of demonyms (designating territorial affiliation) is actually broader in comparison to its constituent elements that we first presented. The demonym Montenegrin, for example, does not only designate a person who lives in Montenegro (with or without Montenegrin citizenship) and one having their origin from Montenegro -it also designates an individual with Montenegrin citizenship who does not live in Montenegro.
In view of the consequences that followed after the publication of the first volume of the DMNLL (2016), and for the sake of the future lexicographic activities in Montenegro, a question needs to be addressed -does the concept of Montenegro as a civic state imply that civic identity has priority over ethnic identity in lexicographic descriptions of the designations such as Montenegrin, Serb, Bosniak, Albanian, Muslim, Croat, etc.? The affirmative answer would imply that these names are primarily identified as demonyms -designating the inhabitants of the state territory they are named after (if they are derived from the name of a particular state territory) / designating the individuals who come from that territory / designating citizens of Montenegro -which also implies the harmonization of linguistic and non-linguistic criteria in the arrangement of their components of meaning, and then as ethnonyms -as names of peoples specified linguistically (language family) and geographically (home country). With such a model, minority ethnic communities would (in line with their expectations after the publication of the DMNLL) be identified both according to the domicile and home country. In that sense, however, Muslims and Serbs in Montenegro should be given special lexicographic attention. For Montenegrin Muslims (unlike Albanians, Bosniaks and Croats), Montenegro is their "only homeland" and "their mother tongue is Montenegrin" (Tomović 2011). On the other hand, Serbs in Montenegro are divided when it comes to their home state (Serbia/Montenegro), which is yet another confirmation that the ethnic peculiarities of the Balkans are difficult to include in lexicographic models of national and territorial affiliation.
Concerning the ethnic image of Montenegro, we need to add that the last census (2011) in Montenegro showed that 427 persons (0.07% of the population) identified themselves as Bosanci (Bosnians). In theory, however, this particular name should not be identified with national identity as it belongs to the political and legal framework and as such exclusively refers to the identity of the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This type of divergence represents precisely one of the issues and topics within the sphere of social sciences, and lexicographic descriptions depend on the interpretations in this field. On the other hand, the political-legal simplification of the name Bosnian as a designation of exclusively civic identity is contrary to philological or linguistic interpretations which emphasize that in linguistic terms "there is no difference" between the designations Bošnjak (Bosniak) and Bosanac (Bosnian), or Bošnjanin, Bošnjan, Bošnjak and Bosanac as they all "stem from Bos-, designating the specific Bosnian space, country and its historical, cultural and linguistic being" (Jahić 2020). In light of this divergence, lexicography faces an important question -how to overcome the disparity of linguistic and political-legal interpretation of certain linguistic designations, as well as the fact that collective identity feelings in the Balkans cannot always fit into the theoretical framework of the social sciences. While answers to this type of question require interdisciplinary engagement, lexico-graphic definitions of ethnic/national identity designations (based on the meaning of their constituent elements) presuppose both political and legal basis and demarcation of certain conceptual categories.

Conclusion
Although the problematic definitions from the DMNLL are more or less standard in dictionaries of other languages of the Balkans and monolingual dictionaries of world languages, it is obvious that today's situation in the Balkans imposes their reconsideration and redefinition. The DMNLL has shown that Balkan societies are "still heavily burdened by collective feelings" (Vukčević 2015: 20), which is why the lexical description of the names of Balkan peoples and the names of the inhabitants of Balkan countries is a very sensitive issue that requires careful examination by experts from various fields. After the publication of the DMNLL, dictionary ethnic and civic identifications were not within the framework of objective scientific postulates and lexicographic principles and were generally "defined" by the media coverage of politicians who articulated the collective feelings of their voters. Nevertheless, Montenegrin lexicography is confronted with specific expectations of unsatisfied ethnic/ national groups -their collective identity feelings are based on their affiliation to both the "domicile" and "mother country". Aware of the complex identity issue that stopped the lexicographic endeavors of the highest-ranking scientific institution in Montenegro, this article has tried to present the issues that exceed linguistic competencies and are important for the establishment of a proper model for the lexicographic definitions of the identity designations -a model that would reflect what is known as an ideal type of identity in the sociological literature (the identity that includes ethnic-cultural and territorial-political/civic elements). Certainly, such a model of the definition implies a difference between categories a member of a people and an inhabitant of a country, but our study has shown that it should also include the category of a citizen of a country (as citizenship is a legal relationship that is not exclusively conditioned by the place/country of residence). Along with the precise and consistent linguistic demarcation of the terms ethnonym and demonym, the definition should also be expanded to include demonyms as a derivative motivated by the name of a country (a person who belongs to a particular country as a place of residence, origin, or citizenship -regardless of the place of residence). Apart from raising important questions and offering insights for further research, this article has also demonstrated that linguistics needs to be complemented by other disciplines when it comes to the lexicographic descriptions of the Balkan names and the priority of their semantic components. It is only the interdisciplinary engagement that can, therefore, solve issues of this kind and prevent any potential negative reactions to future lexical descriptions.