By Prof. Colleen B. London

This message is being written for whatever friends of Bosnia there may be
who would be interested in some "linguistic interpretation" and thinking
related to the "language we are using" regarding Bosnia.

These thoughts were stimulated by the reading of a "Report Card on Dayton"
written by Marshall Harris and Steve Walker (of the Balkan Institute).
This was together with the response written by Nalini Lasiewicz of "Convoy
Bosnia" (Los Angeles), which also contributed to further consideration of
this subject.

Two terminological and vocabulary habits which we have slipped into are
particularly bothersome to me.  One is the use of "Bosnian Serb" -
especially as it is extended to mean the Karadzic-Mladic Serb insurgents,
an unelected, self-appointed group of terrorists who deny the existence of
Bosnia ("Nema Bosne") and whose name for themselves is "Republika Srpska"
- not that I advocate the acceptance of their name for themselves, but I
do want to point out that they never used the name "Bosnian" (except in
their mostly-successful attempts to confuse the foreigners, who don't know
the difference between Bosnia and Belgrade or between Sarajevo and
Serbia).

Secondly, and this is something which has been noted but which no-one is
doing anything about (as far as I can tell), is the massive use of
"Muslim-this" and "Muslim-that" in the place of "Bosnian."  The legitimate
and recognized state of Bosnia, and the people who were born there and may
be of mixed ethnic origin or may simply be loyal to Bosnia regardless of
their ethnic origin, are being "lost in the shuffle," and they are being
disenfranchised by the non-recognition of their legitimacy by the
linguistic repetition of the concept of "the three warring parties" or
that everyone has to be either "Muslim," "Croat," or "Serb."

This is having the unconscious effect, or sub-conscious message, of
reversing the polarity (positive-negative) of the label.  If "Bosnian" is
the first part of "Bosnian-Serb" but non-existent in "the Muslim-led
government" then what happens to the positive-negative distinction between
the good guys and the bad guys?  It gets neutralized!

In order to get rid of a bad habit, you need to replace it with a good
habit.  So, let's use a new word to describe that part of Bosnia which has
been occupied by force and which Dayton and NATO seem, in combination, to
be intent upon ~reinforcing."  PLEASE don't give it recognition if you
oppose the partition of Bosnia.  Please don't call it the "Bosnian Serb
Republic" - that is tantamount to accepting it.  By naming it that way,
you are buying the lie.  There is no effective way to write in sarcasm,
and even if there were, it wouldn't be enough.  A very realistic (and
effective) way of referring to it is to call it "Serb-occupied Bosnia."
Everyone will know what you mean, and furthermore it will remind everyone
of the reality instead of buying the fabrication that it is legitimate.
And, whenever appropriate, I would recommend - as a socio-linguist, and
also as a writer - that you use the abbreviation "S.O.B."  It may even
wake up the reader to get some genuine attention.  Otherwise it becomes
just "words, words, words" and no real pictures.

Sincerely,

Colleen B. London
linguist and specialist in the Bosnian language