# -ese demonyms used in comparative constructs



## HSS

While singular -ese demonyms (nouns) does not sound idiomatic in most constructs, it does not sound too bad in certain exceptions such as them being buried in a sequence of other demonyms.

I also learned the following is not so bad as singular -ese demonyms used in most sentences.

[1] Annually, the average American consume consumes more corn than the average Japanese.
[2] Annually, the average American consume consumes as much corn as the average Japanese.

Here 'Japanese' is singular but sounds acceptable.

Is it because of the comparative constructions where you are required to have two such nouns in the same form? [form]
Or, is it because 'Japanese' is used as a prototype that is not referred to a specific person, so that you wouldn't care whether it would sound derogatory? [referentiality]


----------



## Ponyprof

I'm a bit confused.

American and Japanese are the standard terms for people of those nationalities. They are equivalent to saying British, Canadian, Chinese, etc.

I don't see how it's derogatory and I don't understand your question in relation to the linked thread.

Are there any other "ese" formations other than nationality?


----------



## tunaafi

Ponyprof said:


> I'm a bit confused.
> 
> American and Japanese are the standard terms for people of those nationalities. They are equivalent to saying British, Canadian, Chinese, etc.


They are standard when used as adjectives or plural nouns. For several reasons, we do not use _British, Japanese_ or _Chinese_ as singular nouns.


----------



## kentix

Ponyprof said:


> I'm a bit confused.


There have been a number of previous posts on this topic by HSS. See if you can find them.

The gist of his point is that many English-speakers in those threads said they would not say sentences like, "I was talking to a Chinese" or "My best friend is a Japanese" even though they would say "I was talking to an American" or "My best friend is a Canadian".


----------



## HSS

Yes, -ese ethnicity/nationility 'nouns' sound like they are chopped off half way, and, as a result of that, they sound derogatory to a sizable number of people. This is particularly so when it's used in its singular form. However, we discussed earlier in the post here that if such denonyms are buried in a sequence, such as 'an American, an Australian, and a Canadian, it would not sound so bad.

Further to the above, these examples in the O.P. represent another case of exception, and I wondered how they, in the singular form, sound better.


----------



## natkretep

Yes, your sentences sound acceptable to me, provided you use the singular verb form: _consumes _rather than _consume_.


HSS said:


> [1] Annually, the average American consume more corn than the average Japanese.
> [2] Annually, the average American consume as much corn as the average Japanese.


----------



## PaulQ

Please note the corrected versions





HSS said:


> [1] Annually, the average American consume*s* more corn than the average Japanese.
> [2] Annually, the average American consume*s* as much corn as the average Japanese.


----------



## dojibear

I think you are correct: different wording makes "Japanese" less offensive. I agree with your examples.

But by "less offensive" I mean "offensive to fewer people". There is a very wide range of "how people think". You can't please everyone, and you can't upset everyone. 

A lot of us are "in the middle". There are words that we aren't offended by hearing, but that we avoid saying in case others are offended.


----------



## HSS

Yes, that was oversight. I missed 's,' how could it have happened? Two s's at that! (I will edit them but I'm making a record of the alteration here) (I also changed 'example' to 'examples,' and other words in conjunction with the change, in post #6)

Apart from that, about 80 to 90% of roughly 100 native speakers of English surveyed in my project responded with 'strongly agree' or 'agree' to 'It sounds idiomatic' with the examples. However, I have no idea what makes them different from others; thus, the two possible reasons I assumed.

Doji, I agree with your 'offensive to fewer people' notion. I figure you should avoid the use of an -ese noun where you could.


----------



## bennymix

I think the use of "the Japanese" is on the wane and generally has the wrong racial tone (as in from earlier, clearly racist times).

I think this agrees with doji's point, above.


----------



## tunaafi

There has never been anything wrong with 'the Japanese' (= Japanese people).

It's 'a Japanese' (= Japanese person) that makes some people uncomfortable.


----------



## bennymix

tunaafi said:


> There has never been anything wrong with 'the Japanese' (= Japanese people).
> 
> It's 'a Japanese' (= Japanese person) that makes some people uncomfortable.



Good point.


----------



## HSS

I bet the following with 'one' do not sound as acceptable, do they? Probably because the 'Japanese's are more referential? (I hate to say 'Japanese's but how else?)
[1-a] Annually, one American consumes more corn than one Japanese.
[2-a] Annually, one American consumes as much corn as one Japanese.


----------



## Ponyprof

Interesting. I assume that stating nationality baldly as an identifier is going to sound "derogatory" in relation to the amount of percieved background racial discrimination in the community and to the reasons for identifying the race. 

I live and work in a very multicultural city. Some of the communities are very longstanding, others are more recent, and we have many tourists, short term workers, and international students.

Obviously there are many situations where someone's ethnic or cultural background is irrelevant and indeed unclear. But there are also many situations where people want to be specific about their background.

So what is it about the "ese" adjectives/nouns that is particularly offensive? Is it something above the word structure that requires you to only use them as an adjective, not a noun? Is it fine to say "a Japanese student" but not "a Japanese?"

Or is it just that the "ese" words cluster most prominently in naming people from Southeast Asia: Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese ( but also Maltese and Portugese).

So let's take a situation like an ESL classroom full of international students where people's home countries are an interesting topic and it's also an important sign of mutual respect for the teacher and all the students to be accurate about everyone else's identity.

Would it be wrong for the teacher to say "I have 5 Japanese, 4 Chinese, and a Vietnamese in my afternoon class"? Would that be more offensive than saying "We have 4 Canadians and an American on staff?"

Would it be OK to say "I was talking about the US political situation with an American today"? Would it be OK to say "I was talking about the Hong Kong protests with a Chinese today?"

If not, is there something about the word form that makes it inappropriate for a noun? Do we need to always say "Chinese person"?

I've given alot of thought to cross cultural communication over my life time but honestly this is not something that's ever been flagged as an issue. Certainly there are outmoded derogatory short versions of many of these nouns that are understood to be racist in intent and you don't use them. But I've never heard of the full versions being considered taboo as well


----------



## kentix

I don't consider them taboo, I just consider them awkward, ugly English.

I also wouldn't say "I was talking to a French" and I have no problem saying "I was taking to a Korean".


----------



## JulianStuart

kentix said:


> I don't consider them taboo, I just consider them awkward, highly English.
> 
> I also wouldn't say "I was talking to a French" and I have no problem saying "I was taking to a Korean".


This is a subject that fascinates HSS and it is clear (from all the previous threads on the issue) that English speakers agree with 


> I would not say "I was talking to a French [a Japanese -and all -ese nationalities fit here]" and I have no problem saying "I was taking to a Korean".


This thread seems to be specifically about the construction in the OP as "I think I've finally found an acceptable context/structure where I can say 'A Japanese' to mean 'A Japanese person'"   It still sounds strange/wrong to me, but a _little_ less so, perhaps, than "I was talking to a Japanese".


----------



## Ponyprof

Well, the words for nationality do vary. There is no consistency in format in English.

We need to say Frenchman or Dutchman or Irishman  (or person) but we say German or Russian.

For some languages we have different words for adjective and noun.

British, Briton. Scottish, Scots.  Danish, Dane.  Finnish, Finn  Swedish, Swede, Spanish, Spaniard. But there aren't that many of these. Is it relevant they are all close neighbors ( and one old enemy) of England and the terms may reflect older speech patterns?

Then there are all the countries where the adjective and noun is the same. I think most names added after say  1700 fit that pattern.

Canadian, American, Australian, Norwegian, Greek, Italian, Portugese, Maltese, South African, Indonesian, Swiss, Russian, German, Egyptian, Iranian, Iraqi, Hawaiian, Mexican, etc. There are many such words where you can say:

An Australian export.
An Australian person.
I know an Australian.

So there are many places in English where the same word does double duty as an adjective and a noun for a person. 

I honestly cannot see the grammatical difference between saying "I was talking to an American" and "I was talking to a Japanese." In both cases the adjective serves as the only available noun for the person.


----------



## kentix

JulianStuart said:


> This thread seems to be specifically about the construction in the OP as "I think I've finally found an acceptable context/structure *where I can say 'A Japanese' to mean 'A Japanese person'*"


Yes, it seems so.



JulianStuart said:


> It still sounds strange/wrong to me, but a _little_ less so, perhaps, than "I was talking to a Japanese".


I do have to say they do sound much better to me as examples than the previous ones.


----------



## dojibear

Ponyprof said:


> So let's take a situation like an ESL classroom full of international students where people's home countries are an interesting topic and it's also an important sign of mutual respect for the teacher and all the students to be accurate about everyone else's identity.
> 
> Would it be wrong for the teacher to say "I have 5 Japanese, 4 Chinese, and a Vietnamese in my afternoon class"?



I think it is okay to talk about "the language they speak fluently", or "where they live". I think the words are only offensive when they mean a person's race.


----------



## Myridon

Ponyprof said:


> I honestly cannot see the grammatical difference between saying "I was talking to an American" and "I was talking to a Japanese." In both cases the adjective serves as the only available noun for the person.


If you consider "Japanese" to be a noun, then there is no grammatical difference between those sentences and "I was flying to a banana."
I don't consider "Japanese" to be a noun in that context, so there is a grammatical difference.


----------



## HSS

Woken up, and now started at work. Any comparative talk on [1]-[2] and [1-a]-[2-a]? Could it be confirmed that [1-a] and [2-a] are *less* acceptable than their originals?


----------



## Ponyprof

dojibear said:


> I think it is okay to talk about "the language they speak fluently", or "where they live". I think the words are only offensive when they mean a person's race.



These words designate nationality as well as race. Why are these words specifically offensive in a way that calling someone an African or an Australian is not?

I mean in a situation where discussing someone's race is not in itself derogatory. Like in an ESL classroom full of international students each of whom want everyone to know the are specifically Japanese or Vietnamese or Taiwanese or Chinese or Korean.


----------



## HSS

This set is less acceptable than the set in the O.P., isn't it?
[1-a] Annually, one American consumes more corn than one Japanese.
[2-a] Annually, one American consumes as much corn as one Japanese.

And the following are even worse than [1-a] and [2-a], aren't they?
[1-b]Annually, an American consumes more corn than a Japanese.
[2-b] Annually, an American consumes as much corn as a Japanese.


----------



## tunaafi

Some adjectives of nationality are simply not used as singular nouns, for example, _English, French, British, Dutch_.
For reason(s) difficult to pin down, some adjectives of nationality, for example, _Chinese, Japanese._ do not work for many native speakers of English.

It doesn't really matter that some native speakers see nothing unnatural about this second group. It doesn't really matter whether people who don't like them find them derogatory or simply slightly unnatural.  If native speakers simply do not use them at all, then they will never sound unnatural.


----------



## Ponyprof

Ok, so it's a matter of usage or style then.


----------



## HSS

Everyone, we are going off on a tangent. Let's stick to the topic '-ese demonyms used in comparative constructs.'


----------



## PaulQ

I think you have your answer here:





tunaafi said:


> There has never been anything wrong with 'the Japanese' (= Japanese people).
> 
> It's 'a Japanese' (= Japanese person) that makes some people uncomfortable.





Ponyprof said:


> So what is it about the "ese" adjectives/nouns that is particularly offensive?


I think that this might be "begging the question."


----------



## HSS

If anybody would further help me with these questions, I would be very much obliged. 

This set is less acceptable than the set in the O.P., isn't it?
[1-a] Annually, *one *American consumes more corn than *one* Japanese.
[2-a] Annually, *one* American consumes as much corn as *one* Japanese.

And the following are even worse than [1-a] and [2-a], aren't they?
[1-b]Annually, *an* American consumes more corn than *a* Japanese.
[2-b] Annually, *an* American consumes as much corn as *a* Japanese.


----------



## Uncle Jack

It is so easy to avoid using "Japanese" as a singular noun in your sentences that I find it bizarre not to do so. Here are two options:

Add "person"
The average American consumes more corn than the average Japanese person.
Use plurals:
Americans consume more corn than the Japanese, on average.
The reason why we _might _accept "the average Japanese" in your original sentence is that (a) with "average", it is clear that it is not personal and (b) we mentally add the noun "person". Since you have removed "average" from the sentences in post #29, I don't find either of these acceptable.

Note that we have much the same problem in England/Britain, where neither has a universally acceptable singular noun*, and we would never accept "British" or "English" as a singular noun in any of your sentences.

* There is a noun, "Briton", but there are problems with its usage that I will not discuss here.


----------



## HSS

Ahhh, so the 'average' is the savior there! However, don't take me wrong. By saying that, I don't mean it's a wise idea to use the bare, singular 'Japanese,' or even the word with 'average.' Bluntly cut off, the bare singular sounds offensive because it is personal. Even when it doesn't sound personal, it sounds odd, nonetheless.

But the coast is clear. Thanks, Uncle Jack.


----------



## Uncle Jack

HSS said:


> Ahhh, so the 'average' is the savior there! However, don't take me wrong. By saying that, I don't mean it's a wise idea to use the bare, singular 'Japanese.' Bluntly cut off, the phrase sounds offensive because it is personal.


I will reiterate, that "The average American consumes more corn than the average English" is unacceptable. We _might _accept "the average Japanese" because we tend to treat others with less respect than we treat ourselves, but if I were Japanese I would probably complain vigorously about this usage and insist that "person" is added.


----------



## HSS

Uncle Jack said:


> I will reiterate, that "The average American consumes more corn than the average English" is unacceptable. We _might _accept "the average Japanese" because we tend to treat others with less respect than we treat ourselves, but if I were Japanese I would probably complain vigorously about this usage and insist that "person" is added.


Hi, Jack. You probably started writing your message before I added 'Even when it doesn't sound personal, it sounds odd, nonetheless.' Yes, of course, it still lacks respect, I know. Thanks just the same.


----------



## kentix

I don't think it's about respect. I think it's about English.

Sample sentences:

*This is my favorite <X> food.*
*My best friend is <X>.
My mother's grandparents were <X> (or <Z>).

My best friend is a/an <Y>.

Lots of <Z> live here.
Lots of <X> people live here.*

*<X>  ->  <Y>  -> <Z>*
English -> Englishman(?) -> English(?),Englishmen(?)
Canadian -> Canadian -> Canadians
American -> American -> Americans
Polish -> Pole -> Poles
French -> Frenchman(?) -> French(?),Frenchmen(?)
Spanish -> Spaniard -> Spaniards
Korean -> Korean -> Koreans
Indonesian -> Indonesian -> Indonesians
Chinese -> ? -> Chinese(?)
Japanese -> ? -> Japanese(?)
Maltese -> ? -> Maltese(?)

Note: Malteses are dogs and not residents of Malta, and Chineses and Japaneses don't exist. (I think I heard someone propose "Japanian" once.)

There are holes in this nationality "grid" that not everyone agrees on the answers to. In fact, for some, it seems there are no real accepted answers.

For whatever reason (perhaps the ending s/z sound),_ for me_, Chinese and other -eses sound like they are vaguely plural. So "lots of Chinese live here" sounds much _more natural_ (but natural enough?) than "My best friend is a Chinese". But "my best friend is Chinese" is fine.

The analogy with Canada would be:

Lots of Canadians live here. 
My best friend is a Canadians.  (what "my best friend is a Chinese" sounds like to me)
My best friend is Canadian. 

So I don't think it has anything to do with respect. I think it's a quirk of language that developed over the years. Some countries clearly have an accepted X, Y and Z form and some don't. Different people try to work around that problem in different ways.


----------



## JulianStuart

Ponyprof said:


> Then there are all the countries where the adjective and noun is the same. I think most names added after say  1700 fit that pattern.
> 
> Canadian, American, Australian, Norwegian, Greek, Italian, *Portugese, Maltese,* South African, Indonesian, Swiss, Russian, German, Egyptian, Iranian, Iraqi, Hawaiian, Mexican, etc. There are many such words where you can say:
> 
> An Australian export.
> An Australian person.
> I know an Australian.


But you seem to be the first English speaker who feels comfortable saying "I met a Portuguese today" or A Maltese or A Japnese etc (the thread was specifically about such words ending in -ese).  The others in your list are all fine except Swiss.  I would put that in the same category as "A Japanese or an English or A British and all the "-ese" as requiring "person".


----------



## Myridon

A Maltese is a dog.


----------



## kentix

An example from the COCA database:
_The story is that St. Paul converted *the* *Maltese* to Christianity._

I didn't know dogs were religious. Or maybe it's just some dogs.


----------



## JulianStuart

kentix said:


> An example from the COCA database:
> _The story is that St. Paul converted *the* *Maltese* to Christianity._
> 
> I didn't know dogs were religious. Or maybe it's just some dogs.



_The_ Maltese referring to the people is fine, just like "We like the Chinese". The problem only arises with an indefinite article.
A Chinese, A Portuguese, A Japanese. When referring to dogs such as "A Maltese "or "A Pekingese" we _perhaps_ see why calling _someone_ "A Chinese or "A Japanese" sounds wrong


----------



## Uncle Jack

kentix said:


> An example from the COCA database:
> _The story is that St. Paul converted *the* *Maltese* to Christianity._
> 
> I didn't know dogs were religious. Or maybe it's just some dogs.


Just one dog. so far as I can see from that sentence.  


JulianStuart said:


> The problem only arises with an indefinite article.
> A Chinese, A Portuguese, A Japanese.


I would say that the problem is with using the noun in the singular. Obviously the indefinite article can only be used with a singular noun, but you could refer to an individual using the definite article and it would still be wrong.


----------



## kentix

Uncle Jack said:


> Just one dog. so far as I can see from that sentence.


Saint Paul did his best but he just couldn't convince the Golden Retriever.


----------



## HSS

kentix said:


> I don't think it's about respect. I think it's about English.
> [...]


Right, of more than 600 native respondents, 50 to 60 % said it's only an adjective. Sounds like it's a little extreme, but in 'the Japanese' to generalize the people, 'Japanese' is a nominalized adjective and, as well as the singular 'Japanese,' some people object even to the use of the plural 'Japanese.'


----------



## kentix

To some degree, in one case, the situation actually arises not from _lack_ of respect but from a newfound _sense_ of respect.

Chinaman (term) - Wikipedia
​While the term has no negative connotations in older dictionaries....​​The term _Chinaman_ has been historically used in a variety of ways, including legal documents, literary works, geographic names, and in speech.​​...​​In a notable 1853 letter to Governor of California John Bigler which challenges his proposed immigration policy toward the Chinese, restaurant owner Norman Asing, at the time a leader in San Francisco's Chinese community, referred to himself as a "Chinaman". Addressing the governor, he wrote, "Sir: I am a Chinaman, a republican, and a lover of free institutions."​
After this term later gained derogatory connotations it was dropped from everyday use as social conditions changed.

usage of the term _Chinaman_ is nowadays strongly discouraged​
That term fits neatly in the second column of my "chart" in #33 above, along with Englishman and Frenchman, but now that it's no longer in common use due to the strong social stigma attached there is a hole in that spot that "Chinese" might attempt to fill, but doesn't do a very good job of.


----------



## HSS

Initially I thought the reason why the 'average Japanese' sentence sounds a bit better is linked to the 'comparative construction,' but it seems like, as Uncle Jack said, it is making the referent a little impersonal.

Just saying 'Japanese' as a noun is odd, and, to 'some' people, it's only an adjective, and to some of the aforementioned people the word sounds cut off halfway bluntly; thus, rude.


----------



## Ponyprof

kentix said:


> To some degree, in one case, the situation actually arises not from _lack_ of respect but from a newfound _sense_ of respect.
> 
> Chinaman (term) - Wikipedia
> ​While the term has no negative connotations in older dictionaries....​​The term _Chinaman_ has been historically used in a variety of ways, including legal documents, literary works, geographic names, and in speech.​​...​​In a notable 1853 letter to Governor of California John Bigler which challenges his proposed immigration policy toward the Chinese, restaurant owner Norman Asing, at the time a leader in San Francisco's Chinese community, referred to himself as a "Chinaman". Addressing the governor, he wrote, "Sir: I am a Chinaman, a republican, and a lover of free institutions."​
> After this term later gained derogatory connotations it was dropped from everyday use as social conditions changed.
> 
> usage of the term _Chinaman_ is nowadays strongly discouraged​
> That term fits neatly in the second column of my "chart" in #33 above, along with Englishman and Frenchman, but now that it's no longer in common use due to the strong social stigma attached there is a hole in that spot that "Chinese" might attempt to fill, but doesn't do a very good job of.



Yes!!! This point actually occured to me this afternoon mulling over the list of what we absolutely don't call people anymore.

By the way, there is a breed of horse called the Canadian.


----------



## Uncle Jack

kentix said:


> That term fits neatly in the second column of my "chart" in #33 above, along with Englishman and Frenchman, but now that it's no longer in common use due to the strong social stigma attached there is a hole in that spot that "Chinese" might attempt to fill, but doesn't do a very good job of.


This might be a valid point, except that we don't use "English" and "French" in this way yet these suffer from exactly the same problem, and "Japanese" (the original subject of this thread) has never had the noun "Japanman" or anything similar.


----------



## tunaafi

HSS said:


> some people object even to the use of the plural 'Japanese.'


Really?


----------



## HSS

tunaafi said:


> Really?


Yes. One of the examples is:

_*I met many Japanese.*_

44.2% of the 255 American respondents surveyed reacted with 'strongly disagree' or 'disagree' to the statement 'The sentence is natural for a native speaker of English to say or write.'

It's a lot better to say 'many Japanese *people*,' isn't it? Or, if you could, you would be better off saying it more specifically with *participants*, *athletes*, *sales reps*, *students*, *politicians*, or something.

However, if you generically refer to the Japanese people in general, it IS quite natural or idiomatic to use *the Japanese* (the + a nominalized adjective), which is oftentimes construed as its plural form too. For example:

_This sort of entertainment tends to attract *the Japanese*._


----------



## Uncle Jack

HSS said:


> Yes. One of the examples is:
> 
> _*I met many Japanese.*_


I met many English.   

I agree with he 44.2%. However, this does not invalidate all uses of "English" (or "Japanese") as a plural noun. "The English defeated the French at the battle of Agincourt" is fine


----------



## HSS

Uncle Jack said:


> I met many English.
> 
> I agree with he 44.2%. However, this does not invalidate all uses of "English" (or "Japanese") as a plural noun. "The English defeated the French at the battle of Agincourt" is fine


Right, because it's again the use of 'the + nominalized adjective' representing people in general. 'The English' and 'the French' are looked upon as people in general from the countries even those in battles they are merely ones representing the counties.


----------



## elroy

For me, this is 100% clear-cut with no wiggle room whatsoever.  “A Japanese” and “one Japanese” sound horrendous, and the use of a comparative construction makes absolutely no difference (why would it?).  I can’t think of a single sentence in which these would sound even remotely okay.

They are offensive for the same reason “a gay” is offensive; when you omit an obligatory “person,” the result is offensive.

HSS, I would urge you to give up on this particular quest.  It’s a losing battle.

(“many Japanese” is also horrible.)


----------



## HSS

elroy said:


> HSS, I would urge you to give up on this particular quest.  It’s a losing battle.
> 
> (“many Japanese” is also horrible.)


Oh, I'm just curious, elroy, in terms of cognitive semantics. The construe of a phrase varies from person to person, depending on your background, your upbringing etc., and although I see what and how the majority feel toward the word, my curiosity goes into the minority and what affects them how.


----------



## elroy

I’m going to be bold and say that those who indicate (some semblance of) acceptance wouldn’t actually produce these in real life (in the wild, as it were) — they are much too dreadful — _unless maybe_ they spoke another language that did allow the literal equivalents and they were influenced by that language.

I simply cannot see a monolingual native speaker of English saying “a Japanese.”


----------



## DonnyB

Sorry, but this thread is currently closed while the moderators review it.  Our apologies for any inconvenience: thank you for your patience.  DonnyB - moderator.


----------

