[Bryan of StA]

Americans themselves refer to their nationality as American (although many would say they are from their state, not their country, like Texan or Virginian). In english, there is no way of adding a suffix to United States to show nationality that sounds right, but I have to admit that "Etats-Unien" does sound alright. I may have to start using that term.<br /> <br /> It is true that people in both North and South American could be refered to as Americans, as someone from Germany could be called a European. However, because of the usage by people from the United States, it just causes confusion.<br /> <br /> I mean no disrespect by answering in english. I can read french well, but I cannot write it well.

[GFlam]

I hit this website by chance and saw it is fully bilingual. English is quite fine to me.<br /> Still, I noted that Canadian english may not be qualified as "American".<br /> I agree that the term "American" may be confusing.<br /> Since Canadians are no Americans, since Canadian minds often look "European" and considering that Canada is next to Denmark and France (Saint-Pierre et Miquelon), I think you should join the EU ....<br /> Thank you Bryan for your explanation.<br />

[Brent Swain]

In a word. Arrogance. South Americans are offended by the yanks acting as if they are the only people on two continents ,containing over 20 countries ,who count. All Mexican coins I've handled had clearly written on them "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" or United states of Mexico.I believe Brasil is the same.<br /> Perhaps its time we stopped refering to them as Americans and America, and thus refrain from promoting their Monroe doctrine, but instead used only the term "The US " and called them simply "Yanks" or one I've heard the Canadian military call them "USanians. When they call themselves Americans we should respond with "That's the continent, but which country are you from?"<br /> Hugo Chavez is talking about oil producing countries in South America forming what will be called Petro America, creating preferential energy prices amoung its members who will be American coutries other than the US.<br /> Brent

[Brother Jonathan]

[QUOTE by GFlam]</b> Pourquoi le terme « américains » s’applique-t-il uniquement aux Etats-Uniens ?<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> There’s the crux — the term has <b>never</b> exclusively referred to citizens of the USA. The term has different meanings, depending upon context — in some uses it refers only to USA citizens, in others it refers to any inhabitant of the Western Hemisphere. (In English, it was first used over 400 years ago to describe the continents’ aboriginal inhabitants, just as <i>canadiens</i> was first used in French to denote the aboriginals in and around Nouvelle France.)<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Bryan of StA]</b> In English, there is no way of adding a suffix to United States to show nationality that sounds right …<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> How about “United-Stater” as a context-free term?<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Bryan of StA]</b> However, because of the usage by people from the United States, it just causes confusion.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> I don’t think that United-Staters are responsible for the usage of <i>américain</i> in French, <i>Amerikaner</i> in German, <i>Amerikaanser</i> in Dutch, <i>americano</i> in Italian, &c.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Brent Swain]</b> In a word. Arrogance.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> Kindly allow me to apologise to you on behalf of all of my countrymen for having offended you with a term that none of us among the living had invented, patented, copyrighted, or monopolised. If you check your favourite English language dictionary, you’ll see that there are multiple meanings for the word <i>American</i>. We use one of those meanings to refer to ourselves, just as many other people around the world use one meaning of their equivalent word to refer to us.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Brent Swain]</b> All Mexican coins I’ve handled had clearly written on them "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" or United States of Mexico.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> More precisely, <i>United Mexican States</i>. Remember that México is only one of those united Mexican states. This situation is analogous to the common English reference to the Netherlands as Holland, although Holland really refers to only two of the provinces that comprise the Netherlands.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Brent Swain]</b> When they call themselves Americans we should respond with “That’s the continent, but which country are you from?”<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> I think that most people are able to distinguish context in Americans-as-United-Staters vs. Americans-as-Western-Hemispherers, but if you honestly believe that that’s the right thing to do, then have at it.<br /> <br /> As an aside, if citizens of the Republic of South Africa refer to themselves as South Africans, then should citizens of Lesotho, Swaziland, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique be offended by this usage, given that they are also southern Africans?<br />

[lesouris]

There are many words that refer two more than one groups of people, for instance:<br /> <br /> -Indians: could refer to an Ojibwe person or a Tamil<br /> -West Indians: could refer to a Trinidadian or a Gujarati<br /> -European: could refer to a person from the continent of Europe (like a Bosnian or a Briton), a person from an EU country (which would include a Briton, but exclude a Bosnian), or a person from the European mainland only (which would include a Bosnian, but exclude a Briton)<br /> -Chinese: could refer to the Han Chinese ethnic group whether they are actually from China or not, or any person from China even if they are not Han Chinese (like Tibetans, Uighurs, et cetera)<br /> -British: could refer to anyone from Great Britain (the English, Scottish, Welsh, et cetera), anyone from the British Isles (the English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Manx, et cetera), anyone from the UK (the English, Scottish, Welsh, and the Irish from Northern Ireland, but not from the Republic of Ireland), or anyone who descends from the ancient Britons (people from Wales, Cornwall, Brittany, but not England or Scotland)<br /> <br /> Just something to think about.

[Bryan of StA]

[QUOTE BY= Brother Jonathan]<br /> There’s the crux — the term has <b>never</b> exclusively referred to citizens of the USA. The term has different meanings, depending upon context — in some uses it refers only to USA citizens, in others it refers to any inhabitant of the Western Hemisphere. (In English, it was first used over 400 years ago to describe the continents’ aboriginal inhabitants, just as <i>canadiens</i> was first used in French to denote the aboriginals in and around Nouvelle France.)[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Well, a lot of this goes up into the fluid nature of language. If I was to say "I patronize the arts" it could be mistaken as meaning something different that "I am a patron of the arts" because of modern usage of "patronize."<br /> <br /> This is how I percieve the nature of the term "American" versue "North/South American." The term in popular usage, and in connotation by those hearing it, it is almost exclusivly refering to people fromt the United States.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by= Brother Jonathan]<br /> How about “United-Stater” as a context-free term?<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Well, with that suffix, it more describes someone that states something, don't you think? It does not convey the nature of the word being a nationality/alligence.<br /> <br /> The most common suffixes for conveying alligence (-ian/ien, -ese, -er, -ite, -i) all sound odd when attached to United States. Part of this is the pural nature of the States, which also makes "Stater" not strictly correct.<br /> <br /> And Unitarian is already taken <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'> <br /> <br /> [QUOTE by= Brother Jonathan]<br /> I don’t think that United-Staters are responsible for the usage of <i>américain</i> in French, <i>Amerikaner</i> in German, <i>Amerikaanser</i> in Dutch, <i>americano</i> in Italian, &c.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Very true. I, however, feel that it is an insulting aspect of english to call other nations by names not directly taken from their mother-tougues. This might be due to a more polite nature in other languages when deriving the names of other nations than their own, or it just may be that there was no historical basis for naming when the colonies on the american continents were formed (the later is my choice).<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Brent Swain]</b> In a word. Arrogance.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Et tu, Brent?<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by= Brother Jonathan]<br /> I think that most people are able to distinguish context in Americans-as-United-Staters vs. Americans-as-Western-Hemispherers, but if you honestly believe that that’s the right thing to do, then have at it.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I still have yet to run across a Texan who calls themselves American. I do think it is more strictly accurate for a person belong to a specific state in a United States to refer to themselves by their state alligence. It would make it hard for me to recognize a Swiss person though, as I only know 2 Cantons.<br /> <br /> Is it arrogence to refer to your state when asked about alligence/nationality? Or to expect others to recognize that the given state is part of the United States of America? Considering there are more than 200 countries at this moment (I believe...), name me 150 and you are well versed. I'm betting that people on this earth who would recognize nations beyond their own and those bordering theirs know a greater percentage of United States of America states than they do nations<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by= Brother Jonathan]<br /> As an aside, if citizens of the Republic of South Africa refer to themselves as South Africans, then should citizens of Lesotho, Swaziland, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique be offended by this usage, given that they are also southern Africans?<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I think South Africa should return to a name more fitting of their original heritage, rather than a colonial title. However, South Africa has a large multiethnic population, so maybe their current name is more befitting of such a population now. In any event, it is theirs to choose and prefer, not mine to comment on.<br /> <br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= lesouris]<br /> Just something to think about.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> To think that this language is considered to me the modern Lingua Franca, it may be apt to find such inconsistancies. The original Lingua Franca was a pidgin language, made up of a smattering from many languages. Terms were often forced to work, rather than finesed.<br /> <br /> Consider: english, if distilled, is a language based on original germanic roots, with romance higher order concepts weaved into it. It has since adopted many terms from languages outside of those two language families, and often creates new terms fantastically quick.

[Brother Jonathan]

[QUOTE by Bryan of StA]</b> Well, a lot of this goes up into the fluid nature of language …<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> Absolutely true. Phrases such as <i>the Americans were revolting in 1777</i> can be universally agreed upon, yet mean different things to different people … <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'><br /> <br /> Regarding your perception of the term, how often does one speak of people throughout the Western Hemisphere vs. people from the USA? Perhaps among Spanish speakers the former is done more often, and among English speakers the latter is done more often, which might explain one source of misunderstandings about the term? (The most popular English reference to the former might be the Organization of American States, but it doesn’t crop up all that often in conversation.)<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Bryan of StA]</b> … And <i>Unitarian</i> is already taken <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'><b>[/QUOTE]<br /> Fair enough. How about … <i>Unistatian</i>? It would be easily corruptible to both <i>Unisatan</i> and <i>crustacean</i>, which should allow comic composers and political cartoonists a field day. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'><br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Bryan of StA]</b> I, however, feel that it is an insulting aspect of English to call other nations by names not directly taken from their mother-tongues.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> That might prove troublesome for names that come from tonal languages — who knows what a mangled tone would change the name into!<br /> <br /> There are also many sounds that aren’t used in English (e.g. the sound represented by the <i>‘ayn</i> in Arabic) that might complicate their import.<br /> <br /> Of course, some names have been acquired through intermediary languages (e.g. <i>Montenegro</i> from Italian, <i>India</i> from Latin, <i>Japan</i> from Chinese (Wu, I think) to Malay to Portuguese, &c.).<br /> <br /> I’d say that intent would matter here — if no offence were intended when coining an English name for a country, then it shouldn’t be a problem to use a name that isn’t directly taken from a relevant mother tongue. (Translation: as long as Niger isn’t mispronounced, all should be well.)<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Bryan of StA]</b> Et tu, Brent?<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> Wait a minute — that name should be in the vocative! <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/razz.gif' alt='Razz'><br /> <br /> (Remember the “Romanes Eunt Domus” bit from <i>Life of Brian</i>?)<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Bryan of StA]</b> I still have yet to run across a Texan who calls themselves American. I do think it is more strictly accurate for a person belonging to a specific state in the United States to refer to themselves by their state allegiance. … Is it arrogance to refer to your state when asked about allegiance/nationality? Or to expect others to recognize that the given state is part of the United States of America?<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> Texas, California, and Hawaii are probably the most widely known Unistatian states around the world, and so citizens of these states would be most likely to be able to identify themselves as such without the possibility of confusing a global audience.<br /> <br /> It would certainly be more precise for me to identify myself as a Vermonter, but it wouldn’t be more accurate if my fellow conversationalist didn’t know what a Vermont were.<br /> <br /> I don’t think that arrogance comes into play in either situation, unless one would look down upon a person who didn’t know where your state/province/canton/&c. were. I’d be surprised if a native-born Canadian didn’t associate a Vermonter with being a Unistatian, but I shouldn’t be surprised if, say, a Bhutani made no such connection — although I’d guess that my accent would identify me as a Unistatian anyway.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Bryan of StA]</b> I think South Africa should return to a name more fitting of their original heritage, rather than a colonial title.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> I considered that name to be purely geographic, even though it was used in late colonial times. To be honest, I view British Columbia as having one of the more colonial titles still in use today. [I’ll apologise in advance to anyone who perceives this view as being arrogant; no offence is intended, and I hope that none will be taken. I view American Samoa in the same light.]<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Bryan of StA]</b> Terms were often forced to work, rather than finessed.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> Were, and are. English is an interesting hybrid, having a base of Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Norman French vocabulary with a now-standardised pidgin grammar. There are still words from each of the contributing tongues, originally meaning the same thing, which have stayed with us to this day: e.g. <i>wrath</i> from Anglo-Saxon, <i>anger</i> from Norse, and <i>ire</i> from Norman French.

[Bryan of StA]

Sorry for the delay, just got... distracted... on another topic. <br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Brother Jonathan] <br /> Regarding your perception of the term, how often does one speak of people throughout the Western Hemisphere vs. people from the USA? Perhaps among Spanish speakers the former is done more often, and among English speakers the latter is done more often, which might explain one source of misunderstandings about the term? (The most popular English reference to the former might be the Organization of American States, but it doesn’t crop up all that often in conversation.)[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Well, we'll have to get kind people to tell us whether this issue, as in English, as in French, crops up among Spanish speakers, both North and South American. I would really like to hear how this effects French speaking Southern American countries (French Guiana comes to mind).<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Brother Jonathan]<br /> Fair enough. How about … <i>Unistatian</i>? It would be easily corruptible to both <i>Unisatan</i> and <i>crustacean</i>, which should allow comic composers and political cartoonists a field day. <br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Evil... and pure genius. This might have to spawn a change in many other countries reference to the country though, from "The Great Satan" to "The One Satan"...<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Brother Jonathan]<br /> That might prove troublesome for names that come from tonal languages — who knows what a mangled tone would change the name into!<br /> <br /> ...<br /> <br /> I’d say that intent would matter here — if no offence were intended when coining an English name for a country, then it shouldn’t be a problem to use a name that isn’t directly taken from a relevant mother tongue. (Translation: as long as Niger isn’t mispronounced, all should be well.)<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Well, there I go forgetting about tonal languages again... it's a bit of a blind-spot. As well, metathesis (changing order of sounds to make them easier to say) could prove interesting when changing a nation's name.<br /> <br /> I find it strange though that English lacks a usage for certain consanant order, for example, M-B. Upon first hearing the South African president's name (Mbeki) I thought the sound was remarkably clear and easy to pronounce in English.<br /> <br /> I think that you are correct in your "no offence" policy. <br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Brother Jonathan]<br /> [QUOTE by Bryan of StA]<br /> </b> Et tu, Brent?<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> Wait a minute — that name should be in the vocative! <br /> <br /> (Remember the “Romanes Eunt Domus” bit from <i>Life of Brian</i>?)<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'> Yeah... I'll leave Latin for those who know it, and I will not even try and say it was an attempt at French, as that would be even more embarassing.<br /> <br /> Been a long time since I saw the movie. Really should again, as it was classic.<br /> <br /> I still prefered the "It is a Sign!" schtick.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Brother Jonathan]<br /> Texas, California, and Hawaii are probably the most widely known Unistatian states around the world, and so citizens of these states would be most likely to be able to identify themselves as such without the possibility of confusing a global audience.<br /> <br /> It would certainly be more precise for me to identify myself as a Vermonter, but it wouldn’t be more accurate if my fellow conversationalist didn’t know what a Vermont were.<br /> <br /> I don’t think that arrogance comes into play in either situation, unless one would look down upon a person who didn’t know where your state/province/canton/&c. were. I’d be surprised if a native-born Canadian didn’t associate a Vermonter with being a Unistatian, but I shouldn’t be surprised if, say, a Bhutani made no such connection — although I’d guess that my accent would identify me as a Unistatian anyway.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Accents can be very deceiving too. Some of the most regal British accents belong to Indians I know.<br /> <br /> Generally, there are enough of us on this planet in such a variety that we should all be accepting that there will be cultures and places we do not know. Unfortunatly, people who expect to be recognized do not take it well when they are not (the "do you know who I am?" principle).<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Brother Jonathan][QUOTE by Bryan of StA]</b> I think South Africa should return to a name more fitting of their original heritage, rather than a colonial title.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> I considered that name to be purely geographic, even though it was used in late colonial times. To be honest, I view British Columbia as having one of the more colonial titles still in use today. [I’ll apologise in advance to anyone who perceives this view as being arrogant; no offence is intended, and I hope that none will be taken. I view American Samoa in the same light.]<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Add the afformentioned French Guiana in there too.<br /> <br /> I find that I don't think American would be the best label to use for all people on these two continents. There is enough difference among the people of both continents, both singly and together, that you might as well just use the term People or Human as Northern/Southern American. And in terms of geography, North/South America are the strictly accurate terms.<br /> <br /> The Unistatian people may keep the exclusive use of the single title American I feel, may it serve them well.

[Brother Jonathan]

[QUOTE by Bryan of StA]</b> I would really like to hear how this affects French speaking Southern American countries (French Guiana comes to mind).<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> I tried a Google search on <i>américains site:.gf</i>, and of the seven results returned, four were hyphenated forms and three weren’t. Of the latter three, one referred to Unistatians, the second referred to Western Hemispherers, and the third was an adjective to “continents” — all in all, somewhat short of statistical relevance.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Bryan of StA]</b> This might have to spawn a change in many other countries’ reference to the country though, from “The Great Satan” to “The One Satan” …<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> I wonder if any nations currently qualify as Petty Satans? I suppose that Denmark would be near the top of the charts at the moment …<pre><pun_alert> </pre> Denmark Uffda Beast <pre></pun_alert> </pre><br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Bryan of StA]</b> I find it strange though that English lacks a usage for certain consonant order, for example, M-B.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> English has the usage, e.g. <i>hambone</i>, just not word-initially.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Bryan of StA]</b> there are enough of us on this planet in such a variety that we should all be accepting that there will be cultures and places we do not know.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> That’s for sure. I’d certainly like to see more of the globe should time and money permit.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Bryan of StA]</b> Unfortunately, people who expect to be recognized do not take it well when they are not (the “do you know who I am?” principle).<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> Yup, though there’s nothing quite like a heaping dose of reality to help clear a stuffed-up brain …<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Bryan of StA]</b> I find that I don’t think American would be the best label to use for all people on these two continents …<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> Hmmm … perhaps <i>Omnamerican</i> as a context-free term?

[lesouris]

Although I appreciate the creativity, Unistatian sounds like someone from a country with just one state. Perhaps we could go back to the early days of American exploration and call them all Virginians or Floridians (which both originally refered to the entire east coast of what would become the US). Maybe we could just end a different suffix to the root word America when refering to those of us not from the US. Americian, Americani, Amercese/Americanese, Americish, et cetera.

[Bryan of StA]

Good idea lesouris.<br /> <br /> The only one I can think to add is:<br /> <br /> Amercy <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'> <br /> <br /> It about is how I would describe my feelings of living in the Americas, but not in the US of A. Not that I am predujice against the lovely people of that fair land, it is just I feel any population greater than 60-100 million souls is too big to govern singly by <i>any</i> method.

[Brother Jonathan]

[QUOTE by lesouris]</b> Perhaps we could go back to the early days of American exploration and call them all Virginians or Floridians (which both originally refered to the entire east coast of what would become the US).<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> Unfortunately you’d then have confusion between e.g. Virginians-in-Commonwealth-of-Virginia and Virginians-in-Virginia-formerly-known-as-USA.<br /> <br /> The suffix idea is promising. I’d thought of changing the pronunciation of (non-USA-) America, say, to rhyme with Costa Rica, but that wouldn’t do much good in print.<br /> <br /> I guess that it’s too late in the day for Vespucia and Vespucians?

[Arrow]

I feckin' hate feckin' advertoisin'!

Feckin' Yanks ain't feckin' representative of feckin' America. Little Corporal's feckin' lie writ large. Feckin' Yanks don't even feckin' recognise it. Feckin' feckers

[lostalex]

this debate is stupid. Americans are not the only ones that use this same system of refering to themselves.

People from the People's Republic of China are called Chinese, not people's republicans.

People from South Africa, are called South Africans, although technically anyone from the southern half of the continent of Africa are also technically "south africans"

People from The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (yes, this is actually the full name of their country) are called Britons, not United Kingdomese..

anyone that doesn't know the differnce between an American, and a South American, is an idiot, or just trying to be clever and playing with semantics.

There is no such place as "The Americas". there are 2 separate continents named "North America" and "South America".

How are you gonna claim N. and S. America are one continent, yet Europe and Asia, which ACTUALLY ARE one continent is considered two. N. and S. America are way more separate than Europe and Asia. Europeans would be offended if we included Africa as part of Europe, even though it's just as close to europe as S. America is to N. America. How would a European react to Africans calling themselves European?? Just beacuse our two continents have similar names does not make them the same thing.

Get over it. USA is the only country with the name America. Brazillians are not Americans, they are South Americans. Canadians are not Americans, they are North Americans.

[mtbr]

lostalex lostalex:

this debate is stupid. Americans are not the only ones that use this same system of refering to themselves.

People from the People's Republic of China are called Chinese, not people's republicans.

People from South Africa, are called South Africans, although technically anyone from the southern half of the continent of Africa are also technically "south africans"

People from The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (yes, this is actually the full name of their country) are called Britons, not United Kingdomese..

anyone that doesn't know the differnce between an American, and a South American, is an idiot, or just trying to be clever and playing with semantics.

There is no such place as "The Americas". there are 2 separate continents named "North America" and "South America".

How are you gonna claim N. and S. America are one continent, yet Europe and Asia, which ACTUALLY ARE one continent is considered two. N. and S. America are way more separate than Europe and Asia. Europeans would be offended if we included Africa as part of Europe, even though it's just as close to europe as S. America is to N. America. How would a European react to Africans calling themselves European?? Just beacuse our two continents have similar names does not make them the same thing.

Get over it. USA is the only country with the name America. Brazillians are not Americans, they are South Americans. Canadians are not Americans, they are North Americans.

Call an Irishmen a Brit..... ..see what happens