Researcher Afrim Krasniqi has reacted to the changes he made to the Online Dictionary of the Albanian Language, following criticisms made by him on social networks.
He underlines that the final result is a professional dictionary and should have been consulted with experts in the field.
Full post:
Good news. The dictionary authors have reflected my criticism and have changed the definition of “party” in the online dictionary. It didn’t take 9 months, but it was done in three days and this is still good news. I thank them because the goal is a professional dictionary, nothing personal.
The previous suggestion remains valid: this entire debate could have been avoided if the dictionary had been consulted with experts in the respective fields, including political scientists, lawyers, historians, etc. The new change is not complete, but it nevertheless approaches the contemporary concept of parties as free organizations of citizens who unite around a program and aim, through representation in local and central elections, to influence policies/decision-making, – by abandoning the “class” label in the previous version.
Let this case be both a form of acceptance and constructive reaction from the responsible editorial staff, but also an initiative to review a much larger number of terms that are also incorrect, do not comply with contemporary terminology and reflect expressions and mentalities of a time that we should have left behind in December 1990. So, in political, institutional, legal terms, etc., the dictionary still needs revisions, additions, changes and new formulations, to "depoliticize" and free the Albanian language from indoctrination.
Another alarming and absurd example? All the authors are professors, the publishing institution consists of professors, just look at how the term “professor” is explained in the new dictionary: in addition to explaining science through “production employees”, it is stated: professors are those who “have prepared or published original scientific works of high ideological and scientific quality”. Ideological quality?! Is this a joke? 35 years after the fall of the totalitarian system, in which ideological quality was a criterion over scientific quality, ideological quality is being restored as a standard?! Without meaning or explanation. It may have been copied from the 1980 version, there may be technical errors, etc., but to be serious, there is no alibi for such absurdities. At the very least, the drafters should have shown greater attention to the terms associated with their own scientific title!
It needs to be corrected, edited, depoliticized, and consulted with experts in the fields. The sooner the better. For the dictionary, for the language, for everyone. This is a major work that deserves all the respect and due institutional, public, and academic attention.
