# I'm Chinese / I'm a Chinese [Nationality: adjective vs noun]



## Cat Glass

In the two sentences, I understand that the word "Chinese" functions differently (adjective and noun, respectively).  

I'm not sure, though, if the meaning (or the emphasis or the feeling) of the sentence changes with the addition and removal of the article 'a' -- does it?


----------



## bluegiraffe

I am Chinese = my nationality is Chinese
I am a Chinese... = this needs a noun to follow the adjective:
I am a Chinese football player.


----------



## Seelix

I agree with Bluegiraffe, however the word "Chinese" (as well as other adjectives referring to nationality) can be used as a noun as well. 

The Chinese typically have dark hair, while the Finns typically have fair hair.
The two skiers finished the race at almost the same time; however, the American was half a second behind the Canadian.

Both of the sentences in your post, Cat, do have the same meaning. "I am a Chinese" does sound a little awkward, but it is not incorrect.


----------



## bluegiraffe

I have to completely disagree. There is nothing correct about "I'm a Chinese". I would correct this mistake if I heard it.  I certainly wouldn't describe myself as "an English".


----------



## ><FISH'>

It is quite incorrect. Even if it isn't, it does sound too awkward to use.


----------



## Seelix

I suppose it depends on the adjective being used. You're right, Bluegiraffe, that "I'm an English" sounds very awkward. However, "I'm a Canadian" or "I'm an African" sound correct to me. Would you describe yourself as "a Brit" or is that an Americanization?


----------



## entangledbank

This has come up before, but it must have been in a thread about a different nationality, as I can't find it. 'Chinese' used to be usable as a noun for a person, but it basically no longer is. Likewise Japanese, Portuguese. The apparent plural 'the Chinese are' is a use of the adjective: compare 'the French are', another adjective, and contrast with 'the Germans are', which is a plural noun.

Some nationalities have person nouns (Swede, Serb, Finn), usually identical in form with the adjective (American, German, Russian); others have no person noun, only an adjective (English, French, Chinese, Portuguese). For these the adjective can be used on its own (the French are). Otherwise it can't cross:the American are). Hmm, some like Swede/Swedish allows both: the Swedish are; Swedes are. The _-ese_ words used to be person nouns also.


----------



## Seelix

All right, I see that I'm outvoted 
My apologies.


----------



## bluegiraffe

Seelix said:


> Would you describe yourself as "a Brit" or is that an Americanization?


 Just to answer this question - no I wouldn't.  I'd describe myself as English, not British.  If I were to say I was British, I'd say just that but wouldn't use "Brit".


----------



## Cat Glass

Thanks, everyone. 

_"I'm a Chinese"_ or _"I'm a Japanese"_ does sound awkward and I would advise someone to drop the 'a' altogether for the sake of sounding more natural.  

However, I'd always thought that the 'a' version was acceptable, at least when the word can also mean "a person from so-and-so country/region" in addition to being an adjective that refers to national/racial origin. (Some examples: I'm an American. I'm an Asian.)  Am I mistaken in thinking so?


----------



## bluegiraffe

It is possible for some nationalities:
an American
a Canadian
an Australian
But not for others:
English - an Englishman/woman
French - a Frenchman/womanS
panish - a Spaniard.

There is no rule, they just have to be learnt.


----------



## Cat Glass

Thanks again!


----------



## natkretep

And of course there's 'I'm a Chinaman', which is now derogatory and has restricted use, but I have always been intrigued with the form <name of country> + _man_ which is not used for any other people group, as far as I'm aware.



bluegiraffe said:


> Just to answer this question - no I wouldn't.  I'd describe myself as English, not British.  If I were to say I was British, I'd say just that but wouldn't use "Brit".



And you wouldn't say 'I'm a Briton' either. Although Americans might say, 'You're a Britisher'.


----------



## bluegiraffe

natkretep said:


> And of course there's 'I'm a Chinaman', which is now derogatory and has restricted use, but I have always been intrigued with the form <name of country> + _man_ which is not used for any other people group, as far as I'm aware.


 How about:
Englishman
Frenchman
Dutchman


----------



## natkretep

bluegiraffe said:


> How about:
> Englishman
> Frenchman
> Dutchman



No, that's not the same. You can't say Englandman, Franceman or Hollandman. It's Chinaman, not Chineseman.


----------



## bluegiraffe

Yes, you're right.


----------



## panjandrum

I'm not surprised that etb couldn't find the previous thread.
Nationalities: from adjective to noun


----------



## ewie

entangledbank said:


> 'Chinese' used to be usable as a noun for a person, but it basically no longer is.


Oh dear, that's _another_ memo I never got from the Language Police.  I still happily say _*a* Chinese/Portuguese/Japanese_/_Sudanese_, etc.


----------



## colcan

ewie said:


> Oh dear, that's _another_ memo I never got from the Language Police.  I still happily say _*a* Chinese/Portuguese/Japanese_/_Sudanese_, etc.


No native speaker in Portland and surrounding areas would say such a thing (unless they're speaking in jest, perhaps, or pretending to be from outer space). It just sounds too weird.


----------



## Matching Mole

I think the point is that certain speakers would not consider using this form (and not only those from Portland), but others consider it idiomatic. The usage appears to be acceptable to certain so-called "speech communities" and not to others, and I have no idea whether "a Chinese" is acceptable in the way that I have learned that "a Japanese" is acceptable (cf. my comments on the thread linked by Panjandrum).


----------



## Sikaranista

natkretep said:


> And you wouldn't say 'I'm a Briton' either. Although Americans might say, 'You're a Britisher'.



We'd say "You're British" or "You're from the U.K.".  (Or, you're from across the pond...but that's probably more common in NEW England )     

I don't know any AE speakers that say "Britisher"...at least not here.

The first time I heard the word "Britisher" was when folks from the Indian subcontinent used the term.  It sounds odd to my ears.


----------



## colcan

Sikaranista said:


> We'd say "You're British" or "You're from the U.K.".  (Or, you're from across the pond...but that's probably more common in NEW England )
> 
> I don't know any AE speakers that say "Britisher"...at least not here.
> 
> The first time I heard the word "Britisher" was when folks from the Indian subcontinent used the term.  It sounds odd to my ears.



I agree 100%.
_
Britisher _sounds like someone who _britishes_.  Don't know if one can say that about the people from the UK.

However, if I heard it, I would understand it right away to mean 'from Great Britain'.


----------



## Outsider

natkretep said:


> bluegiraffe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about:
> Englishman
> Frenchman
> Dutchman
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not the same. You can't say Englandman, Franceman or Hollandman. It's Chinaman, not Chineseman.
Click to expand...

The word "China" was originally an ethnonym:



> The Persian word and the Sanskrit word _cīnāḥ_,  "Chinese people," which gave us the English name for the country, go back to the Chinese word _Qín_, the name of the dynasty that ruled China from 221 to 206 B.C.
> 
> American Heritage Dictionary


----------



## Spira

natkretep said:


> And of course there's 'I'm a Chinaman', which is now derogatory and has restricted use, but I have always been intrigued with the form <name of country> + _man_ which is not used for any other people group, as far as I'm aware.
> 
> 
> 
> And you wouldn't say 'I'm a Briton' either. Although Americans might say, 'You're a Britisher'.


 
Interesting thread. I am astonished to hear that Chinaman is considered derogatory. It was the very word I thought of as thecorrect solution as soon as I read the opener.

As for Brit, I first heard it used 15-20 years ago in the context of GB sports teams (competing as one team, as opposed to England, Scotland, Wales etc). I noticed it was quickly adopted when talking about holiday-makers abroad, especially behaving badly. Two decades on I now use it to describe myself and all my compatriots (in the true sense of nationality i.e. UK).
Which doesn't mean I wouldn't call myself English frequently as well.


----------



## colcan

Spira said:


> Interesting thread. I am astonished to hear that Chinaman is considered derogatory. It was the very word I thought of as the correct solution as soon as I read the opener.


It certainly is politically incorrect in the US, and has been so since long before politically-correct language became trendy.  I have no clue as to why.


----------



## George French

Spira's post "Interesting thread. I am astonished to hear that Chinaman is considered derogatory."



colcan said:


> It certainly is politically incorrect in the US, and has been so since long before politically-correct language became trendy. I have no clue as to why.


 
I was wondering about his point... Who are these dictators who decree/dictate words to be politically incorrect? Are there similar hangups in the UK? What about The Comonwealth citizens?

GF..


----------



## George French

In my previous post I asked "Who are these dictators who decree/dictate words to be politically incorrect?"

Perhaps I should have phrased this less stridently.. 

An interesting article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech may help us to understand what a difficult subject this is.

I hope I have not offended. If I have, that was not my intention. But I do worry about our freedoms.

GF..


----------



## ewie

*Moderator thing:* Just a _teeny_ reminder that the subject of _Brit / Briton / Britisher_ has been discussed almost to extinction in this thread.  Please use that thread if you'd like to discuss it ... erm ... totally into extinction.


----------



## Snappy_is_here

According to _Longman English Grammar (G. Alexander), 2.27 Nouns with the same singular and plural forms_,_ Some nouns do not change in form. These include:
- certain nouns describing nationalities e.g., a Chinese, a Swiss, a Vietnamese
He is a Vietnamese_

This grammar book introduces an example:  _Nakamurasan is (a) Japanese._
I took this that "a" is optional.

Does it mean it is grammatically okay to put "a," but it sounds unnatural to native speakers these days?


----------



## mplsray

Snappy_is_here said:


> According to _Longman English Grammar (G. Alexander), 2.27 Nouns with the same singular and plural forms_,_ Some nouns do not change in form. These include:
> - certain nouns describing nationalities e.g., a Chinese, a Swiss, a Vietnamese
> He is a Vietnamese_
> 
> This grammar book introduces an example:  _Nakamurasan is (a) Japanese._
> I took this that "a" is optional.
> 
> Does it mean it is grammatically okay to put "a," but it sounds unnatural to native speakers these days?



It does mean that "a" is optional, but there is no implication that "a Japanese" used here would be found odd by native speakers.

Nevertheless, I think native speakers might indeed find _Nakamurasan is a Japanese_ to be a bit odd, while, for example, _Nakamurasan is a Japanese businessman_ would be fine.


----------



## jiamajia

You look like a Chinese. 
You look like Chinese.
-----------------------------

Someone says 'You look like a Chinese' is not as politically sound as the other. Please confirm. Thank you.


----------



## ribran

Hi, jiamajia. 

In my experience, "laypeople" don't use "Chinese" as a noun meaning, "a native or national of China, or a person of Chinese descent." Most people would say, "X looks Chinese."

I won't call "a Chinese" derogatory, but I would not be comfortable using it.


----------



## TokyoSkyTree

ribran said:


> Most people would say, "X looks Chinese."



Does the same go for "Japanese," "American," "French," "German," etc.?


----------



## ribran

Hi, TokyoSkyTree. 

_X looks Japanese. 
X looks American. 
X looks like an American. 
X looks French. 
X looks German. _

("X looks like a Japanese," and, "X looks like a German," are both correct, but neither sounds common to me. "X looks like a French," is definitely incorrect.)


----------



## Pertinax

The question is whether the word can be used only as an adjective, or also as a singular noun.

"French" cannot be used as a singular noun (at best we can use the generic plural "the French") and hence it is ungrammatical to say "he looks like a French".  I would have said that the same was true of "Japanese";  I am surprised that "X looks like a Japanese" sounds fine to Ribran's ear.


----------



## TokyoSkyTree

Thank you, ribran. 

I wonder why only "American" has two versions. What about "Mexican" and "Canadian"?


----------



## Pertinax

Yes.  Both follow the same rules as "American".  They can be either an adjective or a singular noun.  The "-an" ending is a clue.

I am Mexican.
I am a Mexican.


----------



## ribran

Pertinax said:


> I am surprised that "X looks like a Japanese" sounds fine to Ribran's ear.



It doesn't , but every dictionary I have checked recognizes the use of "Japanese" as a noun meaning, "a native or inhabitant of Japan, or a person of Japanese descent."


----------



## ribran

TokyoSkyTree said:


> Thank you, ribran.
> 
> I wonder why only "American" has two versions.



You're welcome. 

"He looks like a German," is fine, but as I said in my previous post, it doesn't sound common to me. I think most native English speakers would rather say, "He looks German."


----------



## hoan965

According to Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary: *American *  /əˈmer.ɪ.kən/ _ noun _ [ C  ]:someone from the US   _He said he was proud to be an American. _
So, I think that we can say: " He is an American" ( It means _*he is a person coming from The USA *_) 
And according to Oxford advanced Genie Dictionary:  *American: *(adjective) :  of or connected with N or S America, especially the US:
Ex: I'm American.    

So I think that : "He is an American"  or "He is American " is ok. But they are different form meaning. The first one is about a person and the second is about nationality. 
Are both the examples right? Would you help me.
Thanks in advance.


----------



## ribran

hoan965 said:


> According to Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary: *American *  /əˈmer.ɪ.kən/ _ noun _ [ C  ]:someone from the US   _He said he was proud to be an American. _
> So, I think that we can say: " He is an American" ( It means _*he is a person coming from The USA *_)
> And according to Oxford advanced Genie Dictionary:  *American: *(adjective) :  of or connected with N or S America, especially the US:
> Ex: I'm American.
> 
> So I think that : "He is an American"   or "He is American "  is ok. But they are different form meaning. The first one is about a person and the second is about nationality.
> Are both the examples right? Would you help me.
> Thanks in advance.



Hi, hoan965. 

As you say, "X is an American" can only be used of people (_This computer is an American _), but I consider your two sentences basically identical in meaning.


----------



## hoan965

Thank Ribran for your comment.


----------



## ewie

*Moderator note: *Today's thread has been merged with a previous one on the same subject, so there's a lot more opinion _above_.

Opinion is very divided on this whole subject


----------



## xiaolijie

ribran said:


> I won't call "a Chinese" derogatory, but I would not be comfortable using it.


This is a wrong diagnosis and, inadvertantly, introduces the idea that the word "Chinese" itself may be derogatory (which some people may be quite happy to pick up in default of a better explanation). 

I think we're not comfortable in saying "He's a Chinese"/ "I'm a Chinese" not because the word "Chinese" is derogatory but because "Chinese" is often used as an adjective, so when we hear "He's a Chinese", _we customarily expect something else to follow_ it; and if nothing else is forthcoming, it feels as if something is missing.


----------



## Pertinax

ribran said:


> It doesn't , but every dictionary I have checked recognizes the use of "Japanese" as a noun meaning, "a native or inhabitant of Japan, or a person of Japanese descent."



Thank you.  The OED concurs, as do a number of contributors to this extended thread, although I wonder if the usage is obsolescent.

Perhaps the use of "Japanese" as a singular noun (in addition to adjective and plural noun) actually stems from the Japanese themselves. A number of Asian languages do not have an indefinite article, and so English-learners often pepper their speech with inappropriate articles, e.g.:
_Believe me, it's not easy to be a pregnant.
    Would you like a bread?_

For that matter I also hear imputed singulars:
_    Where is the scissor?_
... which might explain the origin of "Japanee" and "Chinee".

Speculation aside, I am also uneasy at calling someone "a Japanese" or "a Chinese" because it sounds as though I am mocking his muddled articles.


----------



## jiamajia

It was suggested in this thread by some that there is a difference when people tend to use a+ -nese (Chinese)and a+ -n (Mexican) to denote a person's nationality. I want to know if 'a Korean' is more likely than 'a Lebanese' too. Thank you.


----------



## natkretep

jiamajia said:


> It was suggested in this thread by some that there is a difference when people tend to use a+ -nese (Chinese)and a+ -n (Mexican) to dennote a person's nationality. I want to know if 'a Korean' is more likely than 'a Lebanese' too. Thank you.



Yes, that is true for me; I prefer to talk about a Lebanese {lady/woman/gentleman/etc.}


----------



## JamesM

For me, any of the ones that end in "ese" sound odd with "a/an" in front of them.  So does "Swiss", for that matter.  I think if I were talking about ancestry or citizenship I would usually use the adjective: "He's Japanese / Swiss / French".  If the issue is specifically citizenship, I would still use the adjective with "citizen" after it... "He's a Japanese / Swiss / French citizen."  If I had a situation where ancestry and citizenship didn't correspond and that was the point of the remark, I would probably say "He's a Chinese citizen but his ancestors were French."

In other words, I think I avoid the nouns in most cases.


----------



## lucas-sp

Xiaolijie, I would say that both "a Chinese" and "a Chinaman" are derogatory - today. It has nothing to do with the word "Chinese," but only that those forms are archaic and so linked to a time in which they were used to make derogatory or otherwise ignorant comments about the Chinese in general and specific Chinese people in particular. (I would say the same think happened to the adjective/noun "oriental" - several of my friends and I have had interventions with our parents during which we had to explain to them that they could never again describe a person as "oriental" or "an oriental." You could also compare this uncomfortable usage to the taboo on the word "negro," which is itself innocent but is linked to a context that is fraught with tension and racist baggage.) So when I hear those words being used, I grimace because of their close association with a much less pleasant age.

I'm also reminded of the way the word "Chinese" can be racist-sounding if you pronounce it with an "s" sound instead of a "z" sound.


----------



## HSS

After reading this thread from top to bottom, I was wondering if 'the/this/that etc. Japanese (with the singular noun meaning)' with no noun following it was idiomatic, if it had been already mentioned once, or more, before. I think it is. Could anyone please help me with this?

Jessica Boulder met with a businessman from Sendai; this Japanese was so rude he left the meeting only thirty minutes after it started without saying good-by.
(Yet, I know 'this Japanese gentleman' would be better ... nonetheless, the simple, terse 'this Japanese' carries the speaker's angry overtone, I believe)


----------



## papakapp

Seelix said:


> I suppose it depends on the adjective being used. You're right, Bluegiraffe, that "I'm an English" sounds very awkward. However, "I'm a Canadian" or "I'm an African" sound correct to me. Would you describe yourself as "a Brit" or is that an Americanization?



I attribute this to the ambiguity of the word "English".

You can have Canadian nationals but you cannot have Canadian speakers.
You can have African nationals but you cannot have African speakers. 
You can have English nationals and you also can have English speakers.

So I will be throwing my hat in with the 





Seelix said:


> it depends on the adjective being used


 crowd


----------



## ewie

HSS said:


> After reading this thread from top to bottom, I was wondering if 'the/this/that etc. Japanese (with the singular noun meaning)' with no noun following it was idiomatic, if it had been already mentioned once, or more, before. I think it is. Could anyone please help me with this?
> 
> Jessica Boulder met with a businessman from Sendai; this Japanese was so rude he left the meeting only thirty minutes after it started without saying good-by.
> (Yet, I know 'this Japanese gentleman' would be better ... nonetheless, the simple, terse 'this Japanese' carries the speaker's angry overtone, I believe)


Unfortunately there's simply no one single definitive answer to this, Hiro: some people (e.g. me, post #18) would find it perfectly acceptable; others would find it totally weird


----------



## HSS

ewie said:


> Unfortunately there's simply no one single definitive answer to this, Hiro: some people (e.g. me, post #18) would find it perfectly acceptable; others would find it totally weird


Hi, ewie. I thought ' -ese (with the singular noun meaning) ' with the definite article, or demonstrative adjectives may be different. But it should be looked upon in the same manner nonetheless ... okay. I'll be careful placing a fitting noun after it. Thanks, ewie.


----------



## LilianaB

There is also one more problem with the word nationality, many people take nationality for ethnicity.


----------



## squeaky69

The course book I'm using (_New English File Upper- Intermediate_) says:

To talk about one person from a country you can't use _a/an _+ adjective alone:
      1)  _a Japanese man/woman/ person, an Englishman/ Englishwoman/ English person_, NOT _a Japanese, an English,_ etc. (nationality adjectives which end in      -_sh_, _ch, ss,_ or _ese).
      2) an Italian, a Greek, etc (Nationality words which end in -_*an*_,_and a few others, e.g. _Greek _and _Thai, _are both adjectives and* nouns*: _The Italian*s*, The Greek*s.
*3) _Some nationalities have a special noun: _a Turk_, a _Pole_, etc.

But the Cambridge Grammar of English lists on its Appendix on nationalities, under the heading _person, _the following examples: _a Chinese, a Portuguese, a Swiss,  a Japanese._I have no idea why, as I've never heard these used as nouns.


----------



## panjandrum

Hello squeaky - and welcome to WordReference 

As you will see from the discussion earlier in the thread, and in the linked threads, the terms listed have been used as singular nouns - and many of us find them strange.

I think what you are seeing here is the Cambridge Grammar of English listing nouns that have been used, and your course book reflecting current preferred usage.


----------



## JungKim

There appears to be a consensus in this and some other threads that you don't use "Japanese", "Chinese" or "Portuguese" as a singular noun--at least not in modern English.

Notwithstanding the consensus, however, the following online dictionaries say that you can use them as a singular noun:
(1) Our own Word Ref. Dictionary
(2) Merriam-Webster
(3) Oxford Dictionaries
(4) Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
(5) Cambridge Dictionaries Online
(6) Dictionary.com

The only two exceptions that I found agree with the consensus are:
(1) Merriam-Webster Learner's Dictionary
(2) Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English

Any thoughts??


----------



## Cagey

I think you've see our thoughts in the posts above.  

The dictionaries report what may be acceptable to some people.  Contributors to this thread report their actual use and preferences, which probably reflect the uses and preferences of most native speakers, though of course they may not. 

Which forms you want to use is always up to you.


----------



## JungKim

Cagey said:


> I think you've see our thoughts in the posts above.
> 
> The dictionaries report what may be acceptable to some people.  Contributors to this thread report their actual use and preferences, which probably reflect the uses and preferences of most native speakers, though of course they may not.
> 
> Which forms you want to use is always up to you.



Actually, I made the mistake of reading only the first page of this thread before writing my post, although I have read some other related threads as well. But I did read the rest of the posts in this thread before reading yours. 

Now, the funny thing is that the original Merriam-Webster disagrees with the Learner's version.


----------



## Stoggler

What a fascinating thread!  

In my experience in the UK, I have heard "a Chinese" being used but mostly in the media and the impression I get is that it's older people who use it or at least a usage that is dying out.  It always sounds odd to my ears and I wouldn't use it myself (not because I think it's derogatory, that thought had never occurred to me until I read this thread).

As for "Chinaman", the only time I have ever really heard that is in reference to a particular type of bowler in cricket (i.e. a left-handed equivalent of a leg-spinner).


----------



## Stoggler

dragongball said:


> ...but I have always been intrigued with the form <name  of country> + _man_ which is not used for any other people group, as far as I'm aware.



The only one I can think of is Indiaman, but that only relates to a type of ship conducting trade with India, not to people.


----------



## Myridon

JungKim said:


> Any thoughts??


I think that your linking to the front page of multiple dictionaries requires me repeat all the work you've already done in order to produce a considered opinion.


----------



## london calling

Stoggler said:


> The only one I can think of is Indiaman, but that only relates to a type of ship conducting trade with India, not to people.


The only one you can think of? What about _Englishman_ and _Englishwoman_?

I'm _an Englishwoman_: what are you?  An Englishman/woman, a Welshman/woman, a Scotsman/woman, an Irishman/woman?


----------



## bluegiraffe

london calling said:


> The only one you can think of? What about _Englishman_ and _Englishwoman_?
> 
> I'm _an Englishwoman_: what are you?  An Englishman/woman, a Welshman/woman, a Scotsman/woman, an Irishman/woman?



That's not the same as Chinaman.  Chinaman is the name of the country + man.  Englishwoman is the adjective + woman,


----------



## london calling

bluegiraffe said:


> That's not the same as Chinaman.  Chinaman is the name of the country + man.  Englishwoman is the adjective + woman,


Quite so, my apologies.


----------



## JungKim

Myridon said:


> I think that your linking to the front page of multiple dictionaries requires me repeat all the work you've already done in order to produce a considered opinion.



The reason that I gave the link to each dictionary, which by itself was quite a lot of work on my part, was simply so that others could know which dictionaries I was referring to. And I don't believe that you would have to actually repeat all the work that I've done in order to comment on the issue, unless of course, for some reason that I don't understand, you simply don't believe my claim about the dictionary listings for the three nationalities. Then, you could simply type any of the three nationalities in any of the dictionary links provided, each of which typing action would only take you a couple seconds.


----------



## RM1(SS)

dragongball said:


> And of course there's 'I'm a Chinaman', which is now derogatory and has  restricted use, but I have always been intrigued with the form <name  of country> + _man_ which is not used for any other people group, as far as I'm aware.





london calling said:


> The only one you can think of? What about _Englishman_ and _Englishwoman_?
> 
> I'm _an Englishwoman_: what are you?  An Englishman/woman, a Welshman/woman, a Scotsman/woman, an Irishman/woman?





bluegiraffe said:


> That's not the same as Chinaman.  Chinaman is the name of the country + man.  Englishwoman is the adjective + woman,



See posts 13-15.  bluegiraffe was part of that conversation, too.


----------



## lucas-sp

JungKim said:


> There appears to be a consensus in this and some other threads that you *don't* use "Japanese", "Chinese" or "Portuguese" as a singular noun--at least not in modern English.
> 
> Notwithstanding the consensus, however, the following online dictionaries say that you *can* use them as a singular noun.
> 
> Any thoughts??


Here's my thought. If we're dealing with the statement that, roughly paraphrased, runs as follows:
_
Today, saying "a Chinese" is derogatory._

This statement entails, implies, etc. a few other statements:

- "A Chinese" _is_ used. It has a highly specific usage. You can use it to sound derogatory. For "a Chinese" to have a derogatory meaning or connotation it is necessary that "a Chinese" be sayable and understandable in contemporary English.
- You might not _want_ to say "a Chinese" for various reasons. For instance, you might not want to sound racist, xenophobic, etc. For that reason, many people _do not say_ "a Chinese," but that does not mean that "a Chinese" is not part of their idiolect. They _have to understand_ what "a Chinese" connotes _so as to choose not to say_ "a Chinese."

Basically, I think your two observations - people don't use it in practice, but the dictionaries describe it as being a part of language - are not logically contradictory. In fact, I think that they represent two parts of one underlying phenomenon.

Of course, the various _values_ - I used "derogatory," but you could put in "outdated," or "stilted," or any other kind of value - given to "a Chinese" can change without disturbing the underlying logic that resolves "don't use" and "can't use."


----------



## JungKim

lucas-sp said:


> Here's my thought. If we're dealing with the statement that, roughly paraphrased, runs as follows:
> _
> Today, saying "a Chinese" is derogatory._
> 
> This statement entails, implies, etc. a few other statements:
> 
> - "A Chinese" _is_ used. It has a highly specific usage. You can use it to sound derogatory. For "a Chinese" to have a derogatory meaning or connotation it is necessary that "a Chinese" be sayable and understandable in contemporary English.
> - You might not _want_ to say "a Chinese" for various reasons. For instance, you might not want to sound racist, xenophobic, etc. For that reason, many people _do not say_ "a Chinese," but that does not mean that "a Chinese" is not part of their idiolect. They _have to understand_ what "a Chinese" connotes _so as to choose not to say_ "a Chinese."
> 
> Basically, I think your two observations - people don't use it in practice, but the dictionaries describe it as being a part of language - are not logically contradictory. In fact, I think that they represent two parts of one underlying phenomenon.
> 
> Of course, the various _values_ - I used "derogatory," but you could put in "outdated," or "stilted," or any other kind of value - given to "a Chinese" can change without disturbing the underlying logic that resolves "don't use" and "can't use."



Is the same derogatory connotation--or whatever you want to call it that make the word awkward at best--also found in the other two nationalities "Japanese" and "Portuguese" mentioned in my post #57? 

And how about "Swiss"?


----------



## lucas-sp

With "a Japanese," yes.

With "a Portugese" and "a Swiss," well, there isn't that much anti-Swiss racism in English-speaking cultures. So it doesn't sound derogatory as much as just really, really strange.


----------



## JungKim

lucas-sp said:


> With "a Japanese," yes.
> 
> With "a Portugese" and "a Swiss," well, there isn't that much anti-Swiss racism in English-speaking cultures. So it doesn't sound derogatory as much as just really, really strange.



All the four nationalities--"Chinese", "Japanese", "Portuguese" and "Swiss"--are each listed as a singular noun under the first group of six dictionaries shown in post #57 but not so under the second group of two dictionaries. Apparently, the "derogatory connotation" itself is more attached to a cultural background than to -ese or -s ending. Therefore, I don't think that the derogatory connotation is the right answer to why such nationalities when used as a singular noun as suggested in most dictionaries sound so awkward. Rather, I think it's simply a red herring. 

Furthermore, most dictionaries clearly state "offensive", "derogatory" "taboo" or something like that if an entry word is indeed perceived by most native speakers to carry a derogatory connotation. But no dictionary that I have consulted so far indicate any such heads-up for entries like "Chinese" or "Japanese".


----------



## timpeac

Just to add my opinion - a Chinese, a Portuguese, a Swiss, a Japanese all sound really odd to me. None sound derogatory to my ear (including "a Chinese"), they just sound very strange!

On the other hand (and apparently against the general opinion having read many of the posts above) "a Chinaman" doesn't sound derogatory to me. Old-fashioned, yes - but not derogatory.

Edit - on reflection, having reread my post, I have to say that "a Swiss" sounds much less odd than the other ones to my ear.


----------



## natkretep

timpeac said:


> On the other hand (and apparently against the general opinion having read many of the posts above) "a Chinaman" doesn't sound derogatory to me. Old-fashioned, yes - but not derogatory.


Could be regional. I still hear it - in a context here where there is an ethnic Chinese majority - and it is derogatory. It's used to refer to a recent immigrant from China, or to a Chinese person who lacks sophistication or is unexposed or has a traditional Chinese cultural outlook or does not speak a lot of English. It's used for internal distinctions within the ethnic Chinese, and of course its use is not to be recommended.


----------



## JungKim

FYI, "Chinaman" is noted as "*dated or offensive*_"_ in its meaning of "a native of China" in Oxford Dictionaries, whereas no such noting is for "Chinese" in the same dictionary.


----------



## bluegiraffe

RM1(SS) said:


> See posts 13-15.  bluegiraffe was part of that conversation, too.


I feel that I learnt something from the original leg of this thread and passed it on further down the chain...  
<< Well intentioned, but subject to misunderstanding. >>


----------



## Transfer_02

I have looked through several online lists such as this one: http://eolf.univ-fcomte.fr/uploads/ressources/grammar/09_nationality_words/natkey.htm

and they seem unanimous in suggesting that "Chinese", "Portuguese" etc can be used as countable nouns to refer to one or more people of that nationality.

However, to my ears sentences such as, "There are three Chinese in my class", or "There is a Portuguese waiting for you in your office", just sound completely odd. 

(I have no problems with using these as collective nouns eg: "The Chinese are buying more and more European clothes.")

I found this topic in the French/English forum which seems to share my angst...
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=496077

...but I am surprised to find so many ESL websites and other sources suggesting that these nouns can be used in this way.

Is this just a "common usage" issue?  In other words, do we choose to say "a Chinese person" rather than "a Chinese" even though both are correct?

<Moderator note: Transfer_02's thread has been merged with this one>


----------



## name my name

Transfer_02 said:


> "There are three Chinese in my class", or "There is a Portuguese waiting for you in your office", just sound completely odd.


   This does not sound odd to me at all.
I think this does not only refer to words like Chinese and Portuguese, the same goes to British, French etc.
And we seldom say "a Chinese person". We simply say "a Chinese".


----------



## dadane

I find it a little odd too but, from what I've read in this forum, it appears to be quite common in some places. It has always puzzled how this only works in certain cases in BE: an Italian, a Greek, four Germans, and a French......y.


----------



## name my name

Hey, dadane, I am not native speaker. But by what I have been taught and what I've read, till now I have not found anything odd about that. But we usually say "four German" or "four Chinese". We do not add plural form here.

Want to listen to more opinions from you guys.


----------



## dadane

name my name said:


> But we usually say "four German" or "four Chinese". We do not add plural form here.



In BE this only works in the adjectival sense: four German, four Chinese, and three French students. As a noun, it must be pluralised (... four Germans). The cases where there isn't a noun which corresponds with the adjective are few but problematic: French ... Frenchman; Spanish ... Spaniard; Polish ... ??? (Polack is adopted), Turkish ... Turk. There is no predictable pattern.


----------



## mojolicious

dadane said:


> Polish ... ??? (Polack is adopted)


Pole!


----------



## name my name

dadane said:


> Spanish ... Spaniard; Polish ... ??? (Polack is adopted), Turkish ... Turk.


----------



## name my name

mojolicious said:


> Pole!



 Pole??


----------



## mojolicious

name my name said:


> Pole??


In UK English a person from Poland is a 'Pole'. 'Polack', as suggested by dadane, is (to my English ears) slightly derogatory.

Regarding the original post, I agree that 'there are three Chinese in my class' sounds wrong. Equally, 'there is a Chinese in my class' sounds wrong. 

I think the problem is that the word 'Chinese' can be adjectival _and lacks a plural form_. This also accounts for 'Portuguese', 'Sudanese', and 'Ceylonese' (if you're old, like me). Other nouns which are also adjectives – Italian, German, Brazilian etc – can be made plural with an 's'. 'There is an Italian in my class' and 'there are two Brazilians in my class' are both perfectly acceptable.

EDIT: which, having read dadane's post again, is what dadane said.


----------



## sunyaer

mojolicious said:


> ...
> 
> Regarding the original post, I agree that 'there are three Chinese in my class' sounds wrong. Equally, 'there is a Chinese in my class' sounds wrong.
> 
> ...



What are the correct sentences for 'there are three Chinese in my class' and 'there is a Chinese in my class' ?


----------



## JustKate

sunyaer said:


> What are the correct sentences for 'there are three Chinese in my class' and 'there is a Chinese in my class' ?



I invariably use _Chinese_ as a modifier in such cases, so I'd say "There are three Chinese students in my class."

The only time I use _Chinese_ as a noun is when my meaning is "the people of China" or "the government of China," e.g., "The Chinese are interested in improving their influence in Asia." It's not wrong to say "three Chinese," but it sounds odd and awkward to me, so I avoid it anyway.


----------



## kokosz1975

Hello to everybody

 Very interesting topic! It was soothing to my heart to learn that the problem that I have in Polish with finding the correct name for a person from a specific country  can also  pose a problem in English. (Respect to all of you who know that a person from Poland is a Pole).


----------



## ewie

*newsflash!

*The authors of the BBC news website, those purveyors of dodgy English and in particular crap headlines*, have today inadvertently used the term _China man_, amongst others:
The headline reads:


> *China man *in balloon bound for disputed islands crashes*


Immediately below it the picture caption reads:


> _The man launched the balloon from *China's* Fujian province in an attempt to land on one of the islands_


And the first line of the article itself reads:


> *A Chinese man* flying a hot air balloon to a group of disputed islands had to be rescued ...


Just thought I'd mention it.

*I had to read it 11 times before I understood it.


----------



## natkretep

I don't know whether there's any influence from this part of the world.  We encounter _China man_ here because 'Chinese man' in Singapore usually means 'ethnic Chinese man' (but not of Chinese nationality), and to emphasise nationality this term is used. Otherwise, I hear _PRC man_ (where PRC is the 'People's Republic of China'). See for example, this news story.


> China man bashed for ‘talking too loudly’ on bus


----------



## DBlomgren

<< Mod note: New question added to previous threads. Please read from the top. >>

I'm making a list of adjectives and words for people from different countries like this:
Finland - Finnish - a Finn, the Finnish
Japan - Japanese - a Japanese person, the Japanese

I've noticed most ESL speakers make English more regular by saying a Japanese, a Portuguese, a Congolese. I think this is where English is going, but I'd like to know what native English speakers think is correct now.

A. A Portuguese (Congolese, Taiwanese, etc.) said this.

B. A Portuguese *person* (or man or woman,etc. said this.

So please answer A, B, or it depends. And explain what it depends on!

Thank you!


----------



## entangledbank

A is outdated. We used to use the _-ese_ adjectives as nouns, but no longer do in present-day English.


----------



## ewie

entangledbank said:


> We used to use the _-ese_ adjectives as nouns, but no longer do in present-day English.


Some of us still do.

See < above >, DB, for (a lot) more on the subject


----------



## sound shift

entangledbank said:


> A is outdated. We used to use the _-ese_ adjectives as nouns, but no longer do in present-day English.


You should have a word with the commentator who referred to José Mourinho as "the Portuguese" just the other day.


----------



## George French

sound shift said:


> You should have a word with the commentator who referred to José Mourinho as "the Portuguese" just the other day.



Transcript please:- and source....

GF..


----------



## sound shift

You'll just have to take my word for it. I don't record everything I watch on television.


----------



## Chigch

I've countered a problem: Doesn't the word Spanish need the indefinite article 'a', when it refers to a person who is Spanish? 

It seems true that many words like Japanese, British, Chinese etc need 'a' when they are used to refer to a person. But what about the word 'Spanish'? and why?


----------



## owlman5

The noun for "a Spanish person" is "a Spaniard" .  It wouldn't be normal to call that person "a Spanish".


----------



## taftypaffy

A Spaniard.

It would be incorrect to say, "a Spanish."


----------



## entangledbank

The words ending in '-ish' are always adjectives only and can never be used as nouns:

I met a British / a Spanish / a Danish.
I met a British person / a Spanish person / a Danish person (woman, doctor, student, etc.).

There are about three classes of ethnic terms in English. Those ending in '-an' can be used as person nouns and also as adjectives:

I met a German / an American / an Asian.
I met a German person / an American doctor / an Asian student.

Finally there are ones where the person noun has a special form: a Spaniard, a Dane, a Swede, a Pole, a Turk; and compounds such as an Englishman, a Frenchwoman. These are different words from the adjective (Danish, Turkish, French), which can only be used as an adjective (a Spanish person).


----------



## Chigch

Thanks to all.
But 'the Spanish', as a collective noun, is natural, isn't it?


----------



## entangledbank

Yes, all the '-ish' and '-ese' adjectives can be used to refer to the whole or majority population (but not to smaller groups):

The Spanish often take a siesta.
The Chinese eat a lot of rice.
I met three Spanish.
The Spanish I met were science students.


----------



## Chigch

I got it.
Thanks a lot.


----------



## kuleshov

I'm having a look at the third edition of Michael Swam's Practical English Usage. The book says that we can use *a Chinese* to refer to *a Chinese person*.
I know we can say, "She's married to *an* American." No problem there. But, I don't know why, I find the sentence, "She's married to a Chinese." weird. I would say, "She's married to a Chinese person."
We can generalise by using a plural nationality noun: "Americans travel more and more." And then again, if *a Chinese* is a person from China, I guess we can also generalise using the plural noun. I know we say *The Chinese* (*adjective*) to refer to the population; and we say *Chinese people* to generalise; but I don't know why we can say, "*Americans* travel more and more"= An American =  a person from America. but there is no plural from of *A Chinese*.
We have *A Swede*, and we can say *Swedes are used to the cold*.
Obviously we don't say Chineses, Japaneses or Portugueses. Maybe that's the reason...
Any ideas?


----------



## JustKate

I have merged your thread, kuleshov, with one of the earlier threads on this topic. I hope you find the answers here useful, but if not, you're welcome to ask additional questions here. If I can find a few other useful threads, I'll post some links for you.

JustKate
English Only moderator


----------



## kuleshov

Thank you very much JustKate.


----------



## PaulQ

In the singular, 'the/this/that etc. Japanese' is considered rude; perhaps mildly offensive.

Jessica Boulder met with a Japanese businessman from Sendai; he was so rude...


----------



## Silver

ribran said:


> Most people would say, "X looks Chinese."





ribran said:


> X looks American.
> X looks like an American.



Does it mean that:

X looks Chinese. 
X looks like a Chinese 
X looks like Chinese. 

According to #34?


----------



## Andygc

X looks Chinese. 
X looks like a Chinese  Unless X is a take-away meal and looks like it came from a Chinese restaurant.
X looks like Chinese.


----------



## Sun14

If I want to refer to two Chinese people as two Chinese I'd rather be clear to say two Chinese people rather than omit people?


----------



## JamesM

Sun14 said:


> If I want to refer to two Chinese people as two Chinese I'd rather be clear to say two Chinese people rather than omit people?



In general, yes.


----------



## HSS

entangledbank said:


> This has come up before, but it must have been in a thread about a different nationality, as I can't find it. 'Chinese' used to be usable as a noun for a person, but it basically no longer is. Likewise Japanese, Portuguese. The apparent plural 'the Chinese are' is a use of the adjective: compare 'the French are', another adjective, and contrast with 'the Germans are', which is a plural noun.
> [...]


Just crossed my mind: '*Chinese*' in '*the Chinese*,' meaning people from China collectively, is it an adjective or a noun? Oxford Dictionaries classify it as a noun (Please unfold the example sentences on the page).


----------



## Andygc

The use of "Chinese" as a singular noun is pretty well obsolete. I can't see that "the Chinese" and "the French" are anything other than collective nouns with plural agreement. It seems to me to be perverse to describe them as adjectives.


----------



## HSS

Hi, Andy.

So you're saying it's not 'the + adjective,' but it's 'the + noun (collective noun)'? I see.


----------



## Andygc

Yes. Here's the OED definition of "French" as a noun





> With pl. concord, and frequently with the. French people regarded collectively; (also) a particular group of French people; the French-speaking people of Canada.


The OED definition of Chinese as a noun is 





> A native of China.  [The plural Chineses was in regular use during 17th cent.: since it became obsolete Chinese has been singular and plural]


That has not been updated since the Second Edition, and I think it reasonable to say (as others have previously) that the singular form "a Chinese" has dropped out of English. I would expect the future definition to be 





> With pl. concord, and frequently with the. Chinese people regarded collectively


The same should apply to any other word that functions as both an adjective of nationality and a collective noun with an uninflected plural - the Dutch is another example that comes to mind.


----------



## HSS

Now, a book says that, with all this word about how the noun Japanese is uncommon, it would sound natural if used in a sentence where the speaker emphasized he was NOT a Japanese person, or he did NOT belong with the people. What do you think?

I made and will place this dialog for your comment:

A: Why can't he do the same thing. I can't understand!
B: I'm a Brazilian, and he is a Japanese. Maybe that's why. We are totally different.
(This conversation does not reflect my belief, by the way. We get along very well)


----------



## dojibear

HSS said:


> Just crossed my mind: '*Chinese*' in '*the Chinese*,' meaning people from China collectively, is it an adjective or a noun? Oxford Dictionaries classify it as a noun (Please unfold the example sentences on the page).



"Chinese" and "the Chinese" can be used as an adjective or as a noun. As an adjective: *The Chinese *culture is centuries old.

But if you say "meaning *people *from China collectively" you are describing a noun. *People* is a noun. How can an adjective mean a noun? Simple answer: it cannot.


----------



## HSS

Exactly, Doji. Dictionaries define 'Chinese' in 'In turn, many missionaries came to China to convert the Chinese to Christianity as part of colonization' as an example (Oxford Dictionaries) as a noun. It could be a nominal adjective or noun in the first place.

Now, what do you think about #115, Doji?


----------



## dojibear

HSS said:


> Now, a book says that, with all this word about how the noun Japanese is uncommon, it would sound natural if used in a sentence where the speaker emphasized he was NOT a Japanese person, or he did NOT belong with the people. What do you think?



If I understand the book it says that C is uncommon but D sounds natural:

C: Yes, I'm a Japanese. Born there, live there. So what? I still hate tofu!

D: No, I am absolutely positively *not* a Japanese! I'm Swedish, by jiminy!

To me the blue in D isn't more natural than C. I either don't understand the book, or don't agree with it.


----------



## exgerman

Seelix said:


> I agree with Bluegiraffe, however the word "Chinese" (as well as other adjectives referring to nationality) can be used as a noun as well.



Only in the plural.


----------



## Andygc

HSS, although "Chinese" and "Japanese" are listed in the dictionary as nouns and adjectives, in current English they are not used as countable nouns, but they are used as plural mass nouns. This may be because the plural and singular forms are the same.
We say "a Brazilian" and "the Brazilians".
We say "an American" and "the Americans".

We don't say "a Chinese" but do say "the Chinese".
We don't say "a Japanese " but do say "the Japanese".
We don't say "a Dutch" but do say "the Dutch".

Like dojibear, I disagree with the book. "I'm not a Japanese" sounds wrong to me too.


----------



## HSS

> Many Japanese go to a hot spring to relax. (no context accompanying this)
> [source: a Japanese junior high textbook]


Now is this 'Japanese' used idiomatically? This is a plural 'noun,' and looks like going counter to a lot of the discussions on this thread.

Hiro


----------



## Andygc

Is this a countable usage? "Many Japanese like hot springs." "Few Japanese like cold showers." But I don't think this would appear in modern English: "25 Japanese bathed in a hot spring".

It's no different from "There are many fish in the sea", where "fish" appears to be used as a mass noun.


----------



## HSS

Hi, Andy.

So, does the sentence sound natural in modern day English?


----------



## Andygc

It sounds entirely normal. "Many Japanese go to a hot spring to relax." But it is possible that the hot spring might be very crowded.


----------



## JamesM

Yes, but just to underscore a previous point it wouldn't sound normal to say "I saw a Japanese once at the hot springs."


----------



## HSS

Thanks, Andy. Thanks, James.

What's confusing me is many posters on this thread have been basically saying 'Japanese' used as a noun, except for 'the Japanese,' sounds unidiomatic. Why is this example an exception?

Is it 'many' before it that makes it okay-sounding?

Also, in another textbook here, I saw



> 'Many people said, "I've never heard a Japanese joke. Could you tell me one?" [...] 'Yes, They thought *Japanese* never laughed [...]'



This is a noun. Is it 'Japanese' meaning people living there in general that makes it different???


----------



## owlman5

If I had seen "the Japanese" rather than "Japanese" in that textbook example, it would have looked entirely normal to me.  It's certainly normal to say "The Japanese have a culture quite unlike the culture of any other country I've ever been to.", which is something I might say.  I did live in Japan for a couple of years as a kid, and I've never forgotten the impressions I picked up about your amazing country way back then.

I don't regard "Japanese" as an acceptable substitute for "the Japanese" in either sentence.


----------



## Jimbob_Disco

No, not at all! You can say ‘the Japanese’, though, but only when referring to the whole Japanese population, for example (apologies for being stereotypical) ‘the Japanese eat sushi’.


----------



## HSS

Hi, Owlman. Hi, Jimbob_Disco.

Thanks. Just to clarify, you said you don't regard 'Japanese' as an acceptable substitute for 'the Japanese.' Are you referring to my first example in post 121 and 126, Owlman?

Yes, Jimbob, the + -ese ethnicity word describes the entire population of the group.


----------



## owlman5

Hi, Hiro. 

I'm referring only to the sentence you provided in post #126 and the sentence I gave as an example in post #127.

Having looked at post #121, I can report that the use of "Many Japanese..." in that example looks okay to me.


----------



## HSS

So maybe the word 'many' is the key. Or other quantifiers, such as 'a few' and 'some' but not 'two' and 'a hundred.'

Many Japanese went to the U.S. this year.
A few Japanese went to that school.
Some Japanese went to that school.
Two Japanese came to the party.
About a hundred Japanese signed up for the event.

I saw many Japanese at the fair.
I saw a few Japanese at the fair.
I saw some Japanese at the fair.
I saw two Japanese at the fair.
They met about a hundred Japanese to choose one for the role.


----------



## owlman5

Your conclusion and your sentences look entirely normal to me, Hiro.  Earlier somebody mentioned some restrictions regarding nouns and adjectives that end in "ese".  Perhaps those restrictions apply here.  I'd be inclined to use "people" after "Japanese" in some of your sentences, but using "Japanese" as a noun in those sentences doesn't strike me as odd or inappropriate.


----------



## natkretep

I'm going to say that I am not keen on _Japanese_ as a noun, and prefer _Japanese people_ or _people from Japan_.


----------



## HSS

Hi, Natkretep.

You wouldn't say any of my sentences in post #131, either?

There seems a little difference in tendency to use; ethnicity -ese words can be used more acceptably when coupled with quantifiers such as 'many' and 'a few' but not numbers. I ran from the top to the bottom in this thread, and found not much discussion regarding pluralized -ese forms.


----------



## PaulQ

In reference to people:
*A Japanese* - Absolute adjective used as a singular noun - an example of an Japanese person. Not considered politically correct. If singular, "Japanese" should only be used as an attributive adjective.
*Japanese* - Absolute adjective used as a plural noun -> (i) examples of Japanese people; (ii) the Japanese people in general. Politically acceptable.


----------



## Sun14

lucas-sp said:


> Xiaolijie, I would say that both "a Chinese" and "a Chinaman" are derogatory - today. It has nothing to do with the word "Chinese," but only that those forms are archaic and so linked to a time in which they were used to make derogatory or otherwise ignorant comments about the Chinese in general and specific Chinese people in particular. (I would say the same think happened to the adjective/noun "oriental" - several of my friends and I have had interventions with our parents during which we had to explain to them that they could never again describe a person as "oriental" or "an oriental." You could also compare this uncomfortable usage to the taboo on the word "negro," which is itself innocent but is linked to a context that is fraught with tension and racist baggage.) So when I hear those words being used, I grimace because of their close association with a much less pleasant age.
> 
> I'm also reminded of the way the word "Chinese" can be racist-sounding if you pronounce it with an "s" sound instead of a "z" sound.



Do you mean She is a Chinese is derogatory to describe a person's nationality? How about I am Chinese?


----------



## HSS

> A: Did you meet any Japanese(1) at the meeting?
> B: No, I didn't meet any Japanese(2). I met no Japanese(3).


To my ear, (1) is acceptable, but (2) and (3) are not. I wonder just why they are so.


----------



## 2PieRad

Hi. 





Sun14 said:


> Do you mean She is a Chinese is derogatory to describe a person's nationality? How about I am Chinese?


_She is a Chinese._ I don't find "a Chinese" particularly derogatory, just odd.
_I am Chinese_.



HSS said:


> To my ear, (1) is acceptable, but (2) and (3) are not. I wonder just why they are so.


Mmmm. I'd still say _Japanese people._


----------



## HSS

Erebos12345 said:


> Hi.
> [...]
> 
> Mmmm. I'd still say _Japanese people._


Hi, Erebos12345. Thanks. Among the few native speakers I asked the most (about 60%) responded 'agree' to the query 'idiomatic?' on (1) and the least (about 30%) on (3).


----------



## Jimbob_Disco

For some it works, but others it changes, for example:

England - English - Englishman
Spain - Spanish - Spaniard
France - French - Frenchman/Francophone
Holland - Dutch - Dutchman
Poland - Polish - Pole
However, it stays the same for:

American
German
Russian
Korean
Australian
Mexican
I think we could summarise this to:
Adjective ending ‘-an’ stays the same, others change.


----------



## HSS

I'm beginning to feel if the word -ese denoted a larger number of people, people are inclined to accept it.

(1) They met many Vietnamese.
(2) They met millions of Vietnamese.

But I suspect even if the -ese word is quantified with an adjective meaning a large number, it would not be well-accepted if the adjective was a clear number.

(3) They met 3,789,112 Vietnamese.

What do you think?


----------



## PaulQ

The OED explains the suffix -ese: "[Used for] Forming adjectives., < Old French -eis (modern French -ois, -ais):—Common Romanic -ese (Italian -ese, Provençal, Spanish -es, Portuguese -ez):—Latin ēnsem. The Latin suffix had the sense ‘belonging to, originating in (a place)’,
[...]
These adjectives may usually be employed as nouns, either as names of languages, or as designations of persons; in the latter use they formerly had plurals in -s, but the plural has now the same form as the singular, the words being taken rather as adjectives used absolutely than as proper nouns."


----------



## HSS

Hi, Paul. And thanks.

So what is your take of (3)? You take it okay, or you don't accept it?


----------



## HSS

I just thought up a context so it would be easier to answer. Do they sound idiomatic or odd?


> (2) The Association conducted group interviews over the years. Some 20,000 interviewers participated, and they met millions of Vietnamese.
> (3) The Association conducted group interviews over the years. Some 20,000 interviewers participated, and they met 3,789,112 Vietnamese.


----------



## natkretep

I haven't changed my position. I don't like _Japanese _as a noun; I don't like _Vietnamese_ as a noun.


----------



## PaulQ

HSS said:


> So what is your take of (3)? You take it okay,


I am happy with it.


----------



## HSS

Of 2 and 3, which is the better?


----------



## HSS

Suppose an American man has lived in China for a very long time, during which period he got married to a Chinese woman and had sons and daughters. He loves China so much and has started to hate America so much for some reason that he renounced his American nationality and acquired the Chinese nationality. What would he call himself? I am Chinese? Chinese to me sounds like an ethnicity, not a nationality, while American like a nationality. I doubt he can say 'I'm American' or 'I'm an American' anymore. But then Chinese? You can't change your ethnicity.

(The above is mere a supposition with no specific intention)


----------



## RM1(SS)

HSS said:


> I just thought up a context so it would be easier to answer. Do they sound idiomatic or odd?


They both sound good to me.


----------



## 2PieRad

HSS said:


> Suppose an American man has lived in China for a very long time, during which period he got married to a Chinese woman and had sons and daughters. He loves China so much and has started to hate America so much for some reason that he renounced his American nationality and acquired the Chinese nationality. What would he call himself? I am Chinese? Chinese to me sounds like an ethnicity, not a nationality, while American like a nationality. I doubt he can say 'I'm American' or 'I'm an American' anymore. But then Chinese? You can't change your ethnicity.
> 
> (The above is mere a supposition with no specific intention)



Well, I think he would elaborate on his situation a bit more.

What he responds depends on what he's asked as well.

"Where are you from?"
"I'm originally from [Y] but I've been living here in [X] for # years already. I'm a permanent resident of [X]. I have [X] citizenship."
"I was born here in [X], but my (grand)parents are from [Y]."


----------



## HSS

RM1(SS) said:


> They both sound good to me.


Thanks, RM, for answering my query from about a year and a half ago. I really do.


Erebos12345 said:


> Well, I think he would elaborate on his situation a bit more.
> 
> What he responds depends on what he's asked as well.
> 
> "Where are you from?"
> "I'm originally from [Y] but I've been living here in [X] for # years already. I'm a permanent resident of [X]. I have [X] citizenship."
> "I was born here in [X], but my (grand)parents are from [Y]."


Okay, so in a case like this, there is no simple way like I'm Chinese. What if it's the other way around? You could say, "I'm American" or "I'm an American," couldn't you?


----------



## 2PieRad

Sure. _I'm American _is more common, more neutral. _I'm an American _seems to carry some other undertones (for me at least).

But if you look Asian, some people may still want you to elaborate, at which point you can say that your (grand)parents are from [X]. 

The difference is that there are many Americans of Chinese ancestry, but not so many Chinese people of American ancestry yet (I assume...I'm not sure how easy it is for a foreigner to obtain Chinese citizenship.) So there really isn't a common way yet to express what you were originally describing. People would just explain their situation, whatever it may be, instead of trying to sum it all up in one word. 

And we'll both have noticed that I said "Americans" but "Chinese _people_". There's probably a good reason why. I'm not sure what it is, but I assume the answer is somewhere earlier in this thread or in another thread.


----------



## JulianStuart

HSS said:


> Okay, so in a case like this, there is no simple way like I'm Chinese. What if it's the other way around? You could say, "I'm American" or "I'm an American," couldn't you?


 Post #11 seems pretty clear: it works for some but bot others.
I'm American. 
I'm an American.
I'm Chinese.
I'm a Chinese.
I'm English.  
I'm an English.


----------



## dojibear

HSS said:


> . What would he call himself? I am Chinese? Chinese to me sounds like an ethnicity, not a nationality, while American like a nationality.



What? China is a country. Do you doubt this? Chinese is a nationality. Asking anyone who is Taiwanese. Their language is Mandarin, their ancestry and ethnicity is as Chinese as anyone on earth. But their nationality is Taiwanese. The PRC has adopted the English name "China", and rejects the idea that Taiwan is "China", and in 2019 everyone accepts that.

Are you claiming that the word "Chinese" has only one meaning? Sorry, you are out-voted. Most English words have multiple meanings. "Chinese" has multiple meanings.


----------



## HSS

dojibear said:


> What? China is a country. Do you doubt this? Chinese is a nationality. Asking anyone who is Taiwanese. Their language is Mandarin, their ancestry and ethnicity is as Chinese as anyone on earth. But their nationality is Taiwanese. The PRC has adopted the English name "China", and rejects the idea that Taiwan is "China", and in 2019 everyone accepts that.
> 
> Are you claiming that the word "Chinese" has only one meaning? Sorry, you are out-voted. Most English words have multiple meanings. "Chinese" has multiple meanings.


Hi, Doji.

So he can call himself Chinese, as in 'I'm Chinese'? That American-turned Chinese person I asked about as an example. I'm curious.


----------



## JulianStuart

HSS said:


> Hi, Doji.
> 
> So he can call himself Chinese, as in 'I'm Chinese'? That American-turned Chinese person I asked about as an example. I'm curious.


If his passport is Chinese and he has Chinese citizenship, what else do you need for him to be able to say "I'm Chinese" if someone asks him his nationality?
If I renounced my UK citizenship, I would be able to say "I'm American" - I have citizenship and a passport.


----------



## HSS

Hello, Julian. Hello, Erebos.

Oh, I'm asking about the particular persons in my example. An American-turned Chinese person and an American by nationality who was born and raised in China under Chinese parentage. The first was born under the parentage of Caucasians but changed his nationality to Chinese by choice later in his life. Could he say 'I'm Chinese'?

The second is the other way around. I think I guessed about him already in this post. Maybe 'I'm (an) American by nationality'? He was born and raised under Chinese parentage with Chinese nationality in China but move to the U.S. and obtained the U.S. citizenship. In this case I think he can 'I'm (an) American' alone too, can't he?

[Julian, I wrote this as you wrote yours, thanks]


----------



## 2PieRad

HSS said:


> He was born and raised under Chinese parentage with Chinese nationality in China but move to the U.S. and obtained the U.S. citizenship.


American. Chinese-American. 


HSS said:


> The first was born under the parentage of Caucasians but changed his nationality to Chinese by choice later in his life. Could he say 'I'm Chinese'?


Again, this situation is rare, so even though he is correct in saying "I'm Chinese", he'd elaborate on his situation beyond simply saying "I'm Chinese". When a phenomenon becomes common enough, the language will naturally grant it a name that others will understand without you having to elaborate. _American-Chinese _may (or may not) be the phrase that is used in the future. Till that happens, it's moot to speculate further. Or find someone who has lived this experience and ask them how they choose to explain their nationality. It may be hard, given China's nationality laws.


----------



## HSS

Thanks, everyone! Very informative.


----------



## london calling

HSS said:


> Suppose an American man has lived in China for a very long time, during which period he got married to a Chinese woman and had sons and daughters. He loves China so much and has started to hate America so much for some reason that he renounced his American nationality and acquired the Chinese nationality. What would he call himself? I am Chinese? Chinese to me sounds like an ethnicity, not a nationality, while American like a nationality. I doubt he can say 'I'm American' or 'I'm an American' anymore. But then Chinese? You can't change your ethnicity.
> 
> (The above is mere a supposition with no specific intention)





Erebos12345 said:


> Well, I think he would elaborate on his situation a bit more.
> 
> What he responds depends on what he's asked as well.
> 
> "Where are you from?"
> "I'm originally from [Y] but I've been living here in [X] for # years already. I'm a permanent resident of [X]. I have [X] citizenship."
> "I was born here in [X], but my (grand)parents are from [Y]."


I agree, Erebos. I'm a dual citizen (UK/Italy). When you ask me where I'm from I say "I'm from London but I've been living here for years". If you ask me my nationality I say I'm a dual citizen.

HSS, I don't agree that 'Chinese' is only a reference to your ethnicity. It means your nationality as well and while it may sound odd for someone who's not of Chinese origin to say "I'm Chinese" if that's the only nationality they have then that's what they have to say. As Erebos says they would probably qualify that statement.


----------



## natkretep

dojibear said:


> Asking anyone who is Taiwanese. Their language is Mandarin, their ancestry and ethnicity is as Chinese as anyone on earth.


Just a side note. Taiwanese might also say they speak Taiwanese (by which they mean what is called Hokkien elsewhere or the Min dialect). See Taiwanese Hokkien - Wikipedia

Over here we have a majority Chinese population - and if I wanted to make it clear that I refer to ethnicity, I'd say ethnic-Chinese. We also have immigrants from China. We might say 'Chinese nationals'. If they have given up their Chinese nationality to become Singaporean, I would say they were originally from China.

If an American renounces their American citizenship and takes up Chinese citizenship, I might also say that they are a Chinese national, or a naturalised Chinese citizen. (See Naturalization - Wikipedia.)


----------



## london calling

Yes, 'a naturalised Chinese citizen' is a great suggestion.


----------



## RM1(SS)

natkretep said:


> Over here we have a majority Chinese population - and if I wanted to make it clear that I refer to ethnicity, I'd say ethnic-Chinese. We also have immigrants from China. We might say 'Chinese nationals'. If they have given up their Chinese nationality to become Singaporean, I would say they were originally from China.
> 
> If an American renounces their American citizenship and takes up Chinese citizenship, I might also say that they are a Chinese national, or a naturalised Chinese citizen. (See Naturalization - Wikipedia.)


----------



## JulianStuart

natkretep said:


> Just a side note. Taiwanese might also say they speak Taiwanese (by which they mean what is called Hokkien elsewhere or the Min dialect). See Taiwanese Hokkien - Wikipedia
> 
> Over here we have a majority Chinese population - and if I wanted to make it clear that I refer to ethnicity, I'd say ethnic-Chinese. We also have immigrants from China. We might say 'Chinese nationals'. If they have given up their Chinese nationality to become Singaporean, I would say they were originally from China.
> 
> If an American renounces their American citizenship and takes up Chinese citizenship, I might also say that they are a Chinese national, or a naturalised Chinese citizen. (See Naturalization - Wikipedia.)


Currently I'm a UK citizen (by birth) and a (naturalized) US citizen.


----------



## JamesM

HSS said:


> Suppose an American man has lived in China for a very long time, during which period he got married to a Chinese woman and had sons and daughters. He loves China so much and has started to hate America so much for some reason that he renounced his American nationality and acquired the Chinese nationality. What would he call himself? I am Chinese? Chinese to me sounds like an ethnicity, not a nationality, while American like a nationality. I doubt he can say 'I'm American' or 'I'm an American' anymore. But then Chinese? You can't change your ethnicity.
> 
> (The above is mere a supposition with no specific intention)



I'm a Chinese citizen now.  My nationality is Chinese. I consider myself Chinese.


----------



## HSS

To my non-native ear, 'a Chinese national' sounds reasonable, as it probably makes you realize the idea of him holding the nationality. Born and raised under Chinese parentage is another matter.


----------



## JamesM

"Chinese national" sounds good to me, too.


----------



## EdisonBhola

I just came across this sentence written by a non-native with an MA in English literature:

As a Chinese, Mr Chan speaks Spanish surprisingly good.

I was once taught that "a Chinese" used like the above isn't wrong, but it isn't how most natives would say it.

But then is it correct to change it to "As Chinese, Mr Chan..."?


----------



## owlman5

EdisonBhola said:


> But then is it correct to change it to "As Chinese, Mr Chan..."?


_As Chinese _is strange, Edison. Here is a normal version of that sentence: _Although he is Chinese, Mr. Chan speaks surprisingly good Spanish._


----------



## dojibear

"As a Chinese, " is old-fashioned, as you say. Today I would say "As a Chinese person, ". Note that "Chinese" is an adjective.

As Chinese, Chang speaks... 
As a Chinese, Chang speaks...
As a Chinese person, Chang speaks...  
Being Chinese, Change speaks...

But you want to express the idea that speaking Spanish well is unusual for a Chinese person. "As" and "being" don't say that. They both imply that since he is Chinese, it is normal for him to speak Spanish well.

These are more normal, and imply it is unusual:

For a Chinese person, Chang speaks...
Although he is Chinese, Chang speaks...
Despite being Chinese, Chang speaks...


----------



## Roymalika

"Chinese" is an adjective. We can convert it into a noun by adding "the" before it, i.e. "The Chinese".
Example:
The Chinese are very hard working people. (Here "The Chinese" represents all inhabitants of China)

Similarly, "poor" is an adjective. We can convert it into a noun by adding "the" before it, i.e. "The poor".
Example:
The poor are suffering.
We should help the poor.
(Here "the poor" respresents the poor class of the whole world)


Is this correct?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Roymalika said:


> "Chinese" is an adjective. We can convert it into a noun by adding "the" before it, i.e. "The Chinese".
> Example:
> The Chinese are very hard working people. (Here "The Chinese" represents all inhabitants of China)
> 
> Similarly, "poor" is an adjective. We can convert it into a noun by adding "the" before it, i.e. "The poor".
> Example:
> The poor are suffering.
> We should help the poor.
> (Here "the poor" respresents the poor class of the whole world)
> 
> 
> Is this correct?


Yes, but when we talk of helping the poor, the context usually limits the reference to the poor within our orbit.


----------



## Roymalika

Thomas Tompion said:


> Yes, but when we talk of helping the poor, the context usually limits the reference to the poor within our orbit.


Thanks

"The Chinese are very hard working people"

Here, would the word "Chinese" be a noun or the combination "The+Chinese" be a noun?


----------



## billj

Roymalika said:


> Thanks
> 
> "The Chinese are very hard working people"
> 
> Here, would the word "Chinese" be a noun or the combination "The+Chinese" be a noun?



_The Chinese are very hard working people._

Strictly speaking "Chinese" is not a noun here but an adjective in a special kind of construction called a 'fused' modifier-head, where "the Chinese" is understood as "Chinese people".

Although "the Chinese" is a noun phrase, "Chinese" retains its status as an adjective.


----------



## Roymalika

billj said:


> _The Chinese are very hard working people._
> 
> Strictly speaking "Chinese" is not a noun here but an adjective in a special kind of construction called a 'fused' modifier-head, where "the Chinese" is understood as "Chinese people".
> 
> Although "the Chinese" is a noun phrase, "Chinese" retains its status as an adjective.


So the statement that I've read i.e. "we can convert the adjective "Chinese" into a noun by adding 'the' before it" is technically wrong? (my post#171)


----------



## PaulQ

billj said:


> Strictly speaking "Chinese" is not a noun here but an adjective in a special kind of construction called a 'fused' modifier-head, where "the Chinese" is understood as "Chinese people".


Roymalika, this explanation, whilst accurate, is only true of one form of English grammar. At your level of English, it is not necessary to know this form of grammar: you are learning a simpler form of grammar that is just as good.


Roymalika said:


> So the statement that I've read i.e. "we can convert the adjective "Chinese" into a noun by adding 'the' before it" is technically wrong? (my post#171)


The statement that you quote is a general statement - it is guidance. It is very helpful - you should learn it.


----------



## billj

Roymalika said:


> So the statement that I've read i.e. "we can convert the adjective "Chinese" into a noun by adding 'the' before it" is technically wrong? (my post#171)


Yes, that is correct. Although "the Chinese" is a noun phrase, "Chinese" is an adjective.

It's no different to "the rich", which is a noun phrase containing the adjective "rich", where "the rich" is understood as "rich people".


----------



## Roymalika

billj said:


> Yes, that is correct. Although "the Chinese" is a noun phrase, "Chinese" is an adjective.
> 
> It's no different to "the rich", which is a noun phrase containing the adjective "rich", where "the rich" is understood as "rich people".


In the sentence "The Chinese are very hard working people", can "The Chinese" be called just a noun, other than a noun phrase?


----------



## billj

Roymalika said:


> In the sentence "The Chinese are very hard working people", can "The Chinese" be called just a noun, other than a noun phrase?


No: a noun is always a single word. "The Chinese" is two words, a noun phrase.


----------



## Roymalika

Yesterday I met Mr Xi Ching. He is a Chinese man. He is a chief engineer at BK Engineering Company. He is very friendly. I enjoyed a lot with him.


A teacher said that we can say "He is Chinese", but not "He is a Chinese man" because "Chinese" is an adjective meaning an inhabitant from China, so there's no need to add the noun "man" to it.

Is the teacher right, please?


----------



## heypresto

No. Your teacher is wrong. 

He/she is Chinese.   
He is a Chinese man/boy. 
She is a Chinese woman/girl. 

I am English. 
I am an English man.


----------



## Dan Gao

Thirty-five years in Los Angeles. "Chinese" or "a Chinese" are both fine. The latter is more emphatic, but what it's emphasizing can only be determined by context.

***

"Chinaman" is considered derogatory, perhaps more in the US than the UK. However, it is a literal translation of 中國人 Zhongguoren. Zhongguoren is politicized, meaning a PRC citizen, but I'm guessing that back in the day it might have been standard self-identification and may be the origin of "Chinaman".

***

This stuff is touchy because it can refer to citizenship, nationality, ethnicity, culture, language, appearance, and probably other things too.  It emphasizes differences and not always positively.  I cringed a bit when I saw the example, "Looks like an American." - If you mean dresses, or behaves, or talks like an American, you are better off saying that. If you mean looks like a fat old white guy, you might just be a ageist, sexist, body-shaming bigot  Of course when we say "looks Chinese" we mean straight black hair and sloe-eyes.  Even if the best 'fro in my son's high school was 100% Han.


----------

