Template talk:User sh

On switching the Latin caption to the western (Croatian) language variant

This calls for an extended comment, as some people's home pages will be affected... Though I don't use "sh" myself, I perfectly understand why someone born in former Yugoslavia before cca 1980 would consider the language they speak Serbo-Croatian, and that this linguistic identity remains unchanged in spite of the subsequent insanities. My edit supports this: by using the western variant in the Latin labels, as was done eg. in official documents in ex-Yu, it makes the usual complaint that treating "BCS" languages as one only conceals Serbian majoritarian tendencies harder to make. In fact without using both variants, it's hard not to make this complaint.

Miranche 20:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This other term hrvatskosrpski though not widely used was surely there to represent equality between the two: Serbian and Croatian (languages and nations). At least equality to some extent as it is stated in the article Egalitarianism. It is possible that this indeed was an artificial language construct (as it was with the srpskohrvatski), but it's a fact that it was used even in the books for primary schools; e.g. as a title of a book for the Slovenian primary schools. My point is that it should remain on the template as an alternative, as it was though somewhat rarely used alternative in reality during the SFRJ. And for the historical reasons, too.

--Biblbroks 's talk 18:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serbo-Croatian was not a language construct, it is a name for the dialect continuum of the western balkans. Now, as far as hrvatskosrpski goes: It's fine to have it up there if there is no script distinction (e.g. cyrillic is no more Serbian than latin). But, this being a userbox, I say we keep it simple and let go of it. --★<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dcabrilo">čabrilo</a>★ 18:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't implied that there was a script distinction between the two, but I understand what you meant: by the way it stood on the template, the reader might have guessed that there was a distinction. I agree with the current template except that is too giganteous. Maybe it should just say:

Maternji jezik ovoga korisnika je srpskohrvatski.

Матерњи језик овога корисника је хрватскосрпски.

Although it also implies the distinction based on the script, notice the order and script of the two: first srpskohrvatski in Latin, and then hrvatskosrpski in Cyrillic. It adds to infomarility - since it is a userbox there should be some.

I didn't mean that Serbo-Croatian was a language construct, I meant that the word hrvatskosrpski probably was, and that an artificial one.

All the best. --Biblbroks 's talk 09:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind that, looks alright to me. The reason I initially took interest is that, as it seems to me, some people are trying to add as many arbitrary differences between Cyrillic and Latin variants. --★čabrilo★ 18:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks fine now, please don't change it for at least six months. Thanks, --Igorwindsor 17:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps both variants should be respected, and hence the Latin one have should have hrvatskosrpski and materinski in lieu of maternji (sub-standard in literary Croatian, and considered markedly Serbian)? During the SFRJ, all publications in Croatia used hrvatskosrpski whilst the Eastern ones used srpskohrvatski. Foreign-language appellations OTOH regularly used the latter form only (e.g. in English it's 1000 times more common to see Serbo-Croatian than Croato-Serbian), but since this is native-language spelling, that argument is irrelevant. I think that this would be a good compromise between the two. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]