Montenegrin language?

[Marcus Marulus]

September 2007

What language do most Montenegrins speak?



Montenegrin King Nicholas monument in Podgorica

Until 1991, this was an easy question to answer: the language most people in Montenegro spoke was called Serbo-Croatian. In 1991, the new constitution defined the official language as "Serbian in the ijekavian version". Following independence, many prominent Montenegrins argue that this, too, is inadequate. "If the Serbs call it Serbian, the Croats Croatian, the Bosnians Bosnian, why shouldn't we call it Montenegrin?" Montenegro's ruling DPS-SDP coalition is trying to declare Montenegrin the official language of the state.

In the 2003 census, 62.9 percent of the citizens said that they spoke Serbian, which was declared the republic's official language under its 1992 constitution, while only 25 percent said the language they spoke was Montenegrin. However, this may all have changed since independence. Research by the Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (CEDEM) in June 2007 revealed that roughly a third of citizens say they speak Montenegrin, another third opt for Serbian, and the balance are undecided.

The Serbian List insists that the language in the Constitution must be Serbian, considering, as they claim, that Montenegrins are in fact Serbs, or at least of Serbian roots. The Socialists People's Party, the People's Party and the Democratic Serbian Party are also in favour of Serbian as the official language. The DPS and its allies prefer that the language be known as Montenegrin. A compromise position will have to be found, in order to ensure the two-thirds majority in parliament required to adopt a new constitution (otherwise a referendum on the constitution will have to be called).



Dragan Koprivica, a writer and official of the Socialist People's Party, says that "as far as the history and literature of the Serbian and Montenegrin peoples go, it is clear that our ancestors and our greatest poets and writers were proud of speaking Serbian language":

"In Serbia and Bosnia, those who speak a very similar language obeyed the will of the majority of their people and called the language Serbian or Bosnian. In Montenegro, the majority of the people claims to speak Serbian. The argument of the government that the language should be named after the state is therefore flawed."



The Movement for Changes proposed a compromise solution: "The official language is a single language that may be referred to as Montenegrin, Serbian". Branko Radulovic, vice president of the Movement for Changes, told ESI:

"Linguistically speaking, it is obviously the same language, but seen through the lens of the nation and the state, different people can call it Serbian, Bosnian, or Croatian. Four years ago, the census showed 60 percent in favour of the Serbian language, but if you repeat the questioner now, you would probably get some 60 to 70% in favour of Montenegrin".



In August 2007 a representative of the ruling DPS, Miodrag Vukovic offered a similar solution:

"The official language in Montenegro is Montenegrin, but it may be referred to as Serbian, Bosnian or Croatian".



Vaselj Sinistaj, official of the Albanian Alternative, prefers the language to be called Montenegrin, after the state:

"In the municipalities where minorities are represented in great numbers, their mother tongue should also be used in official communication. Next to the state-official language, on the local level the same status should be given to minority languages. This should, concretely, be the case with Albanian in Ulcinj and Tuzi."



The Bosnian Party argues that Montenegrin, Serbian, Bosnian, and even Croatian, should all be listed as official languages. In the conflict between Serbian and Montenegrin, Bosnian may also sneak in as a political compromise.

"We all speak a single language, we are within the same linguistic system, but the people call it Serbian or Montenegrin. If Bosnian is added, we would support this proposal."

Beyond the political battlefield, there is the clash of linguists of the Faculty of Philosophy in Niksic. The followers of the recently passed away Vojislav Nikcevic, a linguist who wrote a grammar of the Montenegrin language, point out the fine differences between Serbian and Montenegrin.



Adnan Cirgic, executive director of the institute for Montenegrin language, told ESI that the Montenegrin language has had more than a thousand years of tradition, and that it developed alongside the Montenegrin nation in a particular geographic and historical environment.
"While until mid-19th century the Serbian writers wrote in a language foreign and incomprehensible to their people, Montenegrin language had a local base long before the birth of Vuk Karadzic, and it gave birth already then to some of the most famous works of Montenegrin literature. In that sense, Montenegro had little use for the Vuk's language reform (19th century), except with regard to orthography, because there was very little to reform. As a confirmation of wide differences, I would cite one characteristic example: Njegos's Mountain Wrath has been abridged and translated into Serbian language as a short story, for the benefit of the Serbian readers. If it were the same language, there would have been no need to translate it."

According to him, the most important difference is the dialectical usage of long e (e in Serbian, je, ije in Montenegrin).

"In addition to the 30 letters in Serbian, Montenegrin has three more distinct sounds, of which two are widely used all across the Montenegrin linguistic space. This has also been acknowledged by Serbian linguists. These consonants should therefore find their way into our standard language. Besides, Montenegrin has a handful of other sounds produced by the conversion of the long e which are unknown to Serbian… I am currently working on the differences between Serbian and Montenegrin language. The number of such differences is more than obvious and sufficient to speak about a separate Montenegrin standard."

He adds that Montenegrin is not officially standardised nor can be until the state adopts it under that name.

"This does not mean that textbooks are missing. Academic Vojislav Nikcevic already systematised the language: he wrote the grammar, orthographic rules, as well as a two-volume history of the language. We have started together the Dialectology of the Montenegrin language, and the Institute for Montenegrin language, founded by him, began working on the project of a Dictionary of Montenegrin Language. His textbooks are used in the programmes of Slavic Studies around the world. A month ago, a Polish linguist Przemislav Brom defended a PhD dissertation on Montenegrin language."



Montenegrin writer Balsa Brkovic, also argues for the adoption of Montenegrin, albeit not based on its differences with Serbian:
"Seeing that, out of four nations using the same language, which linguistically is undoubtedly the same, three (Serbs, Croats, Bosnians) call it by the name of their state or nation, the right of Montenegrins to do the same is indisputable. On the other hand, in reaction to this a number of Serbian linguists jump to claim that it is not the same language, but if Serbian and Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian, or Bosnian and Croatian are all different languages, then Montenegrin is just as different."

Commenting on the fact that most of South America speaks Spanish and the North English, Brkovic explains that in their cases the language came as the language of a colonial power and an imposed culture which ate up the native ones.

"Our case is very different. This language did not come to Montenegro from Serbia so that we should call it Serbian. There is another unusual reason for Montenegrins to call their language Montenegrin. All the ancient Croatian texts before the Vuk and Danicic 19th century reform can barely be understood nowadays. Even the Serbian texts from the same period can only be read if translated from the Church Slavonic, Slavo-Serbian etc. to the contemporary language. In Montenegro, however, if you take the texts written by Peter I, who lived long before the Vuk's reform, or even older texts, you will be surprised, for you do not need a translator. Why? Vuk, the creator of the reform was from Montenegro and he used this reform to impose the Montenegrin standard as a basis for the literary standard of all south Slavs. It is an undeniable proof: not only should Montenegrins not hesitate to call it their own name, but, and I do not like saying it like this, but they have at least as much right as others to call it as they wish."

However, professors advocating for the language to be called Serbian also claim that science is on their side. Jelica Stojanovic, linguist and professor at the Faculty of Philosophy in Niksic defends this position to ESI:



"Speaking of dialects, the territory of today's Montenegro fits perfectly (and always did!) into the wider continuum of the Serbian language, as its inalienable part – no speech, no dialect nor a single linguistic specificity or a trait ends on the borders of Montenegro, none of it is "only Montenegrin", nor "generally Montenegrin", as the non-scientific circles attempt to portray it. As for the traditional and cultural identification and name-giving, the language in Montenegro, ever since it has a name, has been only Serbian."

According to Stojanovic, neither the literary (standard) expression nor the local language spoken in Montenegro contain any linguistic elements to set it aside from the wider Serbian language.

"Now, if on account of this story you publish and interview with two people of different opinions, it does not mean that the scientific community of linguists is divided on the question. The best representation of the attitude of science and profession towards this "problem" is the recently held conference in Podgorica (organized by the Montenegrin academy of arts and sciences and the Institute for South East European Languages in Oslo). Of some forty participants, only one (R. Glusica) argued in favour of "standardisation" of the Montenegrin language. The non-scientific basis of his presentation has been clearly exposed in the subsequent discussion."

She gives the example of English, which is the only official language, or one of the languages, in some 45 countries of the world: "What would happen if they too applied our "golden rule" to "give" English each their local or national title?!"

[source]

[Marcus Marulus]

02 November 2007

Making Montenegro

Montenegro finally completes its split with its former federal partner, Serbia, with the hard fought battle for the adoption of a new constitution, and the victory, though narrow, attests to the country's progress. From ISA.

By ISA Staff (02/11/07)

Montenegro's parliament on 22 October narrowly passed the country's first constitution since breaking free from its federation with Serbia last year. The contentious vote passed with much opposition from pro-Serbian parties, who would rather establish closer relations with Serbia.

After months of tough talks, the ruling coalition secured the two-thirds majority required to pass the constitution without a referendum, a condition imposed by the previous constitution.

In the 81-seat parliament, the new constitution was supported by 55 lawmakers, while 21, mostly pro-Serbian MPs, voted against, with some Albanian minority representatives abstaining.

After more than a year-long wait for a new constitution, Montenegro has finally completed its split from Serbia and from a relationship in which Montenegro was widely viewed as little more than a rubber stamp for Serbian political decisions following the breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s.

The Montenegrin language has replaced Serbian as the official language. However, most Montenegrin citizens, some 60 percent, conceded that they speak Serbian. The difference between the two languages is minor, and pro-Serbian politicians in Montenegro refuse to recognize the existence of a separate Montenegrin language.

Pro-Serbian officials insist that Serbian should be Montenegro's official language. They also objected to the adoption of the red flag with the Montenegrin royal eagle to replace the red, white and blue standard that is similar to the Serbian flag.

The Serbian Orthodox Church in Montenegro also opposes the new constitution because it labels the church as a religious community, without stating its full name, clearing the path for the possible recognition of the Montenegrin Orthodox Church as the country's preeminent religious institution.

Pro-Serbian politicians argue that the Montenegrin Orthodox Church is not canonically recognized by other Orthodox churches and, as such, cannot gain equal status to its Serbian counterpart.

The new Constitution also guarantees the separation of religion and state.

During the parliamentary discussion Serb List legislator Dobrilo Dedeic tore up the text of the proposed constitution in a dramatic gesture, arguing that it discriminated against Serbs and failed to promote reconciliation.

"SL and the Serbian people are not going to recognize the new constitution and soon we are going to open the Serbian status issue in Montenegro. Serbian citizens will remember those who voted for this document," Dedeic told the parliament as he tore up the document.

According to Dedeic, the new constitution complicates politics in the country while promoting instability.

Still, though the opposition pro-Serbian parties have vehemently opposed the new constitution - superficially because its grants minority status to the country's circa 200,000 Serbs, who account for 32 percent of the population and because Serbs would no longer enjoy dual citizenship - it seems that their main grievance is the government's attempt to distance itself from Serbia.

Minutes before the vote, Serb List delegates circulated the opposition declaration amongst pro-Serbian MPs, advising them to reject the proposed constitution. The declaration appealed to Montenegrin Serbs through cunningly emphasized their Serbian background, playing on nationalist sentiments with talk of displaying the Serbian flag as the official symbol in each community where they are the majority.

The document also called on Serbs to seek Serbian citizenship and to protect the eparchies of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Montenegro. Serb List legislators engaged in another dramatic gesture during the constitutional debate, remaining seated while the new Montenegrin national anthem was played. At its conclusion, they left they room.

The Albanian minority, which comprises 5 percent of the population, was also unhappy with the new constitution. Some minority parties abstained from voting, objecting to the new constitution on the grounds that their demand for the granting of municipal status for the region of Malesija, where they are the majority, was not met.

But in the end, a number of Albanian minority representatives, along with Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) and Croatian minority representatives, voted for the document, with the Serb List accusing them of a "betrayal of Serbian national interests."

Some of the pro-Serbian delegates also proposed to retain the ethnic concept of the state, meaning that all nationalities - Montenegrins, Serbs, Bosniaks, Muslims, Albanians and Croats - would be represented in a second chamber of parliament, the Nations Council.

However, that could eventually lead to a situation similar to that in present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina where separate administrative units based on ethnic divisions makes for an extremely complicated and paralyzing system of "ethnic decision making."

Probably the most significance attribute of Montenegro's new constitution is that the ruling coalition secured a two-thirds majority in the parliament, meaning that in the future it can easily pass decisions - such as whether to join NATO or other international clubs - without the support or obstruction of pro-Serbian opposition parties.

Montenegrin Prime Minister Zeljko Sturanovic told reporters after the ceremony that his country had demonstrated its political maturity by adopting the new constitution with a two-thirds majority, adding that Montenegro had also taken an important step towards EU membership by recently signing the Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA) - the first steps towards EU accession for western Balkan nations and a step Bosnia has so far failed to take.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Mission to Montenegro expressed satisfaction with the document, saying that it is in line with the Council of Europe's recommendations.

"With the new constitution Montenegro has taken one more important step in its effort to strengthen democratic reforms and the rule of law," the OSCE said in a statement.

The new constitution fulfils one criterion in Montenegro's bid for EU membership.

Completing the adoption of a new constitution was defined as a priority following the 21 May referendum on independence, which ended the 88-year-old union with Serbia.

Montenegro separated from its former federal partner after a controversial referendum on independence. Fifty-five percent of the population had voted in favor, while 44.5 percent voted to maintain the status quo. The result narrowly met the threshold requirement of 55 percent approval set by the EU.

Montenegro was the smallest among the six republics in federal Yugoslavia and was the only one to remain in a federation with Serbia after 1992. Its troops within the former Yugoslav Army and paramilitary forces participated in the wars in Croatia and Bosnia and Hercegovina.

In the past several years, Montenegro has distanced itself from Serbian wartime aggression, and Croatia, in turn, was one of the first countries to recognize Montenegro's independence.

Montenegrin officials apologized for their republic's involvement in attacks on the Croatian resort city of Dubrovnik, which caused several hundred civilian deaths and destroyed countless homes, and agreed to pay damages. They also apologized to Bosnian citizens, Bosniaks and Croats, "for any evil or calamity that anyone in Bosnia-Herzegovina suffered at the hands of anyone from Montenegro."

So for now, though not without much opposition, Montenegro is perhaps a lone example of progress among its Serbian and Bosnian neighbors, and though this recent constitutional victory was a narrow one, it was wide enough to demonstrate that obstructionism may indeed be kept at bay.

[source]

[Ricardo Reis]

Same language as the one used to be know as "Serbo-Croatian".
I'm sure that the Montenegrin separatists will stick to the few idioms so to convince that they speak a separate montenegrin language.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Milfiades

I'm sure that the Montenegrin separatists will stick to the few idioms so to convince that they speak a separate montenegrin language.

Isn't it what the Croats did ? (sorry if I offend them, I may be wrong but it seems to me that's what happened ).

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Milfiades

Same language as the one used to be know as "Serbo-Croatian".

The so called "Serbo-Croatian" is an artificial construct. It is not a language, but two separate languages. The two languages were artificially brought together during the ex-Yugoslavia period, by actions of manic propaganda. Forceful "brotherhood & unity" caused by commies, required for languages to be very close to each other, in order to melt the two most populous nations(Serbs and Croats) in one common identity, the Yugoslav one. That way, the leadership could easily control homogeneous population. There would be no differences and no interest clashes.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Isn't it what the Croats did ? (sorry if I offend them, I may be wrong but it seems to me that's what happened ).

No. It is not what Croats did. I'm not offended by your post, because I know that you meant no offense, but I'm sure that many of my people would feel offended.
You see, the Croats had written their first dictionary in the 17th century, while the Serbs gained theirs in the 19th century. And their dictionary was largely based on stokavian dialect, and was vastly influenced by grammar rules, observed in the earlier Croatian dictionaries.
To know something about this matter, please read about the Croatian language.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Monolith

The so called "Serbo-Croatian" is an artifitial construct. It is not a language, but two separate languages. The two languages were artificially brought together during the ex-Yugoslavia period, by actions of manic propaganda. Forceful "brotherhood & unity" caused by commies, required for languages to be very close to each other, in order to melt the two most populous nations(Serbs and Croats) in one common identity, the Yugoslav one. That way, the leadership could easily control homogeneous population. There would be no differences and no interest clashes.

I read the same thing in this website (of the Croatian French ambassy) :
Langue croate ou serbo-croate? - Ambassade de Croatie en France

Anyway, in France, this language is also always described as Serbo-Croatian.

Originally Posted by Monolith

No. It is not what Croats did. I'm not offended by your post, because I know that you meant no offense, but I'm sure that many of my people would feel offended.
You see, the Croats had written their first dictionary in the 17th century, while the Serbs gained theirs in the 19th century. And their dictionary was largely based on stokavian dialect, and was vastly influenced by grammar rules, observed in the Croatian dictionaries.
To know something about this matter, please read about the Croatian language.

Thanks for the link.

But concerning Serbian, what are the differences with Croatian, linguistically speaking ?
I know it's a difficult subject (and especially since we are in a nationalist forum), and I would not speak for Croatian, since I am not a specialist at all in that matter, but concerning mutually intelligible in general (and Serbian and Montenegrin as it seems), can't we consider them more like two different version of a same language, if speaking about linguistics ? Aren't those distinctions more historical than strictly linguistical ? It may be also be a policital act.

I don't want by that to "disqualify" the very own nature of those different people and ethnic groups (and it is not my aim). Morever, language is not all, and culture, origine, religion and history often matters more when it is about to define a people, in fact (ex: Irish people). But I say this because in France, for exemple, inside the three varieties of Romance languages formerly spoken in what is now France [i.e French (or "Oil [means "Yes"] language"), Franco-Provençal (or Arpitan) and Occitan], there were many dialectical differences (between Gascon, Auvergnat, Provençal, Poitevin, Gallo, Lorrain...). A question I may ask is : Would those different dialects have been considered as different languages if the land where they are spoken were politically separated ?

It is just a sort of reflexion I have concerning the real nature of linguistical groups : it is somehow subjective, in fact (but which I consider to be normal - because human - anyway).

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Anyway, in France, this language is also always described as Serbo-Croatian.

Yes, and not only in France. There are numerous other examples, as well as numerous universtites around Europe, that have a cathedra for "Serbo-Croatian language". The communist regime encouraged this, because it was its policy to do so, and after the war and Yugoslavia's fall, people in various countries just accepted the language as the "Serbo-Croatian", without basic knowledge about this matter.

But concerning Serbian, what are the differences with Croatian, linguistically speaking ?

There are phonological, morphological, lexical and syntactical differences.
In addition, Croatian language has three macrodialects, while Serbian has one.(or two if you count Torlakian,southern dialect).
Let's say that Croatian and Serbian are like Norwegian and Swedish, with the difference that Cro&Ser have been artificially brought together.
Anyway, it's really complex to explain all this, but this wikipedia article pretty much summs it up.

I know it's a difficult subject (and especially since we are in a nationalist forum), and I would not speak for Croatian, since I am not a specialist at all in that matter, but concerning mutually intelligible in general (and Serbian and Montenegrin as it seems), can't we consider them more like two different version of a same language, if speaking about linguistics ?

It is true that languages are mutually intelligible, but in my humble opinion, they cannot be considered as two different versions of the same language because current condition isn't caused by natural language development, but human intervention instead.

Aren't those distinctions more historical than strictly linguistical ? It may be also be a policital act.

The vast majority of distinctions is caused by normal language development, so the languages would most probably be similar, but not as they are now. The policy in both Yugoslavias(kingdom and socialist republic) was to merge these languages(who were similar to some degree) into a single language, so I'd say that political acts were pointed to elimination of the past differences.

I don't want by that to "disqualify" the very own nature of those different people and ethnic groups (and it is not my aim). Morever, language is not all, and culture, origine, religion and history often matters more when it is about to define a people, in fact (ex: Irish people).

Yes, I understand and appreciate your concern.
But we, the Croats, especially cherish our language because it was oppressed, and even forbidden too many times during the history. It is also one of the pillars of our identity. It is who we are.

But I say this because in France, for exemple, inside the three varieties of Romance languages formerly spoken in what is now France [i.e French (or "Oil [means "Yes"] language"), Franco-Provençal (or Arpitan) and Occitan], there were many dialectical differences (between Gascon, Auvergnat, Provençal, Poitevin, Gallo, Lorrain...). A question I may ask is : Would those different dialects have been considered as different languages if the land where they are spoken were politically separated ?

Interesting question. Perhaps they would, if their speakers would considered themselves as nations.
Here in Croatia we have three different dialects, but their speakers are aware that they belong to the same language. During the history, when our poetry was written, writers who belonged to different dialects were aware that they are writing on the same language, and that they belong to the same people.

[Gromoljut]

Linguistically speaking, there is a great difference between a language and a literary language. Literary languages are always constructs.
Bear with me until the end of this:

Serbo-Croatian (or whatever you may call it, Montenegrin historical figures simply called it Serbian) is one language. It has three main dialects: čakavian, kajkavian and štokavian (ča, kaj, što = "what").
Štokavian is by far the most widespread and is further divided into ekavian and ijekavian (protoslavic *ě > ekavian e, ijekavian ije - lepi/lijepi, ...). Now, while čakavian and kajkavian are only spoken in Croatia, štokavian is spoken in Croatia as well as Bosnia, Montenegro and Serbia. Štokavian is thus the basis for all literary languages, and while Croatians chose an ijekavian base (Bosnians as well, as far as I know), Serbs have a ekavian one. Montenegrins speak ijekavian.
Thus, Montenegrin may be regarded as both one and the same language with Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian and as a separate language. It is the same because it is merely a dialect of "Serbo-Croatian", and it is separate because it may be defined as separate literary language.

I understand that the political situation is tense. What I have described is the viewpoint of linguistics. Whatever phonologic, morphologic, syntactic and lexical differences might have existed between dialects of "Serbo-Croatian" before the 20th century, I assure you, linguistically speaking, they were negligable compared to the differences between dialects of Slovenian that exist to this day. Many of them are not even mutually intelligible. But if one of the Slovenian regions would separate and decide to establish their literary language as separate from Slovenian on the basis of their local dialect, it is their right. After all, a language is a dialect with an army and navy.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Gromoljut

After all, a language is a dialect with an army and navy.

Yes, I think somewhat the same thing.
That was the aim of my reflexion in my previous post.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

But concerning Serbian, what are the differences with Croatian, linguistically speaking ?
I know it's a difficult subject (and especially since we are in a nationalist forum), and I would not speak for Croatian, since I am not a specialist at all in that matter, but concerning mutually intelligible in general (and Serbian and Montenegrin as it seems), can't we consider them more like two different version of a same language, if speaking about linguistics? Aren't those distinctions more historical than strictly linguistical? It may be also be a policital act.

Bear in mind that there is also socio-linguistics. Speaking socio-lingtuistically Croatian and Serbian are two languages beyond any doubt.

Besides, Croatian has an uninterrupted history of written monuments and documents, grammars, dictionaries, literature (in different scripts), from 11th century on. In the light of that, I just don't care about what degree of similarity there is(n't) between itself and the Serbian.

They are mutually (mostly) intelligible, yes.

Note: here I am speaking solely about Croatian-Serbian controversy and not about this Serbian-Montenegrin issue, which is far trickier.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Morever, language is not all, and culture, origine, religion and history often matters more when it is about to define a people, in fact (ex: Irish people).

Correct. Language is not all. Some nineteenth century Romantics and linguists thought that there was an exterior "objective" and "scientific" way to ascertain what is and what isn't a seperate nation/ethnos/people.

It was a blunder.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Gromoljut

Serbo-Croatian is one language. It has three main dialects: čakavian, kajkavian and štokavian (ča, kaj, što = "what").

Really? How on earth can you call kajkavian and čakavian Serbo-Croatian dialects? These two dialects are spoken by Croatians only, there is not one single Serb who speaks them.

The fact is that the Croatian language has three dialects (štokavian, kajkavian and čakavian), while the Serbian language has only one linguistic variety (in fact, two, if you count the sub-variety of Torlakian as a separate dialect). This only one linguistic variety of Serbian is very close to the Croatian štokavian dialect. In 19th century štokavian was chosen by some Croatian writers to be the literary language of Croats. The motivation behind that was to make Serbian and Croatian literary (and official) languages as similar as possible, so as to foment the Freemasonically inspired "Yugoslav idea".

Originally Posted by Gromoljut

Štokavian is by far the most widespread and is further divided into ekavian and ijekavian (protoslavic *ě > ekavian e, ijekavian ije - lepi/lijepi, ...).

You forgot to mention ikavian as well. The ikavian sub-variety of štokavian is widespread in Croatia.

Originally Posted by Gromoljut

What I have described is the viewpoint of linguistics.

There is also socio-linguistics.

Originally Posted by Gromoljut

Whatever phonologic, morphologic, syntactic and lexical differences might have existed between dialects of "Serbo-Croatian" before the 20th century, I assure you, linguistically speaking, they were negligable compared to the differences between dialects of Slovenian that exist to this day.

True and untrue at the same time. If you are speaking about the "štokavian area", then yes, you are right, the differences are negligible, which is strange and curious in my opinion, given the fact of the mountainous terrain which the štokavian speakers mostly inhabit.

But inside Croatia, there were huge dialectical differences, between štokavian and kajkavian, štokavian and čakavian, between some sub-varieties of both kajkavian and čakavian. Ever listened to a native dialect of the island of Vis? To native dialects of some villages of Istria? Much this richness got lost, unfortunately...

Originally Posted by Gromoljut

After all, a language is a dialect with an army and navy.

Not entirely so. Poland had no army nor navy for more than 100 years, but Polish was still a language and not a dialect.