# "América" es más que los EE.UU.



## Augusto-Cesar

Mis queridos súbditos: 

 Uno de mis esclavos anglosajones insiste que se traduzca la frase “America’s Best Offer” por “La mejor oferta de América”. Mi veredicto es este, “América” no solamente es los EE.UU. sino que también empieza desde Alaska hasta la Patagonia. Por lo tanto, “La mejor oferta del país” es lo correcto. ¿Desde cuándo “América” significa “Estados Unidos” en español?

Lo peor del caso es que algunos de mis súbditos de Gallia, Hispania e Italia y otros, dicen ''America'' cuando hablan de los EE.UU. ¡Qué horror!

 Insisto en que no se diga ni traduzca “America” para decir los EE.UU. ya que existen tantos otros países que forman parte de “América”. ¿Alguien está de acuerdo?

   Caesar vos saluta!

   Augustus-CÉSAR IMPERATOR


----------



## srsh

Casi podría asegurar que todos los aquí presentes que somos parte del continente americano estamos de acuerdo contigo...


----------



## srsh

hhmm supongo que este tema será movido al de Cultural Issues o algo similar...


----------



## gdiaz

Siempre me ha parecido que los gringos y los europeos identifican a nuestro continente con el país del Tío Sam porque éste último nos considera su patio trasero. La unica diferencia que hacen es entre America (sin tilde) y Latin America, para referirse con esta última expresion a todas las naciones independientes ubicadas al sur de los Estados Juntos. Ya lo dijeron los integrantes del grupo Los Prisioneros en mi país, Chile: Latinoamérica es un pueblo al sur de los EE.UU.
Es una falta de respeto desde mi punto de vista.


----------



## Augusto-Cesar

Ave!

Aparentemente esa canción es muy conocida. Se la acabo de mencionar a un _cumpanis _ y me dijo que es vieja la canción.

Estoy completamente de acuerdo con los ¨Prisioneros¨
Los anglosajones tratan a mis súbditos latinos como un si fuesen un pueblucho. 

Salve!

Augusto-César Imperator


----------



## aab

No me parece bien la discusion.... si bien coincido con ustedes, no me parece el lugar adecuado ya que aqui hay varios de esos "gringos" que nos enseñan y nos ayudan a estudiar y a aprender ingles... de otro modo nos la pasariamos escribiendo en castellano...   sorry!

Saludos!


----------



## Augusto-Cesar

Aab:

Mi hilo empezó con una frase que tenía que traducir.
Si bien se ha desatado un torrente y ha causado una polémica, bueno, no es _mea culpa_. El hecho que nos ayuden con la gramática inglesa no tiene nada que ver con la historia y la verdad de las cosas. Por ende, ''América'' la he traducido por ''país'' y no ''Estados Unidos''.

_ Veritas vos liberabit!_


----------



## Isolde

Augusto-Cesar said:
			
		

> Aab:
> 
> Mi hilo empezó con una frase que tenía que traducir.
> Si bien se ha desatado un torrente y ha causado una polémica, bueno, no es _mea culpa_. El hecho que nos ayuden con la gramática inglesa no tiene nada que ver con la historia y la verdad de las cosas. Por ende, ''América'' la he traducido por ''país'' y no ''Estados Unidos''.
> 
> _Veritas vos liberabit!_


 
_Ab imo pectore_ te digo que tienes toda la razón.  Este tema se puede discutir _ab infinitum_.  Todos sabemos que para los estadounidenses _Aut Caesar aut_ _nihil_...es decir EU primero, EU segundo y EU tercero...lo que viene como cola importa mucho o poco, a menos que puedan sacar algún provecho o una gran cantidad de dólares.  _Consensus omnium_ en este caso. Y por ende no son populares en la mayor parte del globo terráqueo..._ex lungue leonem_!  Pero que hablo!  Su gobierno ahora no es popular ni con ellos mismos, _exempli gratia_:  Nueva Orleans.  Con esta tragedia se dieron a conocer íntegramente...  _Flagrante delicto._

Sólo recuerda que hasta el gran Imperio Romano cayó...y que "History repeats itself."

_Bonum vinum laetificat cor hominis_.  Por lo tanto me serviré una copa de buen Shiraz!

Saludos!


----------



## aab

Los politicos hacen negociados en TODO el globo terraqueo sin importar al pais al que pertenezcan. La gente comun es la que hace grande a un pais... si no hay gente que estudie, que trabaje y que quiera vivir en paz entonces no hay pais.
Es por eso que NO CREO que sea este el lugar correcto para discutirlo. Aqui hay mucha gente "comun" que esta dispuesta a ayudarnos y nosostros a ellos. El que su gobierno responda de una manera o de otra (a favor o encontra) de ellos no nos da derecho a juzgarlos en ningun modo.
Pido por favor que omitan comentarios sobre los desastres ocurridos hace poco porque se vio afectada gente de no solo EEUU sino tambien extranjeros que eligieron vivir en ese pais, la mayoria gente de escasos recursos. La humanidad es lo que nos distingue de los salvajes. Respeten a nuestros pares de EEUU. (con los politicos hagan lo que quieran, sean de donde sean)

Saludos!


----------



## Augusto-Cesar

Te doy el título de *Aabus Argentinus Mediatorum Pacificum *
por tu labor en mantener mi _Pax Augusta Romana_ entre mis súbditos.


----------



## aab

Es un honor recibir semejante titulo de *nuestro venerado Imperator*!
Ave Cesar!!!


----------



## El Estudiante

Isolde said:
			
		

> _Ab imo pectore_ te digo que tienes toda la razón.  Este tema se puede discutir _ab infinitum_.  Todos sabemos que para los estadounidenses _Aut Caesar aut_ _nihil_...es decir EU primero, EU segundo y EU tercero...lo que viene como cola importa mucho o poco, a menos que puedan sacar algún provecho o una gran cantidad de dólares. _Consensus omnium_ en este caso. Y por ende no son populares en la mayor parte del globo terráqueo..._ex lungue leonem_!  Pero que hablo!  Su gobierno ahora no es popular ni con ellos mismos, _exempli gratia_:  Nueva Orleans.  Con esta tragedia se dieron a conocer íntegramente...  _Flagrante delicto._
> 
> Sólo recuerda que hasta el gran Imperio Romano cayó...y que "History repeats itself."
> 
> _Bonum vinum laetificat cor hominis_.  Por lo tanto me serviré una copa de buen Shiraz!
> 
> Saludos!



Isolde,

Cuando dice :

"todos sabemos que para los estadounidenses _Aut Caesar aut_ _nihil_...es decir EU primero, EU segundo y EU tercero...lo que viene como cola importa mucho o poco, a menos que puedan sacar algún provecho o una gran cantidad de dólares."

Para quíen está hablando? Yo no sé eso. Soy estadounidense, y no tengo esos sentimientos. De dónde saca Ud. el derecho de hablar de o para la gente de un país entero? 

Estoy de acuerdo con aab. Este hilo no pertenece en este foro, sino en "Cultural issuues".


----------



## Augusto-Cesar

MrFred:

Creo que debes editar tu escrito que al final dice ''los gringos son bárbaros''. Yo como romano lo interpreto por ''los anglosajones son bárbaros'', pero no de los bárbaros buenos, sino aquéllos que atacan mi _imperium_.

Salve dominus Fredus!

Agusto-César Imperator


----------



## aab

Hola,
Volvemos a lo mismo, no me parece el lugar adecuado para opinar sobre esto. Yo no opino de politica ni aqui ni con personas que no conozco. Yo aqui vine a estudiar ingles.

Saludos!


----------



## MrFred

I came here to learn, too, but I found it very interesting to talk about it..nothing else...sorry if someone got offended...but in my humble opinion I'm not lying... it's the plain truth....

SAD BUT TRUE.

Fede.


----------



## Augusto-Cesar

Salve!

¡No creo que nadie se ofendió _dominus Fredus_!
Por lo menos yo estoy de acuerdo contigo, pero no creo que me entendiste. Es que en la historia de Roma, se le llamaba _bárbaros _a quienes no vivían dentro de las fronteras de Roma...  simplemente era un juego de palabras... nosotros en español decimos _¡qué bárbaro!_ para decir que algo está bueno. Eso se sobreentiende.

Tu emperador,

Augusto-César Imperator


----------



## Isolde

El Estudiante said:
			
		

> Isolde,
> 
> Cuando dice :
> 
> "todos sabemos que para los estadounidenses _Aut Caesar aut_ _nihil_...es decir EU primero, EU segundo y EU tercero...lo que viene como cola importa mucho o poco, a menos que puedan sacar algún provecho o una gran cantidad de dólares."
> 
> Para quíen está hablando? Yo no sé eso. Soy estadounidense, y no tengo esos sentimientos. De dónde saca Ud. el derecho de hablar de o para la gente de un país entero?
> 
> Estoy de acuerdo con aab. Este hilo no pertenece en este foro, sino en "Cultural issuues".


 


Perhaps I should have said "the US government...."  However, as far as the right to talk about a whole country....unfortunately, sometimes it is impossible not to generalize.  For decades the US has been very unpopular in many countries that they have exploited and invaded.  Now and with the help of Bush, you have become perhaps the most unpopular country in the world.  Who is to blame?  The government obviously....but who elects the leader of a government?  The people.  Perhaps we could condone his election once........but twice???  

I have known very nice US people, I have worked with them and for them.  But no matter how nice you are, no matter how helpful you are, deep down the majority of you really, really believe that there is nothing like the USA and that anybody who dares go against any of the beliefs of your country is totally wrong.  It's like there is only two colours in life: one is the US and the other the rest of the world.

Whilst you are very knowledgeable about your country, you hardly know anything about the rest of the world.  I base this statement on my experience, as I say, of working with and for US people.  These were supposedly educated people with different backgrounds...and I am sick and tired of being asked if Peru is in Europe....or if we still ride llamas in the city...or if Lima is in France - and these are questions that I have actually been asked!  You don't even try to give credit to other cultures and keep comparing everything with the US.  Your spirit of competitiveness borders on aggression, you only have to see for ex. the Olympic Games, if somebody else wins, you start making excuses, blaming this or the other...like it is impossible for someone else to win!

Individually you are nice and friendly and good -hearted...it is incredible that as a nation you transform yourselves in this arrogant and selfish monster, who on top of that, is blindfolded.


----------



## mylam

Alright, I think we all understand how you feel. But like aab keeps saying, this is not the place. I'm sure we could all find ways to insult each others' countries and/or countrymen, but I don't find that kind of behavior to be in the general spirit of the sharing here in the forums.

Edit:  To clarify, this thread was in a vocabulary forum when I wrote this. The Cultural Issues forum is a much more appropriate place, as long as the discussion stays civil.


----------



## Augusto-Cesar

Mis súbditos:

Si os fijáis en lo que yo escribí al principio, no tiene nadie que ver con insultar a ningún país ni persona. Más bien fue una aclaración que hizo uno de mis súbditos en una traducción y con la cual yo estoy sumamente _in contra_ porque de hecho, si se utilizace sólo ''América'' para decir ''EE.UU.'' entonces esto ofendería aún a más personas. Una aclaración hecha por mí, Augusto-César Imperator.

Ego sum qui venit in nomine meum.
Yo soy el que viene en mi nombre.

_El próximo que escriba un insulto será condenado a los leones en la arena. _

Ese es mi edicto final. 
Yo el benévolo, el sabio, el justo, el fiel.
Augusto-César Imperator


----------



## mylam

¡Gracias! Pero... ¿Cómo piensa su majestad a enforzar un decreto tal??


----------



## Augusto-Cesar

Mylam:

Recuerda que los dioses del _forum_ ejecutan mi voluntad.
Ellos son quienes ven y oyen todo lo que pasa en los _forii_.


----------



## BasedowLives

whenever i am overseas and i tell them i am from the USA, they say, "ooooh americano!".  i have never heard a spanish person call me estadounidense.  always americano.


----------



## Pitagoras el Capitan

El mejor post en bastante tiempo!!   
Para los que tengan ganas les recomiendo que escuchen la cancion de los canadienses *Arrogant Worms* : _I am not American_ y después me cuentan!
(de paso les hago propaganda... aguanten los Worms!!) jeje


----------



## Augusto-Cesar

Pitagoras Capitanus Bonarensis:

Nunca pensé que mi mensaje fuese causa de tanta conmoción y controversia.
Pero como digo siempre en latín, _veritas vos liberabit_.

Y creo que los *Arrogant Worms* no son mas que unos simples *gusanos arrogantes*. 

Mi pregunta original, era ¿desde cuándo se traduce ''América'' por ''Estados Unidos''? Y en referencia al porqué mucha gente dice ''americano'' para decir estadounidense, es simplemente porque algunos _non sapient_ que ''americano'' es sino un anglicismo para denotar a un ciudanano de los EE.UU. Un anglicismo como tantos otros indebidos.

Vuestro más sabio y justo emperador ha dicho esto.

Salve!
* Augusto-César Imperator 
*


----------



## Isolde

mylam said:
			
		

> Alright, I think we all understand how you feel. But like aab keeps saying, this is not the place. I'm sure we could all find ways to insult each others' countries and/or countrymen, but I don't find that kind of behavior to be in the general spirit of the sharing here in the forums.


 
Allow me to disagree.  This is the perfect place to discuss about various subjects.  Here we are, many people in different countries, sharing ideas, giving opinions and why not - arguing about certain things.  There are no inhibitions as we do not know each other and can express what we think without qualms.  

Language is culture and through language you learn about the people, their countries, their customs and their ideas.

Nobody is insulting anybody.  If that happens, there are mediators to draw the line and I agree with that.  However, an argument can be healthy and sometimes it serves to educate and to open the minds of people who otherwise wouldn't know any better.

If this serves for only one person to think a bit more about certain issues in a positive way, then the Forum has achieved something important. If somehow one of you starts thinking in the way of: "Well, perhaps the little Mexican could have won that Olympic gold medal if he/she had also a bicycle designed by NASA..." or "I wonder if any third world country had the resources we had and could train kids since they are 3 years old - could we still be No. 1 in sports?"  This is just an example of course.

I think the US has forgotten to be humble.  There is no humility there anymore.  It has disappeared amongst your skyscrapers and oil wells (what you have left there...) and the dollar sign.  Why?

Politicians of course are culprits number one.  Then, dare I say: teachers?  

Not long ago I was working with a group from the US.  There was this little girl, not more than 5 years old.  She was bored, so someone gave her a piece of paper and a pencil to draw.  Do you know what she draw?  Not a house with flowers and birds and the sun, like I would say the majority of children would.  She draw the US flag...  Personally, I think that is scary and sad.  

Anyway, this is all for now.  Never hesitate to give your opinion...it is called "freedom of speech".


----------



## toboto

Coming back to translation issues:

En Estados Unidos es frecuente utilizar *America* para referirse a dicho país y *americans* para denominar a sus ciudadanos. Supongo que es difícil cambiar ese uso tan arraidado allí (en inglés). Pero lo que sí que podemos hacer cuando encontremos un texto de estas características es traducirlo bien, como nuestro excelso emperador sugiere:

En este contexto, al traducir al español, *America* será Estados Unidos y *americans*, estadounidenses.


----------



## luar

Hace meses hubo una discusión similar. Aquí está el enlace: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=21002

Salve César!


----------



## BasedowLives

Isolde said:
			
		

> Allow me to disagree. This is the perfect place to discuss about various subjects. Here we are, many people in different countries, sharing ideas, giving opinions and why not - arguing about certain things. There are no inhibitions as we do not know each other and can express what we think without qualms.
> 
> Language is culture and through language you learn about the people, their countries, their customs and their ideas.
> 
> Nobody is insulting anybody. If that happens, there are mediators to draw the line and I agree with that. However, an argument can be healthy and sometimes it serves to educate and to open the minds of people who otherwise wouldn't know any better.
> 
> If this serves for only one person to think a bit more about certain issues in a positive way, then the Forum has achieved something important. If somehow one of you starts thinking in the way of: "Well, perhaps the little Mexican could have won that Olympic gold medal if he/she had also a bicycle designed by NASA..." or "I wonder if any third world country had the resources we had and could train kids since they are 3 years old - could we still be No. 1 in sports?" This is just an example of course.
> 
> I think the US has forgotten to be humble. There is no humility there anymore. It has disappeared amongst your skyscrapers and oil wells (what you have left there...) and the dollar sign. Why?
> 
> Politicians of course are culprits number one.  Then, dare I say: teachers?
> 
> Not long ago I was working with a group from the US. There was this little girl, not more than 5 years old. She was bored, so someone gave her a piece of paper and a pencil to draw. Do you know what she draw? Not a house with flowers and birds and the sun, like I would say the majority of children would. She draw the US flag... Personally, I think that is scary and sad.
> 
> Anyway, this is all for now.  Never hesitate to give your opinion...it is called "freedom of speech".



How is drawing the flag sad? It's just a design. If you got scared by children drawing flags, that's sad. And about the olympics thing, there are regulations to insure that nobody can use some kind of juiced up super-equipment. If that were allowed, do you think Kenya would win gold medals? hell no.

I think this is all an issue of culture. Other countries put being humble as a top priority for their citizens. We are a competitive country, and it has always been like that. Thus competitive minds are bred and pride is a result.  It's a cross cultural difference, and would be ethnocentrist to retain your view as the right one.

i am far from a "patriot", but i disagree with some of these things.


----------



## chula

Considero que es una lástima que la palabra "América" se utilice en inglés para referirse a los Estados Unidos, pero qué se puede hacer, es la historia la que determina el destino de muchos términos. Como alguien dijo correctamente en muchos países europeos se utiliza la misma palabra para referirse a Estados Unidos. Nosotros, o mejor dicho algunos, o espero que varios de los habitantes del continente americano, nos sentimos agredidos, ofendidos o molestos por esto, sentimiento que igualmente es evocado por nuestra historia. Puedo entender por qué las personas ajenas a nuestro continente utilizan el término, que bajo nuestro punto de vista es errado, pero lo que no puedo entender y muchas veces me molesta es cuando habitantes de nuestro continente de habla hispana, utilicen el término America para referirse a EEUU. Esto para mí es lo más importante de corregir. El resto vendrá según se desarrolle la concienca colectiva de los habitantes de América y seamos nosotros los que no demos más uso a este término. Lamentablemente hay suficientes personas en Latinoamércia que lo utilizan de forma errada


----------



## ITA

Estoy leyendo atenta cada uno de los mensajes escritos y me surge ésta pregunta:ustedes se dieron cuenta de lo que es realmente Bush a partir de el tema Irak? 
Dónde estuvieron viviendo en un frasco? 
Igual estoy muy de acuerdo con la mayoria
Desde Buenos Aires ITA.


----------



## cuchuflete

luar said:
			
		

> Hace meses hubo una discusión similar. Aquí está el enlace: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=21002
> 
> Salve César!


Thanks Luar,

This topic has been raised and discussed many times in these forums.  It will, without doubt, be raised and discussed many times more.  The pretext will normally be linguistic.  The sub-text will generally be political.  Even emperors are human, and will often neglect to search the forum for previous threads on the topic, so we will continue to see the same ideas and feelings expressed over and over again.

There is no harm in that.  If one gets bored reading the same thing again and again, one is welcome to read and write in other threads.  

Isolde raised an excellent question: Who elected Bush? 42.45% of the US population voted for a presidential candidate in 2004.  Of those people, about 50.75% voted for Bush.  Do the arithmetic.  Between one fifth and one fourth of the population elected him.  Sad that so few voters have caused such a result, in my personal view.

If a president or head of government reflects what a country is all about,  then don't forget to discuss Fujimori, Perón and on and on.  You know the names, and what they did, and who chose them.

If you want to be honest about the linguistic topic, just remember who put the word America on the continents.  It was done by Europeans hundreds of years before the USA came into existence as a political entity.   At the time it was adopted as part of the name of a country, it was objective, descriptive, and accurate.  

It still is.  The country is a federation of American states.   Note: the country name is not "The one and only group of united states in the Americas" nor is it "the united states of all the americas".  

The official names of both México and of Brasil are similar.  _Estados Unidos Mexicanos  _and _República Federativa do Brasil.  _These names are descriptive and accurate.  Brasil was named after a tree, the USA name comes from an Italian explorer.

Sorry for interrupting the political discussion with these inconvenient facts.


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

Totalmente de acuerdo! En español por América se entiende América del Norte, América Central y América del Sur.

EEUU es un país más, aunque en inglés se sobreentiende que cuando se habla de "America" se refiere a EEUU en español *NO!!!*

Por cierto, estoy un poco indignada porque según la RAE una de las definiciones de americano es:

*4.* adj. *estadounidense.* Apl. a pers., u. t. c. s.
 
Me parece muy mal, encima teniendo en cuenta que el castellano es el idioma de gran parte de ese continente!


----------



## sean

Hola foreros,

Ya hemos visto este hilo, pero el tema no deja de ser interesante. Una preguntita... si no fueramos "Americans," ¿cómo nos llamaríamos? Lo siento, "United Statesians" me suena fatal.

No es que quieramos decir que somos los únicos y verdaderos americanos... hay mucha polémica sobre cómo se refiere a diferentes culturas, razas, y nacionalidades, sobretodo al intentar traducir los nombres a otro idioma. 

El nombre de mi país es "United States of America." Y el nombre oficial de México es "Estados Unidos Mexicanos." (Si no es correcto que me corrijaís por favor, y os pido disculpas)  . ¿Veráis la confusión? Tenemos vecinos (muy amables) con el mismo "nombre" pero con "apellido" distinto... Y todo el mundo los conoce como mexicanos. Pues ¿por qué no nos consideramos "americanos"? Y porque no decimos "estadounidenses" a los mexicanos si son de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos? Estados Unidos... bueno, Estados Unidos de qué? ¿de dónde?

Separately, are we not allowed to build skyscrapers or be good at sports? I think just about every country has tall buildings and athletes. And I think it's OK for us to be upset and surprised when our basketball team loses. I mean, we're supposed to have such a great team. It's the same as if we were to beat another country in fútbol. Or if the US team had beaten Real Madrid last month, but we didn't, we got punished (I was wearing my Raul jersey for that game  ).

I am sorry if I am being estadouni-dense (I stole that from someone else, haha). I think this is a very worthwhile discussion, but really what do you think citizens of the United States of America should be called in English? I would really like to hear some suggestions. 

Saludos 

sean

EDIT: sorry, cuchu. didn't see the tail end of your previous post! :END EDIT


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

sean said:
			
		

> Hola foreros,
> 
> Ya hemos visto este hilo, pero el tema no deja de ser interesante. Una preguntita... si no fueramos "Americans," ¿cómo nos llamaríamos? Lo siento, "United Statesians" me suena fatal.


Por qué??? Si en español estadounidense no suena mal, no sé por qué va a soner Unitedstatesian o Unidedstater mal... es cuestión de acostumbrarse. Ninguna palabra suena bien la primera vez que se dice.



> El nombre de mi país es "United States of America." Y el nombre oficial de México es "Estados Unidos Mexicanos." (Si no es correcto que me corrijaís por favor, y os pido disculpas)  . ¿Veráis la confusión? Tenemos vecinos (muy amables) con el mismo "nombre" pero con "apellido" distinto... Y todo el mundo les conoce como mexicanos. Pues ¿por qué no nos consideramos "americanos"? Y porque no decimos "estadounidenses" a los mexicanos si son de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos? Estados Unidos... bueno, Estados Unidos de qué? ¿de dónde?


Eso me dijo mi profesor americano un día que le protesté por decir americano en vez de estadounidense ... bueno, Estados Unidos de América no es lo mismo que América, América es un continente muy grande y Estados Unidos de América son unos estados que están en América. Si no inventasteis un nombre para el país... entonces supongo que tenéis que conformaros con Estados Unidos... no sé.


----------



## sean

Kräuter_Fee said:
			
		

> Por qué??? Si en español estadounidense no suena mal, no sé por qué va a soner Unitedstatesian o Unidedstater mal... es cuestión de acostumbrarse. Ninguna palabra suena bien la primera vez que se dice.
> 
> 
> 
> Estadounidense es mucha palabra. 7 sílabas  . Unitedstatesian y Unitedstater suenan peor que peor. No sólo es la cacafonía de esas palabras en inglés, sino también la imposibilidad política y la falta de motivo para cambiarlo. Nadie querrá acostumbrarse en USA. Y a mí me sonó muy bien la primera vez que la oí la palabra azafata pero no quiero que me llameís azafata.
> 
> 
> Eso me dijo mi profesor americano un día que le protesté por decir americano en vez de estadounidense ... bueno, Estados Unidos de América no es lo mismo que América, América es un continente muy grande y Estados Unidos de América son unos estados que están en América. Si no inventasteis un nombre para el país... entonces supongo que tenéis que conformaros con Estados Unidos... no sé.


 
No se equivocó. Somos americanos. Igual que los peruanos, colombianos, panameños  




saludos cordiales

sean


----------



## cuchuflete

sean said:
			
		

> No se equivocó. Somos americanos. Igual que los peruvianos* peruanos*, colombianos, panameños



Minor correction. Unless you are Peruvian, in which case, Major correction.


----------



## El Estudiante

This thread has been extremely enlightening for me. Until today, I had no idea just how much anti-American hatred has been lurking here in the forum, hidden just below the surface. It is, for me, a very disheartening and disturbing revelation, to say the least.

Isolde, I think that ignorant, culturally chauvinistic people exist in all cultures. But that fact should not be used as an excuse to indict and condemn everyone from that culture. Comments such as yours do nothing to foster greater cross cultural awareness and understanding. They serve only to alienate people of good will, who are neither ignorant of, nor hostile towards their fellow humans. At least, that is the effect that they have had on me.


----------



## modgirl

mylam said:
			
		

> I'm sure we could all find ways to insult each others' countries and/or countrymen


 
Quite frankly, there are assholes in every country. Only small-minded people would judge an entire nation on the actions or words of a few.

As to the original post, I've found that it isn't United States citizens who refer to the country as "America." It's other countries! As a result, I will admit that when I'm in Europe, I tend to adopt the language practices of those around me; thus, I will say that I'm from "America" simply because that's the local vernacular. However, people that I know in the US -- who have never traveled beyond the borders -- do not refer to themselves as "from America."

Someone said, "She draw the US flag... Personally, I think that is scary and sad."

Would you find it equally as sad if the girl were Mexican and drew the Mexican flag? 

Here's the problem that I see with criticizing the US. It isn't that the US can't or shouldn't be criticized. It's that the criticizing becomes one-way. In other words, what is acceptable in one country is not acceptable with regards to the US. It's okay to criticize the US but not any other country or not to the degree that ti's done to the US. There are many, many issues with which I can find fault in the States! And I can also do the same thing for other countries.

For those who have nothing positive to say about the US, kindly remember that the favor will probably be returned to you one day.


----------



## srsh

modgirl said:
			
		

> As to the original post, I've found that it isn't United States citizens who refer to the country as "America." It's other countries! As a result, I will admit that when I'm in Europe, I tend to adopt the language practices of those around me; thus, I will say that I'm from "America" simply because that's the local vernacular. However, people that I know in the US -- who have never traveled beyond the borders -- do not refer to themselves as "from America."


 

Well, its United States citizens who say "God bless America" and I dont think they are talking about the continent.

And I think we are not saying we hate USA, its just that we are making it clear that America is the whole continent, its nothing against USA citizens, I know you are good people.


----------



## sean

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Minor correction. Unless you are Peruvian, in which case, Major correction.


 
HUGE MISTAKE. Disculpas.   Thanks cuchuflete, I've changed it. Qué vergüenza. Sorry.


----------



## modgirl

srsh said:
			
		

> Well, its United States citizens who say "God bless America" and I dont think they are talking about the continent.


 
True, but it's only a song.  Quite frankly, I don't even know all the words to it.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I honestly believe that the term "America" being applied solely to the United States is used overwhelmingly by non-Americans.

Interestingly enough, I've had this discussion with many non-Americans, because Canadians and Mexicans and Central Americans are "Americans" too!  But the answer is that's just how they speak.

When was the last time you heard a person from Canada refer to himself as from "America"?


----------



## srsh

El Estudiante said:
			
		

> This thread has been extremely enlightening for me. Until today, I had no idea just how much anti-American hatred has been lurking here in the forum, hidden just below the surface. It is, for me, a very disheartening and disturbing revelation, to say the least.
> 
> Isolde, I think that ignorant, culturally chauvinistic people exist in all cultures. But that fact should not be used as an excuse to indict and condemn everyone from that culture. Comments such as yours do nothing to foster greater cross cultural awareness and understanding. They serve only to alienate people of good will, who are neither ignorant of, nor hostile towards their fellow humans. At least, that is the effect that they have had on me.


 

I cant see the condemning part in this topic, I cant understand why its so offensive for USA citizens to say that America is the whole continent, I cant see the anti-American hatred in that.


----------



## modgirl

srsh said:
			
		

> I cant understand why its so offensive for USA citizens to say that America is the whole continent


 
I missed that!  Who said that?


----------



## sean

modgirl said:
			
		

> True, but it's only a song. Quite frankly, I don't even know all the words to it.
> 
> Perhaps I'm wrong, but I honestly believe that the term "America" being applied solely to the United States is used overwhelmingly by non-Americans.
> 
> Interestingly enough, I've had this discussion with many non-Americans, because Canadians and Mexicans and Central Americans are "Americans" too! But the answer is that's just how they speak.
> 
> When was the last time you heard a person from Canada refer to himself as from "America"?


 

To the oceans... white with foam!!!

I love that song, maybe more than any other America song, even though that rhyme is kind of a stretch.

best,

sean


----------



## Phryne

modgirl said:
			
		

> When was the last time you heard a person from Canada refer to himself as from "America"?


 In Spanish, "America" is the continent (which we consider to be just ONE) and "americanos" are all of us. Yo soy americana!

Side note: President Monroe had an interesting saying: "America for the Americans", _referring to the whole continent (s) and all the people in the Americas_, even though the doctrine never worked beyong Río Grande.

saludos


----------



## Augusto-Cesar

Salve!

De nuevo reitero que mi pregunta no empezó como una crítica de los Estados Unidos, más bien, fue del uso del gentilicio ''americano'' o ''América'' para decir de o los Estados Unidos. Y sí, como dijo uno de vosotros acá vuestro humilde emperador ha dicho y sigue insistiendo que no se traducirá ni se dirá ''americano'' por ''estadounidense''. Acordaos que un conejo y una liebre aunque se parescan no son la misma cosa.

Si los estadounidenses aquí presentes se sienten molestos o dicen que no sabían que existía tanta animosidad contra su país, sólo basta ver la televisión y escuchar las noticias, ver las imágenes de personas alrededor del mundo que protestan en contra de la agresión de los EE.UU. contra otros países, ejemplo, Panamá 1991, Iraq 1992-2005, Somalia 1994, Nicaragua 1981-1990 (contras), Granada 1988. Even though these countries received the support of the USA either through monetary contributions or aid of some sort, it was never without a price. Dictators who didn't please the USA were removed, those who did not have an ''American'' friendly attitude were also removed... if you had socialist tendencies you were removed. So why then are there complaints here from people that cannot see why the dislike might be so obvious through the postings on this thread.

It's political support of many régimes throughout the world and throughout it's history. How will you not see the animosity that people have towards this country. That is not to say that the anger is directed at you and me per say, but it is understood that ''with great power comes great responsibility''. Responsibility that as the ''big brother'' you will treat your lesser siblings as equals and with respect. 

That is how empires grow and prosper, they don't do it by being nice and good. You can see this throughout the history of the USA. In the 1800s it was Mexico, Canada and Spain who lost to the USA either through war or forced diplomacy you can see how much territory the USA gained from them. In the 1900s it was overseas expansion, first throughout the Pacific and when it had its chance to counteract the Germans and the Russians through both world wars, it established bases and alliances throughout Europe. 

Remember Wilson's 14 points and the theory of self-determination, well that was only aimed at oppressed Europeans in the Austro-Hungarian/German empire who wanted to break away, but it did not apply to native Americans, to Puerto-Ricans, to blacks (at that time they were still segregated), so how can one not understand the anger and dislike that many if not most people throughout the world have against the USA? It only suffices to turn a history book's pages open and read. 

Throughtout history the conqueror has always been disliked.


----------



## modgirl

Augusto-Cesar said:
			
		

> Si los estadounidenses aquí presentes se sienten molestos o dicen que no sabían que existía tanta animosidad contra su país, sólo basta ver la televisión y escuchar las noticias, ver las imágenes de personas alrededor del mundo que protestan en contra de la agresión


 
Perhaps that's part of the problem. We're judging by what we see on the news, not by what we're experiencing for ourselves. Obviously, we just can't pack up and travel all over the world every time we want to find out what's going on! But, it seems that the harsh judgments are occuring by what we've heard *others *say.

Here's an example. Several years ago, my aunt (from the States) visited Iran with a Canadian tour group. Most of the people we see on the news from Iran are the screaming ones with the "Death to America (sic)" signs waving in the air. So, she was rather hesitant to admit her identity.

Well, somehow it slipped and people found out she was from the States. She was completely overwhelmed by people's reactions. They treated her like a queen! They were exceptionally warm, friendly, and generous. Likewise, they were shocked at her very friendly and polite behavior because they thought that she was a war monger and hated Iran!

Back to news:  even what seems to be the truth isn't necessarily so.  Someone is always behind the camera deciding what to videotape or film.  And someone else makes the decisions as to what exactly to broadcast.  Thus, perceptions and realities are quite often shaped by the manner in which the "information" is presented.


----------



## Augusto-Cesar

Hail me the great Caesar!

I must say, that if someone is to quote me, their response should be based entirely on the quote. I said, "people are protesting against the agression" meaning, the US government attacking their country. I never said protesting the people as in you and me personally. Of course, I have nothing against the Iranians, or Iraqis or Middle Easterners of any kind (I love their food, culture, etc.) but it is their governments and possibly some of their fellow peers who are bent on killing, that's what I personally am against. And that also applies to fellow Unitedstaters who think highly of themselves and look down on others.

I Caesar Augustus Emperor said this! 

PS: I have lived and travelled all over the world, I speak from experience, not from what I saw on television.


----------



## srsh

modgirl said:
			
		

> Back to news: even what seems to be the truth isn't necessarily so. Someone is always behind the camera deciding what to videotape or film. And someone else makes the decisions as to what exactly to broadcast. Thus, perceptions and realities are quite often shaped by the manner in which the "information" is presented.


 
Exactly... thats one of the main reasons why citizens of the United States think that - for example - the war in Iraq has the only goal of helping opressed people, because thats what they see on CNN. If Iraq (for example) had that broadcasting power, opinions would be different. I mean, after september 11, what do we see on CNN? A girl form NY who has lost her mother, with an US flag as a background with John Lennon´s Imagine as a soundtrack, I mean, I dont blame citizens for believing thats the only reality, while they dont broadcast the videos of citizens from Iraq being tortured by US soldiers, videos that actually broadcasted for example here in Mexico and in the rest of the world.


----------



## modgirl

Augusto-Cesar said:
			
		

> I said, "people are protesting against the agression" meaning, the US government attacking their country.


 
I understood what you said. But do you think that the way the news is presented has any bearing on how it is perceived? What is "helping" and what is "aggression"?

I'm not going to argue specific cases, so I'm speaking of generalities.

To illustrate, there was a photo, sometime back, of a poor little Palestianian boy who was being carried away by Israeli soldiers. The little guy had even wet his pants, as evidenced by the picture. The photo immediately brings sympathy for the little boy -- those soldiers just being mean to him. It was definitely an act of aggression against a Palestinian, right?

Maybe not....later, some photos emerged that showed that "poor" little boy was throwing rocks at the soldiers. He was not an innocent bystander. The only thing the soldiers were doing was carrying him away and disarming him so he couldn't harm others.

But, if you didn't have that piece of information, the story looked quite different.


----------



## modgirl

srsh said:
			
		

> I dont blame citizens for believing thats the only reality, while they dont broadcast the videos of citizens from Iraq being tortured by US soldiers, videos that actually broadcasted for example here in Mexico and in the rest of the world.


 
Tortured or highly humiliated?  If it's the latter, we do see them, and there's absolutely no excuse for it at all.  And, it's disgusting and making the situation worse for all US American citizens.

As a side note, do you also receive news of the numerous suicider bombers in Iraq that are killing their own people?  Most recently in the news, a bomber killed 160 of his own countrymen.


----------



## srsh

sure I do recieve that information, just as the information of drug dealers killing people here in mexico and kids at schools in the US using guns to shoot other kids. I mean, every country has violence, but here we are talking about a country making violence in another country (for example Bin Laden in the US and George Bush in Iraq)


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

modgirl said:
			
		

> As a side note, do you also receive news of the numerous suicider bombers in Iraq that are killing their own people? Most recently in the news, a bomber killed 160 of his own countrymen.


I am sorry but I don't believe that. I hear that everyday in the news, but it doesn't make any sense to me. I just don't think they are saying all the truth... of course, everyone is free to believe what they want and I have nothing prove those are lies... but it's what I honestly think


----------



## modgirl

Kräuter_Fee said:
			
		

> I am sorry but I don't believe that. I hear that everyday in the news, but it doesn't make any sense to me. I just don't think they are saying all the truth... of course, everyone is free to believe what they want and I have nothing prove those are lies... but it's what I honestly think


 
Out of curiosity, what makes you think the story of suicider bombers are fake?

edit: That's really the crux of my argument. What can we believe? And why do we believe some of the news but not other parts?   Does it have to "make sense" for you to believe it?

In that case, how can you believe that the US actually invaded Iraq?  Does it make sense?

In short, we believe what we WANT to believe.

(By the way, people didn't believe the horrors of Nazi Germany until natives were forced to walk through the death camps and see the evidence themselves)


----------



## srsh

suicider bombers do exist... as an example we have the pilots who crashed into the WTC in NY.


----------



## Augusto-Cesar

Salve!

We also forget that terrorist exist in our own country.
Abortion clinic bombers in Southern states and federal building bombers in OK. 

Just remember that history is written by the conquerors.

I emperor *Augustus-Caesar* said this!

PS: In reference to someone mentioning the "holocaust", remember that not only Jews died, but also gays, jehova's witnesses, christians, communists, anti-nazis of all kinds, POWs... but they are the ones we least hear about. But if we dare raise a hand against this truth, you are immediately labeled an anti-Semite. Does it matter how many people died, wht about Rwandans, Russians (Stalin), Cambodians, Africans (who are at this very moment being killed in Sudan)... so before anyone mentions this again, remember that "never again" probably only applies to one specific group of "oppressed people" because the others are either black, poor, or Muslim.


----------



## srsh

modgirl said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, what makes you think the story of suicider bombers are fake?
> 
> edit: That's really the crux of my argument. What can we believe? And why do we believe some of the news but not other parts?
> 
> In short, we believe what we WANT to believe.
> 
> (By the way, people didn't believe the horrors of Nazi Germany until natives were forced to walk through the death camps and see the evidence themselves)


 
I DO believe, I believe that people from Iraq suffered during Sadam´s period, I believe is not fair all those dead people at the WTC, but I also believe that George Bush´s goals in Iraq are economical purposes, and that many inocent people there is dying because of those economical purposes, and that, from any point of view, is not right.


----------



## Everness

modgirl said:
			
		

> In short, we believe what we WANT to believe.



Yes, and fortunately there are people in the media that know it and tailor each story to our likes.


----------



## modgirl

Augusto-Cesar said:
			
		

> In reference to someone mentioning the "holocaust", remember that not only Jews died, but also gays, jehova's witnesses, christians, communists, anti-nazis of all kinds, POWs...


 
I was the one who mentioned it, although I never said that only Jews died at all. Anyone who claims others did not or who downplays the other deaths is woefully misinformed. I could not agree more with your statement!

However, the Holocaust is different because, if I'm not mistaken, it's the only situation where camps were specifically built with the sole purpose of torturing and murdering "undesirable" people (whomever they may be). (I sincerely apologize if there have been other situations like that; I am no history or political expert by any means)

I only mentioned the death camps in response to Krauter Fee's comment that the suicide bombers inside Iraq "made no sense" thus she didn't believe news stories about them.  Unfortunately, a great deal of what happens in the world today simply makes no sense.  And, native Germans were ordered to witness for themselves the horror so that they would *see it with their own eyes* because it was so horrific that no one wanted to believe what had happened.


----------



## modgirl

srsh said:
			
		

> I DO believe, I believe that people from Iraq suffered during Sadam´s period, I believe is not fair all those dead people at the WTC, but I also believe that George Bush´s goals in Iraq are economical purposes, and that many inocent people there is dying because of those economical purposes, and that, from any point of view, is not right.


 
I'm 100% in agreement with you!


----------



## Alundra

Pues volviendo al mensaje inicial, yo creo que en España sí sabemos diferenciar el continente americano y cada uno de sus países por separado.

Mi opinión es que a todas las personas que viven en el continente americano, se les puede llamar americanos, al igual que a mí, por ejemplo, me pueden llamar europea.
Yo llamo americano igual a un peruano, a un chileno a un estadounidense ó a un canadiense, a menos, por supuesto que algunos de ellos se molesten, pero no entendería la molestia, al igual que a mí no me molesta que me llamen europea. 
Creo que en todos los países hay de todo tipo de personas, y no puedes juzgar a una nación por como te ha llamado ó como opina uno solo de sus ciudadanos, yo al menos, pienso así. 

¿Y quién dice que sólo son americanos los estadounidenses? Perdónenme, pero es la primera vez que oigo eso, y estoy alucinando con este tema. Para mí, todos ustedes (los que viven en el continente americano) son americanos, pertenezcan al país que pertenezcan. Creo que es lo que me enseñaron en la escuela, y creo que en toda España, los chicos siguen recibiendo la misma educación. Por el resto de Europa (ó del mundo), ya no puedo hablar.


Y con el tema de los políticos ya no me meto, cada uno tiene en su país políticos que seguramente no deberían estar donde están, ó no hacen las cosas como la mayoría de sus votantes quisieran, yo no juzgo un país tampoco ni a sus habitantes por el político que tengan al poder. Creo que es conociendo a las personas, como llegas a apreciarlas.... 

Alundra.


----------



## JESUS MARIA

Augusto-Cesar said:
			
		

> Salve!
> 
> De nuevo reitero que mi pregunta no empezó como una crítica de los Estados Unidos, más bien, fue del uso del gentilicio ''americano'' o ''América'' para decir de o los Estados Unidos. Y sí, como dijo uno de vosotros acá vuestro humilde emperador ha dicho y sigue insistiendo que no se traducirá ni se dirá ''americano'' por ''estadounidense''. Acordaos que un conejo y una liebre aunque se parescan no son la misma cosa.
> 
> Si los estadounidenses aquí presentes se sienten molestos o dicen que no sabían que existía tanta animosidad contra su país, sólo basta ver la televisión y escuchar las noticias, ver las imágenes de personas alrededor del mundo que protestan en contra de la agresión de los EE.UU. contra otros países, ejemplo, Panamá 1991, Iraq 1992-2005, Somalia 1994, Nicaragua 1981-1990 (contras), Granada 1988. Even though these countries received the support of the USA either through monetary contributions or aid of some sort, it was never without a price. Dictators who didn't please the USA were removed, those who did not have an ''American'' friendly attitude were also removed... if you had socialist tendencies you were removed. So why then are there complaints here from people that cannot see why the dislike might be so obvious through the postings on this thread.
> 
> It's political support of many régimes throughout the world and throughout it's
> 
> Throughtout history the conqueror has always been disliked.


 
*¡Ave César¡, ¡El más grande¡*
*Te escribe uno de tus súbditos de HISPANIA, que te costó mucho esfuerzo, vidas de tus legionarios, y largos años de campaña militar.*

_La verad sea dicha, me encanta cómo has planteado el asunto,César, y cómo nos has dejado a tus súbditos desenvolvernos solos._

_  La generalización siempre es injusta._

_  Yo, a lo largo de mi vida, en mi relación con tu USA he pasado por diferentes etapas.Digo tu USA, porque aunque tus palabras dicen cosas con toda razón, veo que tus sentimientos son también, en parte, de comprensión al país que te ha acogido, igual que a tantos latinos como yo, y quizás como tú(naciste en Roma, acuérdate). Nadie, ni George Walker Bush,ni sus políticos, ni ningún estadounidense, ni latino alguno te discutirá que USA es un país, enorme sí, pero país al fin y al cabo._

_  Lo mejor es que nos quedemos con lo bueno de USA, con lo mejor de cada país, y nos olvidemos de lo peor esperando que no se repita, válido tembién para España, y para tu Imperio Ave César._
_  De todos modos, he borrado tu inglés, porque me llevarís mucho tiempo entenderlo, sin duda mucho más que a ti._
_  Cada país aporta también cosas buenas:_
_La informática,la cultura propia estadounidense,trabajo,etc._
_De las malas, tenemos tiempo de olvidarlas._
_  ¡*Ave César¡, y saludarte como súbdito de Hispania.*_


----------



## Augusto-Cesar

Salve!
_*Iesus Marianus Leonis Hispanorum*_

Estoy de acuerdo contigo. Cada país tiene mucho que aportar, ya sea en cultura, lenguaje, culinaria, etc. nadie mejor que otro y todos somos imprescindibles. Como suelo repetir, mi pregunta fue por qué algunos insisten en traducir ''America'' (del inglés) para decir ''América'' en vez de ''Estados Unidos'' en español. 
*
Ego Cesar imperator, traducorit me salutant!*

_Yo César emperador, los que traducen me honran._

Yo Augusto-César he dicho esto.


----------



## Lost_in_Time

I think William Shakespeare wrote a play about this very thing - Much Ado About Nothing. A 1960s rock group called Buffalo Springfield once sang a song about political injustice (and the Viet Nam War) in the United States. One line goes "nobody's right if everybody's wrong..." 

After reading through this thread, I get the impression that everyone is a little bit right, but no one is completely right. We all view ourselves and each other through the cultural and social lens we are given. One thing I have worked very hard to avoid over the course of my life is the temptation to make myself look better by making someone else look worse. But, lenses have a way of doing that to us, even when we don't realize it.

As for the original question (I think there was one somewhere), you are correct that it is wrong to assume that the United States is "America". I question whether we who live in the States are any more guilty of fostering that misconception than you who live elsewhere. It is an unfortunate fact. It can and should be changed, but flaring tempers and pointed fingers do little to bring about a constructive resolution.

The last point I would like to interject is this.... It is easy to paint with a broad brush, but it is impossible to do so neatly. I took personal offense at some of the comments made - both by US citizens and those outside the States (or is it politically incorrect to refer to the US as "the States", lest someone feel slighted). Every nation has dirty laundry, as well as a glorious story to tell. Every leader fails to a greater or lesser degree. Each culture brings value to the world's table - and each also deserves criticism. Let us look for the good in each other. I know I have enough of my own faults without searching for more of them in other people.

_La realidad es un efecto producido por la falta de alcohol." - Martiniano Arce_


----------



## Outsider

Lost_in_Time said:
			
		

> As for the original question (I think there was one somewhere), you are correct that it is wrong to assume that the United States is "America". I question whether we who live in the States are any more guilty of fostering that misconception than you who live elsewhere.


I wouldn't call it a misconception. Everyone knows the continent is larger than the States. A misnomer, perhaps?


----------



## srsh

Lost_in_time, I'm 100% in agreement with you.


----------



## Chepin

Hola.  Muy intersante.  I was born and raised en San Pancho, Mexico ocupado, now eeuu....  yo estoy de acuerdo con la persona que dice que no es posible que "america" signifique solamente los estados unidos americanos.  

How can it be?  De mi punto de vista debemos de decirles "estadounidenses" a los ciudadanos de los eeuu.  Mis padres son 'americanos' y no nacieron entre las fronteras de Cánada y Mexico.  

Pienso que es un poco arrogante, ¿no?  

As for 911, the holocaust, Iraq and freedom,liberty and democracy...

It just doesn't seem to me that the scales are balanced "with justice for all".

Here in los eeuu, Katarina wiped the smile of equality and justice off the face of the statue of liberty to reveal racism, disparity and reckless disregard for poor and disenfranchised people -- people whose communities were already  the victims of toxic products produced by petrochemical plants in their neighborhoods.... Not in the "good" neighborhoods of course, with the "good" people in them.  

It's true that gas ovens were unique, but other methods have worked equally well, say hacking and slashing, like in Haiti or Rwanda.  In Vietnam, napalm, in the southern USA lynching was quite popular, poverty and drugs, environmental racism, disappearances, paramilitaries...they are all good too..... Not all people are contained in camps, like the Jews and Japanese in the USA.  Some are contained in bantustans or reservations or as in Palestine, in little islands of land separated by checkpoints and settlements.  Even Gaza.  No control over foreign policy, borders, self-determination..and they DO have a wall/fence...

It's sad and infuriating.  Terrorism comes in all colors and classes, birds do it, bees do it, even democratic nations do it.  Ay díos mio...  i better stick to vocabulary.


----------



## Noel Acevedo

Emperador:

Yo me niego a referirme a los estadounidenses como "americanos".  De vez en cuando Gringos, otras veces yanquis, pero la mayoria de veces estadounidenses.  Americanos somos todos.  Ellos, con su proverbial arrogancia (recientemente muy golpeada con esto de Katrina) se han apropiado de "américa" y nosotros tenemos que arrancársela.

Noel






			
				Augusto-Cesar said:
			
		

> Mis queridos súbditos:
> 
> Uno de mis esclavos anglosajones insiste que se traduzca la frase “America’s Best Offer” por “La mejor oferta de América”. Mi veredicto es este, “América” no solamente es los EE.UU. sino que también empieza desde Alaska hasta la Patagonia. Por lo tanto, “La mejor oferta del país” es lo correcto. ¿Desde cuándo “América” significa “Estados Unidos” en español?
> 
> Lo peor del caso es que algunos de mis súbditos de Gallia, Hispania e Italia y otros, dicen ''America'' cuando hablan de los EE.UU. ¡Qué horror!
> 
> Insisto en que no se diga ni traduzca “America” para decir los EE.UU. ya que existen tantos otros países que forman parte de “América”. ¿Alguien está de acuerdo?
> 
> Caesar vos saluta!
> 
> Augustus-CÉSAR IMPERATOR


----------



## cuchuflete

Noel Acevedo said:
			
		

> Emperador:
> 
> Yo me niego a referirme a los estadounidenses como "americanos". De vez en cuando Gringos, otras veces yanquis, pero la mayoria de veces estadounidenses. Americanos somos todos. Ellos, con su proverbial arrogancia (recientemente muy golpeada con esto de Katrina) se han apropiado de "américa" y nosotros tenemos que arrancársela.
> Noel



You have answered the original question clearly, and, I believe, well.
Just to refresh the memory of those who may have forgotten the topic posed in post #1:



> ¿Desde cuándo “América” significa “Estados Unidos” *en español*?



You then reboarded your one-oar canoe, and went off on an unrelated tack, devoid of factual basis:

"Ellos, con su proverbial arrogancia (recientemente muy golpeada con esto de Katrina) *se han apropiado* de "américa"..."

That is a false statement.   It is false if you are talking about language.
It is false if you are talking about material property.  It is false if you are talking about political force.

It is very easy to throw slogans around.  The more inflammatory the better....get the crowd energized.  

Read a little history.  Discover that the word was applied in English, hundreds of years before USA existed.  The use of the word "américa" in Spanish, by those who speak Spanish, is imposed by nobody.  If people choose to use that misnomer, argue with those who make that choice.  

Finger pointing without fact is easy.  It's still fact-free.  
You are quick to apply the term "proverbial arrogancia" to "Ellos".
That rhetorical technique is sometimes effective.  Pull out the broad brush, apply it to nearly 300 million people, most of whom you have never met and certainly do not know much about.  You have besmirched tens of millions of Spanish speakers who live in the US.  

Facts can be a little inconvenient.

Most native Spanish speakers refer to the US as américa.  If that upsets you, then tell them not to do it, at least in your presence. If the term upsets them, they can follow your own good example, and use a different term.   

Sorry to make it so simple.


----------



## JESUS MARIA

Buenas tardes:

Sugiero que este hilo ya ha sido "muy estirado..........".Cada persona/forer@ hemos expresado nuestra opinión, y lo mejor es que los hilos sirvieran para estrechar los lazos entre todos los pueblos del otro lado del Atlántico y de éste.

  Tenemos que unir sentimientos, no desbordarnos y separarnos.
Para mí este foro es válido para la concordia, y la unión de los pueblos.
Saludos a todos.


----------



## beatrizg

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Most native Spanish speakers refer to the US as américa.
> QUOTE]
> 
> I don't think so, Cuchu. I think most of us call "America", the continent, and we call ourselves "americanos". A veces tenemos que añadir o explicarle a nuestro interlocutor que America es el nombre de todo el continente. A los Estados Unidos le llamamos así y a los habitantes: estadunidenses o norteamericanos. Y también gringos, de manera cariñosa la mayoría de las veces -al menos en mi caso.
> Se puede decir que es una batalla lingüística perdida a nivel mundial, pero seguiremos dando la lucha.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hola Beatriz,

I stand by my comment, as you quoted it above. I happily grant you that a great many, perhaps a majority, of the better educated native Spanish speakers make the distinction, and use the words properly. But the better educated, in any country or region, are a minority. Hence I agree with you if "most of us" refers to those in this conversation. 

When I began to learn your language, in Spain, I asked how I should describe my nationality. Some very well educated, and very politically aware, people insisted that I say norteamericano, as opposed to americano. Of course that was also incorrect, as it implied that all Mexicans, Canadians, and Estadounidenses shared a common nationality. 

You proved my point clearly in your final sentence.  

Con respeto,
el gringo Cuchu


----------



## JESUS MARIA

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Hola Beatriz,
> 
> I stand by my comment, as you quoted it above. I happily grant you that a great many, perhaps a majority, of the better educated native Spanish speakers make the distinction, and use the words properly. But the better educated, in any country or region, are a minority. Hence I agree with you if "most of us" refers to those in this conversation.
> 
> When I began to learn your language, in Spain, I asked how I should describe my nationality. Some very well educated, and very politically aware, people insisted that I say norteamericano, as opposed to americano. Of course that was also incorrect, as it implied that all Mexicans, Canadians, and Estadounidenses shared a common nationality.
> 
> You proved my point clearly in your final sentence.
> 
> Con respeto,
> el gringo Cuchu


.

  Hi Cuchuflete:
En España también decimos:"estadounidense", y volveríamos a ser injustos con los países federales:México,Brasil, y otros más.

  De todas las maneras, la cuestión se complica porque un país cuyo nombre son siglas: USA, EEUU, es compuesto, y difícil de tener gentilicio en una sola palabra.

  Saludos de un españolito.


----------



## Everness

beatrizg said:
			
		

> cuchuflete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most native Spanish speakers refer to the US as américa.
> QUOTE]
> 
> I don't think so, Cuchu. I think most of us call "America", the continent, and we call ourselves "americanos". A veces tenemos que añadir o explicarle a nuestro interlocutor que America es el nombre de todo el continente. A los Estados Unidos le llamamos así y a los habitantes: estadunidenses o norteamericanos. Y también gringos, de manera cariñosa la mayoría de las veces -al menos en mi caso.
> Se puede decir que es una batalla lingüística perdida a nivel mundial, pero seguiremos dando la lucha.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that people living in the American continent who don't have US citizenship would call themselves *americanos * even if they were residing in a different continent.
> 
> If someone would ask them where they come from, most of the time the inquirer would be expecting the name of a *country * not of a continent. So first, one would make reference to his/her country of origin (e.g.: beautiful Colombia, Venezuela, etc.) and then to the sub-continent (América del Sur, América Central y América del Norte).
> 
> On the other hand, you're right: Most people outside North America call Americans "*norteamericanos*" and not "americanos." I checked out the website of La Nación, a very distinguished South American newspaper. Here's an example.
> 
> http://www.lanacion.com.ar/exterior/nota.asp?nota_id=739719
> 
> _"Los *norteamericanos * son las personas más dadas en cuanto a voluntariado. Hay más de 12.000 voluntarios en la ciudad de Houston que invirtieron dos días en su vida para entrenarse y poder ir a ayudar. Ellos no tienen familias tan fuertes como nosotros los latinos, y al no tener esas raíces de la familia, tienen que ayudarse mutuamente aunque no se conozcan", expresó Keeper. _
> 
> Sorry Canadians and Mexicans... but that's how life is...
> 
> PS: Beatriz, when are you going to invite me to star in one of your movies? I warn you that my fees are going up!
Click to expand...


----------



## SADACA

Lo primero que me llama la atención es que todos los que se oponen a que los Americanos se llamen Americanos (los de USA) escriben USA para referirse a ese pais (United States of AMERICA), E.E.U.U. son las siglas en español.

El Americanismo de los Habitantes de USA no me quita para nada mi Americanismo como habitante de Venezuela, al igual que no voy por ahí peleando con cada Samuel que conozco para que no use mi nombre
Los Barceloneses de Barcelona, España no han entablado una disputa contra los Barceloneses de Barcelona, Venezuela, ni tampoco los Valencianos de Valencia de Venezuela o España.
Cuando alguien me diga que es Estado Unidense, ¿que debo preguntarle? como hago para saber si es Estado Unidense de los Estados Unidos de Mexico o de los Estados Unidos de.. con permiso de todos Ustedes... shhh America?
Y gracias a Dios en mi pais, no solo cambiamos de loco y de constitución cada dos por tres porque tambien fuimos Estados Unidos de Venezuela.
¿Como es que se dice Estado Unidense en Inglés?
Y por cierto, podria referirme alguno de los celosos custodios de nuestro patronimico continental, ¿cuantas veces ha tenido o deseado identificarse como Americano al ser consultado sobre su origen?
Yo tendría mucho cuidado no vaya a ser que estos señores "United Statians" les de por complacernos y empiecen a presentarse como American - American con lo que deberiamos quedar complacidos y muy calladitos.
Me inscribí en esta página ayer, ruego me disculpen si quebranto alguna norma y agradezco cualquier consejo para mejorar.
Saludos y mis respetos a todos


----------



## dominoz

Hola a todos. Sólo una cosita más...



			
				Noel Acevedo said:
			
		

> Yo me niego a referirme a los estadounidenses como "americanos".  De vez en cuando Gringos, otras veces yanquis, pero la mayoria de veces estadounidenses.
> Noel


Siendo de Puerto Rico, no se es también estadounidense? De ser así, las personas de allí no serán gringos y yankees también?... o es que estas dos palabras sólo se reservan para gente que se supone es de antecedentes "anglosajones">>> por cierto, una palabra que sí que se usa muy erróneamente, aunque me parece que muchos hispanohablantes lo dicen para referirse a casi cualquier cosa que sea relacionada con EE.UU., su gente y su cultura.
Sólo agregar que estoy totalmente de acuerdo con lo que ha escrito arriba el señor Cuchuflete.


----------



## beatrizg

Everness said:
			
		

> beatrizg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that people living in the American continent who don't have US citizenship would call themselves *americanos *even if they were residing in a different continent.
> 
> If someone would ask them where they come from, most of the time the inquirer would be expecting the name of a *country *not of a continent. So first, one would make reference to his/her country of origin (e.g.: beautiful Colombia, Venezuela, etc.) and then to the sub-continent (América del Sur, América Central y América del Norte).
> 
> On the other hand, you're right: Most people outside North America call Americans "*norteamericanos*" and not "americanos." I checked out the website of La Nación, a very distinguished South American newspaper. Here's an example.
> 
> http://www.lanacion.com.ar/exterior/nota.asp?nota_id=739719
> 
> _"Los *norteamericanos *son las personas más dadas en cuanto a voluntariado. Hay más de 12.000 voluntarios en la ciudad de Houston que invirtieron dos días en su vida para entrenarse y poder ir a ayudar. Ellos no tienen familias tan fuertes como nosotros los latinos, y al no tener esas raíces de la familia, tienen que ayudarse mutuamente aunque no se conozcan", expresó Keeper. _
> 
> Sorry Canadians and Mexicans... but that's how life is...
> 
> PS: Beatriz, when are you going to invite me to star in one of your movies? I warn you that my fees are going up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tienes razón, Everness. Me expresé mal. No quise decir que consideremos que nuestra  nacionalidad sea la "americana", sino que sentimos que pertenecemos al continente americano, tanto como los habitantes del norte. Al igual que un erupeo se siente europeo, sin que sea necesario decirlo cada vez que alguien pregunta su nacionalidad.
> 
> _____
> Hay un proyecto de muy bajo presupuesto en el papel. Sin diálogos.
Click to expand...


----------



## Everness

dominoz said:
			
		

> Siendo de Puerto Rico, no se es también estadounidense? De ser así, las personas de allí no serán gringos y yankees también?... *o es que estas dos palabras sólo se reservan para gente que se supone es de antecedentes "anglosajones"*




Correcto. El "gringo" o "yankee" es el "blanco." No tiene que ver con el color de la piel sino con el trasfondo étnico.


----------



## dominoz

Everness said:
			
		

> Correcto. El "gringo" o "yankee" es el "blanco." No tiene que ver con el color de la piel sino con el trasfondo étnico.


Ok, pero si le echas un vistazo a esta web: euroamericans.net (algo ironicamente titulado European Heritage in "America") podrás comprobar que según el Censo 2000 de EE.UU., sólo el 8.7 por ciento de la población se considera de herencia inglesa (comparado con un 15.2% alemana, por ejemplo).
Por lo tanto, no me parece nada correcto hablar de EE.UU. como un país "anglosajón", porque evidentemente no lo es. Entonces, ¿les molestará a los estadounidenses que hablen así de su país? Hmm, a los que tengan ganas de ser molestados seguro que sí...


----------



## Augusto-Cesar

Anglo Sajón se refiere a esa gente que viene o provenía de las tribus de Anglia, Sajonia, etc. cuyos orígines son ''germanos''... así que decir anglo-sajón que quizás no esté incorrecto ya sean ingleses o alemanes o daneses ya que todos tienen ascendencia de tribus germanas fuesen anglos, sajones o ambos u otros. Aunque creo que todos son ''germanos''.

Volviendo al tema, los EE.UU.  siguen y seguirán siendo traducidos así en español.


----------



## dominoz

Siento disentir, su majestad, pero está totalmente incorrecto llamar "anglosajón" a un alemán o un danés, de la misma manera que estaría igual de incorrecto llamar "italiano" a un catalán o un francés por ser "latinos".


----------



## Augusto-Cesar

Salve *Dominus Domini*,

Nota que yo no dije que todos son anglo-sajones, dije que tienen sus origenes en las tribus germanas. La diferencia en el ejemplo que tu pusiste es que se entiende que ''latinos'' son los que tuvieron sus costumbres y lenguaje(s) en la antigua Roma y su idioma el ''latín'', lenguas ''romances''. Los anglo-sajones no vienieron de la China, vinieron de Alemania y esa área vecina. Ahora, se entiende que un alemán no es lo mismo que un inglés, pero sí tienen raíces iguales aunque éstos se hayan separado hace cientos de años. Por ende, los alemanii, los suevii, los anglii, los sajonii, etc. 
_
 Tu emperador,_
*
 Augusto-César Imperator *

PS: Acuérdate que alrededor del año 9 a.C. Varo fue anhiquilado con mis tropas por los germanos


----------



## Everness

El "blanco" no es "latino" ni "moreno". Otra vez, hablamos de etnicidad. Uno puede ser "blanco" y hablar en español pero sigue siendo "blanco". Uno puede ser "latino" pero no considerarse "latino" sino "blanco". Pasa por el grado de biculturalismo o monoculturalismo que uno escoja. Estoy hablando de lo que pasa en los EEUU.


----------



## dominoz

Beloved Emperor:
Yes, it's true that the Angles, Saxons and Jutes were Germanic tribes who invaded southern Britain in the 5th century, coming from an area which now covers part of northwestern Germany and southern Denmark.
However, after further invasions/intermingling with the natives, the resulting group of people couldn't really be described as Anglo-Saxons, which is kind of an inaccurate term even to describe modern-day English people from England, nevermind the ones who emigrated to the New World.
I can't see how "Anglo-Saxon" can be used as a catch-all phrase for "those Germanic-type people", and even more so when, in the case of the USA, most of the people you are referring to aren't even that!
If only 8.9% of people from the United States of America are of English origin then it seems absurd to me that they are described generically as "anglosajones".
Getting back to the original topic (although I think the above-discussed is related, which is why I brought it up) I'd recommend to anyone the thorough reading and assimilation of the information contained within the penultimate post of Cuchiflete, as possible temporary and minor relief from feelings of total resentment towards the Great Satan, a.k.a. the USA. (Don't worry the effects won't last for long, maybe about 2 seconds )
Your loyal and humble subject:
Dominus Domini.


----------



## LV4-26

Long thread. I've just dropped in and I don't know if I've got everything clear.

It's true that when I was in the translation school (I studied both English and Spanish) the people from the US were referred to as "norteamericanos" (not just "americanos"). I agree that we still have a problem as such a noun should also include Canadians and Mexicans.

In France, some people are beginning to say "Etats-uniens" (don't know how they spell it really)  instead of "Américains". 

I also think (I'm not sure if this was clearly put before) that there still is a purely linguistic problem : how can the same noun refer to two different things ?
1. America : the continent
2. America : the United States.
What about the risk of ambiguity ? Or should we take for granted that
-_ I'm American
_never ever means _I'm form the American continent. ?
_which is true actually, as previously mentionned : one would say "I'm Brazilian, Mexican, Colombian,...."

I'm not from the American continent but if I were,  I really don't think I would feel upset by this usage per se. It's not all that important. It's the potential bias (if any) behind it that could matter.


----------



## Outsider

dominoz said:
			
		

> Ok, pero si le echas un vistazo a esta web: euroamericans.net (algo ironicamente titulado European Heritage in "America") podrás comprobar que según el Censo 2000 de EE.UU., sólo el 8.7 por ciento de la población se considera de herencia inglesa (comparado con un 15.2% alemana, por ejemplo).
> Por lo tanto, no me parece nada correcto hablar de EE.UU. como un país "anglosajón", porque evidentemente no lo es. Entonces, ¿les molestará a los estadounidenses que hablen así de su país? Hmm, a los que tengan ganas de ser molestados seguro que sí...


El término "anglosajón" no se refire necesariamente a herancia, sino a cultura. Creo que no se puede negar que la cultura americana/norteamericana/estadunidense dominante es mayoritariamente de origen inglés. Lo mismo sucede en otras excolonias inglesas, como Australia y Canadá.


----------



## cuchuflete

Outsider said:
			
		

> El término "anglosajón" no se refire necesariamente a herancia, sino a cultura. Creo que *no se puede negar que la cultura americana/norteamericana/estadunidense dominante es mayoritariamente de origen inglés*. Lo mismo sucede en otras excolonias inglesas, como Australia y Canadá.



Hola Outsider,

Al leer la frase arriba, me puse a pensar.  ¿Es verdad que la cultura de mi país es mayoritariamente de origen inglés?  Y ¿qué importancia tiene las contribuciones de los demás primeras colonistas...holandeses, franceses y españoles?

Le invito a abrir otro hilo para discutirlo, ya que sigo incómodo e inseguro con lo que ha escrito.  

Gracias,
Cuchu


PD- Se podría preguntar si el brasil, por ejemplo, tiene una cultura mayoritariamente português, o si el uruguay la tiene español...


----------



## Everness

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> I'm not from the American continent but if I were,  I really don't think I would feel upset by this usage per se. It's not all that important. It's the potential bias (if any) behind it that could matter.



Yes, behind all the linguistics lies the political and the ideological. Relating to most powerful country in the world that happens to be in your same continent isn't an easy task. There's a need to set clear boundaries.


----------



## JESUS MARIA

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Hola Outsider,
> 
> Al leer la frase arriba, me puse a pensar. ¿Es verdad que la cultura de mi país es mayoritariamente de origen inglés? Y ¿qué importancia tiene las contribuciones de los demás primeras colonistas...holandeses, franceses y españoles?
> 
> Le invito a abrir otro hilo para discutirlo, ya que sigo incómodo e inseguro con lo que ha escrito.
> 
> Gracias,
> Cuchu
> 
> 
> PD- Se podría preguntar si el brasil, por ejemplo, tiene una cultura mayoritariamente português, o si el uruguay la tiene español...


.

_Buenas tardes Cuchuflete:_
_Me va a permitir que me exprese en castellano, y que sea yo quien le replique en lugar de su interlocutor Outsider.De todas las maneras este hilo comenzó en castellano, así que no importará._
_  Con relación a si es cirto que la cultura de su país es mayoritariamente anglosajona, a mí no me cabe duda alguna. Si alguna cualidad ha tenido el hecho de forjar su país, ha sido el elemento aglutinador impresionante de las primitivas colonias de nueva Inglaterra, que sucesivamente ha ido adquiriendo estados o territorios fuera de su ámbito primero: La Florida, parte de Maine(cultura Acadia), territorios del Mississipi(primero franceses después españoles:Louisiana), vastos territorios del Medio Oeste deshabitados o escasamente habitados por tribus indias originarias, territorios o Estados como Texas,Nuevo México,Arizona,Nevada,California, etc. primariamente colonizados por la Corona Española, y pocos años por la República de México, para continuar con los territorios de Columbia Británica que pasaron a EEUU, Alaska, y más recientemente Puerto Rico, Guam, Islas Vírgenes,Hawaii._
_  ¿Cuál es la composición cultural de este vastísimo territorio?,¿Cuál es su cultura?,¿Cuál su composición étnica?._
_  Sin duda alguna hay disparidades en la composición étnica, pero de las culturas originarias, o primeras holandesas, francesas, hispanas(españolas o mexicanas), y sobre todo indias, que Ud. preguntaba me temo que no queda gran cosa, bajo el influjo unificador y aglutinante del componente cultural anglosajón.Son excepciones Puerto Rico, y parte del Sur Estadounidense._
_No sé cómo lo ven Uds., pero de la cultura holandesa, india(Ud. no la menciona), y francesa cabría preguntarse qué queda:_
_Restos en la cultura culinaria, en el modo de ser interior, algo en la joie de vivre, no sé._
_  Entiendo que el caso de Brasil es muy distinto, porque tiene cultura amerindia viva, y otra resultante de la mezcla._
_  Luego también estarían los restos de la cultura aframericana en EEUU:¿en qué consiste dicha cultura?._
_  No sé, soy muy respetuoso con la evolución de los países, y no pongo en duda el proceso evolutivo de su nación, me parece perfecto.Lo que no me parece muy exacto es decir que no tiene un componente más que fundamental angloisajón, sino ¿cómo la deniríamos?. ¿De mezcla?:quizás, pero para mí son como azucarillos que la hacen más dulce, más iluminada._

_  Bueno, estos son mis humildes pensamientos, sobre la historia y cultura norteamericana a la que he dedicado muchas horas._

_  Reciba un cordial saludo de este español._
_Jesús María._


----------



## ironcyclist

muy buen tema... la gente se acostumbro a nombrar Americanos a los Estadounidenses porque en las traducciones de las pelis norte-americanas se le nombra como americanos a los gringos. Es por eso que la gente sobre todo europea u oriental asume que los Estadounidenses son Americanos olvidandose del basto territorio que se estan comiendo... Lo obviamente correcto son "norte-americanos"


----------



## cuchuflete

Ironcyclist,

Se me ocurre que en un entonces no habían tantas pelis.  ¿Sabe Ud. como se llamaban a los gringos en los años 20 del siglo pasado?

Si ha leído todo este hilo, con un mínimo de atención, tal vez no estaría tan seguro que 'norte-americanos' es el término más apropiado.

desde gringolandia de las américas,
Cuchuflete


----------



## ironcyclist

No me refiero a que este termino venga desde esa epoca, me refiero a una opinion personal. Comprenda.


----------



## adonis

Bueno, solo quiero agregar que tienen la razon.
Yo he platicado con varios extrangeros, la mayoria de ellos de EEUU y aceptan que se ha convertido en una forma de identificacion para ellos, dado que ellos son la gran mayoria que viaja alrededor del mundo, no digo que paises de habla ispana en america no viajen. Mi punto es que ellos se han representado como america en otros paises sin mal intencion.
Pero acerca del Ingles, no solo ellos nos ayudan, hay Españoles, Britanicos
de todas las razas y colores.
Asi que aunque este mal, que digan I am American, estoy de acuerdo que deberian de decir I am from United States..
Gracias


----------



## zano

Talant said:


> Casi
> 
> Está bien salvo "...México sea uno de los..."
> 
> También me contaron en el colegio que "América Latina" o "Latinoamérica" en realidad es un extranjerismo, y que es mejor hablar de "Iberoamérica" u otras palabras. De todas formas se usa bastante, por lo que no pasa nada.


 
A pesar que Latinoamérica pueda ser un extranjerismo, entiendo que tiene una connotación diferente de Hiberoamérica y no puede ser reemplazada una por otra. Esto se debe a que Latinoamérica corresponde a los paises américanos que hayan sido colonizados por países de origen latino (Francia, Portugal, España), en cambio Hiberoamérica sólo corresponde a los de origen español.


----------



## lazarus1907

zano said:


> A pesar que Latinoamérica pueda ser un extranjerismo, entiendo que tiene una connotación diferente de *H*iberoamérica y no puede ser reemplazada una por otra. Esto se debe a que Latinoamérica corresponde a los paises américanos que hayan sido colonizados por países de origen latino (Francia, Portugal, España), en cambio Hiberoamérica sólo corresponde a los de origen español.


"*Hiberoamérica*" no existe porque "Iberia" nunca se ha escrito con hache.

Iberoamérica es el conjunto de países que provienen de España y Portugal (la península ibérica). Y no es un extranjerismo (Francia nunca ha sido parte de Iberia).

Latinoamericano se refiere a los que viven en América, pero cuyo idioma se deriva directamente del latín: Español, Portugués, Francés, etc.


----------



## SpiceMan

lazarus1907 said:


> *Hispanoamérica* es la palabra ideal aquí, porque representa todos los países americanos en los cuales se habla español. Así nos ahorramos "latinoamérica" (que incluye a Portugal) e "Iberoamérica" (que incluye a España y Portugal a la vez").


"... (que incluye a *Brasil*) ...", supongo.

Latinoamérica incluye a la Guyana Francesa también, según a quién le preguntes.


----------



## Jellby

Yo votaría por desterrar el término "latino" y sus derivados cuando no hacen referencia a la región del Lazio, al idioma latín o a los idiomas o culturas derivados de éste. Es decir, usar "latino" para los indígenas de Sudamérica me parece una barbaridad.


----------



## lazarus1907

Jellby said:


> Yo votaría por desterrar el término "latino" y sus derivados cuando no hacen referencia a la región del Lazio, al idioma latín o a los idiomas o culturas derivados de éste. Es decir, usar "latino" para los indígenas de Sudamérica me parece una barbaridad.


Estoy de acuerdo: Es un término que probalemente haya sido acuñado por anglosajones incultos y/o racistas.


----------



## SpiceMan

El término fue acuñado por los franceses. Tiene origen en la invasión francesa a México. Los franceses acuñaron el termino latinoamérica para, entre otras razones, denotar una supuesta cercanía cultural y ser aceptados. Los franceses fueron expulsados, el término no.

Si eran racistas o no, no lo puedo decir. Pero tenían la suficiente cultura como para encontrar un vínculo, aunque forzado, en el latín para relacionar a México y Francia. Lo único relacionado a los anglosajones en todo esto es que, justamente, una de  las razones por las que fue acuñado el término fue la de tomar distancia de éstos.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

Para este caso, si es que estás hablando en términos financieros, í usa Latinoamérica, pues hablando económicamente, Brasil, las guyanas etc son considerados como del bloque económico de Latinoamérica.


----------



## pejeman

SpiceMan said:


> "... (que incluye a *Brasil*) ...", supongo.
> 
> Latinoamérica incluye a la Guyana Francesa también, según a quién le preguntes.




En la misma línea de Spiceman, con quien estoy plenamente de acuerdo respecto a la acuñación de AL, el Canadá francés también forma parte de L'Amerique Latin (¿Así se escribe?). El concepto subsiste, ya que en México tiene presencia un IFAL (Instituto Francés de la AL), además de la Alianza Francesa.

Saludos


----------



## diseña

lazarus1907 said:


> Estoy de acuerdo: Es un término que probalemente haya sido acuñado por anglosajones incultos *y/o* racistas.


Del Diccionario panhispánico de dudas (sobre "o" como conjunción):

_A menudo la disyuntiva que plantea esta conjunción no es excluyente, sino que expresa conjuntamente adición y alternativa: En este cajón puedes guardar carpetas o cuadernos (es decir, una u otra cosa, o ambas a la vez). En la mayoría de los casos resulta, pues, innecesario hacer explícitos ambos valores mediante la combinación y/o_

Me parece que lo de usar "y/o" en español, cuando bastaría "o", es por influencía del inglés.


----------



## pejeman

diseña said:


> Del Diccionario panhispánico de dudas (sobre "o" como conjunción):
> 
> _A menudo la disyuntiva que plantea esta conjunción no es excluyente, sino que expresa conjuntamente adición y alternativa: En este cajón puedes guardar carpetas o cuadernos (es decir, una u otra cosa, o ambas a la vez). En la mayoría de los casos resulta, pues, innecesario hacer explícitos ambos valores mediante la combinación y/o_
> 
> Me parece que lo de usar "y/o" en español, cuando bastaría "o", es por influencía del inglés.



Así es; se trata de una reculada más del español frente al inglés.

Saludos


----------



## elcampet

lazarus1907 said:


> La misma corrección: No mezcles el inglés al escribir español: La coma en español indica un pausa breve en un enunciado, no una pausa larga y dramática al final de un enunciado que aparece seguido de un párrafo independiente en una carta (como en el inglés de *inglaterra*, porque en América se usan los dos puntos para cartas formales). Los dos puntos es lo correcto en español culto.
> 
> *Hispanoamérica* es la palabra ideal aquí, porque representa todos los países americanos en los cuales se habla español. Así nos ahorramos "latinoamérica" (que incluye a Portugal) e "Iberoamérica" (que incluye a España y Portugal a la vez").


Hola lazarus, es verdad como afirmas que "Hiberoamérica con hache no existe" cuando corriges a *zano*, pero también es un hecho que _Inglaterra _*lleva I mayúcula.*
Saludos amigo.


----------



## hedonist

Jellby said:


> Yo votaría por desterrar el término "latino" y sus derivados cuando no hacen referencia a la región del Lazio, al idioma latín o a los idiomas o culturas derivados de éste. Es decir, usar "latino" para los indígenas de Sudamérica me parece una barbaridad.





> Es decir, usar "latino" para los indígenas de Sudamérica me parece una barbaridad.


Que yo sepa, Latino se usa para referirse a *TODOS* los individuos que tienen raices en Latinoamerica independiente del aspecto fisico de la persona negro o blanco lo que sea. Al menos que tu creas  que todos los habitantes de Latinoamerica son indigenas.



> Yo votaría por desterrar el término "latino" y sus derivados cuando no hacen referencia a la región del Lazio,


De la misma manera que usa la palabra "inido/a" cuando no hacen referencia a la region de la India?


----------



## SpiceMan

hedonist said:


> Que yo sepa, *l*atino se usa para referirse a *TODOS* los individuos que tienen raices en Latinoam*é*rica independiente del aspecto f*í*sico de la persona*,* negro*,* blanco *o* lo que sea. Al menos que t*ú* creas  que todos los habitantes de Latinoam*é*rica son ind*í*genas.


Dijo que le parecía mal llamar latinos a los indígenas, no a todos los habitantes de latinoamérica. Lo demás fueron conclusiones tuyas.


----------



## Jellby

hedonist said:


> Que yo sepa, Latino se usa para referirse a *TODOS* los individuos que tienen raices en Latinoamerica independiente del aspecto fisico de la persona negro o blanco lo que sea. Al menos que tu creas  que todos los habitantes de Latinoamerica son indigenas.



Lo dije un poco exagerando, de manera que es comprensible que se me malinterpretara. Pero tú mismo lo dices, se usa "latino", para los "latinoamericanos", y prácticamente se ha perdido la conexión con Europa y con el Lazio (si dices que alguien es "latino", nadie piensa que es italiano, francés, español...). Pero especialmente se usa "latino" para alguien que tiene rasgos típicos latinoamericanos, que suelen tener al menos algo de mezcla indígena.


----------



## indigoio

claudie said:


> Me pueden decir si esta frase es correcta gramaticalmente o si se podria reformular para que suene mejor...
> 
> Por lo tanto, no es de extrañar que México es *sea* uno de los países de América Latina que ha ido desarrollándose más dinámica y rápidamente en las últimas décadas.


Hola Claudie

En tu frase creo que todos estamos de acuerdo en que debes reemplazar _es_ por _sea_.
Pero sobre el uso de _América Latina_, yo te recomiendo dejarlo así (o bien su equivalente _Latinoamérica_). Independientemente de su origen, en un contexto geo-económico el término hace referencia a la sub-región americana que va desde México hasta la Patagonia, sin descartar a Brasil ni a Guyana Francesa (como dice Miguelillo). Así lo reconocen los organismos internacionales y así se entiende en tu texto.
En última instancia te recomendaría adoptar el término que más se utilice en el país (si es el caso) al que va dirigido tu documento/texto/trabajo.



lazarus1907 said:


> *Hispanoamérica* es la palabra ideal aquí, porque representa todos los países americanos en los cuales se habla español. Así nos ahorramos "latinoamérica" (que incluye a Portugal) e "Iberoamérica" (que incluye a España y Portugal a la vez").


¿Y dónde queda Brasil? Hasta donde entiendo, la frase de Claudie no pretende omitir a los brasileños.

¡Buen día!


----------



## pejeman

Ahí les va una página del pasado:

En la Constitución de Apatzingán (Decreto Constitucional para la libertad de la *América mexicana*, sancionado en Apatzingán a 22 de octubre de 1814)
se establece. en su artículo 13 lo siguiente:

Se reputan ciudadanos de esta América, todos los nacidos en ella

Como es obvio, era una sola América, con diversas regiones, al menos desde la óptica del México que luchaba por su independencia de España.

La verdad es que la primera América no es la del Norte, sino la del Sur, porque hasta donde yo sé Américo Vespucio no trazó cartas de lo que hoy conocemos como América del Norte.

Pero a los que vivían por acá, les tenía sin cuidado como le dijesen a estas tierras en Europa. Si ya después pegó el nombre de América, pues era para la América ocupada por España y Portugal. Más tarde, los anglos se quedaron con el nombre y sin pagar derechos de autor, se lo piratearon de plano. Ahora nos hacen buscar adjetivos para esta América, la que es nuestra y más india, española, portuguesa y negra que otra cosa.

Saludos


----------



## Fund

No acabo de entender como los centro y sudamericanos habeis permitido que los estadounidenses se apropien del término américa.


----------



## hedonist

SpiceMan said:


> Dijo que le parecía mal llamar latinos a los indígenas, no a todos los habitantes de latinoamérica. Lo demás fueron conclusiones tuyas.




Otra vez, que yo sepa nadie se refiera exclusivamente a los indigenas como "latinos" por eso llege a esa "conclusion" porque la frase me sono rara. "Latino" no es una clasificacion de "raza" sino de region de origen, etnica y supuestamente "cultural". O quizas les parece mal llamar "latinos" a los negros, mulatos, mestizos, blancos, etc... tambien? O es solamente que se refiera a los indigenas como "latinos" una barbaridad?


----------



## elcampet

Fund said:


> No acabo de entender como los centro y sudamericanos habeis permitido que los estadounidenses se apropien del término américa.


Simplemente porque no nos pdieron permiso, o acaso ¿suelen los estadounidenses pedir permiso a alguien para lo que sea?
Saludos de un *AMERICANO*, así _*simplemente AMERICANO*_ que nació y vive en México.


----------



## Jellby

indigoio said:


> Pero sobre el uso de _América Latina_, yo te recomiendo dejarlo así (o bien su equivalente _Latinoamérica_). Independientemente de su origen, en un contexto geo-económico el término hace referencia a la sub-región americana que va desde México hasta la Patagonia, sin descartar a Brasil ni a Guyana Francesa (como dice Miguelillo).



¿Y qué hacemos con Surinam y Belice, por ejemplo?



> O quizas les parece mal llamar "latinos" a los negros, mulatos, mestizos, blancos, etc... tambien? O es solamente que se refiera a los indigenas como "latinos" una barbaridad?



Me parece mal que a un mexicano (sea cual sea su "raza") se le llame "latino" y a un francés o a un italiano se les llame "francés" o "italiano". Me parece mal que el término "latino" haya quedado reservado (al menos en las películas estadounidenses, que es donde más lo veo/oigo) para los procedentes del Sur de Río Grande (hasta la Tierra de Fuego); y sí, me da la impresión de que lo usan como término racial, no creo que que ningún estadounidense llamara "latino" a un colombiano o cubano de raza negra, pero alegremente se lo aplicarán a alguien de procedencia quechua, seguro. Yo voto por dejar "latino" para lo relacionado con los antiguos romanos y con las lenguas derivadas del latín, para Iberoamérica podemos dejar "Iberoamérica", aunque se excluya la Guyana Francesa, la Martinica y demás, que al fin y al cabo son Francia.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

Hola a todos, bueno la verdad yo ya me canse un poco de estas conversaciones ya que siempre terminamos peleando y al final de cuentas nunca definimos nada, tal vez por eso este tipo de pregunta se repite y repite, ahora yo he dividido mi opinión en dos.
Una.- La forma cultural
Dos.- La económica
 
En la primera, tengo que concordar con muchos de ustedes de que Latinos pueden ser canadienses, Brasileños y toda persona que tenga raíces latinas.
Pero en la segunda y ese en mi punto de vista, aquí en América por lo menos se divide en 3 bloques macroecónomicamente  hablando que es América Latina, el Caribe y América del Norte (Canadá y EE.UU) Ojo no estoy hablando geográficamente sino económicamente, Muchas veces el Caribe y AL se unen, recordemos que está Centroamérica, el MERCOSUR, y cha la la cha la la.
Ahora porque digo esto, si alguien de ustedes noto, en la pregunta inicial, el post decía “México es le país latino que más ha crecido” o algo parecido.
Pero si nos ponemos a pensar como muchos de Uds. Esto sería falso, ¿Por qué? Porque si lo Latino fuera como ustedes lo dicen pues entonces Canadá siempre sería el país latino más grande económicamente y en calidad de vida.
Es por eso que ECONÓMICAMENTE se hace la diferencia.
Culturalmente concuerdo (no en todo) con ustedes.
Gracias por la atención prestada.


----------



## indigoio

Jellby said:


> ¿Y qué hacemos con Surinam y Belice, por ejemplo?


¿Entonces lo ideal sería "América Central y el Caribe, América del Sur y México"?
Por eso mi recomendación final es que claudie ocupe el sustantivo para dicha región más utilizado en su país o en el país a donde vaya dirigida su traducción porque como dice Miguelillo tras la discusión parece ser que no  llegamos a un acuerdo porque un término descarta a unos países y otros incluyen a algunas naciones que no van.

Buen día
Sandra


----------



## pejeman

Jellby said:


> ¿Y qué hacemos con Surinam y Belice, por ejemplo?
> 
> 
> 
> del Sur de Río Grande
> 
> Hola:
> 
> Para los mexicanos, ese río se llama Bravo, también conocido como Río Grande del Norte, pero Bravo es su nombre aquende.
> 
> Saludos


----------



## elcampet

indigoio said:


> ¿Entonces lo ideal sería "América Central y el Caribe, América del Sur y México"?
> Por eso mi recomendación final es que claudie ocupe el sustantivo para dicha región más utilizado en su país o en el país a donde vaya dirigida su traducción porque como dice Miguelillo tras la discusión parece ser que no llegamos a un acuerdo porque un término descarta a unos países y otros incluyen a algunas naciones que no van.
> 
> Buen día
> Sandra


Hola amigos foreros, la siguiente es la definición que da Wilkipedia:
*América del Norte o también Norteamérica, es un **subcontinente** que forma parte de **América** y que se extiende en el Hemisferio Occidental desde el **Océano Glacial Ártico** por el norte, hasta la frontera con **Centroamérica** por el sur, y está a su vez cercado por el **Océano Pacífico** al oeste, y por el **Océano Atlántico** al este. Incluye los siguientes países: **Canadá**, **Estados Unidos** y **México**, así como el territorio danés de **Groenlandia**.*
Más claro no pede estar, los mexicanos sin lugar a dudas hemos sido siempre *norteamericanos*  es más podríamos, sin incurrir en algún error afirmar que también somos *norteamericanos-estadounidenses, *puesto que el nombre completo de mi país es *Estados Unidos Mexicanos.* Por lo tanto, si lo que nos sobra es *nombre,* no cabe entrar en polémicas respecto a si somos además latinos, hispanos o ibero.... Etc., Etc, Etc. Quien nos llame *latinos,* tendría que hacerlo en tono despectivo.
Saludos desde Norteamérica.


----------



## indigoio

elcampet said:


> Más claro no pede estar, los mexicanos sin lugar a dudas hemos sido siempre *norteamericanos*  es más podríamos, sin incurrir en algún error afirmar que también somos *norteamericanos-estadounidenses, *puesto que el nombre completo de mi país es *Estados Unidos Mexicanos.* Por lo tanto, si lo que nos sobra es *nombre,* no cabe entrar en polémicas respecto a si somos además latinos, hispanos o ibero.... Etc., Etc, Etc. Quien nos llame *latinos,* tendría que hacerlo en tono despectivo.
> Saludos desde Norteamérica.


En total acuerdo. Los mexicanos geográficamente somos _norteamericanos_; también somos _estadounidenses_ desde 1917 cuando la Constitución estableció el nombre oficial del país, por lo tanto y sin lugar a dudas somos unos _estados unidos americanos_ (En todo caso el problema sería de EE.UU., que en su nombre no imprime identidad propia). Pero creo que esto no está en discusión, sino el hecho de si se puede o no englobar el territorio que va desde la parte más noroccidental de Baja California hasta el último punto de la Patagonia, bajo el concepto de _Latinoamérica_. 

A propósito... feliz mes de la patria mexicana


----------



## pejeman

indigoio said:


> En total acuerdo. Los mexicanos geográficamente somos _norteamericanos_; también somos _estadounidenses_ desde 1917 cuando la Constitución estableció el nombre oficial del país, .
> 
> A propósito... feliz mes de la patria mexicana


 
En realidad desde el 4 de octubre de 1824 se adoptó el nombre de Estados Unidos Mexicanos, con la interrupción de la república centralista de Santa Anna, que nos costó Tejas, y otras reformas que adoptaron incluso el nombre de República Mexicana, pero a partir de la constitución de 1857 se retomó el de EUM. La de 1917 reformó a la de 1857, pero mantuvo intocado el nombre oficial de nuestro país.

Saludos


----------



## valegolden

Augusto-Cesar said:


> Mis súbditos:
> 
> Si os fijáis en lo que yo escribí al principio, no tiene nadie que ver con insultar a ningún país ni persona. Más bien fue una aclaración que hizo uno de mis súbditos en una traducción y con la cual yo estoy sumamente _in contra_ porque de hecho, si se utilizace sólo ''América'' para decir ''EE.UU.'' entonces esto ofendería aún a más personas. Una aclaración hecha por mí, Augusto-César Imperator.
> 
> Ego sum qui venit in nomine meum.
> Yo soy el que viene en mi nombre.
> 
> _El próximo que escriba un insulto será condenado a los leones en la arena. _
> 
> Ese es mi edicto final.
> Yo el benévolo, el sabio, el justo, el fiel.
> Augusto-César Imperator





BasedowLives said:


> whenever i am overseas and i tell them i am from the USA, they say, "ooooh americano!". i have never heard a spanish person call me estadounidense. always americano.





toboto said:


> Coming back to translation issues:
> 
> En Estados Unidos es frecuente utilizar *America* para referirse a dicho país y *americans* para denominar a sus ciudadanos. Supongo que es difícil cambiar ese uso tan arraidado allí (en inglés). Pero lo que sí que podemos hacer cuando encontremos un texto de estas características es traducirlo bien, como nuestro excelso emperador sugiere:
> 
> En este contexto, al traducir al español, *America* será Estados Unidos y *americans*, estadounidenses.



En respuesta a éstos y muchos más:

Lo realmente molesto de la denominación "*América*" es que se la conozca internacionalmente como el sinónimo de los "*Estados Unidos*" por el solo hecho que ellos se hacen llamar "los estados unidos de AMÉRICA".
  Si cada nación en este inmenso continente tuviese esa denominación en su nombre sería complicadísimo y completamente en vano (imagínense: "República Argentina de AMÉRICA", "República Oriental del Uruguay de AMÉRICA", "Brasil de AMÉRICA", etc etc...). No tiene sentido. 
  Esa denominación se siente como si estuviese puesta en sentido de pertenencia, de poder, de "cabeza" (jefe, dominante) de un continente.
  Lo lógico sería que se la llame "*Estados Unidos*", "*US*" o "*EEUU*" si se quiere abreviar la referencia a ese país (sobre todo en los medios de comunicación y difusión masiva, especialmente en los escritos, que es de dónde se manipula la cultura, el habla y la información que pueda tener una persona - tema para ser tratado aparte - ) y no "AMÉRICA", así por lo menos las nuevas generaciones aprenden a usar correctamente la denominación para hacer referencia a un continente completo y no excluivamente uno de sus tantos países.
  Para ser más clara, no les resultaría ridículo que se diga "EUROPA" para denominar exlusivamente España, "ASIA" para Rusia, "OCEANÍA" para Australia (otro tema de discusión posterior) o "ÁFRICA" para Sudáfrica???
  Hay que aprender a llamar las cosas por su nombre, y enseñarlo para que no se agudice el problema en tiempos futuros.

Gracias!

Valeria.-


----------



## indigoio

pejeman said:


> En realidad desde el 4 de octubre de 1824 se adoptó el nombre de Estados Unidos Mexicanos, con la interrupción de la república centralista de Santa Anna, que nos costó Tejas, y otras reformas que adoptaron incluso el nombre de República Mexicana, pero a partir de la constitución de 1857 se retomó el de EUM. La de 1917 reformó a la de 1857, pero mantuvo intocado el nombre oficial de nuestro país.
> 
> Saludos



Gracias por la precisión, Peje 

Que tengas buen día


----------



## Namakemono

Que los estadounidenses digan que ellos solos son América está tan mal como que los hispanos digan que solo ellos son latinos.


----------



## Tsoman

To me at least, America means the united states.

we say The Americas to refer to both continents 

This is a common way of saying it. Our country has an awkward name, so forgive us. I personally don't think it's a big deal at all.


----------



## ROSANGELUS

Sr.INDIGOIO.
Gracias por recomendarme leer este hilo. fue muy interesante, pero prefiero no opinar la verdad me parece que ha sido un tema bastante polémico.. prefiero omitir mi opinion al respecto , aunque estoy de acuerdo con GDIAZ, y a la vez pienso que ABB esta siendo muy radical , se sobreentiende que cuando mencionamos a los EEUU, nos referimos al "Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de Norte America" y no al Glorioso y Valeroso pueblo de Estados Unidos, y no veo nada malo en opinar sobre algo que es simplemente realidad, y los profesores,con mucho respeto a ellos, no deberian sentirse aludidos.

RM!!!


----------



## Juliomelecio

Disculpenme por llegar tarde.
*Comentario*:
Yo creo que la confusion es mas de tipo gramatical que de otra cosa en el sentido de que una palabra puede tener mas de un significado y eso no crea ningun problema al momento de usarse, que es cuando sabemos a lo que se refiere.
*Argumento*:
Existen los Estados Unidos de Mexico, y los habitantes son mexicanos. En una ocasion Venezuela se llamo Estados Unidos de Venezuela y sus habitantes son venezolanos. Entonces los nacidos en Estados Unidos de America, son americanos. Cual es el problema?
Yo creo que en cualquier parte del mundo, algun pais podria llamarse America, aun cuando este situado en Africa. La utilizacion de un nombre para alguna persona o lugar no lo hace exclusivo. 
Ellos en su pais dicen America, somos los extrajeros de ese pais los que decimos Estados Unidos como frase corta para refernos a el y del mismo modos asociamos la nacionalidad como estadounidenses. Entonces los mexicanos tambien son estadounidenses.
Aqui en Venezuela tenemos cuatro (4) estados cuyas capitales tienen el mismo nombre, a saber, Estado Bolivar y capital C. Bolivar, , Estado Trujillo y capital Trujillo, Estado Barinas con capital c. Barinas y Estado Merida y capital Merida. En este estado existe ciudad Bailadores, pero sus habitantes tambien son Merideños.
*Conclusion*: 
Los nacidos en Estados Unidos de America son americanos, ya que America es el pais y no tiene nada que ver con el continente tambien se llame America..

P.D. Perdonen los acentos, pero estoy escribiendo desde un teclado ingles.
Saludos cordiales


----------



## Reina140

Threads like this will never cease to exist, sadly. The fact of the matter is, you can't change the past.

We will always be the "United States of America" And for all Americans, the rest of the world is always going to be on our shirt tails insulting us. You want us to change our name, but yet you call us what you want in spanish, whether we like or not, and somehow feel the need to tell us HOW we should call ourselves in our OWN language.

I'm not even sure why I'm responding here and I'm sure soon enough this thread will be closed like all the other threads exactly like this one.

Everyone should get over it! This country had it's name WAY before any one of us existed. And the fact of the matter is you're barking up the wrong tree. So save your breath, or maybe you should start a petition.


----------



## caballoschica

América, en teoría, significa América del Norte, América Central y América del Sur.  Mi profesor de historia del mundo no le gusta "América" como un nombre solo por los EEUU.  Pero, los EEUU son el solo país que tiene América en su nombre y creo que la mayoría de la gente del mundo lo entiende.  "United Statesians" es muy....largo y raro. Es más facil decir "americanos".


----------



## María Archs

Yo voto porque en USA se haga un referendum y al país le cambien el nombre porque USA tiene otros estados que no pertenecen al continente americano como puede ser Hawaii. Sinceramente pienso pusieron ese nombre en el pasado por un mero sentimiento imperialista de expansión y que toda América, de norte a sur, fuera una confederación en el futuro. Menos mal eso no pasó porque la centralización da muchos quebraderos de cabeza.
Europa se disgrega. Los paises se dividen en comunidades para descentralizar el poder y mira por dónde, existen países que desean anexionarse a USA. Hoy por hoy, no sé todavía muy bien si Puerto Rico es un país independiente o un estado más de USA. 
Ayer mismo se reconoció en la Unión Europea al irlandés, el rumano, el ruso y otros idiomas como lenguas oficiales de la Comunidad Europea con la entrada de nuevos miembros. Y yo me pregunto... ¿Por qué no existen en USA otras lenguas oficiales aparte del inglés? 
En cuanto a España decimos Estados Unidos, refieriéndonos al país, y a los nacidos o los que viven allí americanos. ¿Por qué? Porque ellos mismos dicen "I´m American". Y como decía mi abuela: Está bien dicho, si está bien comprendido. 
No comprendo porque suscita tanto escarnio entre los habitantes de todo el continente americano. A mí no me molesta que digan que hablo español cuando en realidad estoy hablando castellano.
Un saludo a todos y Feliz Año Nuevo!!!

María


----------



## ziu

María Archs said:


> ¿Por qué no existen en USA otras lenguas oficiales aparte del inglés?


Hola. No existe ninguna lengua oficial en Estados Unidos.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

A citizen of the USA is called an American, that's it. Hopefully, all this United Stater/Statesian rubbish will stay on internet forums. Excluding the USA, there is no such thing as _America. _There are only the continents of North and South America. Thus, it would be incorrect to call an Argentine an American. They're South Americans. So, if you feel excluded, boo-hoo. Worry about more important things. It's political correctness gone mental.


----------



## SADACA

That´s it!!
Mas claro imposible
Y como él dice, eso no lo cambiará nadie... a otra cosa... mariposa!!


----------



## fuerademitierra

SADACA said:


> That´s it!!
> Mas claro imposible
> Y como él dice, eso no lo cambiará nadie... a otra cosa... mariposa!!


 

Bien dicho SADACA, porque esto se ha convertido en la discusion del nunca acabar.


----------



## ziu

A mí me parece una actitud bastante arrogante querer cambiar el significado de una palabra (que lleva siglos con ese significado) en un idioma extranjero simplemente porque no te guste. Mejor dedicarse a otra cosa, sí.


----------



## kurumin

no Brasil, _América = EUA_

adjetivo: americano

(estadunidense existe, mas é pouco usado, só na língua muito formal)


----------



## chics

Augusto-Cesar said:


> Mis queridos súbditos:
> 
> Uno de mis esclavos anglosajones insiste que se traduzca la frase “America’s Best Offer” por “La mejor oferta de América”. Mi veredicto es este, “América” no solamente es los EE.UU. sino que también empieza desde Alaska hasta la Patagonia. Por lo tanto, “La mejor oferta del país” es lo correcto. ¿Desde cuándo “América” significa “Estados Unidos” en español?
> 
> Lo peor del caso es que algunos de mis súbditos de Gallia, Hispania e Italia y otros, dicen ''America'' cuando hablan de los EE.UU. ¡Qué horror!
> 
> Insisto en que no se diga ni traduzca “America” para decir los EE.UU. ya que existen tantos otros países que forman parte de “América”. ¿Alguien está de acuerdo?
> 
> Caesar vos saluta!
> 
> Augustus-CÉSAR IMPERATOR


 
Pero él propone una traducción literal ¿por qué quieres cambiar la zona? ¿O es que en EEUU cuando se dice "America" significa sólo "EEUU"? ¿Cómo se refieren al continente entonces?


----------



## cuchuflete

chics said:


> Pero él propone una traducción literal ¿por qué quieres cambiar la zona? ¿O es que en EEUU cuando se dice "America" significa sólo "EEUU"? ¿Cómo se refieren al continente entonces?



Puedes encontrar las respuestas en las tres o cuatro primeras páginas de este hilo.


----------



## chics

cuchuflete said:


> Puedes encontrar las respuestas en las tres o cuatro primeras páginas de este hilo.


 
Sí, las he visto. Quiero decir que como traductor tiene que saber a qué se refería el autor y, lingüísticamente, hacer lo mismo. Si ve que el hombre se refiere a un país, pues eso, si otra cosa, pues lo otro.

Luego cada uno puede utilizar las palabras que le plazcan, en cualquier lengua, para referirse a lo que sea. Y tener ideas políticas propias, y que sean distintas a las de otros. Pero no me pareció que para traducir una frase tan corta fuera necesario planterse un problema filosófico y emitir juicios hacia el tipo que la escribió.


----------



## SADACA

De nuevo me vence la tentación, a pesar de que parece evidente que estamos escribiendo en este hilo solo para "autoleernos" sin leer a los demás.
Pero es que me cuesta creer que sea tan difícil entender que "ese" país se llama "Estados Unidos de América" (no Estados Unidos de Norteamérica, ni Estados Unidos, que sería como llamarse República, sin más!!) nos guste o nó y eso no va a cambiar.

Y tambien tenemos "Estados Unidos de Mexico" ¿que hacemos? También estadounidenses?
¿Y a mi? Ni se les ocurra llamarme Republicobolivarianense!
¿Y a los hermanos Uruguayos? Republicoorientalenses??

Ellos son Americanos de los Estados Unidos de América y yo soy Americano del Continente llamado Sur América y con eso me siento tranquilo.

Ahh y tengo amigos Valencianos, de Valencia, España y de Valencia, Estado Carabobo, Venezuela. Y se llevan de bien!!!

Se cansa uno!!!


----------



## HUMBERT0

Pedro y La Torre said:


> A citizen of the USA is called an American, that's it. Hopefully, all this United Stater/Statesian rubbish will stay on internet forums. Excluding the USA, there is no such thing as _America. _There are only the continents of North and South America. Thus, it would be incorrect to call an Argentine an American. They're South Americans. So, if you feel excluded, boo-hoo. Worry about more important things. It's political correctness gone mental.


However, not everybody is taught that there’s two continents. I learned at school the existence of five continents in addition of the uninhabited Antarctica, this being Africa, Asia, America, Europe and Oceania, thus we think of all people in this continent to be Americans (not Europeans, Asians, etc.). And I sometimes call our neighbors Americans, referring only to their nationality.
So to me, when I hear American depending on context, it can be the inhabitants of the neighboring country or in a larger context an inhabitant of this continent.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

HUMBERT0 said:


> So to me, when I hear American depending on context, it can be the inhabitants of the neighboring country or in a larger context an inhabitant of this continent.



If you're speaking Spanish, that's fine. However in Western Europe and all English speaking countries there is no such thing as America the continent. There is only North and South America. So, an American is a citizen of the United States. This is the correct way of describing a citizen of the U.S. in English, French, German and most other languages I believe, so that's the way it is.


----------



## Sidjanga

Pedro y La Torre said:


> However in Western Europe and all English speaking countries there is no such thing as America the continent. There is only North and South America. So, an American is a citizen of the United States. This is the correct way of describing a citizen of the U.S. in English, French, German and most other languages I believe, so that's the way it is.


I definitely disagree. 
"Amerika" in German, is of course used to refer to the continent as a whole (and what other word would you suggest?). That some people also use it to refer just to the country that in German is normally just called "USA", is another issue and is definitely way from meaning automatically that "it is (politically) correct" to do so. 
To refer to the citizens of the USA, the "correct" way would be to call them "US-Amerikaner" (US Americans), which is less common than to call their country "USA", and many people do say "Amerikaner" (American(s)), although I don´t think that anyone, investing just 2 seconds of thinking, would be able to say that this is the correct way to do it, because actually, being "American" you can of course be from any country on the whole continent (North or South). A colloquial way in German to call people from the United States of America(*) is the abbreviation "Amis", which is exclusively used in this context and doesn´t leave any doubt.

Well, I don´t know if that´s been a little off topic, as I understand this thread rather discussing the use in Spanish, but I just wanted to rectify this.

Saludos

(*) And even this might be a discussable term, since, if I am not much mistaken, Mexico -officially- is also called "United States" (?)


----------



## mirx

Pedro y La Torre said:


> If you're speaking Spanish, that's fine. However in Western Europe and all English speaking countries there is no such thing as America the continent. There is only North and South America. So, an American is a citizen of the United States. This is the correct way of describing a citizen of the U.S. in English, French, German and most other languages I believe, so that's the way it is.


 

You should investigate a little more before you post something, my friend just told you the way germans refer to americans and The USA, french also has a word for the country and for its inhabitants. If you read this thread from the beginning you'll sure find it. You were right to quote that "you believe", go a few pages back and you'll see that your believes were wrong.

Your reasoning has no foundations. If the continent (or continents) is divided into North and South America, What happens then to Canadians, Alaskans (if such term exists) and Mexicans? Are they not northamericans?

As for the divisiones you mentioned, I was taught that the continent is subdivided not into two but in three regions (not new continents) all of them make a landmass that is called America.

And the term America was coined long before The Unites States were born, it applied to the whole continent, and this was indeed in all languages.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

mirx said:


> You should investigate a little more before you post something, my friend just told you the way germans refer to americans and The USA, french also has a word for the country and for its inhabitants. If you read this thread from the beginning you'll sure find it. You were right to quote that "you believe", go a few pages back and you'll see that your believes were wrong.



Has someone rattled your cage amigo?

In French, America (the country) is referred to "Les États-Unis (d'Amérique)" or less frequently, just "l'Amérique". An american is un(e) américain(e). Now étatsunien exists but I have almost never seen it used.

As for German, that is what the Germans who I went to school with told me. They would always refer to the US as Amerika or the USA, and Americans as Amerikaners, however I don't speak the language and if you say this isn't what they use to refer to the US I accept your correction.



mirx said:


> Your reasoning has no foundations. If the continent (or continents) is divided into North and South America, What happens then to Canadians, Alaskans (if such term exists) and Mexicans? Are they not northamericans?



Of course they are. Have you read what I wrote?  There are two continents NORTH (including Canada and Mexico) and SOUTH America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America

Thus, Canadians and Mexicans are North Americans. But Americans as a term in English refers to citizens of the US. Call a Canadian an American and see what kind of response you get back.



mirx said:


> As for the divisiones you mentioned, I was taught that the continent is subdivided not into two but in three regions (not new continents) all of them make a landmass that is called America.



Well you were taught differently to English-speaking countries. Don't believe me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Number_of_continents



mirx said:


> And the term America was coined long before *t*he Unites *United* States were *was* born founded



Indeed it was. However, in English America refers to the country. As you are taught in English-speaking countries and western Europe as I understand it, there is no such continent as America. Only the America*s *or North and South America*.

*Final point, in the English language, America and Americans refers to citizens of the U.S.A. If you can't accept that or whatever, that's your problem.


----------



## nitro

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Of course they are. Have you read what I wrote?  There are two continents NORTH (including Canada and Mexico) and SOUTH America.
> 
> Thus, Canadians and Mexicans are North Americans.


As well as Costa Ricans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Hondurans, Nicaraguans, Panamanians and Belizeans, because based on the two continent point of vew, all of what is usually referred to as Central America is considered part of the North American continent. Check out the map on the Wiki page you mentioned above.


----------



## Sidjanga

Pedro y La Torre said:


> As you are taught in English-speaking countries and western Europe as I understand it, there is no such continent as America. Only the America*s *or North and South America*.*


As to the (official) use in German (the parts in black are my personal translation from the "Duden", _the _dictionary of reference of the German language):





> America:
> 1. Continent which consist of the (sub)continents North America and South America
> 2. Abbreviation for the United States of America.
> Ame|ri|ka;  -s: 1. aus den Erdteilen Nord- u. Südamerika bestehender Doppelkontinent. 2. kurz für: Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika.
> © Duden - Deutsches Universalwörterbuch 2001


Apart from that, we might just be dealing with different perceptions coined by the respective languages and the understandably different connotations that entails the word America/América/Amerika in each one of them, and it might just be a "false friend". 

Compare: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/America, and at least in this article is said that "América" is traditionally subdivided in North and South America, and that the term "la*s* América*s*", here in Spanish though, is at times also used -but wrongly- to refer to the whole continent/North and South America.

So, in English would "the Americas" be the only correct way -and the only term that cannot be misunderstood- to refer to "the whole continent" (here in red)?

Saludos


----------



## cuchuflete

There are at very least two conversations going on here, and they frequently fly right by one another, without stopping to say "hello".  One conversation is about what words mean, in common usage, in two different languages. That is difficult enough to resolve, especially when it comes to attempting to translate false friends.
The other conversation is about how people feel about their interpretations of the translated terms.  This is particularly vexatious when the translations are erroneous.  Things are further complicated by the polemics about what some people think the terms ought to mean, how they should be changed to conform with a political viewpoint, and what is right and wrong with the geo-political state of the world.

This being a language forum, it might be useful to review the hundreds of posts on this topic in this thread and the other threads dealing with the same topic, and try to establish a few basic points of fact.  After that the other non-linguistic arguments will, no doubt, continue.

I will happily defer to native Spanish speakers to define, yet again, what 'américa' and 'americano' mean in Spanish.  

In English, without regard to the Spanish definitions, America has a number of meanings:

1.  Centuries ago, it was used to name some of the land mass of the western hemisphere.  When all of the land masses of the hemisphere were described, the word was made plural and an article was added-- The Americas.   Over time, and before the existence of the USA as a country, America came to be used to name the European colonies in North America, especially the English speaking colonies.  

2. In recent years, the word America has become a common colloquial name for the United States of America.
It is used more formally in relatively rare settings, such as politicians' speeches.  In both cases, it names a single country.  

3. "The Americas" is used infrequently to name the collective of all the countries of the Western Hemisphere and the land masses on which they sit.

4. Naming conventions for continents differ according to region and culture.  Without any intent to declare one set of naming conventions more right or wrong than another, the common view, as taught in schools in the US, is that there are two continents and three regions in the hemisphere: North and South America are considered continents, and Central America is usually thought and spoken of as a geographic region.  Most people would have trouble deciding if Central America is part of the North American continent or if it is something else.

I don't know for certain how English speaking Canadians use these terms.  I leave it to the native English speaking Europeans to describe what words are used, and how, in BE.  Likewise for Australians, New Zealanders and other native English speakers.

Reading this thread makes it evident that there is not a clean one-to-one correspondence between the usages I've summarized in English, and the common use of what appear to be similar terms in Spanish.   Obviously if
one language perceives a geography as having two or even three continents, and another sees it and names it as a single continent, a translator has to take some care, and not default to a word choice that is quick, easy, and wrong.  America (English) may or may not correspond to América (Spanish).  American may or may not
be the equivalent of americano, depending on the usual culprits--context, intention of the speaker or writer.
If one were to assume a constant, one-to-one relationship between (US English) American and (L.A. Spanish) americano, there would be frequent collisions of disparate meanings.  In short, it would be sloppy translation.

Let's look again at the thread title:  *"América" es más que los EE.UU.
* That's true in Spanish, and the statement is written in Spanish.  I have no grounds to dispute it.  The fun—or the endless argument—begins if one mis-translates that short sentence as "America is more than the U.S."


----------



## Xerinola

Augusto-Cesar said:


> Mis queridos súbditos:
> 
> Uno de mis esclavos anglosajones insiste que se traduzca la frase “America’s Best Offer” por “La mejor oferta de América”. Mi veredicto es este, “América” no solamente es los EE.UU. sino que también empieza desde Alaska hasta la Patagonia. Por lo tanto, “La mejor oferta del país” es lo correcto. ¿Desde cuándo “América” significa “Estados Unidos” en español?
> 
> Lo peor del caso es que algunos de mis súbditos de Gallia, Hispania e Italia y otros, dicen ''America'' cuando hablan de los EE.UU. ¡Qué horror!
> 
> Insisto en que no se diga ni traduzca “America” para decir los EE.UU. ya que existen tantos otros países que forman parte de “América”. ¿Alguien está de acuerdo?
> 
> Caesar vos saluta!
> 
> Augustus-CÉSAR IMPERATOR


 
Hola a todos,
Estoy muy de acuerdo con tu post. Es una gran verdad y dudo que alguien te diga lo contrario.

Saludos,
X:


----------



## Bridgita

These threads just kill me.

As it has been stated in this thread and many others, EE.UU. de México, is called Mexico. . . . No one seems to have a problem with that! I've never in my life heard Mexico being referred to as "the United States." Now, if they don't want to refer to themselves that way, then who are we to tell them to do so . . . .. AND WHO ARE YOU TO TELL US HOW WE SHOULD REFER TO OURSELVES??????? In my personal opinion, this is just another form of* America* Bashin'----The world hates the big powerful UNITED STATES OF *AMERICA*!!! 


*ziu-----*A mí me parece una actitud bastante arrogante querer cambiar el significado de una palabra (que lleva siglos con ese significado) en un idioma extranjero simplemente porque no te guste. Mejor dedicarse a otra cosa, sí.

*Hallelujah!*

*Pedro y La Torre----*A citizen of the USA is called an American, that's it. Hopefully, all this United Stater/Statesian rubbish will stay on internet forums. Excluding the USA, there is no such thing as _America. _There are only the continents of North and South America. Thus, it would be incorrect to call an Argentine an American. They're South Americans. *So, if you feel excluded, boo-hoo.* Worry about more important things. It's political correctness gone mental.


I coincide everything in this statement.

This message has been approved by me, Bridgita, American.


----------



## nitro

Xerinola said:


> Hola a todos,
> Estoy muy de acuerdo con tu post. Es una gran verdad y dudo que alguien te diga lo contrario.
> 
> Saludos,
> X:


Quizás vuestra propia RAE os diga al contrario:

*americano**, na**.*

*4.* adj. *estadounidense.* Apl. a pers., u. t. c. s.

Pero al menos para mí, en español, América = "desde Alaska hasta la Patagonia".

Por otro lado, en inglés, "America" (fíjese, sin tilde) casi siempre se refiere al país que se llama oficialmente "The United States of America".

Os guste o no, en nuestro idioma (el inglés) es asi desde hace mucho tiempo, y dudo que vaya a cambiar nunca... tampoco tiene por qué cambiarse.


----------



## Thomsen

Sigianga said:


> So, in English would "the Americas" be the only correct way -and the only term that cannot be misunderstood- to refer to "the whole continent" (here in red)?
> 
> Saludos


 
Also commonly referred to as the Western Hemisphere ie western half of the Globe.

No debe ser esto un hilo dentro del foro ES/EN?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Sigianga said:


> So, in English would "the Americas" be the only correct way -and the only term that cannot be misunderstood- to refer to "the whole continent" (here in red)?
> 
> Saludos



I believe so. As one is taught there are two landmasses, North and South America. Thus the _Americas_ describes both together.

Now of course different languages have different means of referring to the U.S. and America etc. However to me it seems to be a more colonial thing with Spanish. One can see (as was mentioned earlier in this thread) that the Brazilians and Portugese _mostly_ refer to Americans as _americanos _the same as the French etc. It seems then that Spanish speakers refuse to do the same as they also colonized the continent(s) and thus feel this definition is pushing them aside a little.

Now if one is speaking Spanish fine, then we should obviously abide by their definitions however I certainly disagree that English should change their means of referencing simply because some Spanish speakers dislike it. 

An American is a citizen of the U.S. in English that's the way it is and was. If you don't like it well, tough.


----------



## mirx

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Has someone rattled your cage amigo?


Has someone rattled yours, Paddy?


> In French, America (the country) is referred to "Les États-Unis (d'Amérique)" or less frequently, just "l'Amérique". An american is un(e) américain(e). Now étatsunien exists but I have almost never seen it used.


Thank you for taking the time to read the thread.



> As for German, that is what the Germans who I went to school with told me. They would always refer to the US as Amerika or the USA, and Americans as Amerikaners, however I don't speak the language and if you say this isn't what they use to refer to the US I accept your correction.


I didn't correct anything, it's just something the germans said themselves.



> Of course they are. Have you read what I wrote?  There are two continents NORTH (including Canada and Mexico) and SOUTH America.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America


Do not need no wikipidia this time, I know there are different ways of teaching, however, what surprises me is that in "the english speaking world" there are incongruencies. Some call the continent America, others the Americas



> Thus, Canadians and Mexicans are North Americans. But Americans as a term in English refers to citizens of the US. Call a Canadian an American and see what kind of response you get back.


 
I am too frightened to do it.



> Well you were taught differently to English-speaking countries. Don't believe me?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Number_of_continents


I do believe you and some of the guys who have already said the same thing throughout the whole thread. And that's not my point anyways, I was just trying to show you how shallow it would be to make such statements based on what we are taught in schools.




> Indeed it was. However, in English America refers to the country. As you are taught in English-speaking countries and western Europe as I understand it, there is no such continent as America. Only the America*s *or North and South America*.*
> 
> Final point, in the English language, America and Americans refers to citizens of the U.S.A. If you can't accept that or whatever, that's your problem.


 
I have no problem whatsoever, like an american said herself. "Anyways, you call us whatever you want". I am afraid that (that) is true. Again I was just pointing out how irrational your comments are, even more so now that I know your primary source is wikipedia, which by the way, also has an article for America as a continent. Yes, the article is in english. And if I recall well. The main entry in the other article goes "The Americas or America as it is sometimes...."

And last, If we were to be as radical as you seem to be giving "Final points". Then my final point is that your "Final point" doesn't fit here (honestly, read the thread!) and it wouldn't suit anyways. Because, final point, the thread's title is in spanish and it was originally meant to be discussed what spanish-speaking people thought about it. Your conclusion is correct though, it just doesn't belong to this thread. 

Saludos.


----------



## don maico

Bridgita said:


> These threads just kill me.
> 
> As it has been stated in this thread and many others, EE.UU. de México, is called Mexico. . . . No one seems to have a problem with that! I've never in my life heard Mexico being referred to as "the United States." Now, if they don't want to refer to themselves that way, then who are we to tell them to do so . . . .. AND WHO ARE YOU TO TELL US HOW WE SHOULD REFER TO OURSELVES??????? In my personal opinion, this is just another form of* America* Bashin'----The world hates the big powerful UNITED STATES OF *AMERICA*!!!
> 
> 
> *ziu-----*A mí me parece una actitud bastante arrogante querer cambiar el significado de una palabra (que lleva siglos con ese significado) en un idioma extranjero simplemente porque no te guste. Mejor dedicarse a otra cosa, sí.
> 
> *Hallelujah!*
> 
> *Pedro y La Torre----*A citizen of the USA is called an American, that's it. Hopefully, all this United Stater/Statesian rubbish will stay on internet forums. Excluding the USA, there is no such thing as _America. _There are only the continents of North and South America. Thus, it would be incorrect to call an Argentine an American. They're South Americans. *So, if you feel excluded, boo-hoo.* Worry about more important things. It's political correctness gone mental.
> 
> 
> I coincide everything in this statement.
> 
> This message has been approved by me, Bridgita, American.



Well you have southern Europe and northern Europe but we are all Europeans ,so by the same token all people from South America and North America are Americans. Simple logic! The people from the USA are = US citizens.( or "Yanks" if you prefer the coloqiual term) To be honest Brits refer to you people as Americans as well.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

mirx said:


> Do not need no wikipidia this time, I know there are different ways of teaching, however, what surprises me is that in "the english speaking world" there are incongruencies. Some call the continent America, others the Americas



No, the continents are known as the *Americas. *I'd also advise to you to not use words you do not understand. The way English speakers refer to the Americas is perfectly consitent with what they are taught in school.



mirx said:


> I am too frightened to do it.



Why? Because you realize they are Canadians and not Americans?



mirx said:


> I do believe you and some of the guys who have already said the same thing throughout the whole thread. And that's not my point anyways, I was just trying to show you how shallow it would be to make such statements based on what we are taught in schools.



I don't really understand what you're saying here. How is it _shallow _to apply the principles that one is taught.  In English America refers to the country while the Americas refer to the two continents.




mirx said:


> I have no problem whatsoever, like an american said herself. "Anyways, you call us whatever you want". I am afraid that (that) is true. Again I was just pointing out how irrational your comments are



I fail to see how referring to a country as it is known in its own language is irrational. Do you understand the meaning of the word?

In fact what seems irrational to me is trying to force people to refer to their own country in their own language by another name simply because you dislike it.



mirx said:


> even more so now that I know your primary source is wikipedia, which by the way



You know this for a fact do you? I didn't know we had a clairvoyant posting. I use Wikipedia links as it's the easiest to provide however I can furnish you with others if you wish.



mirx said:


> And last, If we were to be as radical as you seem to be giving "Final points". Then my final point is that your "Final point" doesn't fit here (hoestly, read the thread!) and it wouldn't suit anyways. Because, final point, the thread's title is in spanish and it was originally meant to be discussed what spanish-speaking people thought about it. Your conclusion is correct though, it just doesn't belong to this thread.



Again Spanish speakers should refer to the US however they want, it is their language and absolutely no-one should have the right to tell them what to call countries in their language.

Now start by showing some tolerance and let that principle apply to other languages as well.


----------



## mirx

Pedro y La Torre said:


> No, the continents are known as the *Americas. *I'd also advise to you to not use words you do not understand. The way English speakers refer to the Americas is perfectly consitent with what they are taught in school.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Because you realize they are Canadians and not Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really understand what you're saying here. How is it _shallow _to apply the principles that one is taught. In English America refers to the country while the Americas refer to the two continents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fail to see how referring to a country as it is known in its own language is irrational. Do you understand the meaning of the word?
> 
> In fact what seems irrational to me is trying to force people to refer to their own country in their own language by another name simply because you dislike it.
> 
> 
> 
> You know this for a fact do you? I didn't know we had a clairvoyant posting. I use Wikipedia links as it's the easiest to provide however I can furnish you with others if you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> Again Spanish speakers should refer to the US however they want, it is their language and absolutely no-one should have the right to tell them what to call countries in their language.
> 
> Now start by showing some tolerance and let that principle apply to other languages as well.


 

Please read this thread thoroughly, you will find many people from english speaking countries who have been taught both America(some) and Americas (many more) to refer to The continent(s). Also *go back to your wikipedia* and you'll also find the link I told you about. "...The Americas or America as it is sometimes defined..."
It is foolish and shallow to take as "divine truth" what we've been taught in school, even in the same countries things will vary from educator to educator
*I couldn't care less what unidestasians call their country or themselves*, we -in all languages, even in english- call them different things. It's funny though, that is by far foreigners who refer to The USA as America, most Americans would simply say that they are from "the States", or more likely they would just mention their home state.

I don't agree or disagree on whether americans stole the name or the whole continent or continents (or either way you prefer) are trying to steal it from "America".

I just wanted to point out, how radical and , yes, irrational your comments were in the first post.

*I will not reply to any more of your posts,* it would only add to the long list that makes up this thread and I have already expressed what I meant to say.

Thank you very much. And for the thousandth time, please do *read the thread*!!! You'll be surprsised to know that *everything you said had already been said before*.

PS: I am afraid to ask a Canadian because I may get a punch in the face.


----------



## FlorenceC140

I don't understand why threads like this continue to resurface.

*MIRX* -----PS: I am afraid to ask a Canadian because I may get a punch in the face.
(Real cute there Mirx)

What's the real logic here? Saying that the US "stole" the name from the continent is retarded. That's like saying that New York City stole the name of the state and all the other parts of New York should be mad!! We also have "Panama City, FL" . . . Where are all of our pissed off Panameños at? It was merely a case of pride. The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! The states that united on the land mass named "America"----This thread, like others, mentions how Mexico has the same title and no one objects to calling it "Mexico," or how about Brazil? NOPE, no one cares . . . all they care about is complaining about the "US."

And NO Don Maico---I don't want to be called a YANK. I've never been called a YANK in my life----We don't call ourselves that here (It's just a baseball team), but you can and WILL call us whatever you wish, that's your right! Just as it's my right to call myself "AMERICAN" and not because I live in North America, but because I am from the United States of AMERICA. I didn't stand up every morning in school with my hand over my heart saying "I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of AMERICA" for nothing. This is my home, my heart, my land . . . my AMERICA. 

If there's anything you know about the USA, we have a lot of Pride---In fact, I'm running low on toilet paper, so I just may have to print off this thread. That's what I think about it. It's stupid and dumb. Anywhere in the world if you say you're "American" they will automatically assume you are an American, an American from the United States, and no amount of threads is going to change that. So Good Luck with your pettiness and I hope you find resolution!


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

mirx said:


> Please read this thread thoroughly, you will find many people from english speaking countries who have been taught both America(some) and Americas (many more) to refer to The continent(s).



I'm not saying one view is right or wrong. I'm pointing out to you that this is the way they are taught thus it is the way they refer to their country. Why should Spanish speakers or anyone else define how someone calls their country *in their own language*. If you view the continents as North and South America then the correct way to group them is the _Americas_, plural. This is a simple fact. I could call Mexico, _New Spain_ but that would not make it right.



mirx said:


> I couldn't care less what unidestasians call their country or themselves, we -in all languages, even in english- call them different things. It's funny though, that is by far foreigners who refer to The USA as America, most Americans would simply say that they are from "the States", or more likely they would just mention their home state.



I've no idea what a unidestansian is but any Americans I have met have say they are from America, the U.S., or the USA. All three terms are used concurrently.

For instance, Hilary Clinton has just launched a campaign with Bold Leadership for a stronger *America.

*http://votehillary.org/



mirx said:


> Thank you very much. And for the thousandth time, please do *read the thread*!!! You'll be surprsised to know that *everything you said had already been said before*.



I see you've been editing your posts. OK I'll try and make this clear to you ONCE AND FOR ALL.

I have read the thread but your unfortunate obstinance is seemingly rendering you incapable of understanding what is being made clear to you. *The Americans on this thread are making it obvious how they refer to themselves, why don't you listen.*

Read and try to take it in this time:



FlorenceC140 said:


> If there's anything you know about the USA, we have a lot of Pride---In fact, I'm running low on toilet paper, so I just may have to print off this thread. That's what I think about it. It's stupid and dumb. Anywhere in the world if you say you're "American" they will automatically assume you are an American, an American from the United States, and no amount of threads is going to change that. So Good Luck with your pettiness and I hope you find resolution!





FlorenceC140 said:


> I don't understand why threads like this continue to resurface.



Agreed.


----------



## ireney

Terms terms terms! 

Let's see: Hellas is usually referred to as Greece and we call France Gallia, Switzerland Helvetia etc.
Are they misnomers? Yep  No one seems to make a fuss though.

Greeks, as many, many others, have the bad habit of referring to Britain as England (Anglia to be exact ). I know Scots and Welsh don't like it all that much and for good reason but I still have to see a thread on the matter.

We also refer to the land mass across the Atlantic ocean as the American Continent but when talking about an American we refer to a citizen of the USA. When "American" is used as an adjective it can mean either "of the USA" (which we often call by it's translated initials" or "of the American continent". 
That does not mean that we are unaware that, according to our definition, Canadians and/or Brazilians are  Americans too (the same way we are Europeans). 
Mind you, another gross misnomer when I was a kid was "Latin America" as a synonym for South America, which left a lot of us puzzled about Central America   Don't ask me what the kids are now taught, I just hope they've changed terminology. Even if they haven't though I am confident that these kids,  as my and the previous generations, we'll soon discover that naming conventions are just that.
The only thing I want to say about subdivision is the following: Europe is divided to North Central and South, West and East  And to think that Europe is not geographically a continent really


----------



## HUMBERT0

Pedro y La Torre said:


> If you're speaking Spanish, that's fine. However in Western Europe and all English speaking countries there is no such thing as America the continent.


Yes I meant Spanish, so thank God I live in the right country and speak the right language, were we are still consider a part of "El continente Americano"  , even though a few yards up north it would be different, got it! different language, different culture, to each their own, no big deal.


Y para responder la pregunta inicial, sí, ¡más claro ni el agua!. Como ya se dijo reiteradamente, en nuestro idioma su significado no se limita sólo para nombrar un país sino támbien a un continente, sin menoscabo a lo que pueda significar en otros idiomas o paises, claro esta.


----------



## Tochi

Originally Posted by Pedro y La Torre  
<<If you're speaking Spanish, that's fine. However in Western Europe and all English speaking countries there is no such thing as America the continent.>>

I have to disagree here too. I've talked with Germans and Fhenchmen who call America to the whole mass. 

<<In French, America (the country) is referred to "Les États-Unis (d'Amérique)" or less frequently, just "l'Amérique".>>

Again, have to disagree, just a little example from Wikipedia

"L' espagnol, ou castillan, est la langue romane commune de l'Espagne et de nombreuses => nations d'Amerique <=, ainsi que d'autres territoires dans le mond"

You must not generalize because somebody calls it differently as I must not. But anyway they are not Americans in any way, why should they concern about it ?

Originally Posted by nitro
"Thus, Canadians and Mexicans are North Americans. 
As well as Costa Ricans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Hondurans, Nicaraguans, Panamanians and Belizeans, because based on the two continent point of vew, all of what is usually referred to as Central America is considered part of the North American continent."

I'm Costa Rican and I can assure you that I'm not a North American, never nobody has called us that way and I think it won't be a good idea unless you want to see a big smiley face. 

As I always insist about this topic, the concepts used by English speakers are inconsistent under the two continents concept like when you use 'North America' and 'Central America' since 'Central America' should be in the center of the U.S. not at south of North America.(???)

By the way, I hope this thread isn't closed as usually happens to this topic.


----------



## cuchuflete

As always, or as frequently as one likes, one can try to comment on what a language "ought to do" in accord with consistency.  That's a fine little tail-chasing exercise.  Languages do not obey rules for the sake of consistency.
Why do native Spanish speakers consistently disagree about the name of their own language?  English consistently calls the language "Spanish", while there is blood on the floor every time someone opens a thread to inquire about whether the "proper" or "correct" name of the language is castellano or español.   

If consistency and logic are the holy grail, then I suppose the DRAE should consistently indicate which one of the many definitions it gives for a word is logical, consistent, and therefore correct, and make a disparaging remark about all the many other usages.   

I will happily agree with Tochi that there are logical inconsistencies about many English usages.  And then I might add, "So what?"


----------



## HUMBERT0

Tochi said:


> Originally Posted by Pedro y La Torre
> As I always insist about this topic, the concepts used by English speakers are inconsistent under the two continents concept like when you use 'North America' and 'Central America' since 'Central America' should be in the center of the U.S. not at south of North America.(???)


Your comment is funny, how can you guys be in the central part of an un-existing continent "American Continent"? Is Central America geographically ambiguous? But then again, So what? Don't worry your still a part of Central America... he he he.


----------



## cuchuflete

If English were consistent, there would be a region called Central Dakota, occupying the southernmost portion of North Dakota.  But, as an inconsistent language, it provides for only North Dakota and South Dakota, and Dakota is the name of a tribe of autochthonous people,  not _American _*Indians.  *


----------



## Tochi

Hi Cuchuflete, here we go again, hehehe. Just one last thing.

<<Why do native Spanish speakers consistently disagree about the name of their own language? English consistently calls the language "Spanish", while there is blood on the floor every time someone opens a thread to inquire about whether the "proper" or "correct" name of the language is castellano or español.>>

Well, the answer is way easy and maybe it'll help you all to understand my and others' point. As to the 'Español' or 'Castellano' thing I'm glad you mentioned it. I don't think that's as much as "blood on the floor", personally I don't care the way somebody could call the language and for me and many others both terms are synonymous, but the essence of all this matter lies on the fact that the way our language is called concerns (if somebody cares), only and exclusively to Spanish or Castillian speakers, no more no less. Don't misunderstand me, I mean in the sense that we are the ones who speak it as natives. In the case of the term 'America' and all the variants, derivations or branches around it, concern to a lot of nationalities and speakers of more than one language. Nobody should "own" what has belonged to many for centuries because there is no more alternatives for the rest. I understand the matter of conventions and all that but this term is not as simple as any other, it implies much much more otherwise this discussion never would happen.

Absolutely nobody in Central America consider him/herself a North American, sorry but the idea is absolutely laughable for the reason I mentioned before, we live in the central part of America, we are 'Central Americans' and then we can't be part of a northern continent since, I repeat it, we are already in the center of one. Sincerely I don't believe that Canadians, estadounidenses or, much less, Mexicans  think that way about us no matter if any of them follows and quotes the English dictionary definition. I think that even the term 'North American' has stuck among English and Spanish speakers almost as much as 'America' to define the U.S. people. An European in a continental level will be always that, the same about Africans, but about us then ¿ what are we ?

I think I said all what I wanted to say and to say more is to redound and for this forum's sake I won't comment more about it. Thanks for the chance.

Best regards.


----------



## chime

Tochi said:


> An European in a continental level will be always that, the same about Africans, but about us then ¿ what are we ?


By "Africans", I guess you mean "South-western Euroafroasians", seeing as Africa is joined by land to Asia, which is joined by land to Europe (similar to North and South America), so I guess that Euroafroasia is one continent to you.
Personally speaking, I think it's a kind of pointless argument. There is land and sea, and anything else is just stuff we have given a name to (different names according to our different respective languages <<that being the key point I think).


----------



## HUMBERT0

chime said:


> By "Africans", I guess you mean "South-western Euroafroasians", seeing as Africa is joined by land to Asia, which is joined by land to Europe (similar to North and South America), so I guess that Euroafroasia is one continent to you.
> Personally speaking, I think it's a kind of pointless argument. There is land and sea, and anything else is just stuff we have given a name to (different names according to our different respective languages <<that being the key point I think).


Are we only talking about land masses? 
The American nations born out of the Spanish colonial era, stretch continuous from the north of the continent, from Alta California to the most southern part of America, that’s all the way to Tierra del fuego. We don’t see our Spanish-American culture (born mainly of intermarriage of Native Americans, Africans, Spaniards, other Europeans) circumscribed to one foothold, but a common culture that has flourish across now different countries, manifesting in diverse ways long and wide, over this great continent.

And yes, almost two centuries have past since we were a single immense land, part of one great Spanish Empire, nevertheless the vantage point gained of one culture across the vastness of the continent did permeated into our language.
 
I don’t want to romanticize it to much, it wasn’t perfect, otherwise independence wouldn’t have being sought by the colonies. And even though we have a common culture, history, etc. we weren’t able to form a single nation, and thus far political unity has never being achieved.
My point is, we know we have the same heritage through large parts of this continent, even though we have developed different nationalities, with all of what that entitles. We are Americans born in this continent, and of one unifying Spanish/Iberian culture I say, such a heritage we’ll try to maintain. 

Just as you point out, it isn’t only about geography. I think culture, history, language, etc. have influence how groups of peoples see them selves in contrast to others.


----------



## mplsray

Tochi said:


> I think that even the term 'North American' has stuck among English and Spanish speakers almost as much as 'America' to define the U.S. people.


 
That sense of _North American_ has been used somewhere, sometime, since _Webster's Third New International Dictionary,_ Unabridged, gives it as the second definition--identifying it as a translation of Spanish _norteamericano--_but it must be an exceedingly rare usage. I would expect most US citizens, if they were to use that concept when speaking English, to use the Spanish word itself rather than the translation. In the original and still usual meaning of _North American,_ Mexicans are just as much North Americans as are Canadians.


----------



## Cache

Unfortunately, when someone says "America", others assume she or he is talking about USA. This must be related to the cultural power USA had due to its multiculturalism, economic growth and political influence during the 20th century. You have to consider that USA was the most dominant country, although now its power is divided in many nations and USA realised all the world, including them, is unsafe. I've heard a phrase that completely shocked me, it said: "After being attacked in 2001, USA's society realised they also could be the target for terrorist attacks".


----------



## cuchuflete

Cache said:


> *Unfortunately,* when someone says "America", others assume she or he is talking about USA. This must be related to the cultural power USA had due to its multiculturalism, economic growth and political influence during the 20th century. You have to consider that USA was the most dominant country, although now its power is divided in many nations and USA realised all the world, including them, is unsafe. I've heard a phrase that completely shocked me, it said: "After being attacked in 2001, USA's society realised they also could be the target for terrorist attacks".



Finally, an honest statement not pretending to be about etymology, linguistics, usage or geography!

Thank you for that Cache.  That is what most of this thread has been about...the simple fact
that some people would prefer that, for a long string of reasons, the word, as used by native English speakers and others, would have a different meaning.  But it means to both speakers and listeners and readers what they understand it to mean.   Cache has been straightforward and honest in characterizing that state of affairs as, in his view, "unfortunate".  Others may agree or disagree.  

My keyboard lacks a "does not equal" symbol, but if I had one of these "=" with a diagonal line through it, I would use it in big bold letters to write, América (español) NOT=America (English).
They are two entirely distinct words, and they have meaning*s *that sometimes overlap, and sometimes do not.   Whenever someone tries to do a poor job of translating, and force them into being artificial equivalents, all the social, political, anthropological, geographic and emotional dissonance bubbles up again.

For me there is nothing 'unfortunate' about a word meaning what a word means.  As a student of language, I like it when a word communicates clearly and unambiguously.  If I dislike the thing a word stands for, or the way that word came into popular use, that doesn't make the word bad, erroneous or ambiguous.  It certainly doesn't make the word "wrong", because one or one hundred million people would prefer that it be replaced, for whatever collection of reasons they may have.


----------



## Cache

yes!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is the first time Cuchuflete have agreed with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!


yeah!!!!!!!!  


Seriously, I said unfortunately since that's the real truth. The other day, a political analyst said Mexico and Brazil were the only two countries who have influence in America but they are not economically well now. She concluded saying USA was the only strong country in America (I do not know why she did not mention Canada  ). This is *truth*, I am Argentinian and do not care if someone says Argentina is poor and underdevelopment because that's what happens.


----------



## mplsray

cuchuflete said:


> Finally, an honest statement not pretending to be about etymology, linguistics, usage or geography!
> 
> Thank you for that Cache. That is what most of this thread has been about...the simple fact
> that some people would prefer that, for a long string of reasons, the word, as used by native English speakers and others, would have a different meaning. But it means to both speakers and listeners and readers what they understand it to mean. Cache has been straightforward and honest in characterizing that state of affairs as, in his view, "unfortunate". Others may agree or disagree.
> 
> My keyboard lacks a "does not equal" symbol, but if I had one of these "=" with a diagonal line through it, I would use it in big bold letters to write, américa (español) NOT=America (English).


 
The "does not equal symbol" can be made in this forum by using an ampersand followed by a number sign (hash sign) followed by 8800 followed by a semicolon: ≠

I got the idea that might work from reading this. That page mentions three ways of making the "does not equal sign" in ASCII text: <>, !=, and =/=.



> They are two entirely distinct words, and they have meaning*s *that sometimes overlap, and sometimes do not. Whenever someone tries to do a poor job of translating, and force them into being artificial equivalents, all the social, political, anthropological, geographic and emotional dissonance bubbles up again.
> 
> For me there is nothing 'unfortunate' about a word meaning what a word means. As a student of language, I like it when a word communicates clearly and unambiguously. If I dislike the thing a word stands for, or the way that word came into popular use, that doesn't make the word bad, erroneous or ambiguous. It certainly doesn't make the word "wrong", because one or one hundred million people would prefer that it be replaced, for whatever collection of reasons they may have.


 
A friend of mine, an American fellow-Esperantist, doesn't care for the term _Usono_ for the US, preferring _Ameriko._ But in Esperantujo (Esperantoland), _Usono_ is _the_ term for the US, and _Usonano_ is _the_ term for a citizen of the US. When in Rome...


----------



## cuchuflete

Thanks Mplsray,

As a Mac user, I opened Character Palette, so I just click on this: ≠

Thanks for motivating me to find it.  ≈≠⇔≅


----------



## Sidjanga

Me sorprende mucho y casi me choca lo mucho que la gente usa por acá (Montevideo, no sé qué tal en el resto de la zona) el término _americano_ (como sustantivo o adjetivo) para referirse a los estadounidenses y cosas que proceden de o están relacionados con los EE.UU.


----------



## ValenciaSon

Nos llamamos Americanos en el EEUU porque tenemos la palabra "America" en nuestro nombre. 




Augusto-Cesar said:


> Mis queridos súbditos:
> 
> Uno de mis esclavos anglosajones insiste que se traduzca la frase “America’s Best Offer” por “La mejor oferta de América”. Mi veredicto es este, “América” no solamente es los EE.UU. sino que también empieza desde Alaska hasta la Patagonia. Por lo tanto, “La mejor oferta del país” es lo correcto. ¿Desde cuándo “América” significa “Estados Unidos” en español?
> 
> Lo peor del caso es que algunos de mis súbditos de Gallia, Hispania e Italia y otros, dicen ''America'' cuando hablan de los EE.UU. ¡Qué horror!
> 
> Insisto en que no se diga ni traduzca “America” para decir los EE.UU. ya que existen tantos otros países que forman parte de “América”. ¿Alguien está de acuerdo?
> 
> Caesar vos saluta!
> 
> Augustus-CÉSAR IMPERATOR


----------



## SADACA

¿Por favor podría alguien rellenar los siguientes espacios en blanco?

United States of  ____________

Estados Unidos de ___________

No el nombre que se le ocurra sino el nombre OFICIAL del país de los United Statians (supongo que es el nombre que algunos quieren aplicarles)

Saludos de este Republico Socialisto Bolivarianense


----------



## kdl77

I know that it is wrong, but in Italy we often refer to U.S.A. as to America, forgetting the real meaning of the world. It happens most of the times with adjectives: "americano" is a perfect synonym of "coming/tipical of USA".


----------



## on a rose

I agree. Unfortunately, "The United States of America" is a bit of an awkward name from which to derive an adjective or noun (unlike Columbia --> Columbian; Canada --> Canadian). While it works in Spanish ("estadounidense"), for whatever regrettable reason this has not occurred in English (although I would absolutely prefer "United Statian"!). I do not believe any of us is feeling superior or ethnocentric. It is simply the way our multi-word country name has been converted into an adjective. 

I wish people would stop being so offended by it--it's not a choice, it's just how language has formulated. In fact, those of you non-"statians" who also live on the American continent should consider yourselves lucky that you get to not only call yourselves the proper name of your own countries (Venezuelan, Argentinian, Guatamalan, etc), but ALSO American! That gives you TWO ethnic identities to call yourselves...and we only get one, which we have to share with everyone else. So what's the big offense about?


----------



## ValenciaSon

Pues Estado Unidense es igualmente incorrecto porque hay un Estados Unidos de Mexico y de Brazil. Ellos tambien serian "estados unidenses". 





on a rose said:


> I agree. Unfortunately, "The United States of America" is a bit of an awkward name from which to derive an adjective or noun (unlike Columbia --> Columbian; Canada --> Canadian). While it works in Spanish ("estadounidense"), for whatever regrettable reason this has not occurred in English (although I would absolutely prefer "United Statian"!). I do not believe any of us is feeling superior or ethnocentric. It is simply the way our multi-word country name has been converted into an adjective.
> 
> I wish people would stop being so offended by it--it's not a choice, it's just how language has formulated. In fact, those of you non-"statians" who also live on the American continent should consider yourselves lucky that you get to not only call yourselves the proper name of your own countries (Venezuelan, Argentinian, Guatamalan, etc), but ALSO American! That gives you TWO ethnic identities to call yourselves...and we only get one, which we have to share with everyone else. So what's the big offense about?


----------



## cabezadevaca

ValenciaSon said:


> Nos llamamos Americanos en el EEUU porque tenemos la palabra "America" en nuestro nombre.


 
Claro, ValenciaSon, los estadounidenses sois americanos, pero no todos los americanos son estadounidenses. El todo incluye la parte, pero la parte no incluye el todo. Expresiones habituales como "mi país, América" y similares, son totalmente incorrectas, en castellano y en inglés. 

El incurrir en ese evidente error puede ser debido a varios factores, se me ocurren algunos:

- comodidad, el topónimo "estadounidense" es complicado de decir y poco representativo, diría yo.

- sinergia, si empezamos a asimilar el término estadounidense al de americano, la inercia y un "impulso" decidido quizás hagan que algún día no sólo los términos lleguen a ser equivalentes, sino que todo lo estadounidense sea entonces americano y viceversa. 

- ignorancia, sin ánimo de ofender, son conocidas las carencias formativas en USA en geografía e historia de todo lo que no tenga que ver con USA. Es tan así, que se ha dado el caso de que un paisano mío conocido se pasee por universidades estadounidenses, soltando auténticas barbaridades sobre historia española, y se quede tan pancho sin que nadie se inmute.

En fin, totalmente de acuerdo con Augusto Cesar. 

Para seguir con la broma de personalidades, yo cuando estuve por ese bonito continente puede conocer la gran variedad y riqueza de sitios y gentes americanos. En mis viajes por el sur de lo que hoy es USA, este imponente país ni siquiera había nacido. 

Es sólo una opinión amistosa, cualquier comentario o aclaración es bienvenido. 

Un cariñoso saludo a todos, en especial a la buena gente estadounidense, que claro que la hay.


----------



## ValenciaSon

Somos Americanos por costumbre de tener esa, nuestra identidad. Estadounidense es una palabra que no se puede decir en ingles y no es de nuestra identidad. Uno no va a cambiar la identitdad por los sentidos de otros.


----------



## psychodelika star

Yo esoty de acuerdo, ademas que aca a los ESTADOUNIDENSES lo que les enseñan en geografía es que son 8 los continentes, Europa, Asia, Africa, Oceanía, America del Norte, America Central y America del Sur. Lo cual a mi me enseñaron en el colegio que todo esto es un solo continente, de acuerdo contigo Augusto Cesar, solo que cambiar la mente de todo un país es demasiado dificil.

Pero hay que aceptar tambien, hay demasiados estadounidenses que ya han caido en la cuenta de ese algo de egocentrismo que se ha manejado aca.


----------



## mplsray

psychodelika star said:


> Yo esoty de acuerdo, ademas que aca a los ESTADOUNIDENSES lo que les enseñan en geografía es que son 8 los continentes, Europa, Asia, Africa, Oceanía, America del Norte, America Central y America del Sur. Lo cual a mi me enseñaron en el colegio que todo esto es un solo continente, de acuerdo contigo Augusto Cesar, solo que cambiar la mente de todo un país es demasiado dificil.
> 
> Pero hay que aceptar tambien, hay demasiados estadounidenses que ya han caido en la cuenta de ese algo de egocentrismo que se ha manejado aca.



As mentioned earlier in this thread, we were taught that there are two--not one and not three--continents in the Western Hemisphere: North America and South America. Central America is part of the northern continent.

From what I have read about geography, it seems that geographers generally--that is, worldwide--do not recognize America as being one continent, but consider it to be two.


----------



## divisortheory

alfmartinez said:


> Supongo que un europeo también llamaría "americano" a un argentino, paraguayo, etc.


 
I am doubtful, but I would be interested to hear from a European.  

Edit: "American" is just a term, why is it so important for people in South America or Central America that the same term be applied to them?  For people in Argentina or Chile, what is wrong with calling them "Argentinan, Chilean, or South American"?  Or for people in Guatemala, "Guatemalan or North American"?  And for the USA, "American or North American".  

I think people are taking it too personally, what other term should we use?  "I am a United States of American"?  It's nothing more than a matter of convenience.


----------



## alfmartinez

Not just a matter of convenience.
Nothing worse for your "national feeling"(you get the point)than hear an european saying "let's go to America" and they go to united states. We south american's don't even exist?
that's the point of the thread


----------



## divisortheory

In the USA there are two states, North Carolina and South Carolina.  If I say I will take a vacation to "Carolina" it is just for convenience, if I go to South Carolina people from North Carolina should not be offended.  

If someone from Europe says they will go "America", I also don't see the reason to be offended, "America" by itself is just the shorthand term for saying USA.  Of course South America exists, but if someone wants to go to South America they can just say "South America", or "The Americas" and there is no ambiguity.  Besides, usually when people talk about travelling they are talking about a specific _country.  _There is no other country that has the word "America" in it.  

The important point is that no disrespect is intended by people who say "America" to mean "United States".  They are just referring to a *country* in an unambiguous way since no other country contains the word "America".

Anyway, just my opinion.  

Sorry I don't respond in Spanish, I only know a few words.  Please use google translate if it's hard to understand.  (Apesadumbrado no respondo en español, yo sé solamente algunas palabras. El google del uso traduce por favor si es duro entender. )


----------



## JamesM

mplsray said:


> As mentioned earlier in this thread, we were taught that there are two--not one and not three--continents in the Western Hemisphere: North America and South America. Central America is part of the northern continent.
> 
> From what I have read about geography, it seems that geographers generally--that is, worldwide--do not recognize America as being one continent, but consider it to be two.


 
Here are a few sources that point out the discrepancies on points of view:

http://www.countriesandcities.com/continents/

http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzcontinents.htm

It does seem odd to me that Europe and Asia would be considered separate continents since they are one large land mass and there is not any visible geographic breaking point, to my eye. It seems to me that a cultural divide has been superimposed on the map there. 

I can even see the concept of "Eurafrasia" since there is at least the same amount of land connecting Eurasia and Africa that there is connecting North and South America. If we're going to count America as one connected land mass, I see no reason not to count Europe, Asia, and Africa as one connected land mass.

I agree with mplsray, though, that I was taught that there were either 6 or 7 continents (Eurasia accounting for the difference), and that there were two continents in the western hemisphere - North America and South America.

I understand that Americans have come off as quite arrogant over the years, but I don't think calling ourselves "American" has anything to do with that, nor do I think it would lessen whatever arrogance we might have by changing the name we use. As far as I know, we were called Americans by the British long before we were a country. In other words, we were called "American" long before we had formed into "UnitedStatesians."

To think that we somehow co-opted the name as a way of slighting all the other inhabitants of the Americas is to ignore the origin of the name and the history behind it. To me, it's as spurious as the argument to change "history" to "herstory" to avoid gender bias, as if the "his" in "history" had any relation to the possessive pronoun "his". We no more chose the name than Columbians chose Columbia. In fact it could be argued that we had less say in the name than the founders of other countries. Columbians would have been called Peruvians originally under the Spaniards, if I'm not mistaken and named themselves Gran Columbia when they successfully won their independence.


----------



## cilew

alfmartinez said:


> Yo soy parcialmente budista y creo en la "causa y efecto". Algun día Estados Unidos (los estadounidenses) deberían de pagar por lo que hicieron y están haciendo. Pocos paises tiraron tantas bombas y asesinaron a tantos ciudadanos inocentes.
> 
> Mientras tanto, yo creería que en inglés no hay mejor palabra para estadounidense que "americano". Supongo que un europeo también llamaría "americano" a un argentino, paraguayo, etc. Sino, estaría bueno que la historia invente una mejor palabra para estadounidense "in english".
> 
> EDIT: lo del continente, los gringos tienen razon


Cuando yo escribo en español, para referirme a alguien que es de la tierra que va desde Alaska a Argentina (no me importa si se le considera un continente o dos, aunque si sólo es uno supongo que yo debo de ser un euroafroasiático) uso la palabra americano.

Para referirme exclusivamente a personas de Estados Unidos, nunca diría americanos sino estadounidenses, aunque he notado que muchos hispanohablantes (tanto de América como de España) dicen americanos, lo cual según la propia RAE tampoco es incorrecto, ya que una de las definiciones para esa palabra en su diccionario es "estadounidense".

Por otro lado, cuando escribo/hablo en inglés, suelo usar la palabra "American" para referirme a alguien que es del país cuyo nombre oficial es "The United States of America" porque en nuestro idioma ése es el gentilicio aceptado. No sería así si hace 230 años hubieran escogido un nombre más original para su país, y si "Unitedstatesian" no sonara tan torpe, pero así es. En inglés también se puede usar "American" para referirse a alguien/algo de América (versión español) pero hoy día es un uso menos común.

Me pregunto si a la gente de Bretaña (Francia) le molesta que en Gran Bretaña  nos llamemos "British" y no "Great British", ya que supongo que ellos podrían decir "¡Nosotros también somos British! ¿Por qué se han apropiado del nombre de nuestra tierra?". Pero me imagino que 1. tienen mejores cosas que hacer  2. no piensan que Bretaña (o Bretagne o Breizh) y Britain sean la misma cosa; pues lo mismo con American y americano.

Si no os gusta que se use la palabra "American" en inglés para referirse (casi siempre) solamente a la gente de Estados Unidos... tough shit! A mí tampoco me gusta que se use "anglosajón" para referirse a cualquier angloparlante, pero así es en español y como estudiante de vuestro idioma creo que debería respetar los significados ya establecidos que tienen las palabras, en vez de sólo quejarme de ellos.


----------



## dasboot

¡Hola a todos!

No sé si ya se mencionó, pero creo que la intención los tíos que escogieron el nombre “United States of America” era para aplacer a los que no querían que ningún europeo diga “Me voy pa’ Unitedstatesofamerica," o lo que sea el nombre, sino “Me voy pa’ Nueva York, o Georgia, o Virginia;” sería insulto decir el primero. Hoy en día no es el caso; somos más contento de de un conjunto que un estado. Creo que nuestra dificultad proviene de eso. Además, como ya he leído, ¿Qué es America (sin tilde) en la habla “anglosajón?” No es un continente, de la cual se incluyen “North America” y “South America.” No es un sub continente; no es “Central America,” (un parte de “North America,” desde la interpretación de mi maestro de geografía). Ni es “America” un grupo de continentes como “The Americas,” que no es necesariamente "America." Es una distinción del idioma estadounidense, no confundirla con los idiomas de otros estados unidos, por ejemplo, los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Así son la geografía y los nombres. Es una tontería y no una prepotencia. Y, hablando de mi maestro de la escuela secundaria, ¡qué horror fue la clase que tenía más de 4 Johnnys!

¡Saludos!


----------



## dasboot

alfmartinez said:


> Not just a matter of convenience.
> Nothing worse for your "national feeling"(you get the point)than hear an european saying "let's go to America" and they go to united states. We south american's don't even exist?
> that's the point of the thread



 Si quiero visitar México y Canadá y aquel otro país, digo: Let's go to North America!
Si quiero visitar Perú y Colombia y Argentina, digo: Let's go to South America!
Si quiero visitar Argentina, digo: Let's go to Argentina!

Saludos!


----------



## psychodelika star

alfmartinez said:


> Yo soy parcialmente budista y creo en la "causa y efecto". Algun día Estados Unidos (los estadounidenses) deberían de pagar por lo que hicieron y están haciendo. Pocos paises tiraron tantas bombas y asesinaron a tantos ciudadanos inocentes.
> 
> Mientras tanto, yo creería que en inglés no hay mejor palabra para estadounidense que "americano". Supongo que un europeo también llamaría "americano" a un argentino, paraguayo, etc. Sino, estaría bueno que la historia invente una mejor palabra para estadounidense "in english".
> 
> EDIT: lo del continente, los gringos tienen razon


 

Definitivamente creo que los estadounidenses no tienen que ver en ese problema, ellos simplemente apoyan a su pais por que son inmensamente patriotas, pero lo que pasó varios años atras no es su culpa


----------



## psychodelika star

alfmartinez said:


> Not just a matter of convenience.
> Nothing worse for your "national feeling"(you get the point)than hear an european saying "let's go to America" and they go to united states. We south american's don't even exist?
> that's the point of the thread


 

And i'm totaly agree, that's the point , it's not about war, it's about IDENTIDAD


----------



## LaReinita

psychodelika star said:


> And i'm totaly agree, that's the point , it's not about war, it's about IDENTIDAD


 
Who's identity though?  Yours or ours?  What does criticizing "our identity" do for yours?  Maybe we should call up Doc Brown and see if we can borrow his flux capicitor, well hell, we'll just borrow the whole DeLorean and go back in time and make them change the name.  Short of this happening . . . what's the point here?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

alfmartinez said:


> Not just a matter of convenience.
> Nothing worse for your "national feeling"(you get the point)than hear an european saying "let's go to America" and they go to united states. We south american's don't even exist?
> that's the point of the thread



If I am speaking English and go to America, I go to the United States. If I want to go to Argentina, I will go to _*Argentina*_.

It's just a name, honestly, there are far more important problems in the world, get over it.


----------



## TrentinaNE

Pedro y La Torre said:


> It's just a name, honestly, there are far more important problems in the world, get over it.


With all due respect, there are always "more important problems" than whatever is being discussed in any thread in this forum. But those problems are not the subject of this thread, and it's extemely dismissive to tell someone what issues are worthy of his or her attention.

I hadn't really been aware of the issues rasied inthis thread before reading it, but it's certainly given me something to think about, and that's the kind of CD thread I like best.    I strive to be precise and sensitive in my use of language, and there are easy ways to avoid the ambiguity and potential cultural offense that's been discussed here (such as saying "I'm from the USA" rather than "I'm an American") that I'll be more aware of now.

Saludos,
Elisabetta


----------



## LaReinita

TrentinaNE said:


> With all due respect, there are always "more important problems" than whatever is being discussed in any thread in this forum. But those problems are not the subject of this thread, and it's extemely dismissive to tell someone what issues are worthy of his or her attention.
> 
> I hadn't really been aware of the issues rasied inthis thread before reading it, but it's certainly given me something to think about, and that's the kind of CD thread I like best.  I strive to be precise and sensitive in my use of language, and there are easy ways to avoid the ambiguity and potential cultural offense that's been discussed here (such as saying "I'm from the USA" rather than "I'm an American") that I'll be more aware of now.
> 
> Saludos,
> Elisabetta


 
But everyone here is saying that we shouldn't call ourselves American because they are American too.  This makes no sense to me.  Basically, we are all Americans, but since the world calls us "Americans" it is our fault and we should no longer refer to ourselves this way, just everyone else in North or South America.  They are all Americans . . we are just from the United States.  Also, all this crap about how we are so "arrogant," .  I think it's pretty arrogant that everyone says they should be called Americans, but excluding anyone from the United States.  Everyone is screaming that they are ALSO American, because of the continent that they live on . . well if you are American . . . Why aren't we?  Why should we stop calling ourselves Americans.  I find this so ridiculous!


----------



## Trevobrien

Other countries simply have easier and shorter names.

We really don't have any other option than to refer to ourselves as "Americans." When speaking about the nation instead of the people, I usually say "United States" or USA, because that's the actual name of the country.

Though when speaking Spanish, I do find it prudent to say "estadounidense" to avoid confusion.


----------



## divisortheory

LaReinita said:


> But everyone here is saying that we shouldn't call ourselves American because they are American too. This makes no sense to me. Basically, we are all Americans, but since the world calls us "Americans" it is our fault and we should no longer refer to ourselves this way, just everyone else in North or South America. They are all Americans . . we are just from the United States. Also, all this crap about how we are so "arrogant," . I think it's pretty arrogant that everyone says they should be called Americans, but excluding anyone from the United States. Everyone is screaming that they are ALSO American, because of the continent that they live on . . well if you are American . . . Why aren't we? Why should we stop calling ourselves Americans. I find this so ridiculous!


 
That isn't even the main point IMO.  The main point to me is that America is the name of our *country*.  It might be the name of someone else's *continent*, but go to Japan and ask them "where are you from?" and see if they respond "Asia".  Ludicrous, of course they will say "I'm Japanese.".  Just like people in Egypt will probably not say "I'm African".  If your home country is Argentina, I'll be happy to call you Argentinan.  The point is that people identify with their country, not their continent.  Governments also exist at the country level, not the continent level.


----------



## nightlone

divisortheory said:


> That isn't even the main point IMO.  The main point to me is that America is the name of our *country*.  It might be the name of someone else's *continent*, but go to Japan and ask them "where are you from?" and see if they respond "Asia".  Ludicrous, of course they will say "I'm Japanese.".  Just like people in Egypt will probably not say "I'm African".  If your home country is Argentina, I'll be happy to call you Argentinan.  The point is that people identify with their country, not their continent.  Governments also exist at the country level, not the continent level.


Also, as far as I know, there is no clear definition of what a continent actually is (from a geological point of view). For example, where does Europe end and Asia begin, and why? I think that the Americas (in Spanish, "América") being a single continent is as much of a *cultural* concept for Spanish speakers as it being two separate continents is for people from the USA.


----------



## divisortheory

nightlone said:


> Also, as far as I know, there is no clear definition of what a continent actually is (from a geological point of view).


 
I always thought there was.  Visit the Wikipedia article for Asia, for example, and it mentions precisely the border of Asia and Europe.


----------



## nightlone

divisortheory said:


> I always thought there was. Visit the Wikipedia article for Asia, for example, and it mentions precisely the border of Asia and Europe.


You're right, it does mention the precise border and show a map but it also says this:

_Given its size and diversity, Asia – a toponym dating back to classical antiquity – is more a *cultural concept* incorporating a number of regions and peoples than a homogeneous, physical entity.

_Also:_

Some geographers do not consider Asia and Europe to be separate continents, as there is *no logical physical separation between them*. Physiographically, Asia is the major eastern constituent of the continent of Eurasia – with Europe being a northwestern peninsula of the landmass – or of Africa-Eurasia: 

_(highlighting is mine).

Not sure how much I can quote, but there's more stuff about this in the article.


----------



## dasboot

divisortheory said:


> I always thought there was.  Visit the Wikipedia article for Asia, for example, and it mentions precisely the border of Asia and Europe.



Yes, but "Asia" exists as the name of a subgroup of certain geographic interpretations of the world.

EDIT: Yeah, what nightlone said.


----------



## modus.irrealis

TrentinaNE said:


> I hadn't really been aware of the issues rasied inthis thread before reading it, but it's certainly given me something to think about, and that's the kind of CD thread I like best.    I strive to be precise and sensitive in my use of language, and there are easy ways to avoid the ambiguity and potential cultural offense that's been discussed here (such as saying "I'm from the USA" rather than "I'm an American") that I'll be more aware of now.


And to make it more complicated, make sure you don't go too far the other way and start calling all people who live in the Americas Americans because then you'll start offending Canadians who possibly hate nothing more than being naively grouped in with Americans .


----------



## TrentinaNE

LaReinita said:


> Everyone is screaming that they are ALSO American, because of the continent that they live on . . well if you are American . . . Why aren't we? Why should we stop calling ourselves Americans. I find this so ridiculous!


And therefore everyone else should find it ridiculous, too?  I don't know Spanish well enough (hardly at all, in fact) to tell whether people are "screaming" or just trying to make a point that a lot of people may not want to hear. But even if someone is screaming, yelling back rarely advances the discussion. 



divisortheory said:


> The main point to me is that America is the name of our *country*.


It's part of our country's name: The United States of America. Perhaps there will be a day when other North/South American countries have more power on the world's stage and we start adopting a term like USA-ans. It's not inconceivable to me, but also not something I envision in my lifetime. 



modus.irrealis said:


> And to make it more complicated, make sure you don't go too far the other way and start calling all people who live in the Americas Americans because then you'll start offending Canadians who possibly hate nothing more than being naively grouped in with Americans .


I'd never do that to my Canadian friends.


----------



## LaReinita

TrentinaNE said:


> And therefore everyone else should find it ridiculous, too?  I don't know Spanish well enough (hardly at all, in fact) to tell whether people are "screaming" or just trying to make a point that a lot of people may not want to hear. But even if someone is screaming, yelling back rarely advances the discussion.


 
I'm confused as to what you mean here. Yes, they should find it ridiculous. I have not seen one person here from the USA tell anyone from South or Central America or even North America that they shouldn't call themselves American; however, they are saying this very thing to us . . but it's okay? . . And where exactly was I yelling back? I hardly call defending the name that WE, including you, were born to know and have grown with all of our lives . . to be yelling, but rather just saying . .frankly WHAT IS and what will never change , so I'm not exactly sure where you got that. Our name hurts their feelings, so we should change our name to suit everyone else. That's like asking everyone from Mexico or any other country that lives in the USA to stop hanging their nations flags from their rearview mirrors and personalizing their license plates . . because it offends us. Even then, they choose to do that . . We did not choose the name of our country or the name that we have been called for centuries . . . OH NO, I hope I'm not yelling, so maybe I'll just put a smiley face at the end and everyone will think I was smiling while I was typing this post.


----------



## mplsray

modus.irrealis said:


> And to make it more complicated, make sure you don't go too far the other way and start calling all people who live in the Americas Americans because then you'll start offending Canadians who possibly hate nothing more than being naively grouped in with Americans .


 
I expect you would really offend most native speakers of Canadian English if you were to tell them that they spoke _*American* English!_

That reminds me of a use of the word _American_ which offends many US citizens: _He speaks *American.*_ Despite the PBS program _Do You Speak American?_ and the book of the same name based upon it, most US native speakers of American English would take _American_ (by itself) as a language name to be an insult because it suggests that they do not speak English--and I am among those so offended.

But I don't see any point in being offended by, or trying to change, the French practice of referring to translations into French from American English as _traduit de l'américain._


----------



## modus.irrealis

mplsray said:


> I expect you would really offend most native speakers of Canadian English if you were to tell them that they spoke _*American* English!_


Of course, and just to have it be said again, because they're English speakers and in English the primary, unmarked meaning of "American" refers to the US. But that's why people need to start using the term North American English -- the differences between Canadian and American English can't be greater than the differences within British English. And sometimes it can get frustrating to see people talk about "Americanisms" that are perfectly normal up here.



> That reminds me of a use of the word _American_ which offends many US citizens: _He speaks *American.*_


I honestly used to think that was an urban legend until I heard my cousin from the US say it. It was odd, and I can understand your reaction to the term.


----------



## cabezadevaca

LaReinita said:


> ...they are ALSO American, because of the continent that they live on . . well if you are American . . . Why aren't we? Why should we stop calling ourselves Americans...


 
Creo, mi reina , que has introducido una perspectiva interesante. Está claro que los estadounidenses son americanos, por lo tanto me parece correcto que ellos contesten "yo soy americano". Es como si a mí me preguntan "¿de dónde eres?" y digo "soy europeo". Sería correcto, pero poco preciso.

Ahora bien, otras expresiones ya no me parecen tan correctas. Se refieren a cuando los estadounidenses utilizan el término "América" para hablar de EE.UU. ó USA, como prefiráis. Es fácil escuchar en la televisión expresiones del tipo "nuestro país, América, defenderá siempre.." se digan consciente o inconscientemente, son incorrectas, en castellano y en cualquier otro idioma. América no existe como país, lo siento _divisortheory_ (sin acritud). Además de otras consideraciones, suponen una falta de respeto hacia otros países americanos.

Volviendo a la pregunta inicial de LaReinita, me interesaría conocer la perspectiva de un estadounidense hacia los otros pueblos americanos. Si escuchasen a un boliviano, a un canadiense, a un argentino o un hondureño, por decir algunos, responder "yo soy americano" ¿qué sentirían?, ¿lo considerarían correcto?

Saludos,


----------



## TrentinaNE

LaReinita said:


> I'm confused as to what you mean here. Yes, they should find it ridiculous. I have not seen one person here from the USA tell anyone from South or Central America or even North America that they shouldn't call themselves American; however, they are saying this very thing to us


Well, it's hardly an issue for people of South or Central American, is it?  They have nationalities (e.g., Peruvian, Costa Rican) that clearly identify the country they come from, while people from the US of A are known by a term, American, that might be taken by some to be ambiguous and by others as presumptuous. 


> And where exactly was I yelling back?


Where did I say that you were?  I made a general statement that applies to the thread and life on the whole.


> We did not choose the name of our country or the name that we have been called for centuries


Hence, there is no reason why it can't change over time.  40 years ago, I would have been told that I must refer to myself as Mrs. My Husband's Name.  Instead, today, I exercise the option of being Ms. My Name.    Similarly, I can envision a time when changes in the balance of power and other forces cause a new, more precise term for the nationality of those who live in the US of A to come into use.  I'm not saying that it will or should happen or when, but I'm open to the idea.  And in the mean time, I have some insight into why using the term American to describe my nationality may be problematic for people from other parts of the Americas.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

TrentinaNE said:


> while people from the US of A are known by a term, American, that might be taken by some to be ambiguous and by others as presumptuous.



I've never met anyone who took "American" to be an ambiguous and/or presumptuous term. 



TrentinaNE said:


> I can envision a time when changes in the balance of power and other forces cause a new, more precise term for the nationality of those who live in the US of A to come into use.



What is imprecise about American? If one comes from the United States of AMERICA, I fail to see why one should refrain from referring to oneself as an American.

Honestly, I think the PC brigade is in full effect here. If an Argentinian wants to refer to themselves as Americans fine go ahead, no-one is stopping them.


----------



## nightlone

cabezadevaca said:


> Ahora bien, otras expresiones ya no me parecen tan correctas. Se refieren a cuando los estadounidenses utilizan el término "América" para hablar de EE.UU. ó USA, como prefiráis. Es fácil escuchar en la televisión expresiones del tipo "nuestro país, América, defenderá siempre.."


No es fácil escuchar nada parecido a eso en la televisión.

Quizás "Our country, America...", pero como ya se ha dicho en este thread, no se debería confundir la palabra "America" en inglés con la palabra "América" en español, no significan lo mismo.

Como el otro forero, yo tampoco nunca usaría "americanos" en español para referirme exclusivamente a estadounidenses, a pesar de que mucha gente de habla hispana lo hace (y luego se queja cuando un estadounidense dice "I am American").

But what seems like a "falta de respeto" to me is that you want to change the meaning of a word in *our language* that has been used that way for a long time just because you don't like it.

I totally agree with what Pedro y La Torre has said.


----------



## JamesM

Of course, we could always opt for the poetic name for the United States of America, used since the days of George Washington - Columbia (as in "Hail, Columbia" or "Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean.") Oh, wait... that's taken now.   If only we'd moved faster.


----------



## Fernando

You have USA and "usians".

Now for serious. The solution 

America = Estados Unidos
The Americas = América

is OK to me.


----------



## LaReinita

Fernando said:


> You have USA and "usians".


????????? This is not a word and I will NEVER refer to myself as a usian.

This is a joke, right?


----------



## JamesM

LaReinita said:


> Fernando said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have USA and "usians".
> 
> 
> 
> ????????? This is not a word and I will NEVER refer to myself as a usian.
> 
> This is a joke, right?
Click to expand...

 
I'm sure it is. Why else would he follow it with "Now for serious..." 

Someone mentioned earlier about yelling. I don't know if you're aware of this posting convention, LaReinita, but writing in all capital letters is used to convey yelling. You might try the italics, underline, or bolding features available here to avoid giving the impression of yelling.


----------



## cabezadevaca

nightlone said:


> No es fácil escuchar nada parecido a eso en la televisión.
> 
> Quizás "Our country, America...", ...
> 
> But what seems like a "falta de respeto" to me is that you want to change the meaning of a word in *our language* that has been used that way for a long time just because you don't like it. ...


 
La equiparación de América con EE.UU., o America con USA, se oye a menudo, te lo prometo _nightlone,_ en inglés o en su traducción al castellano, en películas, en series de la tele, en entrevistas de mandatarios estadounidenses, etc.

Sobre lo otro que comentas, desde luego no es mi intención faltar al respeto a nadie, ni cambiar significados de palabras, válgame Dios! Creo no obstante, que esto no está reñido con establecer un debate amistoso y manifestar una opinión sobre el hilo, sólo una opinión. 

El argumento de que "America" se lleva utilizando desde hace mucho tiempo por parte de los estadounidenses para referirse a su país no me parece consistente. Ya he dicho, por el contrario, que SÍ me parece correcto que se llamen "americanos", en cuanto a que son parte de un todo que se llama así.

Cuando decía que utilizar _America_ para referirse a USA es un error y supone una falta de respeto (quizás involuntaria, vale ) para el resto de americanos, lo decía en el sentido de que _America_ ya existía cuando aún no había nacido USA. El propio nombre del país lo reconoce así, _United States *OF* America_. Quizás algún lingüista nos podría ayudar, nos confirmaría, creo, que la preposición OF establece una relación de subordinación de _United States_ respecto de _America._

Es decir, en cierto sentido se trata de una apropiación indebida del término, de ahí que no me parezca correcto hacia otros americanos, y que me parezca normal que se sientan ofendidos cuando esto se produce. 

Para más IN RI, se da la vuelta a la tortilla, y resulta que los estadounidenses no aceptan que otros americanos se llamen como tal .

Saludos,


----------



## mplsray

cabezadevaca said:


> Para más IN RI, se da la vuelta a la tortilla, y resulta que los estadounidenses no aceptan que otros americanos se llamen como tal .


 
It is _not true_ that Americans do not accept that other people in the Americas call themselves _Americans!_ As a practical matter, however, _America_ and _Americans_ are usually taken in English to mean "the US" and "US citizens," and so any use of _America_ and _Americans_ in English which has the other meaning must be made clear by context.


----------



## ireney

Are all nationalities to be referred by a shortened term including the full official name of their country? Should Mexicans become (and I don't speak Spanish really so I won't even try to render it in Spanish) unitedstatedmexicans? Greeks are Greekdemocrats? (I think we change party in English though and  officially our country's name is Hellenic republic so maybe Hellenorepublicans? )

Tongue in the cheek comments aside,  I am sure no one says that the U.S.A. have the copyright of the adjective "American" or the noun "America". I am pretty certain, though I wouldn't repeat it under oath, that I have seen articles referring to other countries/nationalities/ethnicities of the American continent(s) (I'm not even going there!) where the adjective "American" is used and no one has batted an eye (some I seem to remember talking about the American civilisations)


----------



## mplsray

ireney said:


> Are all nationalities to be referred by a shortened term including the full official name of their country? Should Mexicans become (and I don't speak Spanish really so I won't even try to render it in Spanish) unitedstatedmexicans? Greeks are Greekdemocrats? (I think we change party in English though and officially our name is Hellenic republic so maybe Hellenorepublicans? )
> 
> Tongue in the cheek comments aside, I am sure no one says that the U.S.A. have the copyright of the adjective "American" or the noun "America". I am pretty certain, though I wouldn't repeat it under oath, that I have seen articles referring to other countries/nationalities/ethnicities of the American continent(s) (I'm not even going there!) where the adjective "American" is used and no one has batted an eye (some I seem to remember talking about the American civilisations)


 
Yes, context makes clear when the reference is to the Americas rather than the US.

The adjective _Pan-American,_ on the other hand, always refers to all the countries and peoples of the Americas: See any dictionary to verify this. While researching the matter, I was able to find only one exception: The _Pan-American_ was a train of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad which linked Cincinnati, Ohio, and New Orleans, Louisiana. It ran from 1921 to 1971.


----------



## cabezadevaca

mplsray said:


> It is _not true_ that Americans do not accept that other people in the Americas call themselves _Americans!_ As a practical matter, however, _America_ and _Americans_ are usually taken in English to mean "the US" and "US citizens," and so any use of _America_ and _Americans_ in English which has the other meaning must be made clear by context.


 
_Mplsray_, la afirmación que hago no es por experiencia propia, es lo que me cuentan algunos alumnos que han estado en EE.UU. y que cuando dicen que son americanos, les responden que "no, tu eres peruana, no americana", por ejemplo. 

Quizás sean casos anecdóticos y no se deba generalizar, pero conociendo como conozco a las personas que me lo cuentan, les tengo que creer en lo que dicen. Con tus palabras vienes a reflejar más o menos esta situación, no?

Saludos,


----------



## mplsray

cabezadevaca said:


> _Mplsray_, la afirmación que hago no es por experiencia propia, es lo que me cuentan algunos alumnos que han estado en EE.UU. y que cuando dicen que son americanos, les responden que "no, tu eres peruana, no americana", por ejemplo.
> 
> Quizás sean casos anecdóticos y no se deba generalizar, pero conociendo como conozco a las personas que me lo cuentan, les tengo que creer en lo que dicen. Con tus palabras vienes a reflejar más o menos esta situación, no?
> 
> Saludos,


 
No.

Your anecdote is incomplete. For any particular one of your informants, the anecdote leaves out whether the visitor subsequently tried to explain what they meant by _American,_ and what the American had to say in reply to that, nor does it tell us enough of the conversation to give us an idea about the American's motivation.

Since the default meaning of _American_ in English is "US citizen," the American may in fact have been trying to get that point across to the visitor. Someone with a foreign accent introducing himself to a group of Americans as "an American" would likely be taken to be an immigrant who has become a citizen. Falsely claiming to be a citizen would be a rather serious error, and the American, especially one who knew the nationality of the visitor, may have been attempting to protect the visitor from making such a serious error.

Frankly, I think the idea that a US citizen would actually object to someone from another country of the Americans calling himself an American _when context made clear the intended meaning_ is ludicrous. It's hard to imagine even an American who has a very low level of education making such an objection.


----------



## JamesM

I think it's also worth repeating what has been said before. We are taught that there are two American continents, not one - North America and South America. If you said, in English, "I am South American", I am 99% sure that you find no one correcting you in the U.S. The addition of "South" makes it clear to us that you are speaking about your continent, not your nationality. If you asked an American what he was after declaring yourself "South American", you would most likely get the response, "I am North American" or "I am from North America" because the context has been established that we are discussing continents.  

As has also been said, it is not typical for us to have conversations where we identify ourselves by our continent, so a context must be established to let us know we are talking in something other than a conventional manner.  This alone should make it clear that we are not implying we are the only ones on our continent (or the one to the south), only that we are using the word to mean our country.


----------



## cabezadevaca

mplsray said:


> No.
> 
> Your anecdote is incomplete. For any particular one of your informants, the anecdote leaves out whether the visitor subsequently tried to explain what they meant by _American,_ and what the American had to say in reply to that, nor does it tell us enough of the conversation to give us an idea about the American's motivation.
> ....
> 
> Frankly, I think the idea that a US citizen would actually object to someone from another country of the Americans calling himself an American _when context made clear the intended meaning_ is ludicrous. It's hard to imagine even an American who has a very low level of education making such an objection.


 
Claro, _mplsray_, hemos llegado justo a la consecuencia que motiva la pregunta del hilo. Cuando se tiene que explicar el significado de _American_ o a qué te refieres exactamente cuando empleas el término _America,_ es que algo no funciona bien, algo se ha transmitido mal. Por eso decía en otra de mis intervenciones que supone una cierta apropiación indebida del término _America_ por parte de los estadounidenses, lo digo en un tono totalmente neutro.

He investigado un poco sobre el origen del término _America_, o América en castellano. La versión más aceptada (como sabemos) es que procede del navegante y cartógrafo italiano Américo Vespucio, que prestó sus servicios en el s. XVI para la Corona española. 

Otra teoría sitúa el origen del término en unas montañas de Nicaragua llamadas _Americ,_ región por la que pasó Cristóbal Colón en su 4º viaje. Según esta teoría la voz _America_ sería por tanto enteramente aborigen. Esta última me parece, en mi desconocimiento, una línea de investigación muy atractiva y perfectamente verosímil.

(PD: mis disculpas por no introducir referencias ni enlaces, todavía no se me permite en WR, aun soy muy joven en el foro )

Sea como fuere, lo cierto es que, muy pronto, a partir de principios del s. XVI (1507), se empieza a utilizar este término para denominar al Nuevo Mundo, a las tierras en el continente americano que se iban descubriendo para los europeos. 

¿Qué ha ocurrido para que, de ese tiempo a esta parte, en Estados Unidos sea necesario contextualizar a riesgo de que el término _America_ se refiera sólo a U.S.A., y el término A_mericans_ se refiera sólo a ciudadanos estadounidenses_?_

SAludos,


----------



## nightlone

What happened? The country (which obviously didn't exist 500 years ago) was named the United States of America, that's what happened!


----------



## cabezadevaca

nightlone said:


> What happened? The country (which obviously didn't exist 500 years ago) was named the United States of America, that's what happened!


 
No ocurre nada, _nightlone_, todo está bien 

_Augusto-Cesar_ planteaba inicialmente la mala utilización del término "América" para referirse exclusivamente a los Estados Unidos de América, y consecuentemente (esto lo añado yo) lo erróneo de utilizar el término "americanos" para referirse exclusivamente a los ciudadanos estadounidenses.

Chao, creo que voy a descansar un rato.


----------



## elizabeth_b

I hope to mention something that may enlighten a little this thread.
The usage of the word american in order to designate the people from the USA is something that derive from their own history.  Let's remember this country was colonized by Europeans.  Not only english people but also french, irish, scotish (specially the middle colonies) etc... although the territories were English colonies.  So, as the colonies at first were still not a "country" europeans refer to the people living at them as the "americans" because of the continent of course.  When the colonies got their independence in 1776 they also started to reflect about their own sense of nationality.  There's a reflection called _*What's an American?*_ (I can't remember the authors name) in which he states all this diversity background they had at that time and that although this there was a common spirit based on the freedom spirit from this people.
So, that’s it.  That’s why the country is called United States of America and their citizens are americans. It’s not only because _United Staters_ doesn’t exist in english. 
And the fact is that we have different and separated backgrounds.  They created their own identity. The usage of the term was not a big problem in the 18 and 19 centuries, everybody was worried about getting it’s independence from the european countries.   
I don’t have either the solution to this discussion but I hope this information adds something to this cultural forum.

Regards
E.B.

P.S.  If I gave any wrong data please feel free to correct me.


----------



## choaddy

Yo soy de Argentina y cuando leí todo lo que escribieron me pareció lo que se llama un "teléfono descompuesto". Augusto-Cesar preguntó si se debia considerar la palabra "América" como "Los Estados Unidos" y ahí comenzó a llover un torrente de opiniones sobre la guerra, bush, el petroleo. A algunos los poseyó el demonio, comenzaron a hablar en Latin y otras lenguas extranjeras. Un paisano mio comenzó a promocionar sus clases de tango en Buenos Aires y a contarnos que sale a bailar con yanquis. Y asi sucesivamente.
La cuestión es, llamamos nosotros tambien "América" a los "Estados Unidos"?. 
Más bien, porqué no comenzamos a decir que nosotros TAMBIEN vivimos en América a las preguntas de algunos foráneos. Porque no tiene nada de malo supongo. Este suelo es americano así que tenemos derecho no?.
Desde ahora, yo tambien soy AMERICANO. Bueno, siempre lo fuí, es que alguien se había apoderado del nombre. 
Viva¡¡¡¡ Somos todos AMERICANOS¡¡¡ VIVA¡¡¡¡VIVA¡¡¡¡¡


----------



## CarolMamkny

I was born and raised in Bogotá, Colombia but reside in NYC. I recently spent a few weeks in Italy. People kept asking me where I lived and I replied "NYC". Finally this girl said to me: But...you do not look "American". I started laughing and told her I lived in NY but that I was born in Colombia... her reply: Oh! so then you are not a "true" American. I must admit I got offended by this. I considered myself 150% American!!! 

So... then what I am?.... as far as I know South America is still part of America.... or did I missed anything?


----------



## Fernando

I am Spanish even when I dislike flamenco and sevillanas (1). Probably your Italian girlfriend would not consider me a "true" Spanish.

(1) I mean, the dance, not the girls.


----------



## psychodelika star

CarolMamkny said:


> I was born and raised in Bogotá, Colombia but reside in NYC. I recently spent a few weeks in Italy. People kept asking me where I lived and I replied "NYC". Finally this girl said to me: But...you do not look "American". I started laughing and told her I lived in NY but that I was born in Colombia... her reply: Oh! so then you are not a "true" American. I must admit I got offended by this. I considered myself 150% American!!!
> 
> So... then what I am?.... as far as I know South America is still part of America.... or did I missed anything?


 100% de acuerdo, estamos en ell sur o centro,pero seguimos siendo parte de america


----------



## LaReinita

CarolMamkny said:


> I was born and raised in Bogotá, Colombia but reside in NYC. I recently spent a few weeks in Italy. People kept asking me where I lived and I replied "NYC". Finally this girl said to me: But...you do not look "American". I started laughing and told her I lived in NY but that I was born in Colombia... her reply: Oh! so then you are not a "true" American. I must admit I got offended by this. I considered myself 150% American!!!
> 
> So... then what I am?.... as far as I know South America is still part of America.... or did I missed anything?


 
And what does an American "look-like?"  We have people of all colors here.  You can't just "look" at someone and guess whether they were born here or not.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

CarolMamkny said:


> So... then what I am?.... as far as I know South America is still part of America.... or did I missed anything?



Her comment was rather stupid as America is a country of many different ethnicities. That being said, there are two continents, North and South America. Thus to an Anglophone (and probably to most Europeans), you are a South American not an _American_. That's all.

I don't really see the big problem here.


----------



## cabezadevaca

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Her comment was rather stupid as America is a country of many different ethnicities. That being said, there are two continents, North and South America. Thus to an Anglophone (and probably to most Europeans), you are a South American not an _American_. That's all.
> 
> I don't really see the big problem here.


 
¿Realmente se enseña esto en los colegios?... pues si que tenemos un gran problema.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

cabezadevaca said:


> ¿Realmente se enseña esto en los colegios?... pues si que tenemos un gran problema.



Yes it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_america

Some people seem to be creating a problem here where there is none. At the end of the day it's simply a cultural thing. If speaking in English (and a large number of other languages) a citizen of the United States is known as an American (or a derivative thereof). In Spanish however they are known as an _estadounidense. _Case closed.


----------



## cabezadevaca

Pedro y La Torre said:


> ...
> 
> Case closed.


 
Querido amigo, o sea que según tú existe un país que se llama _America_. 

Por otro lado, tenemos dos continentes, Norte América y Sur América. A los habitantes del primero (excepto Canadá y México) se les llama Americanos, y a los del segundo Suramericanos. Chapeau.

Hazme caso , constrasta y revisa tus datos.

Voy a descansar, me siento un poco mayor.


----------



## Fernando

cabezadevaca said:


> Querido amigo, o sea que según tú existe un país que se llama _America_.



En inglés, sí.


----------



## psychodelika star

Fernando said:


> En inglés, sí.


 
Como que en ingles si?, acaso no es que todos somos iguales y la cultura que aprendemos es la mismsa???

O es que  USA enseñan que el Pacifico es a la derecha y es el resto del mundo a la izquierda?

Simplemnte digo, que muchos estadounidenses son EGOCENTRICOS, pues lo de America no es el unico tema en el que ellos "erran", y en el que el resto del mundo solo tiene una vision.(Aunque depronto los que erran somos noostros)

Simplemente, estadounidenses que ves rubios con ojos azules son inmigrantes tambien y asi y todo nos quieren sacar de este pais, viendo que los verdaderos son los cherokee.(Y asi es como lo vemos la mayoria, obviamente ellos no,pero es lo mismo, un interminable circulo, el cual con foros no vamosa  cambiar)

Pero ACEPTO no son todos malos, tambien hay bastantes estadounidenses rescatables y que aceptan las cosas.


----------



## CarolMamkny

This I just a thought:

We already know that for most people in the U.S and overseas the word “America” is synonym with U.S. I believe the word “America” implies the continent as a whole. I do not understand why we have to identify ourselves as coming from “South America”. Shouldn’t that apply for everybody? Shouldn’t the word “American” be used to identify all people, not just those born in the U.S? For example: Johnny is from North America and Juan is from South America, therefore they are both Americans.


----------



## Fernando

psychodelika star said:


> acaso no es que todos somos iguales y la cultura que aprendemos es la mismsa???


 
No. 

Hay gente que (por raro que te parezca) hablan desde pequeñitos en un idioma extraño, al que ellos llaman "inglis".



psychodelika star said:


> O es que  USA enseñan que el Pacifico es a la derecha y es el resto del mundo a la izquierda?


 
No sé (no quiero saber) qué es USA, pero en EE.UU. enseñarán que el Océano Pacífico está al Oeste, mientras que en China dirán que está al Este.

Cuando enseñen en inglés te hablarán del "Pacific Ocean". Los ingleses se pueden pasar la vida intentando convencer a los franceses de que el Canal Británico no es la Manga de Francia, pero lo tienen crudo.



psychodelika star said:


> Simplemnte digo, que muchos estadounidenses son EGOCENTRICOS, pues lo de America no es el unico tema en el que ellos "erran", y en el que el resto del mundo solo tiene una vision.(Aunque depronto los que erran somos noostros)



Posiblemente tengas razón, pero no son los angloparlantes más egocéntricos que hay.


----------



## nightlone

psychodelika star said:


> Como que en ingles si?, acaso no es que todos somos iguales y la cultura que aprendemos es la mismsa???
> 
> O es que  USA enseñan que el Pacifico es a la derecha y es el resto del mundo a la izquierda?
> 
> Simplemnte digo, que muchos estadounidenses son EGOCENTRICOS, pues lo de America no es el unico tema en el que ellos "erran", y en el que el resto del mundo solo tiene una vision.(Aunque depronto los que erran somos noostros)
> 
> Simplemente, estadounidenses que ves rubios con ojos azules son inmigrantes tambien y asi y todo nos quieren sacar de este pais, viendo que los verdaderos son los cherokee.(Y asi es como lo vemos la mayoria, obviamente ellos no,pero es lo mismo, un interminable circulo, el cual con foros no vamosa  cambiar)
> 
> Pero ACEPTO no son todos malos, tambien hay bastantes estadounidenses rescatables y que aceptan las cosas.


Buf, tanto resentimiento, y esto viene de alguien que vive en Estados Unidos.

Como ya se ha dicho varias veces en este hilo, ni siquiera hay una definición concreta de lo que es un continente; se podría decir que es más bien un concepto CULTURAL. Si no lo fuera, ¿por qué existen Europa, Asia y África como diferentes continentes? (todavía ningún hispanohablante ha contestado esto). A fin de cuentas forman partan de la misma tierra, igual que las Américas.



			
				cabezadevaca said:
			
		

> Querido amigo, o sea que según tú existe un país que se llama _America_.
> 
> Por otro lado, tenemos dos continentes, Norte América y Sur América. A los habitantes del primero (excepto Canadá y México) se les llama Americanos, y a los del segundo Suramericanos. Chapeau.
> 
> Hazme caso , constrasta y revisa tus datos.


Repito: No se llaman "americanos" sino "Americans"... ¡no son lo mismo! ¿Por qué no lo podéis entender? Hay muchas palabras en inglés y español que tienen la misma raíz y que se deletrean igual o casi igual pero que NO significan lo mismo. Se llaman "FALSOS AMIGOS" como seguramente ya sabéis.

En inglés se llama "America" a USA porque... de hecho,  ¡ni creo que valga la pena repetirlo otra vez! Si después de tantos mensajes aún queréis seguir pensando que sólo se debe a la egocentricidad de los yankis, etc, blah, pues muy bien, pero en este hilo la única egocentricidad que yo he visto ha venido exclusivamente de algunos hispanohablantes que no quieren aceptar la validez de conceptos culturales que no coinciden con los suyos.


----------



## amonik

en el CONTINENTE DE AMERICA existimos todos los paises de latinoamerica que ES AMERICA, COMO CONTIENTE DE AMERICA son desde canada hasta la patagonia, y creo que ese es un error global.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Moderator note:

Few recent posts have actually advanced this discussion.  Rather, they have reiterated what has been already said, or simply expressed an opinion with no discussion.

If you have something _new _to add to this thread, please feel free.  Otherwise, the time may have come to send this thread out to some quiet section of the Americas to retire.


Pocos posts recentes han contribuidos a adelantar este hilo.  Al contrario, se han repetido lo que ya esta dicho, o se han puesto solo un opinión sin explicación.

Si tengas algo _nuevo _para decir en este hilo, que lo compartamos con nosotros.  Si no hay nada de nuevo, llegara la hora para mandar este hilo a un rincón tranquilo para su jubilicación.


----------



## Georges Hassan

toboto said:


> Coming back to translation issues:
> 
> En Estados Unidos es frecuente utilizar *America* para referirse a dicho país y *americans* para denominar a sus ciudadanos. Supongo que es difícil cambiar ese uso tan arraidado allí (en inglés). Pero lo que sí que podemos hacer cuando encontremos un texto de estas características es traducirlo bien, como nuestro excelso emperador sugiere:
> 
> En este contexto, al traducir al español, *America* será Estados Unidos y *americans*, estadounidenses.


 
El uso de la palabra "estadounidense" resulta del antiamericanismo (luchar contra el imperialismo de los EEUU) de los latinoamericanos. Así, la palabra "estadounidense" se encuentra en muchos textos publicados en América latina. En este caso, la lengua refleja la ideología de los pueblos que la hablan.

Sin embargo, no se observa este relacíon de espejo en francés. En la lengua de Molière, aunque se pueda decir "Étatsuniens" para referirse a los ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos, esta palabra no se emplea con tan frecuencia. Sin embargo, para los franceses, América del Norte = USA. La Francia, tan antiaméricana, siempre está lista para dar todo nuestro continento a los EEUU.

Lo que es menos obvio es porque no se ha problemátizado el uso de "Américain" en Canada cuyo la población francófona debe repartir el territorio con los ingleses del Canadá, los estadounidenses y los hispanófonos del sur. Es que, en depito de la presencia del altermundialismo en Québec, los Quebequenses no consideran los Estados Unidos como una fuerza imperialista y peligrosa para su identidad, ya que los ingleses del Canadá ya cumplen este papel. 

La ausencia de debate en torno al uso del termino "Américain" en Québec refleja no una lucha contra un imperialismo continental, de tipo economico y cultural (el de los EEUU), sino una reacción contra un "imperialismo" regional, de tipo político y constitucional (el del Canadá inglés). Esta misma ausencia de debate refleja antes de todo el hecho que los debates linguísticos en Canadá siempre tratan de preocupaciones locales. Felicitaciones a los latinoamericanos por esta discusión en torno a un tema verdaderamente pancontinental.


----------



## nightlone

Georges Hassan said:


> El uso de la palabra "estadounidense" resulta del antiamericanismo (luchar contra el imperialismo de los EEUU) de los latinoamericanos. Así, la palabra "estadounidense" se encuentra en muchos textos publicados en América latina. En este caso, la lengua refleja la ideología de los pueblos que la hablan.


El gentilicio "estadounidense" se usa en todo el mundo de habla hispana, no es una palabra que los latinoamericanos usen más que los españoles, de hecho, por lo que he notado, diría que es al revés.


Georges Hassan said:


> Sin embargo, no se observa este relacíon de espejo en francés. En la lengua de Molière, aunque se pueda decir "Étatsuniens" para referirse a los ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos, esta palabra no se emplea con tan frecuencia. Sin embargo, para los franceses, América del Norte = USA. La Francia, tan antiaméricana, siempre está lista para dar todo nuestro continento a los EEUU.


 Sí, me ha llamado la atención que en francés no uséis mucho la palabra "étatsuniens".


Georges Hassan said:


> Lo que es menos obvio es porque no se ha problemátizado el uso de "Américain" en Canada cuyo la población francófona debe repartir el territorio con los ingleses del Canadá, los estadounidenses y los hispanófonos del sur. Es que, en depito de la presencia del altermundialismo en Québec, los Quebequenses no consideran los Estados Unidos como una fuerza imperialista y peligrosa para su identidad, ya que los ingleses del Canadá ya cumplen este papel.


Creo que es muy interesante lo que dices aquí! (aunque por cierto deberías decir "angloparlantes" en vez de "ingleses" ).


Georges Hassan said:


> La ausencia de debate en torno al uso del termino "Américain" en Québec refleja no una lucha contra un imperialismo continental, de tipo economico y cultural (el de los EEUU), sino una reacción contra un "imperialismo" regional, de tipo político y constitucional (el del Canadá inglés angloparlante).


El imperialismo continental/cultural... sí, eso es de lo que realmente trata esta discusión, pero me parece que tú has sido el primero en decirlo...


----------



## Georges Hassan

nightlone said:


> El gentilicio "estadounidense" se usa en todo el mundo de habla hispana, no es una palabra que los latinoamericanos usen más que los españoles, de hecho, por lo que he notado, diría que es al revés.
> Sí, me ha llamado la atención que en francés no uséis mucho la palabra "étatsuniens".
> Creo que es muy interesante lo que dices aquí! (aunque por cierto deberías decir "angloparlantes" en vez de "ingleses" ).
> 
> El imperialismo continental/cultural... sí, eso es de lo que realmente trata esta discusión, pero me parece que tú has sido el primero en decirlo...


 
Lo que acaba de decir es muy interesante. ¿Para usted, porque el gentilicio "estadounidense" se usaría más en España que en América latina?

En cuanto a la corrección, gracias. En Canadá, se dice "English Canada" en inglés y "Canada anglais" en francés, pero estos gentilicios no se traducen directamente. Y por supuesto, los verdaderos "ingleses" manejan en el lado malo de la calle, en una isla lejos de aquí.


----------



## cabezadevaca

Fernando said:


> En inglés, sí.


 
Después de unos días de descanso, no soporto la tentación de seguir interviniendo en este hilo, todo ello a sabiendas de que me estoy metiendo en un "berenjenal". Reconozco mis limitaciones, no soy lingüista, sólo intento utilizar el sentido común y aportar un enfoque contra la corriente que nos arrastra desde el mundo angloparlante.

Fernando, paisano, no. En inglés tampoco existe un país que se llame _America_. Existe un país, grande, imponente, que se llama _United States of America_, o Estados Unidos de América en castellano.

Podemos utilizar una escopeta, ponerle un clavel en la punta, y decir que dispara flores. Pero con las lenguas no podemos hacer esto, no podemos utilizar las palabras a nuestro antojo y cambiar los significados de las cosas bajo la excusa de que es otro idioma. Bueno en poesía sí, pero aquí no estamos hablando de poesía.

Pongo dos datos que creo son objetivos:

- Como ya dije en una intervención, el término América se empieza a utilizar desde 1507 para denominar al nuevo continente recientemente descubierto para los europeos. A los originarios del mismo se les empieza a llamar desde entonces Americanos. América se traduce al inglés desde esa fecha por _America _(o viceversa, a los efectos da igual)_,_ significando lo mismo en ambos idiomas. Análogamente para el término _Americans_ en inglés.

- "_El nombre Estados Unidos de América fue propuesto por __Thomas Paine__ y fue usado oficialmente por primera vez en la Declaración de Independencia, adoptada el 4 de julio de 1776 " (extraído de http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estados_Unidos )_

Es evidente que el término _America y_ su significado son primeros. Podremos acordar por lo tanto que el error lingüístico es utilizar el término_ America_ para referirse exclusivamente a_ United States of America._ No digo que este hecho no sea una realidad, lo que digo es que es un error.

No creo que Thomas Paine fuese tonto e incurriera en una reiteración al proponer para el nuevo país dos términos que significasen lo mismo, _United States_ y _America,_ hubiese propuesto sencillamente _America._ Pero era muy consciente ya entonces (como lo somos nosotros ahora) de que los dos conceptos son diferentes, el continente _America_ y el nuevo país dentro de ese continente. 

Una buena pregunta es, como dijo Augusto Cesar inicialmente, en qué momento de la historia a partir de 1776 se invierten las tornas, se cambia el sentido de giro de la Tierra alrededor de su eje .

Saludos.


----------



## Fernando

Como ya se ha comentado los Americans empezaron a ser, no los nativos, sino precisamente los europeos (los Euro-Americans) de allí como oposición a los británicos. Desde 1776 a 1810 eran además los únicos Americans independientes. El resto eran portugueses, españoles, ingleses o franceses (los haitianos se independizaron también por entonces).

Cuando Bolívar intenta crear un megaestado con los restos del Imperio Español le llama Colombia y no América, que se queda en castellano como término geográfico y no político.

Por otro lado, y ahí tenéis razón, los estadounidenses se encuentran con que el nombre de su país es el de su organización política y que por tanto tienen problemas para hacer el gentilicio. La herencia de eso es ver a los estadounideneses gritando en las olimpiadas "iu-es-ei, iu-es-ei", que queda tan bonito como si los españoles dijésemos "erre-e, erre-e" (Reino de España).

Así que tenemos muy crudo que los angoparlantes cambien de denominación (más aun cuando es frecuentísimo oír a los hispanohablantes denominarlos "americanos"). Así que arreglemos nuestra casa y dejémonos de gaitas con las ajenas.


----------



## mplsray

cabezadevaca said:


> Es evidente que el término _America y_ su significado son primeros. Podremos acordar por lo tanto que el error lingüístico es utilizar el término_ America_ para referirse exclusivamente a_ United States of America._ No digo que este hecho no sea una realidad, lo que digo es que es un error.



"America" is _not--_repeat _not--_used exclusively in American English with the meaning "United States of America." But that is the _default meaning_[1], and other meanings are used in very, very restricted contexts, some in biological contexts, but most being historical. North America and South America considered together are, when talking about modern times, practically always referred to as "the Americas."

I realize that isn't a new point to this discussion. But if you are going to speak of so-called "errors," you should avoid making errors while doing so.


[1] I use the word _default_ quite deliberately, because the word _primary_ is problematical. It can sometimes mean the oldest meaning, but it can also mean the most common meaning. The _default meaning_ is that meaning which occurs to the average listener first, with other meanings coming only when context shows them to be necessary. The default meaning of "Bob bought two dogs" is that "Bob purchased a pair of _Canis familiaris_," but it can mean other things given the appropriate context: "Bob purchased two toys which looked like _Canis familiaris_" or "Bob purchased two sausages on a bun" (that is, he bought two "hot dogs").


----------



## Hidrocálida

cabezadevaca said:


> - "_El nombre Estados Unidos de América fue propuesto por __Thomas Paine__ y fue usado oficialmente por primera vez en la Declaración de Independencia, adoptada el 4 de julio de 1776 " (extraído de http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estados_Unidos )_
> 
> Saludos.


Hola:
Tengo meses siguiendo este hilo, me parece interesantisimo.
Gracias Cabezadevaca por el enlace;Andaba a la busca de estos datos pero nunca se me ocurrió buscar en la wiki
Estoy totalmente de acuerdo contigo, pero al mismo tiempo no es algo que me quite el sueño
Las cosas son como son.
lo primordial es el respeto entre todos
Saludos
PD. Algunas veces me pregunto si esto no sera una discusión bizantina


----------



## cabezadevaca

Hidrocálida said:


> Hola:
> Tengo meses siguiendo este hilo, me parece interesantisimo.
> Gracias Cabezadevaca por el enlace;Andaba a la busca de estos datos pero nunca se me ocurrió buscar en la wiki
> Estoy totalmente de acuerdo contigo, pero al mismo tiempo no es algo que me quite el sueño
> Las cosas son como son.
> lo primordial es el respeto entre todos
> Saludos
> PD. Algunas veces me pregunto si esto no sera una discusión bizantina


 
Yo también estoy de acuerdo con lo que dices, Hidrocálida, gracias por tus palabras. Una muestra de respeto es hablar, intercambiar opiniones, en definitiva este foro, no? Yo aprendo mucho. Y no me toques el tema de Bizancio que me lanzo !! 

Mis disculpas por otro lado, me he dado cuenta de que en algún momento he podido parecer irrespetuoso.

Mplsray, entiendo lo que quieres decir, y lo comparto en gran medida.

A pesar del traqueteo, a mí me sigue gustando América, y los americanos, y aquí os meto a todos en el saco .


Saludos y buen día.


----------



## Bryan05

Hola a todos.

Yo me identifico como "americano" porque nací en un país de América, porque reconozco que este es un continente, no una porción de este. Los españoles, los ingleses o los franceses no se llaman a sí mismos "europeos" como si solamente su país lo fuera. Los chinos, japoneses o los coreanos, aunque se identifiquen "asiáticos", no llaman a sus paises "Asia" como si estos fueran los unicos asiáticos. 

¿Por qué entonces los estadounidenses se denominan a sí mismos como los únicos americanos del continente? Además, generalmente se refieren a nosotros como los "latinoamericanos" o "sudamericanos" o "centroamericanos", pero no como "americanos". ¿Por qué?

Lo más triste aún es, que la misma RAE haga la siguiente definición de la palabra "americano":

americano, na.
1. adj. Natural de América. U. t. c. s.
2. adj. Perteneciente o relativo a esta parte del mundo.
3. adj. indiano (que vuelve rico de América).
*4. adj. estadounidense. Apl. a pers., u. t. c. s.*
5. f. Chaqueta de tela, con solapas y botones, que llega por debajo de la cadera.

Noten el adj. número 3. Creo que como americanos estamos perdiendo una valiosa parte de nuestra identidad, empezando en nuestros países donde todo parece venir de "America": ropa Americana, carros americanos, comida americana, dólares americanos, actores americanos, cine americano, etc. 

No expongo esto ánimo de molestar, pues estoy mostrando coherencia y realidad. 

¿Qué opinión tienen de esto? ¿Acaso no se puede traducir la palabra "estadounidense"?


----------



## shoobydoowap

En mi opinión, es una cuestión lingüística, nada más. En inglés, nos llamamos Americans, somos de _America, _cantamos canciones como _America the Beautiful, God Bless America, _y _I'm Proud to be an American, etc. _Entonces, cuando un estadounidense dice "soy americano,"   desde su perspectiva es 100% correcto. De ninguna manera quiere decir que es del único América del continente.

Además, para un estudiante de español, la palabra _estadounidense_ es muy difícil decir, así que utilizan otra palabra que es mucho más fácil: _americano_. 

Ah, y también, aprendemos que hay siete continentes, incluso North America y South America, no sólo un _América_. Por eso, creo que las personas que dicen "soy americano" no se dan cuenta que decir "soy americano" es un error terrible 

Hace unos días, tuve que explicar por qué uno debe decir "soy estadounidense" en lugar de "soy americano" a una amiga que se mudaba a España. Ha estudiado el español por 7-8 años, conoce muy bien la cultura española y latinoamericana, y la respeta, pero no tenía ninguna idea.


----------



## Bryan05

Como decían algunos el hecho de que existan: "Los Estados Unidos del Brasil" y "Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos" no indica que se les llame a ellos "estadounidenses". En este caso, no hay ambiguedad al llamárseles "brasileños" y "mexicanos". Por lo tanto se les debe llamar así.

En cambio a los estadounidenses, creo yo, que no se les debe llamar americanos, ni en español ni en inglés. Me parece una mala costumbre e incluso una falta de respeto pretender apoderarse de un todo que no les pertenece, es decir América.

Además a los estadounidenses se les enseña que existen 7 continentes y eso no es verdad. 

Otro asunto de historia es que Cristóbal Colón llegó a a centroamérica y no a las costas de Florida. No me parecería apropiado tampoco llamarlos "los norteamericanos" porque Canada y México también son parte de esa porción continental. 

Si existe, como algunos dicen, una costumbre "afectiva" que viene desde épocas remotas de llamarse "americanos" me parece que ya debería estar desfasado. Primero porque todos tenemos ancestros y eso no significa que nos hagamos llamar como ellos. Por ejemplo, los peruanos no nos hacemos llamar "Inkas"; ni los mexicanos, "aztecas"; ni los italianos, "latinos".


----------



## LaReinita

Bryan05 said:


> En cambio a los estadounidenses, creo yo, que no se les debe llamar americanos, ni en español ni en inglés.
> 
> No me parecería apropiado tampoco llamarlos "los norteamericanos" porque Canada y México también son parte de esa porción continental.
> 
> 
> What you say here makes no sense. Earlier, you said you consider yourself American. However, not only do you think that anyone from the US should not be addressed as American, but now we can't even be Northamerican. So, from what you're suggesting NO ONE in the Americas should be called American? Or everyone except the USA?  With that sense of thinking, then there would be no Europeans, no Asians ect.


----------



## Bryan05

Hi:

I admit that some of the things I've said can be a bit confussing. But I didn't mean that *unitedstatesian *aren't american. They are american but not the only!

Why can't we, "the rest of americans", call you: yankis, gringos or *unitedstatesian* (is a good form to call you).


----------



## mplsray

Bryan05 said:


> Hi:
> 
> I admit that some of the things I've said can be a bit confussing. But I didn't mean that *unitedstatesian *aren't american. They are american but not the only!
> 
> Why can't we, "the rest of americans", call you: yankis, gringos or *unitedstatesian* (is a good form to call you).


 
There is a bit of confusion here. Are you speaking about what one says in Spanish, what one says in English, or what one says in a number of languages in which the equivalent of _America_ generally means "The United States of America?" If Americans call the USA _America_ and themselves _Americans,_ or if the French call the USA _Amérique_ and its citizens _Américains,_ by what right do you criticize them? Languages belong to their speakers, not to outsiders.


----------



## Bryan05

Me doy cuenta que solo los estadounidenses se asan bien feo con este tema... Los demás no. ¿Por qué será? Quisiera ir a ver qué pensamiento tienen los  *unitedstatesian unitedstatesian unitedstatesian unitedstatesian unitedstatesian unitedstatesian unitedstatesian*

laugh this is not a fight. It's just a forum to give opinions.


----------



## LaReinita

Bryan05 said:


> Me doy cuenta que solo los estadounidenses se asan bien feo con este tema (You're right . . . We find it insulting that you think you can change our name because it bothers you. I'm Italian, I could argue that hispanohablantes have stolen the word latino which originally derives from the Romans . . Since it bothers me and many other italians/french/greek . . . Will you stop calling yourselves latino for us? . . . I highly doubt it... Los demás no. ¿Por qué será? Quisiera ir a ver qué pensamiento tienen los *unitedstatesian unitedstatesian unitedstatesian unitedstatesian unitedstatesian unitedstatesian unitedstatesian*
> 
> laugh this is not a fight. It's just a forum to give opinions.


 
Unitedstatesian is not an english word. I don't dare to invent English words and it is my native language. We will not change the way we speak of ourselves in our language because someone else doesn't like it. I frankly hate the word Gringo/a, but I don't imagine anyone will stop using it for me or any other person refered to as that.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Bryan05 said:


> Why can't we, "the rest of americans", call you: yankis, gringos or *unitedstatesian* (is a good form to call you).



Because the word doesn't exist.

If you want to change how English speakers refer to America THE COUNTRY, then you're going to have to change French (américain), German (amerikaner), Italian (americano) and virtually every other language there is.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Chaska Ñawi said:


> Moderator note:
> 
> Few recent posts have actually advanced this discussion.  Rather, they have reiterated what has been already said, or simply expressed an opinion with no discussion.
> 
> If you have something _new _to add to this thread, please feel free.  Otherwise, the time may have come to send this thread out to some quiet section of the Americas to retire.
> 
> 
> Pocos posts recentes han contribuidos a adelantar este hilo.  Al contrario, se han repetido lo que ya esta dicho, o se han puesto solo un opinión sin explicación.
> 
> Si tengas algo _nuevo _para decir en este hilo, que lo compartamos con nosotros.  Si no hay nada de nuevo, llegara la hora para mandar este hilo a un rincón tranquilo para su jubilicación.



As per the warning quoted above, this thread has now retired to a tax-free haven in a quiet corner of the Americas called the Cayman Islands.


----------

