# Americanos o estadounidenses?



## Everness

El nombre completo de Brasil es Estados Unidos no Brasil y sus ciudadanos se llaman brasileños.

El nombre completo de los EEUU es United States of America y sus ciudadanos se llaman americanos.

Si a los ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos de Brasil los llamamos brasileños, por qué no podemos llamar a los ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos de America americanos?


----------



## Artrella

Everness said:
			
		

> El nombre completo de Brasil es Estados Unidos no Brasil y sus ciudadanos se llaman brasileños.
> 
> El nombre completo de los EEUU es United States of America y sus ciudadanos se llaman americanos.
> 
> Si a los ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos de Brasil los llamamos brasileños, por qué no podemos llamar a los ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos de America americanos?





Sí los podemos llamar "americanos" por qué no?
Lo único que puede llamar la atención es que America es todo el continente y el gentilicio de estas personas se superpone con el gentilicio de todos los habitantes del continente.
Yo soy americana y argentina.  Ellos son americanos y americanos. 
Ningún problema para mí en que se llamen americanos.  Es lógico según tu propuesta.


----------



## ILT

Pues yo nunca lo había visto de ese modo, pero es cierto, yo soy ciudadana de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, y soy mexicana, así que es cierto, ellos pueden ser americanos.  El problema qeue yo veo es que ellos no distinguen entre América el país y América el continente, aunque para referirse al continente he escuchado que dicen "the Americas", lo cual incluye América del Norte (EUA y Canadá), América Central (México - aunque no sé porqué sólo ellos nos consideran parte de América Central - y los países de centroamérica desde Guatemala hasta Panamá) y América del Sur.

Gracias por ponerme a pensar.

ILT


----------



## Everness

_*Gentilicios.* Usted, ciudadano ecuatoriano, argentino, mexicano o canadiense, ¿está involucrado en la guerra que tiene los Estados Unidos de América, con Iraq? No ¿verdad?, entonces porque los periodistas de casi todos los medios insisten en decir que: los “soldados americanos”, “la guerra que sostienen los americanos”, “el 60% de los americanos aprueban la decisión de su presidente de atacar a Iraq”. Cuando no es así, aquí si vale la pena precisar que quienes están en guerra con Iraq, son los estadounidenses, que también son americanos pero que al tratarlos como tales, involucran a todos los del continente. Hagan un simple ejercicio: “Los periodistas son mentirosos”, usted es periodista, por lo tanto ¿es mentiroso? No, ¿verdad? solo algunos lo son. Por eso señores periodistas, precisen cuando hablen de los americanos que están en guerra, son los estadounidenses. Americanos somos todos los que hemos nacido en el continente americano, que geográficamente es desde Alaska hasta Tierra del Fuego._

Esto lo saque del internet. Me parece que no tiene pies ni cabeza. Si yo viajo a Europa a lo sume dire que soy latinoamericano. Si soy de Honduras, dire que soy centroamericano. Pero nunca se me ocurriria decir que soy americano. 

Acusar a los gringos de haber usurpado un nombre es una estupidez.


----------



## mjscott

Si se usan estadounidenses, tendrían que decir estadounidenses de América—o quizás van a pensar que son estadounidenses de Brasil o estadounidenses de México.

Bienvenidos al foro, Everness.


----------



## Edher

Como le llamarias a una persona de Guatemala? Guatemalteco
Como le llamarias a una persona de Guatemala (la capital)? Guatemalteco, no?

Si es asi, entonces tiene sentido llamarles americanos porque son del continente America pero tambien del pais America.

Como dice Artrella, los gringos son americanos al cuadrado. 

Nunca he visto un mapa donde mencionen que Mexico es de America Central.

http://images.google.com/images?q=North America&hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-03,GGLD:en&sa=N&tab=wi

Edher


----------



## Everness

Siempre pense que Mejico es parte de America del Norte y no de America Central.

Es posible que los gringos hayan usurpado y anexado territorio mejicano. Sin embargo, los cargos de haber usurpado el nombre americano me parecen sin fundamento y risibles. 

Hay 3 paises en el continente que usan el ultimo nombre de su nombre completo para identificarse: Brasil, Mexico y los EEUU. Significa esto que les vamos a pedir a los brasileños y mejicanos que cambien su nombre o que se persenten como estadounidenses pero de Brasil o de Mexico? 

No creo que los gringos hayan decidido confabular contra el resto del continente y apropiarse indebida e imperialmente del nombre americano. Fue algo que simplemente ocurrio.


----------



## Phryne

Everness said:
			
		

> No creo que los gringos hayan decidido confabular contra el resto del continente y apropiarse indebida e imperialmente del nombre americano. Fue algo que simplemente ocurrio.


 
Verdad, pero así y todo ellos no lo cuestionan.

Yo estudié en mi infancia que el continente Americano era uno solo. Fuí la única? Qué opinan los europeos?


----------



## Everness

Phryne said:
			
		

> Yo estudié en mi infancia que el continente Americano era uno solo. Fuí la única? Qué opinan los europeos?



(Esto lo baje del Internet pero el sistema no me deja copiar el enlace)

_A continent can be defined as one of several major land masses on the earth. There is no standard definition for the number of continents but usually the numbers six or seven are used. By most accounts, there are a maximum of *seven* continents - Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, Europe, *North America, and South America.* _

_Most students in the U.S. are taught that there are seven continents. The National Geographic Society recognizes seven._

_*In Europe,* many students are taught about *six continents* - *North and South America are combined to form a single America.* Therefore, the six continents are Africa, America, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, and Europe. A couple of years ago, I got into a relatively headed discussion through email with a European who could not understand how North and South America could be considered two separate continents, but this person readily accepted the fact that Europe and Asia were two separate continents. _

_Many geographers and scientists now refer to *six continents*, where Europe and Asia are combined (since they're one solid landmass). Thus, these six continents are Africa, Antarctica, Australia, Eurasia, *North America, and South America.* I personally like this distinction - I could never understand how you could divide Europe and Asia in the middle of a landmass. It seems to be more of a political or cultural division rather than a geographic one. _

_I have even gone through a major discussion in college that it could be argued that there are only *four continents*. *Since North and South America are naturally connected (prior to the Panama Canal), it could be considered as one continent (the double continent). *Europe, Asia and Africa are naturally connected (prior to the Suez Canal), so it could be considered as one continent (the triple continent). Add Australia and Antarctica, and you have a total of four._


----------



## ILT

Well, going on with everness's comment, I have to say that a loooooong time ago, when I was in basic school, we in México were taught about *five* continents: Africa, America, Antartica, Australia, and Eurasia; but as soon as we got to _secundaria_ (or junior high) we got into debates as to how many continents there should be according to the definition.  Needless to say that we never ever came to an agreement, buy by that time it was perfectly OK to disagree on the numer of continents as long as we knew were each country was as well as its specific information.


----------



## pinkpanter

My translation of the first post:

_The complete name of Brazil is The United States of Brazil and their citizens are called Brazilian. The complete name of the U.S.A. is The United States of America and their citizens are called Americans. If we call the citizens of the United States of Brazil Brazilians, why cannot we call the citizens of the United States of America Americans_


----------



## beatrizg

Everness said:
			
		

> (Esto lo baje del Internet pero el sistema no me deja copiar el enlace)
> 
> _Most students in the U.S. are taught that there are seven continents. The National Geographic Society recognizes seven._


 
Extraña teoría, Everness. Sé que no puedes poner el enlace porque eres nuevo en el foro, pero sin embargo podrías aclarar de dónde has tomado ese texto.

Si esto es cierto y seguimos como vamos, en pocos años nos dividirán el mundo en dos continentes, América del Norte y el resto del mundo.


----------



## pinkpanter

Hi Everness and Beatrizg, 

the online text also says this:

There is no standard definition for the number of continents but usually the numbers six or seven are used. By most accounts, there are a maximum of seven continents - Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. 

http://journals.aol.com/bowermanb/GWBlog/entries/262


----------



## beatrizg

pinkpanter said:
			
		

> Hi Everness and Beatrizg,
> 
> the online text also says this:
> 
> There is no standard definition for the number of continents but usually the numbers six or seven are used. By most accounts, there are a maximum of seven continents - Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America.
> 
> http://journals.aol.com/bowermanb/GWBlog/entries/262


 
OK. Ya sabemos que los estadunidenses piensan eso, pero no creo que el resto del mundo piense lo mismo. 
Como anoté antes, yo me enteré de esta nueva división del mundo hoy,  leyendo este post y también mis amigos griegos. 

La división de América en dos continentes es para mí, una división acomodada y su finalidad parece ser la de satisfacer el deseo del país del norte de diferencirse del resto del continente -por razones obvias. 

En cuanto al gentilicio, quiero recordarle a los que pusieron a México y Brasil como ejemplos, que estos países no comparten su nombre con el de un continente entero.


----------



## pinkpanter

beatrizg said:
			
		

> La división de América en dos continentes es para mí, una división acomodada y su finalidad parece ser la de satisfacer el deseo del país del norte de diferencirse del resto del continente -por razones obvias



Estoy de acuerdo contigo Beatrizg.


----------



## Artrella

pinkpanter said:
			
		

> Estoy de acuerdo contigo Beatrizg.



Están en lo cierto...chicas.

Una pregunta que me rondaba la cabecita ayer en el tren...la gente de Puerto Rico... son americanos? son puertoriqueños? Es Puerto Rico parte de los Estados Unidos de América?


----------



## beatrizg

Artrella said:
			
		

> Están en lo cierto...chicas.
> 
> Una pregunta que me rondaba la cabecita ayer en el tren...la gente de Puerto Rico... son americanos? son puertoriqueños? Es Puerto Rico parte de los Estados Unidos de América?


 
Hasta donde sé, Art, Puerto Rico tiene un status especial. Técnicamnete es parte de los Estados Unidos pero no es un estado como los demás. Se le llama "estado libre asociado". Qué significa esto en la práctica? Espero que nos conteste un forero de Puerto Rico. 
Personalmente creo que los puertorriqueños se sienten ante todo eso, puertorriqueños.


----------



## ceirun

beatrizg said:
			
		

> La división de América en dos continentes es para mí, una división acomodada y su finalidad parece ser la de satisfacer el deseo del país del norte de diferencirse del resto del continente -por razones obvias.


Hola. Yo soy de Europa y siempre me han enseñado que _América_ (como vosotros la gente de países hispanohablantes lo conocéis) consistía de dos continentes distintos, o sea América del Norte y América del Sur (y realmente ni conocía la teoría de que sea un solo continente, hasta que empecé a aprender español hace dos años o así).
Esto de que sea nada más que una _división acomodada _inventada por los _gringos_ me parece un argumento bastante débil, a lo mejor solo propuesto por los que estén muy en contra de la política de EE.UU (?)...
Yo creo que Everness ha dado en el clavo cuando escribió:

_No creo que los gringos hayan decidido confabular contra el resto del continente y apropiarse indebida e imperialmente del nombre americano. Fue algo que *simplemente ocurrio.*_


----------



## supercrom

Particularmente, prefiero la denominación de "estadounidense". Si decimos "americanos", englobamos a otros países de ese continente porque América es todo un cotinente, con subdivisiones específicas como América del Norte (o Norteamérica), América Central (¿?) y América del Sur (Sudamérica).
Acerca de "Los Estados Unidos de Brasil", se puede decir brasileños perfectamente, mas en "Los Estados Unidos de América", si hacemos igual nos referiríamos al continente que "descubrió" Colón. En inglés hacen esto, no sé cómo harán para referirse a todo el continente...

*CROM*


----------



## pinkpanter

ceirun said:
			
		

> Hola. Yo soy de Europa y siempre me han enseñado que _América_ (como vosotros la gente de países hispanohablantes lo conocéis) consistía de dos continentes distintos, o sea América del Norte y América del Sur. (De hecho, ni conocía la teoría de que sea un solo continente hasta que empecé a aprender español hace dos años o así).



Yo también soy de Europa y me enseñaron que America es solo un continente.


----------



## pinkpanter

cromteaches said:
			
		

> si hacemos igual nos referiríamos al continente que "descubrió" Colón.
> *CROM*



Colón, colonizó América pero no la descubrió.


----------



## pinkpanter

Artrella said:
			
		

> Están en lo cierto...chicas.
> 
> Una pregunta que me rondaba la cabecita ayer en el tren...la gente de Puerto Rico... son americanos? son puertoriqueños? Es Puerto Rico parte de los Estados Unidos de América?



Conocí a una chica de Puerto Rico a la que le pregunté sobre la situación y ella no se sentia americana. Creo que EE.UU. en su conjunto tampoco los considera plenamente americanos.

Hay una canción de Mecano que dice "como hijos de un Dios menor" creo que esa puede ser un poco la situación, como "ciudadanos de segunda categoría".


----------



## pinkpanter

ceirun said:
			
		

> Esto de que sea nada más que una _división acomodada _inventada por los _gringos_ me parece un argumento muy débil, a lo mejor solo creado por gente que está en contra de la política de EE.UU (de la que yo también estoy en contra, por cierto).
> Creo que Everness ha dado en el clavo cuando escribió:
> 
> _No creo que los gringos hayan decidido confabular contra el resto del continente y apropiarse indebida e imperialmente del nombre americano. Fue algo que *simplemente ocurrio.*_



Hi, they should have told us in school that the number depends on the criterion...

From Wikipedia:

there is no single modern standard for what defines a continent, and therefore various cultures and sciences have different lists of what are considered to be continents. In general, a continent must be large in area, consist of non-submerged land, and have geologically significant borders. While some consider that there are as few as four or five continents, the most commonly used counts are six or seven.

7 Continents (A): Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Oceania, Antarctica. 
7 Continents (B): Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Australia, Antarctica. 
6 Continents (A): Africa, Eurasia, North America, South America, Oceania, Antarctica. 
6 Continents (B): Africa, Asia, Europe, America, Oceania, Antarctica. 
6 Continents (C): Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Oceania. 
5 Continents (A): Africa, Eurasia, America, Oceania, Antarctica. 
5 Continents (B): Africa, Asia, Europe, America, Oceania. 
4 Continents: Africa-Eurasia, America, Oceania, Antarctica. 
Two of the largest disagreements in listing continents are whether Europe and Asia should be considered separately, which distinction is valid from a Western viewpoint, or combined into Eurasia, and whether North America and South America should be considered separately, as geologists do, or combined into the Americas, a modern heir to the New World of the 16th century, as historians do. Some geographers and historians have also suggested grouping Eurasia and Africa into Africa-Eurasia (or Afro-Eurasia). Historians may subdivide it into Eurasia-North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa, though.

The seven-continent model (B) is usually taught in the United States, while the six-continent model (A) is taught in other parts of North America and in East Asia. The five-continent model (B) is commonly taught in Europe and Latin America including the United Kingdom and Mexico. The five continents of this model (as shown by the five Olympic Games flag rings) are speculated to be the five permanently populated ones (viewing Antarctica as only temporarily populated, and all the Americas as one).


----------



## ceirun

pinkpanter said:
			
		

> Hi, they should have told us in school that the number depends on the criterion...


I agree. Ultimately they are only terms to describe indefinite geological concepts.
I just think that the thing about it being a conspiracy that in USA they consider North America as a seperate continent, is a red herring.

(Por cierto, me gusta mucho tu signature  ).


----------



## pinkpanter

ceirun said:
			
		

> I just think that the thing about it being a conspiracy that in USA they consider North America as a seperate continent, is a red herring.
> 
> (Por cierto, me gusta mucho tu signature  ).



You might be right, I tend to think everything is a conspiracy    

Gracias! A mi también me gusta


----------



## beatrizg

ceirun said:
			
		

> I just think that the thing about it being a conspiracy that in USA they consider North America as a seperate continent, is a red herring.
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> CONSPIRACY??? This is going too far!


----------



## ceirun

pinkpanter said:
			
		

> You might be right, I tend to think everything is a conspiracy


Por lo menos las teorías de conspiración hacen que el mundo sea más interesante. 




			
				beatrizg said:
			
		

> CONSPIRACY??? This is going too far!


Tal vez tengas razón, Beatriz.
Solo pienso que a veces hay alguna gente que quiere criticar a EE.UU por casi cualquier razón, y no me parece que este tema del concepto de _América _sea uno en que merezcan ser criticados tanto (aunque haya bastantes otros en que sí).
Saludos.


----------



## Everness

Ay, dejemos a los gringos en paz! Que quieres decir, que a los gringos no le gusta la tez marron de nuestros pueblos mestizos? No nos olvidemos que ellos quieren convertir al continente americano en una zona de libre comercio. Ahi nos salvamos todos!

En cuanto a lo del gentilicio, ellos se constituyeron en pais antes de la mayoria de los paises centro y latinoamericanos. Escogieron Estados Unidos de America como su nombre y, como otros paises luego hicieron, escogieron el ultimo nombre para identificarse: americanos. Es mas facil. Es mas simple. De otra forma se presentarian como "estadounidenseamericanos", una sencilla estupidez. No lo hicieron para apropiarse de una identidad continental. Esa es una lectura desde el futuro.


----------



## ILT

Los gringos se refieren al continente como "the Americas", dando ha entedender que el continente consta de varias Americas, es decir, lo dividen.

Yo creo, por lo que he leído, que esto de ellos adjudicarse el gentilicio americanos responde a la época de las colonias, cuando quienes estaban asentados en el nuevo continente se referían a él como tal, como América, "back there in America we have ...", "when I was living in America I was used to ...", etc.  El problema es que se fueron independizando las diferentes regiones, y ellos conservaron el gentilicio de americanos por comodidad, por ignorancia, o por costumbre de uso (lo ignoro), y hasta la fecha es así.

ILT


----------



## Outsider

My two cts.:

_How many continents?_

What I remember from childhood (very vaguely) is learning that the continents were: Europe, Asia, Africa, America and Oceania.

Antarctica was not considered a continent, perhaps because people don't live there. I don't remember exactly what Oceania was supposed to be; perhaps it was just another name for Australia. Surely, it would make no sense to have a "continent" of islands!   

_How many Americas?_

Informally, I remember hearing about North America, Central America and South America. Other authors seem to prefer just North America and South America. I don't know how this distinction was popularized - it may not have been an innocent one, since it leaves the wealthiest countries in North America. But I've also read that separating America into more continents makes sense from a geological standpoint, since apparently the land mass is made up of several tectonic plates (the Northern one includes Mexico).

_Americans or "United-Staters"?_

Although the term "American" for the inhabitants of the U.S.A. is slightly ambiguous, I think it can be excused by the fact that the U.S.A. were, historically, the first _independent_ nation in the American continent(s).


----------



## Phryne

Tal vez no sea una teoría conspirativa, pero acaso nunca vieron esos mapas donde el continente Americano aparece _en medio _del mapamundi y Eurasia está partido en dos? Pienso yo, ingenua, que es más fácil y simple partir una masa de agua sin casi tierra que dividir al medio uno/dos continentes (depende de lo que Uds prefieran) bien poblados? No es por nada, pero dichos mapas no estaba exactamente diseñados por latinoamericanos. 

No se puede negar que es una postura _muy_ etnocéntrica!


----------



## Outsider

I think I've seen maps like those in American films or TV. It's funny, because in European maps Europe is of course in the middle (more or less).


----------



## Edher

Saludos,

        South America, North America and Central America should be used the same way Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Northern Europe are utilized.

Edher


----------



## Like an Angel

Yo personalmente prefiero decirles *Norteamericanos* porque son de Norte América, así como Centroamericanos y Latinoamericanos, pero sería lógico llamarlos Americanos según tu razonamiento, el problema es que el nombre _Estados Unidos de América_, para mí, no es correcto debería ser Estados Unidos de América del Norte/Norte América.-

De todas formas están aceptados ambos, tanto Americanos como Estadounidenses.-


----------



## cuchuflete

Para un poco de fondo...http://www.wordorigins.org/wordora.htm#america


----------



## Everness

Like an Angel said:
			
		

> Yo personalmente prefiero decirles *Norteamericanos* porque son de Norte América, así como Centroamericanos y Latinoamericanos, pero sería lógico llamarlos Americanos según tu razonamiento, el problema es que el nombre _Estados Unidos de América_, para mí, no es correcto debería ser Estados Unidos de América del Norte/Norte América.-
> 
> De todas formas están aceptados ambos, tanto Americanos como Estadounidenses.-




Ah, lo que faltaba... ahora le vamos a cambiar el nombre a gringolandia! El comentario de que los EEUU fueron el primer pais del nuevo continente AMERICANO en declarar su independencia de Europa es excelente porque pone todo en perspectiva. El resto de America estaba en manos de otras potencias europeas. Incluir America en el nombre era algo logico, o no?


----------



## Everness

The most interesting thing about this whole silly issue --that unfortunately I brought up-- is that Americans, rightly so, don't give a damn about what other people think!


----------



## Outsider

I rather like the sound of "Gringolandia"...


----------



## beatrizg

Outsider said:
			
		

> I rather like the sound of "Gringolandia"...



I agree! And this is the way we called the USA in Colombia, to avoid saying Estados Unidos, which is a bit too long. So gringos and gringolandia are the words most used in everyday language --when we talk about the US and its citizens.

In Cuchu's link (http://www.wordorigins.org/wordora.htm#america) we can read the following:
"...America is named after the man who first recognized that it was a new continent and not just a part of Asia". 

So it seems that initially they discovered-recognized a new continent. My question is, when and how did it become two continents?


----------



## cuchuflete

beatrizg said:
			
		

> I agree! And this is the way we called the USA in Colombia, to avoid saying Estados Unidos, which is a bit too long. So gringos and gringolandia are the words most used in everyday language --when we talk about the US and its citizens.
> 
> In Cuchu's link (http://www.wordorigins.org/wordora.htm#america) we can read the following:
> "...America is named after the man who first recognized that it was a new continent and not just a part of Asia".
> 
> So it seems that initially they discovered-recognized a new continent. My question is, when and how did it become two continents?



I've avoided chirping on this topic until all the invective had been vented...
so...

Europeans gave the name to what they believed was a single continent.
Americans/estadounidenses (that one rolls off the tongue like cold molasses!)/norteamericanos/gringos just adopted the use they were taught by their English and Dutch and French and Spanish masters.
So much for conspiracy theories. Yes, of course we could be called lazy for not deciding, in 1821 or 1933 to change the name to come into accord with future political correctness! But then whatever we called ourselves today would bother at least someone, and would be politically incorrect in a decade or two.

So, to Beatriz's good question. How did it become two, or three, continents? I have an English map, engraved in 1744, before the existence of 'Americans' identifying North America and South America by separate names. So don't waste time trying to justify another theory of what the "Americans" did to divide the continent. 

Continent is either a geologic term...in which case I don't know if it is one, two, or three continents...or it is a political and cultural term. If you choose to use it as the latter, then what constitutes a continent? 

 I really don't care one way or the other. Call me a gringo, or whatever you wish. I remain, as does each of you, a person. Each of us is defined by the culture(s) in which we have grown up and in which we live. I do not feel limited to the EEUU, or to the American continent(s). I just enjoyed a chat with a friend from Mallorca. We have much more in common than I do with most residents of EEUU.

The division into two continents was done by European cartographers, now long dead.  So please argue with them when you next see them.

saludos,
Cuchu


----------



## Outsider

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Europeans gave the name to what they believed was a single continent.
> Americans/estadounidenses (that one rolls off the tongue like cold molasses!)/norteamericanos/gringos just adopted the use they were taught by their English and Dutch and French and Spanish masters.
> So much for conspiracy theories. Yes, of course we could be called lazy for not deciding, in 1821 or 1933 to change the name *to come into accord with future political correctness*!


Or present geographical consistency. After all, the continent was named before the nation...
Not that I think this is a terribly important matter. As Shakespeare wrote, _'A rose, by any other name...'_


----------



## supercrom

You can't obviously say *USAn* or *USAese*, can you?
Only to refer to people born in USA... or a word people form USA refer to themselves



*CROM*

PS _Gringoland_ is OK to me.


----------



## cuchuflete

cromteaches said:
			
		

> PS _Gringoland_ is OK to me.



But that would disenfranchise millions of people.  Gringo is used in some SP speaking countries to mean "foreigner", extranjero, in a generic sense.
If we adopted gringolandia=EEUU, then we would be accused of ignoring all other 'gringos'!


----------



## te gato

Hi All;

I don't know if I am way out in left field here..but....has anyone else noticed a pattern here?????

America--American
Mexico--Mexican
Canada--Canadian
Alberta--Albertan
Hungary--Hungrian
Italy--Italian
Peru--Peruvean
Chile--Chilean
Bolgaria--Bolgarian
Algeria--Algerian
Australia--Australian
Cuba--Cuban
Africa--African
Argentina--Argentinan
Germany--German

Yadda,yadda--Yaddan,yaddan

As for ' Gringoland ' mmmm Sounds like an Amusement Park to me... 
If you were to call it that..then what should all us 'Gringos/Gringas'..from 'Gringoland'..Call you???and YOUR Country?? 

te gato


----------



## beatrizg

te gato said:
			
		

> Hi All;
> 
> I don't know if I am way out in left field here..but....has anyone else noticed a pattern here?????
> 
> America--American
> 
> 
> As for ' Gringoland ' mmmm Sounds like an Amusement Park to me...
> If you were to call it that..then what should all us 'Gringos/Gringas'..from 'Gringoland'..Call you???and YOUR Country??
> 
> te gato



South Africa - South Africans and not Africans. 

The thing is Te Gato, that America is the name of the whole continent so we are all Americans. I'm not sure if you are also talking about the continent when you say: 
America -- Americans ?
Gringolandia sounds funny, but nice. In Colombia we call gringos just the citizens of the USA, so nobody has to feel left out, Cuchu.


----------



## Artrella

beatrizg said:
			
		

> South Africa - South Africans and not Africans.
> 
> The thing is Te Gato, that America is the name of the whole continent so we are all Americans. I'm not sure if you are also talking about the continent when you say:
> America -- Americans ?
> Gringolandia sounds funny, but nice. In Colombia we call gringos just the citizens of the USA, so nobody has to feel left out, Cuchu.




Well, I think that "Americans from the USA" feel as if they are the only "Americans" here...  ... maybe they are right...
WE call it Yankilandia...   and "yankis"


----------



## te gato

beatrizg said:
			
		

> South Africa - South Africans and not Africans.
> 
> The thing is Te Gato, that America is the name of the whole continent so we are all Americans. I'm not sure if you are also talking about the continent when you say:
> America -- Americans ?
> Gringolandia sounds funny, but nice. In Colombia we call gringos just the citizens of the USA, so nobody has to feel left out, Cuchu.


 
Hey beatrizg;
I was just stating a pattern.... that all...no more no less....
I was not saying that 'Gringoland' didn't sound nice..to me it sounds Funny 
like 'Dollywood'...

te gato


----------



## Outsider

te gato said:
			
		

> I don't know if I am way out in left field here..but....has anyone else noticed a pattern here?????
> 
> America--American
> Mexico--Mexican
> Canada--Canadian
> Alberta--Albertan
> Hungary--Hungrian
> Italy--Italian
> Peru--Peruvean
> Chile--Chilean
> Bolgaria--Bolgarian
> Algeria--Algerian
> Australia--Australian
> Cuba--Cuban
> Africa--African
> Argentina--Argentinan
> Germany--German
> 
> Yadda,yadda--Yaddan,yaddan


Japan, China--Japanese, Chinese
Israel, Iraq--Israeli, Iraqi
England, Sweden--English, Swedish...


----------



## Artrella

cromteaches said:
			
		

> CALD
> My Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (PC version) says:
> *gringo*  (PRONUNCIATION)
> noun [C] plural *gringos* INFORMAL DISAPPROVING
> a foreigner in a Latin American country, especially one who speaks only English​I think we can say *US Gringo*, or *US American*... or just *Yankee* (español yanqui)  Thx Art.
> 
> *CROM*



*
gringo, ga. * 
 (Etim. disc.). 
 1. adj. coloq. Extranjero, especialmente de habla inglesa, y en general hablante de una lengua que no sea la española. U. t. c. s. 
 2. adj. coloq. Dicho de una lengua: extranjera. U. t. c. s. m. 
 3. adj. *Am. Mer., Cuba, El Salv., Hond. y Nic. estadounidense*. Apl. a pers., u. t. c. s. 
 4. adj. Ur. inglés (ǁ natural de Inglaterra). U. t. c. s. 
 5. adj. Ur. ruso (ǁ natural de Rusia). U. t. c. s. 
 6. m. y f. Bol., Hond., Nic. y Perú. Persona rubia y de tez blanca. 
 7. m. coloq. Lenguaje ininteligible. 



Real Academia Española © Todos los derechos reservados


----------



## supercrom

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> But that would disenfranchise millions of people. Gringo is used in some SP speaking countries to mean "foreigner", extranjero, in a generic sense.
> If we adopted gringolandia=EEUU, then we would be accused of ignoring all other 'gringos'!


*CALD*



My Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (PC version) says:*gringo* (PRONUNCIATION) 

noun [C] plural *gringos* INFORMAL DISAPPROVING
a foreigner in a Latin American country, especially one who speaks only English.​I think we can say *US Gringo*, or *US American*... or just *Yankee* (español: yanqui)  Thx Art. 



			
				te gato said:
			
		

> Peru--Peruvean


 It's *Peruvian*, BS.

*CROM*


----------



## supercrom

Artrella said:
			
		

> *gringo, ga. *
> (Etim. disc.).
> [...]
> 6. m. y f. Bol., Hond., Nic. y Perú. Persona rubia y de tez blanca.
> [...]
> 
> RAE © Todos los derechos reservados


 
DRAE is right, here we also call gringo to people of that ethnic group.

But the nationality is still a big problem...

*US American* for people in the American continent and American (¿?) for people from Europe or other continents.

*CROM*


----------



## Phryne

Como "gringo" significa "extranjero", en Argentina un "gringo" suele ser un Italiano, dada la gran inmigración que tuvimos. 

Como Artrella dijo, a los estadounidenses nos gusta llamarlos "*yanquis*", y su pais "*Yanquilandia*"!


----------



## pinkpanter

Phryne said:
			
		

> Como Artrella dijo, a los estadounidenses nos gusta llamarlos "*yanquis*", y su pais "*Yanquilandia*"!



Los estadounidenses también tienen la palabra "yankee" pero no para describir a todos ellos sino a los habitantes de los estados de Nueva Inglaterra.


----------



## te gato

cromteaches said:
			
		

> *CALD*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (PC version) says:*gringo* (PRONUNCIATION)
> 
> 
> noun [C] plural *gringos* INFORMAL DISAPPROVING
> a foreigner in a Latin American country, especially one who speaks only English.
> ​I think we can say *US Gringo*, or *US American*... or just *Yankee* (español: yanqui)  Thx Art.
> 
> 
> It's *Peruvian*, BS.
> 
> *CROM*


 
Oh LB you are so right...
Its it that brain to finger thing again..OOOPPPSS...
Thank you for the correction. 

te gato


----------



## te gato

Outsider said:
			
		

> Japan, China--Japanese, Chinese
> Israel, Iraq--Israeli, Iraqi
> England, Sweden--English, Swedish...


 
Outsider;
I agree..mmmm..Did I say for all??? Let me think...ah..no.. 
I just listed some...and yes..some didn't have the pattern..
I was is my odd..*Albertan *way  wondering why the pattern..does putting ' a ' or 'an' at the end signify something...
that was all.....................

te gato


----------



## beatrizg

I just remembered when GWB called the Greeks, Grecians!!!!       
He never realized he was wrong, at least not by himself! I bet.

It has nothing to do with your theory Te Gato.


----------



## cuchuflete

In keeping with the collective will of about 4 or 5 of the people who posted in this thread, I will now answer, happily, to Gringo.  For the few who prefer Yankee, I will turn my head towards you and smile when you say that.  For those who have declared this to be "a tempest in a teapot" I will address you as you may prefer, and with deep thanks and admiration.

Anyone who addresses me as "Hey you! Estadounidense!" will elicit a laugh, and my disapproval for your mistreatment of my Mexican and Brasilian friends.

Call me a norteamericano, and I will thank you for putting me in the good company of Mexican and Canadian citizens.

Is there someone I have not troubled yet?

Oh well, back to dividing up continents.

What shall I call people from London?  Mmmmm Great Britainites? UKians? 

Should we have a poll, and let all the interested foreros vote on what to call about 300 million people?

Con respeto, desde Gringolandia,
cuchu


----------



## Everness

Esta discusion me recuerda un graffiti que adornaba una vieja pared.


Yankees go home!
(But please take us with you)


----------



## lainyn

Just to throw my opinion into the melée:

I'm from British Columbia, and I grew up refering to "the United States of America" as the US, never as America. However, because it sounds silly to say "U.S.ers", everyone where I'm from calls them Americans. 

People from the US are really proud to be "Americans" (ie. America the Beautiful...God Bless America...etc), and because of that, I would never want to be called one (even if I do belong to the American continent!). I should clarify that, hmm: I don't want to steal their thunder, but would rather remain uniquely Canadian. 



> What shall I call people from London?



Why, Londoners of course!

And is it just me, or does the term North American lifestyle seem sort of derogatory?

-Lainyn


----------



## cuchuflete

I wonder what on earth 'North American Lifestyle' might mean?   Remind me to ask someone from from Jalapa, and a person from New Brunswick, and... 

Cuchu


----------



## Everness

lainyn said:
			
		

> Just to throw my opinion into the melée:
> 
> I'm from British Columbia, and I grew up refering to "the United States of America" as the US, never as America. However, because it sounds silly to say "U.S.ers", everyone where I'm from calls them Americans.
> 
> People from the US are really proud to be "Americans" (ie. America the Beautiful...God Bless America...etc), and because of that, I would never want to be called one (even if I do belong to the American continent!). I should clarify that, hmm: I don't want to steal their thunder, but would rather remain uniquely Canadian.



_* Ay pobre Canada! Tan lejos de Dios y tan cerca de los Estados Unidos!*_ (Or was it Mexico? I'm confused.)


----------



## lainyn

Hehe, Everness, no estamos tan lejos de Dios que el resto del mundo, porque Dios vive al Norte Polaco con San Nicolás

And by "North American Lifestyle" I was refering to our poor eating and exercise habits which have led to excessive obesity rates, as well as our comparitively scandalous consumption of fresh water! 

-Lainyn


----------



## Like an Angel

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Anyone who addresses me as...


 
I'd addresses you as _Hey you! the clever man in the beret! yes, you, Mr. Cuchuflexus!! ..._ would this work?



			
				Everness said:
			
		

> Yankees go home!
> (But please take us with you)


 
_Somebody _told me that the word *gringo *comes from mixing *green* and *go,* _sometime_ ago when the Army arrived _somewhere_ dressed in _green_ and the natives askend them for leaving their land saying _go _


----------



## cuchuflete

Like an Angel said:
			
		

> I'd addresses you as _Hey you! the clever man in the beret! yes, you, Mr. Cuchuflexus!! ..._ would this work?
> 
> 
> 
> _Somebody _told me that the word *gringo *comes from mixing *green* and *go,* _sometime_ ago when the Army arrived _somewhere_ dressed in _green_ and the natives askend them for leaving their land saying _go _



Para ver más ideas sobre la palabra "gringo"....

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=5072&highlight=gringo

cuchu


Like an Angel,
You are being extremely politically incorrect, and potentially offensive, without intending it I am sure, to millions of Basque people.  It is not a beret, but a boina.

Un abrazo,
C.


----------



## Artrella

*yanqui. * 
 (Del ingl. yankee). 
 1. adj. Natural de Nueva Inglaterra. U. t. c. s. 
 2. adj. Perteneciente o relativo a esta zona de los Estados Unidos de América. 
 3. *adj. estadounidense. * 

Real Academia Española © Todos los derechos reservados


----------



## J_CR

<<Call me a norteamericano, and I will thank you for putting me in the good company of
Mexican and Canadian citizens.>>

Segun Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_America Centroamerica es parte
de Norteamerica. Ya no saben que inventar !!


----------



## PGTX

CENTROAMERICA QUE??????????? Dios mío, saben algo, América es un solo continente (y si no, voy a culpar a mis maestras de primaria por haberme engañado, ajjajjaa)

Lo que sucede es que América está formado (nótese la "o", xq hablo del Continente, que es género masculino) por tres secciones

Norte: Canadá, EUA y EUM, o México

Centro: Guatemala (por cierto, los chapines tenemos un pésimo futbol, jajaja), El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica y Panamá

Sur: Colombia, Perú, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Argentina, EUdoB o Brasil, Surinam, Guyana Francesa, Uruguay y Paraguay (si se me escapa alguno, háganmelo saber!, porfa)

Así es que es mis amigos!! América es un solo Continente


----------



## cuchuflete

Hola PGTX,

There are many opinions of this subject:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=80316

and especially....

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=58287


----------



## PGTX

Muchas gracias Cuchuflete


----------



## Polastudent

Everness:

Totalmente de acuerdo contigo. Yo soy periodista y profesora y le enseño a mis alumnos que el gentilicio americano involucra desde Alaska a Tierra del fuego (yo soy de este último, de Chile), por lo tanto los que viven en los Estados Unidos de Norteamerica (USA) son estadouniudenses, así les llamamos en Chile.

Si les decimos americanos es impreciso ya que yo, un mexicano, un canadiense también son americanos (parte del continente América). Si decimos norteamericano, tampoco es preciso, porque un canadiense y un mexicano también estarían en esta categoría. Entonces lo preciso sería "Estadounidenese" para los nacidos en USA.

Finalmente, totalmente de acuerdo en el error en que incurren mis colegas al decir "Americanos invaden Iraq...Americanos..." son los estadounidenses quienes invaden Iraq, no los chilenos, aregntinos, canadienses, mexicanos, colombianos, etc.

Interesante tu propuesta de debate Everness.

Saludos a todos quienes han dado su opinión

Pola


----------



## J_CR

PGTX se te olvidaron las islas tambien, Cuba, Puerto Rico,
Rep.Dominicana...etc, etc.

A proposito de donde nace el termino "chapin" ?


----------



## Mutichou

In French, we have two words too: "américain" and "états-unien".
I have always said "américain", but it is ambiguous, because someone who lives in Canada is also American. The word "états-unien" has been created to avoid this, it comes from "États-Unis" (United States).


----------



## Tochi

In Spanish too "estadounidense" is used instead of "american" which is
clearly ambiguous. See how ambiguous this term could be when one reads
the name of the "Organization of American States" or OEA in spanish for
"Organizacion de Estados Americanos". It sounds like a U.S. organization
(although somehow it is).


----------



## PGTX

J_CR said:


> PGTX se te olvidaron las islas tambien, Cuba, Puerto Rico,
> Rep.Dominicana...etc, etc.
> 
> A proposito de donde nace el termino "chapin" ?


 

Gracias por recordarme las islas, se me había olvidado mencionarlas!

La respuesta para tu pregunta de por qué se nos dice chapines no la tengo (igual sería bueno iniciar un thread con ese nombre, pues no creo que este sea el correcto para hablarlo)

En el DRAE no da datos históricos (por razones obvias) habrá que investigar!

Gracias nuevamente por recordarme las islas


----------



## Thomas F. O'Gara

A propósito, el nombre oficial del Brasil es "A Republica Federativa do Brasil" - no "Os Estados Unidos do Brasil."


----------



## snila

Dato curioso. En las visas que el gobierno mexicano expide a nuestros vecinos de Estados Unidos de América, en nacionalidad anotan: estadounidenses. Ningún estadounidense hasta ahora, ha pedido aparecer como 'americano'. La Embajada de Estados Unidos de América tampoco ha realizado ninguna petición en ese sentido, que yo sepa. Así que para efectos legales y prácticos, en los Estados Unidos Mexicanos (México), los ciudadanos de Estados Unidos de América son estadounidenses


----------



## cuchuflete

Thomas F. O'Gara said:


> A propósito, el nombre oficial del Brasil es "A República Federativa do Brasil" - no "Os Estados Unidos do Brasil."


  Correcto.  Desde hace unos
36 años el país se llama así.  Antes, desde fines del siglo XIX, hasta el cambio al nombre actual, era Os Estados Unidos do Brasil.


----------



## Noel Acevedo

Artrella said:


> Están en lo cierto...chicas.
> 
> Una pregunta que me rondaba la cabecita ayer en el tren...la gente de Puerto Rico... son americanos? son puertoriqueños? Es Puerto Rico parte de los Estados Unidos de América?


 
Artrella,

SOMOS Puertorriqueños, ostentamos la ciudadanía de Estados Unidos; ya que fuimos adquiridos por esa nación como botín de guerra de España a raiz de la Guerra Hispano-americana. Y aunque un porciento considerable de mis conciudadanos se creen parte de aquella nación, otro porciento igual sabe que no lo somos y nunca seremos parte de aquella.  Seguimos siendo desafortunadamente, como dijo don José "Pepe" Trías Monje, la colonia más vieja del mundo.

Noel Acevedo


----------



## Tochi

<<la gente de Puerto Rico... son americanos? >>

Por supuesto, cualquier habitante de nuestro continente es
por consiguiente americano.


----------



## GONTA

Everness, yo le pregunté eso a un amigo mio que es estadounidense? porqué se llaman ellos americanos si America es todo un continente, no sólo su territorio -y bromeando me dijo que eran americanos con Mayúscula el muy imbécil- pero bueno, es una simple cuestión de que les sale más práctico llamarse asi y no decir hola, soy estadounidense (y eso tampoco estaría bien por lo mismo que dijiste de Brasil o incluso de Mexico), quizás es otra muestra de la falta de una verdadera identidad nacional...no sé...
pero yo sí soy AMERICANO, latinoamericano, no de Estados Unidos.

(y en relación a alguien que unia Mexico a Centroamerica, no es así, sino que forma parte de MESOAMERICA - meso, también quiere decir la parte central de america- pero pueden ponerlo en Google para datos más exactos jiji)


----------



## fenixpollo

I've learned so much from this thread, and re-visiting reminds me how educational and fascinating it can be when we get off topic.

I've always thought that the French and the Spanish way of using United States as an adjective, while not inherently more clear than saying "American", is still a better option because it avoids the whole continent vs. country issue.

I suggest that we adopt this practice in English, and that from this day forward, we refer to people from the USA as *Unitedstatesian*.


----------



## Tochi

<<I suggest that we adopt this practice in English, and that from this day
forward, we refer to people from the USA as Unitedstatesian.>>

Are you being sarcastic or something ? Although there are people from the U.S.
who thinks that way generally the reaction is always way negative. Just curious.


----------



## fenixpollo

Tochi said:


> Are you being sarcastic or something ? Although there are people from the U.S.
> who thinks that way generally the reaction is always way negative. Just curious.


 No sarcasm. I am not your typical Unitedstatesian. If you want proof, do a forum search for all posts with that word in them.


----------



## GenJen54

fenixpollo said:


> I've learned so much from this thread, and re-visiting reminds me how educational and fascinating it can be when we get off topic.
> 
> I've always thought that the French and the Spanish way of using United States as an adjective, while not inherently more clear than saying "American", is still a better option because it avoids the whole continent vs. country issue.
> 
> I suggest that we adopt this practice in English, and that from this day forward, we refer to people from the USA as *Unitedstatesian*.


Sorry.  I just don't agree here.  Color me politically-incorrect, but I just don't see why, after 200 years of my country being called "America," and its citizens being called "Americans,"  and after nearly forty years of my being an "American," I need to change.  If you really want to look at it, continental Americans asking the citizens of the country of America to stop being "Americans" is just as exclusionary as they accuse us of being. 

I'll be Unitdestatesian in Spanish only.


----------



## Mafe Dongo

supercrom said:


> ...América es todo un cotinente, con subdivisiones específicas como América del Norte (o Norteamérica), América Central (¿?) Centroamérica/Centro América y América del Sur (Sudamérica).
> .... En inglés hacen esto, no sé cómo harán para referirse a todo el continente...
> 
> *CROM*


----------



## Balthazar

I think that it will be Unitedstatesian because who live in america are american.


----------



## cuchuflete

Balthazar said:


> I think that it will be Unitedstatesian because who live in america is american.



In English, just as in Spanish, many words have more than one meaning.


----------



## Tochi

Hi GenJen54,

<<Sorry. I just don't agree here. Color me politically-incorrect, but I just don't see
 why, after 200 years of my country being called "America,">>

What is the base of your statement about the time when the U.S. adopted the name of the continent
which had that name since 1507 ?
This far I've not found any clue about the moment of history where this happened and why. Do you
have any reliable source, or anybody else ? I've searched for it unsuccessfully. Thanks.


----------



## cuchuflete

Tochi said:


> What is the base of your statement about the time when the U.S. adopted the name of the continent
> which had that name since 1507 ?



Hi Tochi,

The US was formed by the separation of colonies from England.
In July of 1776, representatives from those colonies met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and issued the Declaration of Independence.
In that document, they described those colonies as "States", and used the designation United to describe their federative political relationship, and "of America" to describe their geographic location.  All three terms, States, United, and 'of America' were then and are today accurate.

If you use a search engine to seek "Declaration of Independence" you will easily find the original document.

What is frequently overlooked in discussions about this topic is that the term "Americans" was in use by Europeans to describe the colonial residents even before the formation of any independent country.


----------



## hedonist

The answer to this conundrum could lie in letting the USA keep the name "America" once and for all be done with it and rename the continent to something more appropriate and palatable to the majority of current "second-tier" Americans.


----------



## Tochi

Hi Cuchuflete,

Yes, I've read that document and others from that period but honestly I can't see an use of the term like the one used today in U.S. for the word 'America', instead 'United States' is used vastly. I recall James Monroe proclaiming "America for the Americans" in early 19 century. I think he was refering to the continent since the thing had to do with Europe (England, Spain, Portugal...) and with any try to reconquer any country in the continent not only the U.S. I believe this particular use started in the early century 20th with the country raising and when millions of inmigrants came to it. came to 'America'.


----------



## Tochi

<<The answer to this conundrum could lie in letting the USA keep the name "America" once and for all be done with it and rename the continent to something more appropriate and palatable to the majority of current "second-tier" Americans.>>

Good joke  , well at least you call everybody American, that's a beginning!!!


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Tochi,
You are correct about President Monroe, and the so-called Monroe Doctrine.  He was, in essence, telling the major European political and military powers of the time to acknowledge that the American hemisphere was no longer part of their sphere of influence, and that an attempt to reassert their former power in this part of the world would be met with military resistance.

At that time, there were no other countries in America/The Americas (take your pick...these are naming conventions that have been in circulation for a great many years) of substantial military or economic strength, and the custom of that time, just as today, is for more potent nations to try to exert influence over less powerful ones.    We can dislike that system of human and national behavior, but I suspect that won't change it.  What we can change are the naming conventions in our respective native languages.  That requires considerable popular consensus.  While many, though far from all, Spanish speakers prefer estadounidense, the overwhelming majority of English speakers are not likely to discard hundreds of years of linguistic custom without a compelling reason.  Have you seen such a reason?


----------



## kaleidoscope

Let's do a deal: Spanish-speakers, stop using the word "anglosajón" to erroneously refer to (among other things) the hugely varied different cultures and peoples of the USA, and we English-speakers will stop using "America" to refer to the USA.

In fact, no, let's just stop telling each other what words should mean in each other's languages.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, "América" is not the same as "America" and "americano" is not the same as "American".

Although, just to add, if you look up "americano" in the RAE dictionary you'll see that their fourth definition says:

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


----------



## Tochi

Cuchuflete,

<<the overwhelming majority of English speakers are not likely to discard hundreds of years of linguistic custom without a compelling reason.>>

Here is where I am not sure, I still believe that the modern use of the term could have one hundred years of existence maybe a bit more. Of course I could be wrong but while I can't see another evidence.

<< Have you seen such a reason?>>

I agree with you, it's way hard to change a custom so rooted but see that this issue didn't exist some years ago until Internet took its place in the world. But there are people in the U.S.(I know, not many) who believe that this use is not accurate enough, that's a beginning I think. Reasons ? to use the original and correct name of the whole continent without ambiguity, as it was conceived since 1507, to use the correct name of all the inhabitants, the same way all the people from other continents enjoy their own.


----------



## Tochi

<<Let's do a deal: Spanish-speakers, stop using the word "anglosajón" to erroneously refer to (among other things) the hugely varied different cultures and peoples of the USA, and we English-speakers will stop using "America" to refer to the USA.>>

You are right, I don't like that term and I never use it. It's a deal !!!!

<<In fact, no, let's just stop telling each other what words should mean in each other's languages.
As mentioned earlier in the thread, "América" is not the same as "America" and "americano" is not the same as "American".>>

Why does it bother you ? Just think that 'Anglosajón' is not the same as 'Anglo-Saxon' 

Those words only has one origin. In this case it's clear like the water.


----------



## kaleidoscope

Well, I'm not exactly going to lose any sleep over the "anglosajon" thing , even if I don't like it.
But what right do I have to tell a Spanish-speaker
what meaning a word should have in his/her language?
...and vice versa.


----------



## kaleidoscope

...Unless perhaps I mistakenly considered a small language issue as a symbol of some other much larger issue which I already had very strong feelings about...


----------



## hedonist

Tochi said:


> <<The answer to this conundrum could lie in letting the USA keep the name "America" once and for all be done with it and rename the continent to something more appropriate and palatable to the majority of current "second-tier" Americans.>>
> 
> Good joke  , well at least you call everybody American, that's a beginning!!!



I was serious.  I think it would be best for everybody, we would get rid of the confusion permanently. 

With a new name for the continent nobody would think   *insert-new-continent-name* as only those that live in the US of A. 

The difficult part is in everybody agreeing with a new name.


----------



## Bonjules

Noel Acevedo said:


> Artrella,
> 
> SOMOS Puertorriqueños, ostentamos la ciudadanía de Estados Unidos; ya que fuimos adquiridos por esa nación como botín de guerra de España a raiz de la Guerra Hispano-americana. Y aunque un porciento considerable de mis conciudadanos se creen parte de aquella nación, otro porciento igual sabe que no lo somos y nunca seremos parte de aquella


 
My neighbors, who all more or less are supporters of the party that promotes
statehood and 'permanent union' for Puerto Rico, refer to their fellow (non-Puertorican) citizens on the mainland
as 'los Americanos'.
This is how I interpret this:
1. They don't seem to -culturally- identify with them (probably a mutual feeling)
2. They don't seem to share the resentment among many 'Latinos'
regarding the monopolizing of 'American' for Northamerican'.
 Similarly, I wonder if most 'Latinamericans' consider the inhabitatants
of the island such (Latinamericans).


----------



## cuchuflete

Tochi said:


> But there are people in the U.S.(I know, not many) who believe that this use is not accurate enough, that's a beginning I think. Reasons ? to use the original and correct name of the whole continent without ambiguity, as it was conceived since 1507, to use the correct name of all the inhabitants, the same way all the people from other continents enjoy their own.



Sorry, we don't share a basic starting point.  Not accurate enough?  What does 'accurate' mean?  A name a Dutchman contrived, based on the first, not last, name of an Italian, to
describe a continent "discovered" by an Italian or Portuguese or Basque (yes, some people still argue about that.) on behalf of some Iberian royal family?  What about the "accurate" names used by the "discovered" residents of the place?  How many of those names were there.  

"Correct" is a highly subjective word to apply, especially when the motivation for this pseudo-issue really has little to do with the English language.  It's just as easy to say that Bolivia is not accurate as a place name.  How "accurate" is _República de Colombia_?  Did Cristoforo Colombo ever set foot there?


----------



## Tochi

Bonjule wrote:
<<I wonder if most 'Latinamericans' consider the inhabitatants of the island such (Latinamericans).>>

For sure, without any doubt Puerto Ricans are considered Latin Americans only,
to think they are not is like to think that salsa and merengue are rythms from
the U.S.

kaleidoscope wrote:
<<Well, I'm not exactly going to lose any sleep over the "anglosajon" thing, even if I don't like it.>>

I think there's a huge difference between 'Anglo-Saxon' and 'America', no matter if you are called
'Anglo-Saxon' you still will keep the status of 'European'.

<<But what right do I have to tell a Spanish-speaker what meaning a word should have in his/her language?
...and vice versa.>>
<<As mentioned earlier in the thread, "América" is not the same as "America" and "americano" is not the 
same as "American".>>

According to your statement:

Latin American = Latin people living in the U.S.
South American = People from the southern states of the U.S.
North American = People from the southern states of the U.S.
Central American = People from the central states of the U.S.
Organization of American States = The federal government of the U.S.
Amerindians = Native indigenous fron the U.S.

hedonist wrote:
<<I was serious. I think it would be best for everybody, we would
get rid of the confusion permanently. >>

I will put it this way, we have five hundred years of calling 'America' to the continent
and 'Americanos' to ourselves, the people from the U.S. problably as much as a century ago
switched to 'America' as the name of the nation. So please stop the jokes!


----------



## kaleidoscope

Tochi said:


> kaleidoscope wrote:
> <<Well, I'm not exactly going to lose any sleep over the "anglosajon" thing, even if I don't like it.>>
> 
> I think there's a huge difference between 'Anglo-Saxon' and 'America', no matter if you are called
> 'Anglo-Saxon' you still will keep the status of 'European'.
> 
> <<But what right do I have to tell a Spanish-speaker what meaning a word should have in his/her language?
> ...and vice versa.>>
> <<As mentioned earlier in the thread, "América" is not the same as "America" and "americano" is not the
> same as "American".>>
> 
> According to your statement:
> 
> Latin American = Latin people living in the U.S.
> South American = People from the southern states of the U.S.
> North American = People from the southern states of the U.S.
> Central American = People from the central states of the U.S.
> Organization of American States = The federal government of the U.S.
> Amerindians = Native indigenous fron the U.S.


Nope, according to my statement that is not the case, because, as stated earlier in the thread, "America" has more than one meaning in English (same as "americano" has more than one meaning in Spanish, see the RAE dictionary entry), so America can refer to the USA (its most common current usage) or the land mass from the Magellan Straits to Tierra del Fuego, entre otras cosas...
Pero ya veo que esta es la "discusión de nunca acabar" and I think that some people are never going to change their minds, regardless of what new information they read, so my contribution to this very *divisive* topic ends here...


----------



## cuchuflete

If, for political or ideological or egotistical or altruistic and angelical motivations, some non-native English speakers want to protest about the words English speakers have traditionally used in English to describe places and countries, that is their right.  Perhaps such usage is only one hundred years old.
This is, if true, an interesting footnote and nothing more. Is older language usage inherently better than newer usage? Should we embalm colloquial speech of 1803?  Would that be more correct or more accurate to today's speakers of a language?  

Those who choose to may, in their own respective languages, pick different words to use.  The claims of usurpation, monopolization, and other such nonsense are bogus.  They are historically false.  

This thinly and badly disguised attempt to create an issue just doesn't work in terms of the use of the word "american" in the English language.  It may have validity, whatever the motive, in Spanish.  So if you want to ban the use of americano to refer to anything pertaining to the US in Spanish, please do so.  Ill-founded complaints about the use of the word American in English lack historical knowledge and perspective, and are going to continue to go around in circles with no outcome.

Look in any decent English language dictionary.  The word has more than one meaning.  You don't have to like that fact.  It may even offend you.  You may take your outrage and put the energy it stimulates into finding a new term to replace antiamericano.  Why have I never read or heard any complaints about the inaccuracy of that term?


----------



## Outsider

fenixpollo said:


> I've always thought that the French and the Spanish way of using United States as an adjective, while not inherently more clear than saying "American", is still a better option because it avoids the whole continent vs. country issue.


I must have missed that part of the thread. What is the French way of using United States as an adjective you speak of?


----------



## kaleidoscope

Outsider said:


> I must have missed that part of the thread. What is the French way of using United States as an adjective you speak of?


Maybe "*états-unien*"? (at least according to Wikipedia).


----------



## GenJen54

kaleidoscope said:
			
		

> "*états-unien*"? (at least according to Wikipedia).


When I started learning French almost thirty years ago, we used_ américain(e)_. I would have to look in my Collins from 1992, but I would guess that états-unien is a more recent addition to the language.


----------



## cuchuflete

Outsider said:


> I must have missed that part of the thread. What is the French way of using United States as an adjective you speak of?


It must be something in addition to this:

(From the French Academy's on-line dictionary)
américain= N. *1. *Habitant du continent américain. _Les Américains du Nord. Les Américains du Sud. _ *2. *Personne qui habite les États-Unis d'Amérique ou en est originaire. *3. *N. m. _L'américain, _forme prise par l'anglais écrit et parlé aux États-Unis d'Amérique. * Adj.* *1. *Relatif à l'Amérique. _Le continent américain. Langues américaines, _langues indigènes du continent américain. *2. *Relatif aux États-Unis d'Amérique. _Le drapeau américain. La littérature américaine. Le cinéma américain. Des cigarettes américaines. 

_It appears that French usage, like English, includes more than a single, unambiguous definition.


----------



## Outsider

I have never heard _états-unien_ in French.


----------



## cuchuflete

Outsider said:


> I have never heard _états-unien_ in French.


 Neither, apparently, has the French Academy, whose online search of their dictionary yields only,

"Aucun document ne correspond à ces critères"


----------



## kaleidoscope

However, it is listed as a synonym of "Américain" in the Office québécois de la langue français' grand dictionnaire terminologique, along with a couple of minor spelling variations:

Définition :
Personne citoyenne des États-Unis d'Amérique, qui y habite ou qui est originaire de ce pays.

Sous-entrée(s) : 
Américain n. m.
Américaine n. f.

synonyme(s)
États-Unien n. m.
États-Unienne n. f.
Étasunien n. m.
Étasunienne n. f.
Étatsunien n. m.
Étatsunienne n. f.


----------



## Outsider

But how many people actually use it?


----------



## kaleidoscope

I'm not sure about that, maybe a native French-speaker can tell us, although how many Spanish-speakers use "americano" instead of "estadounidense"? (A lot, in my experience).


----------



## kaleidoscope

Also from that page:

Il existe en anglais plusieurs autres termes qui ont été proposés pour remplacer _American_, dont _United Statesian_, ou _Unitedstatesian_,* mais sans succès. *

*


*


----------



## Tochi

Yes, 'Americano' to refer to U.S. people is used in Spanish but it just only
reflects the way U.S. people use it, it's like an 'Anglicism'. Some say 'hot dog'
instead of 'perro caliente' but anyway that's correct, the people from U.S. are 
americans as well. But I can assure you that it's not for conviction since you will
never find a Latin American who would say 'I will go to America' to refer to the U.S.
That's unthinkable and laughable.

The term exists in italian too 'statunitense'.


----------



## cuchuflete

Tochi said:


> Yes, 'Americano' to refer to U.S. people is used in Spanish but it just only
> reflects the way U.S. people use it, it's like an 'Anglicism'. .



Are you quite certain that it's "like an 'Anglicism'"?
Might it have come into Spanish from French?

Should all terms in the Spanish language that are possible anglicisms be banned, or just this particular one?

The nice thing about English and Spanish both are their habits of incorporating foreign words.  That tends to enrich, rather than impoverish a language.  

So far your objections seem to be 

-It has only been in use in English for about one hundred years.
-It is ambiguous
-It is not "correct"
-It is not "accurate"

By that logic or lack of logic, all words that have not been in widespread use for at least a few hundred years should be changed or banned, in your language and mine.  That's laughable.

All ambiguous words, with two or more possible meanings, should be outlawed.  That is preposterous.

You haven't yet replied to the comments about your descriptions of the term as "not correct" and not "accurate".

Do you have the inclination to tell us what your real objection is?  

Nobody has disputed the right of Spanish speakers to call the US and its citizens by whatever name they may desire in Spanish.  Attempts to impose literal translations of whatever choice that may be on the English language have no basis.

Usage does not belong to a politically correct—or incorrect—establishment.  Languages are organic.  Usage eventually dictates rules.


----------



## Tochi

Cuchuflete,

<<Are you quite certain that it's "like an 'Anglicism'"?
 Might it have come into Spanish from French?>>

America is not a French word, it's the feminine way (as in all continents) of 
the Latin version of the name of Amerigo Vespucci (Americus = America). The 
citizenship adjective is easy to figure it out in Spanish, America + a sufix 
(no/na)= americano/na. 

<<Should all terms in the Spanish language that are possible anglicisms be banned, or
just this particular one?

Americano/na is not really an Anglicism, is the *sense* that some people give to the 
term to refer to somebody from the US the same way you do it. That's why I said that 
it is 'like' and Anglicism. 'estadounidense' is a waay long word so people use a shorter
way. The strong influence of the U.S. through arts like movies and music has produced 
this habit in the world but as I said before nobody under your south border (I don't know
above your north one) never will call the U.S. as 'America' nobody will say "I made a trip
to America" that's just a nonsense for us. As absurd for a Frenchman in Paris to say I will
go to Europe to refer to England. Just imagine that England adopts the name of "The United 
Kingdom of Europe" and then they adopt as well the name of 'Europe/Europeans' by convention
only and exclusively to refer to England. What do you think the Dutch, Spaniards, Italians,
French, etc. would think about it ? Sincerely would you blame them ?

<<The nice thing about English and Spanish both are their habits of incorporating
 foreign words. That tends to enrich, rather than impoverish a language. >>

The matter of foreign words in a language is other story that deserves a thread but if
you want my opinion I am against them and I try to avoid them as possible, mainly if there
are equivalences available for them. Resuming in other words, if you don't have a better
word for 'taco' then use 'taco'. 

<<So far your objections seem to be 

 -It has only been in use in English for about one hundred years.>>

Many furiously claim that another alternative to the use of American/America is like 
to forget centuries of untouchable historical heritage but this far the evidence is not
that obvious. That's my point.

 -It is ambiguous>>

Vastly, just look for any text in English that speaks about something related to the 
whole continent (indigenous, conquest, history in general) you'll find the word 'Americas'
to try to make up the ambiguity but sooner or later hopelessly they fall into the phrase 
"the American continent" to refer to the whole continent. I hear all the time that 
'America/American' is only for the U.S. but who understands why Central 'America', 
South 'America', Latin 'American' are used indifferently. Somebody said that 'America'
and 'América' are different words, one in English and the other in Spanish, well then
there must be in English another couple of meanings 'America' to refer to the U.S. and 
'America' to refer to the rest of things in the whole continent. If that's not ambiguity
who will know what it is.

 -It is not "correct"
 -It is not "accurate"

Same above.

<< All ambiguous words, with two or more possible meanings, should be outlawed.
That is preposterous.
By that logic or lack of logic, all words that have not been in widespread use
for at least a few hundred years should be changed or banned, in your language 
and mine. That's laughable.>>

No, that's a simplistic way to see the things. 

<<You haven't yet replied to the comments about your descriptions of the term as
"not correct" and not "accurate".>>

I've done above.

<< Do you have the inclination to tell us what your real objection is? 
Nobody has disputed the right of Spanish speakers to call the US and its citizens 
by whatever name they may desire in Spanish. Attempts to impose literal translations
of whatever choice that may be on the English language have no basis.>>

This misconception is quite common in this discussion, first nobody is trying to 
impose anything, not me at least. I could take that statement and use it in inverse
way and say that you all want that us, who have 500 years of calling our continent 
'America', now can't call it that way because now it's only and exclusively the name
of the U.S., second I don't know who coined any of those alternate terms. You are 
assuming that the Spanish speakers did it. In fact I found it by coincidence on Internet
and third, if there are people from the U.S. who support any other alternative I have
to think that it is not as bad as many claim or will you deny them the right to change
conventions that they think are not correct ?

<<Usage does not belong to a politically correct—or incorrect—establishment.
Languages are organic. Usage eventually dictates rules.>>

I agree, the conventions tend to change.


----------



## SFO

I find it interesting that when I watch TV in the UK, the newscasters refer to the USA as "America,"  whereas residents of the USA refer to it normally as "The U.S." - when they are asked where they are from.

In Argentina I just say "no soy americano" and people sometimes take a little while before they smile ...


----------



## cuchuflete

I don't find the ambiguity that you see in the various English language uses of America and American.  Context invariably makes clear the intent of the speaker or writer.

There is no point in attempting partisanship for or against the naming conventions and counting of continents.  You have not been partisan about this, and I am not either.  Convention in
some countries is to call everything in this hemisphere one continent, while other countries have historically referred to two, and some even to three.  I leave that to the geographers to argue about.  That said, it's usually, if not always, clear in English when one is naming a country and when one is referring to a continent.  The same holds true for the adjectival form.  The naked words, free of all context, would certainly be ambiguous.  In context they rarely are.

In 1835 Alexis de Tocqueville published the first volume ofDe la democratie en *Amerique. *  There was no ambiguity about the use of the French word at that time, and French continues, as English does, to use the words to describe both continents or a continent, and to name a country colloquially.  

When a person from a country other than my own asks me where I am from, I answer, "The US."  This is never misunderstood, and I am happy with it.  I don't use "America" to name my country, though many others do so.  They too are understood.  For me it's no more than habit and stylistic choice.  The majority of English speakers I've ever known, regardless of nationality, use "America" to name the country.  That's their stylistic choice, not mine.  

In Spanish, I use estadounidense for nationality, although it is long and cumbersome.  I was taught by friends in Spain decades ago to avoid norteamericano, though many Spaniards say it, because that is absolutely ambiguous and excludes people from México and Canadá.
I cannot see any good reason for a Spanish speaker to use the word americano to describe a US citizen, but many do.  Context usually makes clear that they are referring to citizenship in a country, rather than residence in a continent.  Still, it's potentially ambiguous in some circumstances.  

I still see no compelling or even mildly persuasive reason for a change in the English speaking convention, while I see a distinct need in Spanish to reserve 'americano' and 'américa' for the entire hemisphere.


----------



## mirx

so America can refer to the USA (*its most common current usage*) or the land mass from the Magellan Straits to Tierra del Fuego, entre otras cosas...

Not in America, is the europeans who mostly (not only) refer to the United States of America, as America, while united states citizens usually call their country "The Unided States", or if they are talking to another american a "the states" will do.


----------



## Outsider

mirx said:


> so America can refer to the USA (*its most common current usage*) or the land mass from the Magellan Straits to Tierra del Fuego, entre otras cosas...
> 
> Not in America, is the europeans who mostly (not only) refer to the United States of America, as America, while united states citizens usually call their country "The Unided States", or if they are talking to another american a "the states" will do.


But Americans definitely call themselves _Americans_, not Unitedstaters. I think the main beef some people have is with the adjective, not the noun.


----------



## mirx

Outsider said:


> But Americans definitely call themselves _Americans_, not Unitedstaters. I think the main beef some people have is with the adjective, not the noun.


 

I feel exactly the opposite way, if they say they´re Americans, well, they are indeed!, as much as I am.

However if they said the name of their country is America, then that´s a complete different thing (but fortunately most of them don´t)

I find it rather ridiculous that some people support the idea of calling the continent "The Americas", it´s as stupid as saying "the Europes" and then presuming that Italy is "Europe", and giving a bunch on senseless reasons why Italy should be called Europe.


----------



## Outsider

mirx said:


> I find it rather ridiculous that some people support the idea of calling the continent "The Americas", it´s as stupid as saying "the Europes" and then presuming that Italy is "Europe", and giving a bunch on senseless reasons why Italy should be called Europe.


I find it ridiculous that you find it ridiculous.

1. There's a long established tradition of using the terms "North America" and "South America".

2. America is much larger than Europe. It's not unreasonable to split it up into smaller continents, just as people have traditionally done with Europe + Africa + Asia.

3. Geologically, South America and North America lie on different tectonic plates. They were not connected, originally.


----------



## Tochi

Anyway geology is not a good source to decide what is or not a continent. Europe and
Asia share the same plate and India and Saudi Arabia have their own. When
the earth masses were baptized tectonics was an inexistent science. I think the names
of the continents were created based more on politics, culture and/or geography than on
geology and I think we must leave it that way.

<<I find it rather ridiculous that some people support the idea of calling the
 continent "The Americas",>>

Although this distinction exists in Spanish as well, it's used as a 'poetic' way to
express the union historically or geographically of the main diferent regions of the 
continent: north, central, insular and south. In English is intended to justify the
ambiguity in the distinction between 'America' as the U.S. name and the whole continent.
I remember a guy who said once that 'America is a North American country'. (???????)


----------



## cuchuflete

mirx said:


> I find it rather ridiculous that some people support the idea of calling the continent "The Americas", it´s as stupid as saying "the Europes" and then presuming that Italy is "Europe", and giving a bunch on senseless reasons why Italy should be called Europe.



You find it rather ridiculous that the conventions of another language are different?  That in itself is as ridiculous as an English speaker (it's common among 11 year olds first learning a Romance language) stating that it's ridiculous for a necktie or a table to have gender.  

You also have a logic problem, or perhaps an inability to notice that different cultures and groups within cultures have different historical habits and perceptions.

"...calling the continent 'the Americas'"    Some people are taught, as you seem to have been, that all the land in the hemisphere is a single continent.  No problem.  That's a geographic convention and a convention of language that goes with it.   Other people are taught that the land mass, or masses are either two or even three continents.  That's a different understanding of geography and geology, and the words used go with it.  

You are objecting to a singular object, according to one convention, being described with a a plural noun, which comes from another convention, and from another cultural tradition.
It is a mismatch.  Of course it would be illogical to call any single continent by a plural, but the underlying difference of opinion is about whether it is one, two, or three continents.
If your learning of geography included the educated opinion that it is all a single continent, and your language uses a singular noun to name it, that's good.  Whether it is accurate is a matter for geologists, not linguists.  The same is true for those who have been taught to think of the land mass or masses as plural.  They may be right or wrong—check with your favorite geologist—but their naming convention is consistent with their understanding of geology.  

Some of us, myself included, have no problem switching from singular to plural as we move from one language and cultural tradition to another.  We don't try to superimpose a geographic or geological or geo-political viewpoint on somebody else's language, even if we disagree with the underlying viewpoints.


----------



## cuchuflete

Tochi said:
			
		

> I think the names of the continents were created based more on politics, culture and/or geography than on geology and I think we must leave it that way.



That is a consumately sensible and intelligent statement.


----------



## Tochi

<<That is a consumately sensible and intelligent statement.>>

Thanks, I'm glad you agreed at last in leaving the names as they were conceived
originally.


----------



## mplsray

Tochi said:


> <<That is a consumately sensible and intelligent statement.>>
> 
> Thanks, I'm glad you agreed at last in leaving the names as they were conceived
> originally.


 
The statement being agreed to is the following:



> I think the names of the continents were created based more on politics, culture and/or geography than on geology and I think we must leave it that way.


 
That may be ambiguous, but I think the vast majority of people would understand it as meaning the following: _Continent names were not based upon geology, and they should not be._

And indeed they should not, because geology does not have a tight definition of _a continent,_ just as linguistics does not have a tight definition of _a language._

Whether the New World contains one continent, _America,_ or two, _the Americas_ (_North America_ and _South America_) is really a sociolinguistic question, that is, one which depends upon usage. Most people learn one or the other tradition in school and stick with it throughout their life. I learned the two-continent tradition, and it seems quite odd to me to consider the Americas as being one continent.


----------



## Tochi

I totally understand that point and I don't know how the story is taught in your
country but in my case it was taught as it happened without any local conventionalisms.
Anyway I feel I'm way capable to know when something is wrong no matter of them and
mainly it they affect somebody else.

Just an irrefutable fact of history: in 1507 "America" (not Americas) was used for
the first time as the name for the new lands. Ironic thing is that it seems that
the name was applied to the south lands since they were the first ones explored. 
That's pure and real history, no more no less.

You say there are two continents, north and south, in that case my area should belong
to North America as your maps show it. I grew up seeing my area as Central
America not North America or South America, but that's not really important since it 
is more or less in the center of the whole mass, even we have our own plate, for the 
ones who like geology. What is hard to understand is why North, *Central* and South
America again are used indifferently in English no matter of the way you were taught. 
The concept "Central America" *shouldn't* exist in your vocabulary if you are telling
me, and I quote: "I learned the two-continent tradition", but it does exist. Nobody in
my whole life has called me North American that's would be way laughable, even Mexicans
who deserve that title are not called that way. So it makes me think that really your 
conventions, or as you said "traditions", which seems to be the only argument given this
far, anyway are not respected or followed as you all claim and defend, so how would you
all then pretend that anybody else respect it ?


----------



## fenixpollo

Mexico IS considered part of North America by most Unitedstatesians I know. Conversely, most Mexicans I know refer to Unitedstatesians as "norteamericanos". The "traditions" that you claim to be held by Spanish-speakers are not universal, either.

If "America" can logically be divided with an artificial line south of Panama, or west of Belize, or not at all, then all of those divisions must be accepted. You may not like where English-speakers divide "America" (or that we divide it), but that doesn't mean that our division is incorrect. It's just different than yours.

And just because our division is different, doesn't mean it's disrespectful to your culture.


----------



## cuchuflete

The notion that the "original" use of America...that latinate  corruption of an Italian explorer's first name (applied by a Dutch speaker!) is somehow sacrosanct is just silly.  The first part of America/The Americas "discovered" by Europeans—if we leave out the Norsemen who seem to have got lost or intentionally found part of what is called New England today—were islands in the Caribbean Sea.  

At the time of this "discovery", there were lots of tribes of humans already living in these lands.  They had names for their place.   Europeans imposed new name*s*.  There were other "original" views of the hemisphere that have continued in popular and formal use, while, some, such as this
have gone away.  

We have been told that English, from the point of view of Spanish speakers, is 

—incorrect
—inaccurate
—inconsistent with original usage and meanings

OK.  Please continue to believe that the English language, in terms of its geographic naming conventions, is a total mess.
Find all the faults you like with it.  English is often illogical.  Just look at the spelling.

Now, please tell us about the logic of Spanish language place names.  Are they uniformly accurate?  By what standard of accuracy?  Are they correct?  What does "correct" mean to you in characterizing place names?  Is it logical and correct and accurate to give multiple cities the same name?  English does this.  So does Spanish.  

I'll ask again, in the full expectation that there will be no direct answer....

What is the real objection to English usage here, other than that it is not a mirror image of Spanish usage?  

Should all the English speakers in Perth, Australia, and Scotland, and those in New Zealand and India and Canada and Ireland change their use of 'America' and 'American' to make that use consistent with the way 'américa' and 'americano' are used, some of the time, by Spanish speaker?

Why?


PS- Shall we also take the French language to task for its use of L'amerique meridionale.

Here is an old map with that title:

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&safe=off&sa=G


 For more 16th and 17th century maps using distinct names for different parts of America,
use a browser for things such as "L'Amerique Meridionale divisée en ses principales parties, Presenté à ...
Date: 1650"  There are lots of images on line.


----------



## Tochi

Hi Fenixpollo,

<<Mexico IS considered part of North America by most Unitedstatesians I
know. >>

Probably, but how many of them call Mexicans as 'North Americans' ? 

<<Conversely, most Mexicans I know refer to Unitedstatesians as
"norteamericanos".  The "traditions" that you claim to be held by
Spanish-speakers are not universal, either.>>

The estadounidenses are of course "norteamericanos" as well. "Norteamericano"
is not used by Mexicans to refer to themselves since as most people do, is not 
usual to introduce oneself with the geographical block where your country is 
located, nobody cares about such description. It would be odd and unnecessary 
for a Mexican to say "Hola, soy norteamericano" (Hi, I'm North American) although
the description is correct what anybody would expect is "Hola, soy mexicano"
(Hi, I'm Mexican). I'm almost sure that mexicans don't 'feel' 'norteamericanos'
since that word has been used to replace 'americano' to refer to U.S. people.
Anyway 'norteamericano' is a partially accurate synonym for 'estadounidense'.

<<If "America" can logically be divided with an artificial line south of
Panama, or west of Belize, or not at all, then all of those divisions must
be accepted. You may not like _where_ English-speakers divide "America"
(or _that_ we divide it), but that doesn't mean that our division is
incorrect. It's just different than yours.>>

So why aren't they used in the real life ? I'm from Costa Rica, based on those
divisions that you mention then, am I 'North American' from your point of view ?
That's what I mean, I find too many inconsistencies and ambiguity in the way most
of you handle the terms related to anything from Alaska to Tierra del fuego.

<<And just because our division is different, doesn't mean it's
disrespectful to your culture.>>

No, I know it and I didn't mean that, even I don't support all that nonsense about
that the U.S. do it with bad intentions. I believe it happened unconsciously, I'm not
sure how or when or why though.

But I am honest, it's very annoying for many of us the way the estadounidenses use the
terms America and American as the nation's name and citizenship. You could use all the
strangest terms you want but your country adopted the name of the continent that we
consider as ours too. Think that it's not any ordinary word, it's the name of the continent 
that Europeans conquered and where we have lived for centuries. It's clear, no matter all 
you all say about the multiple sense of a word, there's only one origin of the name
'America' and all what derives from it. The same can be said about 'Europe', 'Africa',
'Asia', etc. That's the reason of the term 'estadounidense'. We see the name of your
country as "Estados Unidos" no more no less. Even I'd say that most of media use it more
than "America".

It's annoying for us to have to decide which word to use everytime that we have to mention
the name of our continent since we know that it can be confused with the U.S.

It's so annoying to hear your president saying for example that 'America will win the war
in Irak', we feel that we are part of the bad things that happen there.

It's annoying that somehow we feel we are restricted to specify that we are only "Central
Americans" or "South Americans" or "Latin Americans" not "Americans" even in English even when
"Europe and European/Africa and African/Asia and Asian,etc in any language of the world means 
exactly the same.


----------



## mirx

Outsider said:


> I find it ridiculous that you find it ridiculous.
> 
> 1. There's a long established tradition of using the terms "North America" and "South America".
> 
> 2. America is much larger than Europe. It's not unreasonable to split it up into smaller continents, just as people have traditionally done with Europe + Africa + Asia.
> 
> 3. Geologically, South America and North America lie on different tectonic plates. They were not connected, originally.


 

That´s exactly was I was talking about...

by the way, I am not intending to change anyone´s point of view and I don´t know about geology: However Asia is almost as big as America and I haven´t heard anyone referring to it as North Asia, South Asia or "The Asias". That my not be in their "culture" I suppose...

And please don´t judge my opinions I am not judging yours, that´s simply what I think, I honestly don´t care much what english speaking europeans ( and other europeans as well) call the United States of  America.

Get over it.


----------



## serg79

mirx said:


> That´s exactly was I was talking about...
> 
> by the way, I am not intending to change anyone´s point of view and I don´t know about geology: However Asia is almost as big as America and I haven´t heard anyone referring to it as North Asia, South Asia or "The Asias". That my not be in their "culture" I suppose...


If you look at an atlas of the world and just see it as land and sea... no countries, no continents, etc, then "Asia" wouldn't even be visible as a clearly defined land mass, neither would Europe.
If it's so obvious to you that from Canada to Argentina is one continent then I guess you must also consider "Eurafrasia" as a single continent too, because Europe, Africa and Asia are all joined together.
Looking at the world map below and forgetting countries, etc, is it totally inconceivable to you how some people might view North and South America as seperate continents?
If I were an alien who had just arrived from the planet Zonk and I were looking at Earth for the first time from space, I'm pretty sure I would see the Americas as two separate "continents" (or whatever they are called in Zonk language) joined by a thin stretch as land, just as I would probably see Africa as a seperate continent joined by a small stretch of land to whatever I decided to call Eurasia.


----------



## cuchuflete

Tochi said:


> *1.  *It's annoying for us to have to decide which word to use everytime that we have to mention
> the name of our continent since we know that it can be confused with the U.S.
> 
> *2.  *It's so annoying to hear your president saying for example that 'America will win the war
> in Irak', we feel that we are part of the bad things that happen there.




I appreciate the honesty, but don't really understand the difficulty in the sentence I have marked "*1. *"  In Spanish, there is little ambiguity.  América es el continente ¿Verdad?   In English, context almost always makes it quite clear what meaning is intended.  

As to "*2.*", please accept that many US citizens are just as annoyed as you are.  When any politician uses the word 'America' to name my country, I assume that he or she is (a) running for office, and giving a campaign speech full of untrue statements, and/or (b)trying to justify bad policy and bad tactics.  Maybe we need a more forceful word than annoying.

Off to another, related point.  If Centroamérica is not correct terminology, why do five national governments use the word?



> La jurisdicción y competencia regional de la corte son de carácter obligatorio para los Estados. La Normativa Jurídica de La Corte Centroamericana de Justicia, forma parte del derecho comunitario Centroamericano. Fue creado en la interpretación y ejecución del Protocolo de Tegucigalpa a la Carta de la Organización de los Estados Centroamericanos


source:http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corte_Centroamericana_de_Justicia


----------



## mirx

serg79 said:


> If you look at an atlas of the world and just see it as land and sea... no countries, no continents, etc, then "Asia" wouldn't even be visible as a clearly defined land mass, neither would Europe.
> If it's so obvious to you that from Canada to Argentina is one continent then I guess you must also consider "Eurafrasia" as a single continent too, because Europe, Africa and Asia are all joined together.
> Looking at the world map below and forgetting countries, etc, is it totally inconceivable to you how some people might view North and South America as seperate continents?
> If I were an alien who had just arrived from the planet Zonk and I were looking at Earth for the first time from space, I'm pretty sure I would see the Americas as two separate "continents" (or whatever they are called in Zonk language) joined by a thin stretch as land, just as I would probably see Africa as a seperate continent joined by a small stretch of land to whatever I decided to call Eurasia.


 

America is a sole land mass, not split in three or two different sections, and for the information of those who have answered my post, América is indeed divided in three parts, North America until tropic of Cancer in mid Mexico, Central America from tropic of Cancer until tropic of Capricorn, and South America. All these doesn´t make it three continents it´s just one with subdivisions.

An according to you I make my classifications on whether I see ocean dividing the landmass, I don´t. In that case I would call the UK and Rep .of Ireland another continent diferrent to Europe, and the same Japan respect to Asia.

I don´t disagree with subdividing the Continent that´s ok, back to my main point. People usually differenciate east Europe (ex-communist block) to west Europe (capitalism) but nobody refers to them both, as the "Europes", and the same might me appiclable for Africa and Asia, but I have never heard anyone calling them Asias, or Africas.

Does Africas sound strange and out of place to you, well it does to me as much as Americas does.


----------



## cuchuflete

mirx said:
			
		

> Does Africas sound strange and out of place to you, well it does to me as much as Americas does.



Fair enough, it sounds strange to you.  That's probably a sign that you are not a native English speaker.  Idiomatic usage often sounds strange.  If we try to apply the logic of our own accustomed way of speaking and thinking, there will be dissonance.  "Durazno" sounds strange to me.  I learned to call that fruit "melocotón". It took a little getting used to.  That surely doesn't make Mexican usage wrong, inaccurate, incorrect, illogical, or anything else negative.  It's simply a term in a language that I didn't grow up with.


----------



## mirx

cuchuflete said:


> Fair enough, it sounds strange to you. That's probably a sign that you are not a native English speaker. Idiomatic usage often sounds strange. If we try to apply the logic of our own accustomed way of speaking and thinking, there will be dissonance. "Durazno" sounds strange to me. I learned to call that fruit "melocotón". It took a little getting used to. That surely doesn't make Mexican usage wrong, inaccurate, incorrect, illogical, or anything else negative. It's simply a term in a language that I didn't grow up with.


 

Well, funny analogy, but not quite the same...

Durazno and melocotón are the same thing in the same language, while America and Americas (according to you) are different things, one is a "country" and the other a group of Continents.

And again I don´t think I have ever said that English is an illogical, wrong or inaccurate language (though it possibly is) if that´s what you meant with your posting, and I think_ I am not going to reply to this thread, I am glad enough to Know that most Americans (yes i said americans and not uitedstatdians) call their country "The Unided Sates Of America"_

_Thanks very much for your replies, but unfortunately I see them in a way that I already expressed at the beginning of this page. bye now._


----------



## mplsray

Tochi said:


> I totally understand that point and I don't know how the story is taught in your
> country but in my case it was taught as it happened without any local conventionalisms.


 
As I said, before, the naming of the continents involves usage, not science, so it does involve a convention. But it strikes me as bizarre to talk of an American English usage as involving "_local_ conventionalism."



> Anyway I feel I'm way capable to know when something is wrong no matter of them and
> mainly it they affect somebody else.
> 
> Just an irrefutable fact of history: in 1507 "America" (not Americas) was used for
> the first time as the name for the new lands. Ironic thing is that it seems that
> the name was applied to the south lands since they were the first ones explored.
> That's pure and real history, no more no less.
> 
> You say there are two continents, north and south, in that case my area should belong
> to North America as your maps show it. I grew up seeing my area as Central
> America not North America or South America, but that's not really important since it
> is more or less in the center of the whole mass, even we have our own plate, for the
> ones who like geology. What is hard to understand is why North, *Central* and South
> America again are used indifferently in English no matter of the way you were taught.
> The concept "Central America" *shouldn't* exist in your vocabulary if you are telling
> me, and I quote: "I learned the two-continent tradition", but it does exist. Nobody in
> my whole life has called me North American that's would be way laughable, even Mexicans
> who deserve that title are not called that way. So it makes me think that really your
> conventions, or as you said "traditions", which seems to be the only argument given this
> far, anyway are not respected or followed as you all claim and defend, so how would you
> all then pretend that anybody else respect it ?


 
In American English, Central America is part of North America, as can be seen by consulting American dictionaries. A typical definition of _North America_ is given in the _Encarta World English Dictionary,_ North American ed.: 

"continent in the western hemisphere, extending northward from northwestern South America to the Arctic Ocean. It comprises Central America, Mexico, the United States, Canada, and Greenland."

Similarly, in other dictionaries' definitions of _North America:_

_The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,_ 4th ed.:

Continent? Yes.

Includes Central America? Yes.

_Random House Unabridged_ _Dictionary:_

Continent? Yes.

Includes Central America? Ambiguous, since the definition describes North America as "extending from Central America...."

However, the ambiguity is resolved by that dictionary's definition for Central America: "continental North America, S of Mexico...."

_Merriam-Webster Online_ _Dictionary:_

Continent? Yes.

Includes Central America? Yes.

In American English, Mexicans are indeed North Americans.


----------



## Outsider

mirx said:


> I don´t disagree with subdividing the Continent that´s ok, back to my main point. People usually differenciate east Europe (ex-communist block) to west Europe (capitalism) but nobody refers to them both, as the "Europes" [...]


No one says they're two separate "continents", though.


----------



## Tochi

cuchuflete wrote:
<<The notion that the "original" use of America...that latinate corruption of an Italian explorer's first name 
(applied by a Dutch speaker!) is somehow sacrosanct is just silly.>> 

Well, it seems it is "sacrosanct" enough for many who defend blindly the terms as their own and who base
a good part of their culture on them. 

I don't get your point. It's not a matter of languages. I don't think I'm debating about how languages work.
I'm criticizing the way the U.S. took the name 'America' which has belonged to everybody for centuries
from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego as an exclusive term and all that derives from it. Again, it's not
a simple word like 'pizza' that anybody can use the way they want. 

Really I don't know how the history of our continent is taught in Australia or Scotland, you are assuming
that the U.S. version is the one taught over there. Anyway that wouldn't be strange since the U.S. media 
for many years have spread it over the world that way. 

I don't understand your point about the antique maps. Rather that reinforces the fact that 'America'
was used for the continent even when there were not countries settled yet. 

What do you think about 'Fenixpollo' who uses amazingly and fearlessly 'Unitedstatesians' ? Myself barely
would dare to do it at least without specting a furious reaction.

And 'Fenixpollo' if you are 'listening', why did you decide to question the today's convention ?

<<but don't really understand the difficulty in the sentence I have marked "1. " In Spanish, there is little
ambiguity. América es el continente ¿Verdad? In English, context almost always makes it quite clear what 
meaning is intended. >>

I'm refering in English, for us there's only one America as the name of the continent. If I want to talk
about something that has to do or affects in general the whole continent the other side could misunderstand
the idea thinking that I'm talking about the U.S. Practically I can't use what I believe belongs to me too,
that's annoying. Fortunately in some cases, specially in Europe, I've found people who see the matter the way
I do.

<<As to "2.", please accept that many US citizens are just as annoyed as you are. When any
 politician uses the word 'America' to name my country, I assume that he or she is (a) running
 for office, and giving a campaign speech full of untrue statements, and/or (b)trying to justify
 bad policy and bad tactics. >>

Yes I understand, they should say "the government" or "we/us" to refer to themselves not to the nation in
general. But in my case it's different since I see America as my continent and I'm part of it no matter
of the language I use.

<<Off to another, related point. If Centroamérica is not correct terminology, why do five national governments use the word?>>

I didn't say that Centroamerica or 'Central America' in english was an incorrect term, it is used vastly 
by us.   

mirx wrote:
<<If you look at an atlas of the world and just see it as land and sea... no countries, no
continents, etc, then "Asia" wouldn't even be visible as a clearly defined land mass, neither would Europe.
If it's so obvious to you that from Canada to Argentina is one continent then I guess you must also consider
"Eurafrasia" as a single continent too, because Europe, Africa and Asia  are all joined together.>>

That's ok and I agree with that but again we fall into 'the way continents should be named' and your point is
based exclusively on geography but the names given and still used today were based on other concepts
like politics, culture and geography. If the scientific community would open a debate about it possibly they
never would agree about how to define what exactly a continent is. But anyway that is science, and culture is 
not based precisely on sciense, it's not important for a guy from Ethiopia, Bulgaria or Cambodia to define
himself *scientifically* an 'Eurasian' or "Eurafrasian", no he's just an African, European or Asian, just
an Ethiopian, Bulgarian or Cambodian. Problably a "Zonkianian" would find as much as three main land masses
but that would be just his opinion.

mplsray wrote.
<<In American English, Central America is part of North America, as can be seen by
consulting American dictionaries. A typical definition of North America is given in the
Encarta World English Dictionary, North American ed.: 

Strange, nobody never has called me that way although your dictionaries say it. 

Ok 'mplsray' are you sure I am North American ? Please tell me, would you call me North American ?


----------



## cuchuflete

Tochi said:


> cuchuflete wrote:
> <<The notion that the "original" use of America...that latinate corruption of an Italian explorer's first name
> (applied by a Dutch speaker!) is somehow sacrosanct is just silly.>>
> 
> Well, it seems it is "sacrosanct" enough for many who defend blindly the terms as their own and who base
> a good part of their culture on them. I don't know who you mean when you refer to those "who defend blindly the terms as their own".  I don't need to "defend" an inherited linguistic practice any more than you do.  I accept that that is how a language has evolved.  If I don't like it, I can try to use alternative terminology.   I don't base a good part, or any part, of my culture on a naming convention for a continent or continents or any country.   The relative importance of such a thing in the totality of a culture is pretty insignificant.
> I've said it before, and I'll repeat it, just in case it was lost in one of the many other threads on this same topic:
> 
> In 1776, in Philadelphia, a bunch of representatives from some British colonies wrote a declaration stating that they were separating from their former English masters.  They named their confederation of newly independent, federated former colonies
> United--because they were forming a federation
> States--because they were independent states
> of America--because they were located in, and were thereby "of" America.
> 
> It wasn't arbitrary.  It was descriptive and accurate.   They didn't "take", as you have said, that word away from anyone else.  Their use of the word did not then, and does not today, preclude any other person or country from using it in a national title.   There were, at that moment in history, no other independent countries in America.   Should those people in 1776 have anticipated that decades later other colonies would declare independence from other European colonial masters, and therefore have considered the possible consequences for the future citizens of those non-English speaking countries?
> 
> Is it the most beautiful and poetic country name?  No!  Costa Rica is a far prettier name.  Is it accurate?  Yes.   "of America" means exactly what it says.  It doesn't say "all of America".  It doesn't say, "the totality of America".   It says
> "of America".  And that is what it correctly means....a group of states which are of a larger place called America, and which are United.
> 
> That isn't a blind defense.  It's an explanation of a correct and accurate descriptive country name, created when there were no other countries in the hemisphere, and with the unfortunate disregard—from today's vantage point—of the myriad possibilities for the eventual creation of other countries in the same region.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get your point. It's not a matter of languages. I don't think I'm debating about how languages work.
> I'm criticizing the way the U.S. took the name 'America' which has belonged to everybody for centuries
> from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego as an exclusive term and all that derives from it.    If you consider that using a broad geographic term to describe where some country happens to be located as "taking" that entire geography (away) from other people, than you really don't understand the usage in English.   Your use of the word "exclusive" is just plain wrong.
> 
> Had the founders of your own country decided to name it Costa Rica de América, they could have done so.   They could do so today or tomorrow.  The same is true of any other country.   There was and is no exclusivity in the use of the word America by the US.  Your misperception of 'taking' and exclusivity are a problem of your own creation.      Again, it's not
> a simple word like 'pizza' that anybody can use the way they want.
> 
> Really I don't know how the history of our continent is taught in Australia or Scotland, you are assuming
> that the U.S. version is the one taught over there.  No, I am not.  I am assuming that whatever usage is common in those places, in English, suits the residents of those places, with total and absolute disregard for the way the words do or don't comfortably translate into Spanish.  Anyway that wouldn't be strange since the U.S. media
> for many years have spread it over the world that way. Oh, how easy it is to blame the US media.  Have you bothered to find out whether the terms were used by Europeans and others outside the US first, and later adopted within the US?
> 
> I don't understand your point about the antique maps. Rather that reinforces the fact that 'America'
> was used for the continent even when there were not countries settled yet. The point about the antique maps is that there were multiple naming conventions in force, some distinguishing North America and South America, and others using only America for all the land, centuries before the US came into existence as a country.   The point was directed to those who are troubled by the differences in considering all the hemisphere to be either two continents or one.  Frankly, it was a matter with different viewpoints in 1589, just as it is today, and I really don't much care one way or the other.
> 
> What do you think about 'Fenixpollo' who uses amazingly and fearlessly 'Unitedstatesians' ? Myself barely
> would dare to do it at least without specting a furious reaction.  I think it's fine if he is comfortable with it.  The only difficulty with the term, in English, is that it will not be easily understood by most English speakers, and thus the principal point of language—communication—will be at risk.  I am neither offended nor troubled by the use of Unitedstatesian.
> If it were broadly understood I would probably use it myself.
> I use estadounidense in speaking Spanish, and that's a cumbersome, clunky word, but it serves the purpose of communication, so I wouldn't mind an English equivalent, although, of course, I would prefer a shorter word.
> 
> And 'Fenixpollo' if you are 'listening', why did you decide to question the today's convention ?
> 
> <<but don't really understand the difficulty in the sentence I have marked "1. " In Spanish, there is little
> ambiguity. América es el continente ¿Verdad? In English, context almost always makes it quite clear what
> meaning is intended. >>
> 
> I'm refering in English, for us there's only one America as the name of the continent. If I want to talk
> about something that has to do or affects in general the whole continent the other side could misunderstand
> the idea thinking that I'm talking about the U.S.   It's usually a good idea to follow the conventions of the language you are speaking.   If you are going to get into difficulties with an  English word, because it doesn't correspond nicely to a Spanish word, don't get into a geo-political debate, just choose a different term.  You could either use the commonly accepted English language term, "The Americas", or say "The Western Hemisphere".  You could say "The American  continents".  There is no need to invite ambiguity in order to express yourself clearly.  Practically I can't use what I believe belongs to me too,
> that's annoying.  Bulltwaddle!  You can call yourself an American, and be understood clearly in English, according to the context of the conversation.  You may well have to utter a few extra words to establish that context.   Fortunately in some cases, specially in Europe, I've found people who see the matter the way
> I do.
> 
> <<As to "2.", please accept that many US citizens are just as annoyed as you are. When any
> politician uses the word 'America' to name my country, I assume that he or she is (a) running
> for office, and giving a campaign speech full of untrue statements, and/or (b)trying to justify
> bad policy and bad tactics. >>
> 
> Yes I understand, they should say "the government" or "we/us" to refer to themselves not to the nation in
> general.  You miss the point.  They should say "The US" or  "The United States".   "America" is not commonly used to name the country.  Politicians use it, and they should not.
> 
> But in my case it's different since I see America as my continent and I'm part of it no matter
> of the language I use.  Then you are insisting on a literal translation from one language to another.   That will only lead to frustration.
> 
> <<Off to another, related point. If Centroamérica is not correct terminology, why do five national governments use the word?>>
> 
> I didn't say that Centroamerica or 'Central America' in english was an incorrect term, it is used vastly
> by us.    You didn't, but others have insisted that there is no such thing as Central America/Centroamérica.


----------



## mplsray

Tochi said:


> mplsray wrote.
> <<In American English, Central America is part of North America, as can be seen by
> consulting American dictionaries. A typical definition of North America is given in the
> Encarta World English Dictionary, North American ed.:
> 
> Strange, nobody never has called me that way although your dictionaries say it.
> 
> Ok 'mplsray' are you sure I am North American ? Please tell me, would you call me North American ?


 
You are certainly a _North American,_ because Central America is part of the continent of North America. If you're asking whether I would find occasion to call you a North American, I have to say that it would take unusual--but not impossible--circumstances for me to call you that.

On a couple of fronts, I'm in a similar situation. First, I am a _Terran_ or an _Earthling_ because I'm an inhabitant of the planet Earth. Yet any occasion on which I would be referred to as a Terran or an Earthling would be an unusual one. (Such an occasion is coming up--Halloween! Someone dressed as an alien could very well address me as "Earthling." A rare, but not impossible situation.)

Again, I could be called a _modern American_ in contrast with the _ancient Americans_--that is, terms using America to mean the continental Western Hemisphere. But any such occasion would be quite an unusual one.

_America_ is indeed a name for the US. But it's an informal name, not an official one. Another informal name, a poetic name really, is _Columbia,_ as in the song _Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean_ and the _Columbian Broadcasting System_ (CBS, one of the major American broadcast networks).

I expect that calling the US _America_ did _not_ follow from the official name of the country, but was instead a result of the Revolutionary War, where the colonists called A_mericans_ were at war with the British. After the war, I expect no colonists who remained under British rule wanted to be referred to as an American, despite the fact that where they lived would have continued to have been called British America.


----------



## Tochi

<<In 1776, in Philadelphia, a bunch of representatives from some British colonies wrote a...America--
because they were located in, and were thereby "of" America. It wasn't arbitrary.  It was descriptive and
accurate.   They didn't "take", as you have said, that word away from anyone else.  Their use of the word
did not then, and does not today, preclude any other person or country from using it in a national title.
There were, at that moment in history, no other independent countries in America.>>

I absolutely agree with you. But I was not speaking about the formers of the nation in any of my comments. 
I thought I had been clear about the moment when the "United States of America" from 18th century became 
only "America" in a possibly more recent period of time. A review :

This is a fragment of the declaration of independence:

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the -united States of America-, in General Congress, Assembled,
appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the
Authority of the good People of these -Colonies-, solemnly publish and declare, That these -United Colonies-
are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to
the British Crown,..."

Where does the term 'America' come from when they write "the united States of -America-" ?
Are they coining a new term to call the new independient union ? No, it's more than obvious that they were 
refering to the name of the continent. Even they identify themselves as colonies, of course British colonies
not located in Africa nor Asia. No, undoubtedly in the continent known and calleb by British, Spaniards 
and the world as 'America'. Obviously later they decided to officially name the union as "United States of
America" but that doesn't mean that the country was named 'America' as some claim just simply comparing for
example 'Estados Unidos do Brasil' = Brasil and 'United States of America' = America.

The problem I think is that really the area where the British colonies were never had an unique name 
(or at least in an extended use) to be called before its independence as Canada, Mexico, Peru, Guatemala,etc.
had since long time ago and the formers of the nation decided to use a generic political name.
I've read that Mexico was in a moment of its history called as "America Mexicana" (Mexican America). 
Fortunately the name didn't stick otherwise the mess could has been much serious.

<<If you consider that using a broad geographic term to describe where some country happens to be located 
as "taking" that entire geography (away) from other people, than you really don't understand the usage in
English. Your use of the word "exclusive" is just plain wrong.>>

I hear all the time that "America/American" is **ONLY** to refer to "U.S./its people". And lots of its 
citizens that I've met on this kind of forums defend the terms furiously. Following that logic, in my case 
and from their point of view: I don't live in 'America' and then I am not 'american' **even in English**,
and this part is very important! I have the impression that you believe that the whole English language depends
on U.S.conventions or somehow it belongs to it. Your concept of 'exclusive' then would be the wrong one here.
'America/American/Americano' was used by the Europeans to refer to the new lands/people much time before any 
independence. You tell me that in your country you all use it in this or that way but don't tell me that
it is the 'English language' way. Based on such logic I could say that the U.S. accent is the way English 
must be spoken not the British/Australian/South African...one.

<<Had the founders of your own country decided to name it Costa Rica de América, they could have done so.
They could do so today or tomorrow.  same is true of any other country.   There was and is no exclusivity
in the use of the word America by the US.  Your misperception of 'taking' and exclusivity are a problem of
your own creation.>>

Spaniars were the ones who named that way and the name stuck. In the early 19th century existed a Central
American federation for almost 20 years which had some names: "Provincias Unidas del Centro de America"
("United Provinces of Central America"), "Republica Federal de Centroamerica" ("Federal Republic of Central
America") and even in English was known as, guess ..."United States of Central America". The thing
didn't work and was dissolved. Now imagine that Costa Rica would adopt one of those names as its own and
now its name would be "Provincias Unidas de Centro America", does that transform it automatically into a
country named only "Centro America" (Central America), when we perfectly know what Centro America is ? What
would the people from the rest of the countries of Central America think about it ? As federation all us would
be the only Central Americans in the world and there wouldn't be any problem, but as a sole nation NOT.

<<The point about the antique maps is that there were multiple naming conventions in force, some distinguishing
North America and South America, and others using only America for all the land, centuries before the US came
into existence as a country.>>

Really I don't see that saying "north this", "south that", "west this", "east that", "meridional this" or
"septentrional that" is enough to imply a geographical/political separation and much less if we are talking
about a well defined geopolitical area. Check out on Google "Western states" "united states"  or "eastern states"
"united states" and you will find lots of those distinctions. That doesn't mean that the U.S. really is/should be
two,three or four continents in one. Are "Western Europe" and "Eastern Europe" enough to say that there are 
two 'continents' in Europe ? or "Near East", "Middle East" and "Far East" to separate Asia in three 'continents' ?

<<If you are going to get into difficulties with an  English word, because it doesn't correspond nicely to a
Spanish word, don't get into a geo-political debate, just choose a different term.  You could either use the 
commonly accepted English language term, "The Americas", or say "The Western Hemisphere".  You could say 
"The American  continents".  There is no need to invite ambiguity in order to express yourself clearly.>>

Again, that's your convention not an 'English language' rule. I never refer to U.S. people solely as 'Americans'
only in a general context when the conversation implies the whole mass. And absolutely never as 'America'
to refer to the U.S. "the Americas" neither or rarely. It's unnecessary when exists a better word for it: "America" 

<< You miss the point.  They should say "The US" or  "The United States".   "America" is not commonly used
to name the country.  Politicians use it, and they should not. >>

Your statement really puzzles me. Make a search on internet about U.S. organizations, tons of them end with the
words "of America" as part of their names and of course they are not refering to the whole continent. Check
out texts of any kind that speak about the U.S., it's practically impossible not to find the words America/American
to refer to U.S./U.S. people. 

<<Then you are insisting on a literal translation from one language to another. That will only lead to frustration.>>

Really to see how the terms are misused is not frustrating, it's simply annoying.

<<You didn't, but others have insisted that there is no such thing as Central America/Centroamérica.>>

Others ? from where ? That's new and odd (and laughable) finding to me as much as I am 'North American' !!!


mplsray wrote:
<<You are certainly a North American, because Central America is part of the continent of North America. If
you're asking whether I would find occasion to call you a North American, I have to say that it would take
unusual--but not  impossible--circumstances for me to call you that.>>

Let's be realists, that is not convincing for anybody in English or in any other language and waaaaay
laughable in Spanish. Even hardly somebody would refer to Mexicans as North Americans in English or in
any other language although actually they are.


----------



## Roberto097

Hola  


Edher said:


> .. pero tambien del pais America.


 
Yo que sepa existe un continente llamado America, un pais llamado America nunca lo he visto. 

La incoherencia de Estados Unidos es que ellos se llaman a si mismos Americanos sin haber antes unificado todo el continente Americano haciendola una sola nacion. Es una cultura que tiene como habito dejar a medio hacer todo. En mi cabezota   (y puedo estar equivocado) cuando me dicen de donde soy digo a secas de Latinamerica y a veces extrañados me preguntan y eso? y yo contesto desde Mexico hasta la Argentina somos un solo pueblo, pero claro eso es solo un sueño.
Si Estados Unidos unificara todo el continente Americano haciendola una nacion continental con mucho gusto me llamaria y les llamaria Americanos, pero no antes. Hablar con propiedad y significado es como ser y no solo creerse.

Gracias
R097


----------



## Tochi

<<Si Estados Unidos unificara todo el continente Americano haciendola una
nacion continental con mucho gusto me llamaria y les llamaria Americanos,
pero no antes. >>

Por favor no des ideas! ;-)


----------



## Roberto097

Tochi said:


> <<Si Estados Unidos unificara todo el continente Americano haciendola una
> nacion continental con mucho gusto me llamaria y les llamaria Americanos,
> pero no antes. >>
> 
> Por favor no des ideas! ;-)


 
Hola Tochi  
Que tal esta idea, si latinamerica se unifica y luego nos unimos a Estados Unidos luego todos nos podemos llamar Latinamerica.  

Mala idea? lo siento hoy doy una 

R097


----------



## Tsoman

If americans have to stop being americans, then latinos should stop being latinos, since it is offensive and arrogant to the people of ancient rome


----------



## cuchuflete

Tochi,
You have repeatedly made a point that I write from the viewpoint of a citizen of the US.  That is because I do not presume expertise in British, Scottish, Australian and other English language usage.  Why not ask residents of those places about their usage, instead of (1)accusing me, falsely, of speaking for them, and (2) acting as if my usage is either different from or the same as other English usage, or (3) that I am speaking "as if" anything at all.   I speak AE; I write about typical AE usage.  How simple is that?  I have not invoked any rules.  That is your invented interpretation.  

Most people in my country call themselves Americans.  Most people in my country, organization names found listed by Google notwithstanding, do not call the country America.



> Obviously later they decided to officially name the union as "United States of
> America"* but that doesn't mean that the country was named 'America'* as some claim just simply comparing for
> example 'Estados Unidos do Brasil' = Brasil and 'United States of America' = America.


 We are in full agreement.  The country was not, and is not named America.  That is a shortened form used mostly by politicians.   It is not rare, as you have said, but it is used very infrequently (and incorrectly in my view) by most citizens.  If it were not used at all to describe or name the country, that would suit me perfectly well.  I see no need to defend it when it is used as a one word misnomer for a country.   I have absolutely no problem with it when it is used as one of four or five—with or without "The"— words as part of a country name.  

Finally, I'll follow your good example and repeat and repeat and repeat:  I have not cited any English rule.   I have spoken of common usage.  If, as happens with most languages, usage eventually becomes codified as a rule, that is a matter for prescriptive linguists.  I do not count myself among them.

If you want to know about BE usage, the British National Corpus is available online.


----------



## mplsray

Tochi said:


> I hear all the time that "America/American" is **ONLY** to refer to "U.S./its people". And lots of its
> citizens that I've met on this kind of forums defend the terms furiously. Following that logic, in my case
> and from their point of view: I don't live in 'America' and then I am not 'american' **even in English**,
> and this part is very important! I have the impression that you believe that the whole English language depends
> on U.S.conventions or somehow it belongs to it. Your concept of 'exclusive' then would be the wrong one here.
> 'America/American/Americano' was used by the Europeans to refer to the new lands/people much time before any
> independence. You tell me that in your country you all use it in this or that way but don't tell me that
> it is the 'English language' way. Based on such logic I could say that the U.S. accent is the way English
> must be spoken not the British/Australian/South African...one.
> 
> <<Had the founders of your own country decided to name it Costa Rica de América, they could have done so.
> They could do so today or tomorrow. same is true of any other country. There was and is no exclusivity
> in the use of the word America by the US. Your misperception of 'taking' and exclusivity are a problem of
> your own creation.>>
> 
> Spaniars were the ones who named that way and the name stuck. In the early 19th century existed a Central
> American federation for almost 20 years which had some names: "Provincias Unidas del Centro de America"
> ("United Provinces of Central America"), "Republica Federal de Centroamerica" ("Federal Republic of Central
> America") and even in English was known as, guess ..."United States of Central America". The thing
> didn't work and was dissolved. Now imagine that Costa Rica would adopt one of those names as its own and
> now its name would be "Provincias Unidas de Centro America", does that transform it automatically into a
> country named only "Centro America" (Central America), when we perfectly know what Centro America is ? What
> would the people from the rest of the countries of Central America think about it ? As federation all us would
> be the only Central Americans in the world and there wouldn't be any problem, but as a sole nation NOT.
> 
> <<The point about the antique maps is that there were multiple naming conventions in force, some distinguishing
> North America and South America, and others using only America for all the land, centuries before the US came
> into existence as a country.>>
> 
> Really I don't see that saying "north this", "south that", "west this", "east that", "meridional this" or
> "septentrional that" is enough to imply a geographical/political separation and much less if we are talking
> about a well defined geopolitical area. Check out on Google "Western states" "united states" or "eastern states"
> "united states" and you will find lots of those distinctions. That doesn't mean that the U.S. really is/should be
> two,three or four continents in one. Are "Western Europe" and "Eastern Europe" enough to say that there are
> two 'continents' in Europe ? or "Near East", "Middle East" and "Far East" to separate Asia in three 'continents' ?
> 
> <<If you are going to get into difficulties with an English word, because it doesn't correspond nicely to a
> Spanish word, don't get into a geo-political debate, just choose a different term. You could either use the
> commonly accepted English language term, "The Americas", or say "The Western Hemisphere". You could say
> "The American continents". There is no need to invite ambiguity in order to express yourself clearly.>>
> 
> Again, that's your convention not an 'English language' rule. I never refer to U.S. people solely as 'Americans'
> only in a general context when the conversation implies the whole mass. And absolutely never as 'America'
> to refer to the U.S. "the Americas" neither or rarely. It's unnecessary when exists a better word for it: "America"


 
On the contrary, the default meaning--_not_ the only meaning, but _the one most often encountered_--of the nouns _America_ and _American_ in all standard dialects of English is "United States of America" and "citizen of the United States of America," and the default meaning of the adjective American is "having to do with the United States"--again, not the only meaning, but the one most often encountered.

This can be demonstrated, using modern reference works. But first I must discuss two complications concerning dictionaries.

(1) Some dictionaries follow the "scholarly tradition" of listing the oldest meaning first. These dictionaries cannot ordinarily be used to tell what the default meaning of a word is, because that meaning is not necessarily the oldest one. However, one dictionary which follows the scholarly tradition _does_ tell us the popular meaning in the definition itself. The following is from the definition for the noun _American_ in _The Century Dictionary_ of 1895: "A native or an inhabitant of the western hemisphere, or specifically, of North America (my emphasis in blue): "originally applied to the aboriginal races discovered by the Europeans, but now to the descendants of Europeans born in America, and, in the most restricted or popular sense, to the citizens of the United States."

Other dictionaries, which follow the "popular tradition," will typically list the US sense of _America_ or _American_ either as the first one, or combine it with the continental meaning.

I defy you to find a non-US English dictionary using the popular tradition which lists the continental meaning of _America_ and _American_ first! Modern dictionaries are corpus-based, meaning that they base their entries on actual usage. If a dictionary following the popular tradition lists the US meaning of _America_ and _American_ first, we can be sure that the people who speak the standard dialect which that dictionary represents consider the having-to-do-with-the-US meaning to be the default meaning of the two words.

(2) Dictionaries have traditionally avoided having entries for names of places, which is left to _encyclopedic dictionaries,_ so that you will find many dictionaries--especially older ones--which will list _American_ (especially as an adjective) but not _America._ I can, nevertheless, demonstrate using a couple of primarily-BrE dictionaries that _American_ is used when making reference to the United States.

The following is from the definition for the adjective _American_ in the _Compact Oxford English Dictionary_ online: 

"relating to the United States or to the continents of America."

The following is from the definition for the adjective _Anglo-American_ in the _Cambridge Advanced Learner's_ _Dictionary:_

"describes something involving the UK and US:
_an Anglo-American agreement_

That latter entry suggests that _Anglo-American_ is never (or only exceedingly rarely) used in BrE to describe something involving the UK and the continent of America.




Tochi said:


> mplsray wrote:
> <<You are certainly a North American, because Central America is part of the continent of North America. If
> you're asking whether I would find occasion to call you a North American, I have to say that it would take
> unusual--but not impossible--circumstances for me to call you that.>>
> 
> Let's be realists, that is not convincing for anybody in English or in any other language and waaaaay
> laughable in Spanish. Even hardly somebody would refer to Mexicans as North Americans in English or in
> any other language although actually they are.


 
You left out the rest of my argument. The logic of the argument is impeccable, and _cannot help but apply_ in Spanish as well as any other language. If Region A is a part of Region B, then the inhabitants of Region A are also inhabitants of Region B. Just as I can be called a _modern American,_ where America refers to the continent, you can be called a _North American_ because Central America is part of North America.
I agree that hardly anyone would refer to Central Americans or Mexicans as _North Americans,_ just as they would be unlikely to refer to me as a _modern American_ in the continental sense. But in any language, the above reasoning applies.

Let me make one more point, this time involving the _Century Cyclopedia of Names,_ a work related to the Century Dictionary which dates to the end of the 19th or beginning of the 20th century. At that time, the editors considered the continent of America to consist of North America and South America. The following is from the entry in the Century Cyclopedia for _North America:_

"A grand division of the earth which comprises the northern half of the western continent.... Its political divisions are British North America, the United States, Mexico, and the five states of Central America."

Even back when America was considered one continent in American English, Central America was a part of North America.


----------



## ps139

My opinion on this is that we don't call ourselves "Unidedstatesians" (except for fenixpollo ) because "united" and "states" are pretty bland words. Not too many country names are nouns and adjectives in the _contemporary_ language. Costa Rica is an exception, but it is a beautiful exception. It conjures up beauty in the mind. United and States are abstract terms. I think it is only natural that we of the USA prefer to call ourselves "America," it has a nice ring to it, and it isn't some bland noun or adjective. 

As I understand it, the Spanish gave names to all of the places they conquered. And the British simply called their lands "The American colonies."  

So, whether it is justified or not, when you say "An American," 9 out of 10 people will assume you refer to someone from the USA. It is just the way it is and not a conscious attempt to hijack anything.


----------



## cuchuflete

ps139 said:


> As I understand it, the Spanish gave names to all of the places they conquered. *And the British simply called their lands "The American colonies."  *



Please read just a little bit of history.  Each of the British colonies had a very specific name.

Those that originally joined to form The United States of America were:

Connecticut Colony 
Delaware Colony
Province of Georgia
Province of Maryland
Province of Massachusetts Bay
Province of New Hampshire
Province of New York
Province of New Jersey
Province of North Carolina
Province of Pennsylvania
Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
Province of South Carolina
Colony and Dominion of Virginia


----------



## ps139

cuchuflete said:


> Please read just a little bit of history.  Each of the British colonies had a very specific name.
> 
> Those that originally joined to form The United States of America were:
> 
> Connecticut Colony
> Delaware Colony
> Province of Georgia
> Province of Maryland
> Province of Massachusetts Bay
> Province of New Hampshire
> Province of New York
> Province of New Jersey
> Province of North Carolina
> Province of Pennsylvania
> Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
> Province of South Carolina
> Colony and Dominion of Virginia



Chuchuflete, do you _honestly _think that I did not know that each colony had an individual name? 

Can you please reread my post to discover my intent?


----------



## cuchuflete

Having reread your prior post more than once, I am comfortable that I understand your intent. How does the misstatement about what the British called their lands support it?


----------



## ps139

OK, well you don't. I'm quite aware that each colony had a specific name. And that is why we call our states the names we do. I am speaking of the country as a whole. If King George wanted to mention the war overseas (not the current 'King George' ) would he say "we must crush the insurgents in Georgia, Maryland, Massachussets Bay, etc etc." No, he would refer to them as the "American Colonies."

Unless the British did not call them "the American Colonies" then I made no misstatement. I really do not appreciate the patronizing tone, either.


----------



## cuchuflete

I'm glad you dislike the patronizing tone.  Here is more of the same:

You wrote:  "As I understand it, the Spanish gave names to all of the places they conquered. And the British simply called their lands "The American colonies."

By first stating that "the Spanish gave names to all of the places they conquered," you implied that the British did not.

What do you think the Spanish monarchs contemporary with George III did when they wanted to refer to all of their possessions in the Western Hemisphere?  Did they name them one by one, or use a collective descriptor?

Your logic is clearly beyond me.


----------



## ps139

cuchuflete said:


> I'm glad you dislike the patronizing tone.  Here is more of the same:
> 
> You wrote:  "As I understand it, the Spanish gave names to all of the places they conquered. And the British simply called their lands "The American colonies."
> 
> By first stating that "the Spanish gave names to all of the places they conquered," you implied that the British did not.
> 
> What do you think the Spanish monarchs contemporary with George III did when they wanted to refer to all of their possessions in the Western Hemisphere?  Did they name them one by one, or use a collective descriptor?
> 
> Your logic is clearly beyond me.



Apparently it is.

I implied that the British never officially named the colonies "America." The colonies were only colonies of America.

Within modern Latin American countries, you have different states. So you have both a country name "Mexico" and a state/province name "Guadalajara." Ok - this did not occur with the English. 

Regardless, consider this over.


----------



## mplsray

ps139 said:


> OK, well you don't. I'm quite aware that each colony had a specific name. And that is why we call our states the names we do. I am speaking of the country as a whole. If King George wanted to mention the war overseas (not the current 'King George' ) would he say "we must crush the insurgents in Georgia, Maryland, Massachussets Bay, etc etc." No, he would refer to them as the "American Colonies."
> 
> Unless the British did not call them "the American Colonies" then I made no misstatement. I really do not appreciate the patronizing tone, either.


 
I suspected that King George III would have on some occasions referred to the rebellious colonies as _America._ Looking in Google Books for evidence of this, such as mentions of America in letters he had written, I did not find it. However, I was impressed by what I did find: Early, clear examples of _America_ with the meaning "The United States of America" used shortly after the Revolutionary War.

I found _A Collection of State-Papers, Relative to the First Acknowledgment of the Sovereignty of the United States_ _of America,_ 1782,by John Adams. The title page identifies Adams as "Ambassador Plenipotentiary from the States of North America" and identifies the book as being written "By an American."

Inside the book, it seems that every instance of _America_ except for references to _North America_ refers to the US. Here's a particularly clear example: "This immortal declaration, of the 4th of July, 1776, when America was invaded by an hundred vessels of war...."

The next step, of course, would be to find a British official, following the acknowledgement of the sovereignty mentioned in the title of that book, who referred to the US as _America._

A clarification: My intention is not to argue that the British named their colonies _America._ I'm interested in early uses of the word _America_ to refer to the united colonies and later to the United States of America. The example I discuss above involves an early use of this type. Demonstrating that the British used the term _America_ at times, rather than the _American colonies_ or our _American colonies--_that is, that they thought of _America_ as a rebellious unity, and later an independent state, would require additional research.


----------



## Tochi

cuchuflete wrote:
<<You have repeatedly made a point that I write from the viewpoint of a citizen of the US. That is because I
do not presume expertise in British, Scottish, Australian and other English language usage. Why not ask 
residents of those places about their usage,>>

That's your task not mine if you generalize the U.S. conventions as English language/speakers conventions. 

<<instead of (1)accusing me, falsely, of speaking for them, and (2) acting as if my usage is either different
from or the same as other English usage, or (3) that I am speaking "as if" anything at all. I speak AE;
I write about typical AE usage. How simple is that? I have not invoked any rules. That is your invented 
interpretation.>>

I quote you:

"Please continue to believe that the **English language**, in terms of its *geographic naming conventions*, is a total mess
Find all the faults you like with it. **English** is often illogical. Just look at the spelling."
"What is the real objection to **English usage** here, other than that it is not a mirror image of Spanish usage?" 
"América es el continente ¿Verdad? **In English**, context almost always makes it quite clear what meaning is intended. 

One more time, it seems you assume your conventions as a matter of language more than a matter of a mere local
tradition. Going back to the 'melocoton/durazno' example: in my country, and I repeat it, in my country both 
are different fruits from the same family but I never would say that **in Spanish** both are different fruits
from the same family, not at least without being sure that the terms are used by all speakers the same way.

<<Most people in my country call themselves Americans. Most people in my country, organization names found listed by
Google notwithstanding, do not call the country America.>>

It doesn't seem to be that evident as you claim. Movies, music, news, texts, TV, sports and in general the whole 
powerful media from the U.S. uses it vastly and this has been the situation from decades and decades ago. 
Those U.S. traditions has been spread effectively around the world by all that.

Some fragments from G.Bush speeches in different moments:

"Tonight, *America* and the world are deeply grateful to them and to their families." 
"All of *America* was touched on the evening of the tragedy to see Republicans and Democrats joined together
on the steps of this Capitol, singing "God Bless *America*."  
"For a half-century, *America* defended our own freedom by standing watch on distant borders."

Undoubtedly politicians use it a lot. The world has heard that usage of terms America/American for years
so they have believed it and in the most of cases adopted as accurate, anyway this is not the continent of
most of them. Really the fact that the U.S. version is so used doesn't surprise me at all. Hey! just while 
I write this on the radio they're playing a song that says "Good night *America* how are you?". No kidding!


mplsray wrote:
<<I defy you to find a non-US English dictionary using the popular tradition which lists the continental 
meaning of America and American first! Modern dictionaries are corpus-based, meaning that they base their
entries on actual usage. If a dictionary following the popular tradition lists the US meaning of America and
American first, we can be sure that the people who speak the standard dialect which that dictionary represents
consider the having-to-do-with-the-US meaning to be the default meaning of the two words.>>

I absolutely agree with you although I'm not fighting dictionaries. That's the way they work, editors consider
all the possible usage of a word (accurate or not). Even sometimes it seems they copy the same definitions
from each others. That happens in Spanish too. Eventually if the usage of the U.S. version for America/American
disappeared, they would be showing it anyway, possibly for centuries.

<<The following is from the definition for the adjective American in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary 
online: 
 "relating to the United States or to the continents of America.">>

Strange definition, it shows some of ambiguity in "continents of America". It suggests that America (in singular)
is something much biger and at the same time it has continents (?????). In this case "relating to the United States
or to -the regions of America/the Americas-." would be less ambiguous.

<<You left out the rest of my argument. The logic of the argument is impeccable, and cannot help but apply in Spanish
as well as any other language. If Region A is a part of Region B, then the inhabitants of Region A are also inhabitants of
Region B. Just as I can be called a modern American, where America refers to the continent, you can be called a
North American because Central America is part of North America.>>

That usage is again contradictory, it's a mix (or mess) of old political concepts and modern geographical ones. 
Central America was a political block during Spaniard dominion under the Guatemala viceroy control, not geographical.
If today you say that there are *geophapically* two continents instead of only one, a 'central area' the way it's 
shown is ambiguous since a 'central area' in the 'southern part' of a 'northern continent' is a nonsense. 
Central America is basically an old political concept and a relatively accurate geographic one. In other words Central
America is a more accurate term (polical and geographical) under the 'one continent' concept (it is more or less in the 
center of the whole mass) but ambiguous under the 'two continents' concept. 

<<Let me make one more point, this time involving the Century Cyclopedia of Names, a work related to the Century
Dictionary which dates to the end of the 19th or beginning of the 20th century. At that time, the editors considered the
continent of America to consist of North America and South America. The following is from the entry in the Century
Cyclopedia for North America:

"A grand division of the earth which comprises the northern half of the western continent.... Its political divisions are
British North America, the United States, Mexico, and the five states of Central America."

Even back when America was considered one continent in American English, Central America was a part of North
America.>>

That reference is way interesting, specially your last sentence which implies that 'America' as the U.S. is of
a relatively recent usage. 

Well, they didn't mention a *continent* called "North America", they say just 'northern half' wich geographically
is evident and very accurate since we all are in the northern hemisphere. We were politically different from the
southern and northern parts of it. Note that it mentions five states of Central America, Panama was not 
indepedient until 1903 so it was not included speaking 'politically' not geographically when modern U.S. 
definitions of North America do include it or at least the half of it (?????). So the definition is merely
political and the separation of masses is geographical.


----------



## Tochi

Tsoman wrote:
<<If americans have to stop being americans, then latinos should stop being latinos, since it is offensive and arrogant
to the people of ancient rome.>>

People from the U.S. have no need to stop being americans/americanos since actually they are that as well. Really the
terms related to Romance or Latin-derived languages spoken in America was coined by French Napoleon III government
not by us. And anyway if anybody from ancient Rome sets a claiming about the usage personally I wouldn't see any problem
in dropping it.


----------



## mplsray

Tochi said:


> mplsray wrote:
> <<I defy you to find a non-US English dictionary using the popular tradition which lists the continental
> meaning of America and American first! Modern dictionaries are corpus-based, meaning that they base their
> entries on actual usage. If a dictionary following the popular tradition lists the US meaning of America and
> American first, we can be sure that the people who speak the standard dialect which that dictionary represents
> consider the having-to-do-with-the-US meaning to be the default meaning of the two words.>>
> 
> I absolutely agree with you although I'm not fighting dictionaries. That's the way they work, editors consider
> all the possible usage of a word (accurate or not). Even sometimes it seems they copy the same definitions
> from each others. That happens in Spanish too. Eventually if the usage of the U.S. version for America/American
> disappeared, they would be showing it anyway, possibly for centuries.


You appear to have missed my main point, which is that the "US" meaning of _America/American_ is the standard default meaning in _all_ standard dialects of English.

Modern general dictionaries are put together using linguistic principles. While it is possible for such dictionaries to have inaccurate definitions of some obscure slang and dialectal usages, and inaccurate definitions of some technical terms--in both cases due to ignorance on the part of the lexicographer--the chance of a lexicographer giving an inaccurate definition of such common words as _America_ and _American_ is exceedingly small.

_Inaccurate,_ in such cases, means "failing to describe actual usage." Any other meaning of _inaccurate_ is, as far as I can tell, not only meaningless from a linguistic point of view, but logically untenable from any other point of view. Even if, solely for the sake of argument, we accepted that a dictionary definition could be inaccurate because it differed from an official definition prescribed by a language academy, this would be irrelevant in the case of English, which has no such academy.

So no, your fight is not with dictionaries, but with the English language itself.



Tochi said:


> <<The following is from the definition for the adjective American in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary
> online:
> "relating to the United States or to the continents of America.">>
> 
> Strange definition, it shows some of ambiguity in "continents of America". It suggests that America (in singular)
> is something much biger and at the same time it has continents (?????). In this case "relating to the United States
> or to -the regions of America/the Americas-." would be less ambiguous.
> 
> <<You left out the rest of my argument. The logic of the argument is impeccable, and cannot help but apply in Spanish
> as well as any other language. If Region A is a part of Region B, then the inhabitants of Region A are also inhabitants of
> Region B. Just as I can be called a modern American, where America refers to the continent, you can be called a
> North American because Central America is part of North America.>>
> 
> That usage is again contradictory, it's a mix (or mess) of old political concepts and modern geographical ones.
> Central America was a political block during Spaniard dominion under the Guatemala viceroy control, not geographical.
> If today you say that there are *geophapically* two continents instead of only one, a 'central area' the way it's
> shown is ambiguous since a 'central area' in the 'southern part' of a 'northern continent' is a nonsense.
> Central America is basically an old political concept and a relatively accurate geographic one. In other words Central
> America is a more accurate term (polical and geographical) under the 'one continent' concept (it is more or less in the
> center of the whole mass) but ambiguous under the 'two continents' concept.


 
Ordinarily, a mix of political and geographic concepts poses no problem. The US is a political entity in the midst of the continent of North America, which is a geographic, not political concept.

Under the two-continent way of looking at the New World, the term_ Central America_ is a "living fossil," like the term _American Midwest._ (I think it's likely that there is some other term used in linguistics instead of "living fossil," but if so, I'm not familiar with it.)

I did some research in the _Oxford English_ _Dictionary_ on the meaning of _American._ It's difficult to separate the continental sense from the country sense, but the OED does appear to identify _American_ in the following as definitely referring to the US: "*a1861* WINTROP _John Brent_ (1862) ii. 14 He was an American horse,--so they distinguish in California one brought from the old States."

While I was at it, I looked up _continent,_ and was interested to find that it was used in the late 18th century both for the rebelling colonies and the country which gained its independence as a result of the war. For example, Thomas Jefferson is quoted in a letter from 1781 using _Continent_ (capitalized) to mean the US.



Tochi said:


> <<Let me make one more point, this time involving the Century Cyclopedia of Names, a work related to the Century
> Dictionary which dates to the end of the 19th or beginning of the 20th century. At that time, the editors considered the
> continent of America to consist of North America and South America. The following is from the entry in the Century
> Cyclopedia for North America:
> 
> "A grand division of the earth which comprises the northern half of the western continent.... Its political divisions are
> British North America, the United States, Mexico, and the five states of Central America."
> 
> Even back when America was considered one continent in American English, Central America was a part of North
> America.>>
> 
> That reference is way interesting, specially your last sentence which implies that 'America' as the U.S. is of
> a relatively recent usage.
> 
> Well, they didn't mention a *continent* called "North America", they say just 'northern half' wich geographically
> is evident and very accurate since we all are in the northern hemisphere. We were politically different from the
> southern and northern parts of it. Note that it mentions five states of Central America, Panama was not
> indepedient until 1903 so it was not included speaking 'politically' not geographically when modern U.S.
> definitions of North America do include it or at least the half of it (?????). So the definition is merely
> political and the separation of masses is geographical.


 
My point was that even when North America was considered, in American English, to be only a part of the continent of America, Central America was considered to be part of North America.


----------



## Tochi

<<Modern general dictionaries are put together using linguistic principles. While it is possible for such dictionaries to have inaccurate definitions of some obscure slang and dialectal usages, and inaccurate definitions of some technical terms--in both cases due to ignorance on the part of the lexicographer--the chance of a lexicographer giving an inaccurate definition of such common words as America and American is exceedingly small.>>

Of course there is a posibility of mistakes make by the lexicologists but I think that is the exception and not the rule but I was talking about inaccuracies in conventions. Even they are included in dictionaries.
In other words, don't believe that all what is included in a dictionary is correct or accurate and specially when we talk about technical terms.

<<Inaccurate, in such cases, means "failing to describe actual usage." Any other meaning of inaccurate is, as far as I can tell, not only meaningless from a linguistic point of view, but logically untenable from any other point of view. Even if, solely for the sake of argument, we accepted that a dictionary definition could be inaccurate because it differed from an official definition prescribed by a language academy, this would be irrelevant in the case of English, which has no such academy.>>

Really even if there is an academy, that doesn't mean that such inaccurate conventions are not included. You will find the word 'americano' in Spanish as an inhabitant or something related to the continent called America and even specifically related to a citizen from the U.S. (It seems we include more definitions). Why ? because many Spanish speakers use the term the same way the people from the U.S. do to refer to themselves. For many 'americano' may have two usages, all to refer to the things related to America as a whole continent (myself) and to refer to the U.S. people, so the dictionary includes both usages but it doesn't mean that everything included is accurate. The goal of a dictionary is not to say what is accurate and what is not specially about conventions. As I've said repeatedly nobody in L.A. sees the U.S. as 'America' even if they use the term 'americano' to refer to its citizens, anyway they are 'americanos' too.

<<So no, your fight is not with dictionaries, but with the English language itself.>>

If tomorrow a group of people decide to start calling 'love' to the hate and 'hate' to the love the obligation of lexicologists is to take note of it. That's just conventions of people from some area, no more no less. It doesn't have to do with how languages work. 

<Ordinarily, a mix of political and geographic concepts poses no problem. The US is a political entity in the midst of the continent of North America, which is a geographic, not political concept.>>

It does when you can't determine things without ambiguity. You say the U.S. is 'America' but it is in North America which has a Central America in the south. There is not a consistency about the terminology if you split the mass. The concept **central** implies precisely THAT, that it is in the ** CENTER ** of something NOT in the SOUTH. Don't tell me that 'center' in the U.S. has other meaning, otherwise it deserves to be added to dictionaries as another usage.

Now, if there is not such unique continent called 'America', how could exist a north, a south, a latin or a CENTER part of it ? 

<<Under the two-continent way of looking at the New World, the term Central America is a "living fossil," like the term American Midwest. (I think it's likely that there is some other term used in linguistics instead of "living fossil," but if so, I'm not familiar with it.)>>

No, your convention is ambiguous. The terms 'America/Central America/Latin America' don't match in your scheme. Why ? because all the terminology is based on the one-continent concept implanted by the Europeans. 

Europa : Its origin is from greek mithology or before, its geographical usage begun about 2,500 years ago.
Africa : Its origin is probably phoenician but adapted by romans more than 2,000 years ago.
Asia : Its origin is from greek mithology, used by romans to define their colonies in the east more than 2,000 years ago.
America : Latin version of Italian cartographer name Amerigo Vespuccio, its usage begun in 1507.

As you can see America and any term related to it is one of the most recent used. So there is not such "living fossil" that you mention. 

<<I did some research in the Oxford English Dictionary on the meaning of American. It's difficult to separate the continental sense from the country sense, but the OED does appear to identify American in the following as definitely referring to the US: "*a1861* WINTROP John Brent (1862) ii. 14 He was an American horse,--so they distinguish in California one brought from the old States." While I was at it, I looked up continent, and was interested to find that it was used in the late 18th century both for the rebelling colonies and the country which gained its independence as a result of the war. For example, Thomas Jefferson is quoted in a letter from 1781 using Continent (capitalized) to mean the US.>>

I know it has to be difficult to make that separation, but make an effort and probably you will find the texts clearer. Even you can find such way of speaking in old Spanish texts too. Really they were not wrong about their ideas or impressions, they were Americans/Americanos and were living in America. For us that has not changed.

<<My point was that even when North America was considered, in American English, to be only a part of the continent of America, Central America was considered to be part of North America.>>

Again you are trying to adapt original concepts with your modern conventions. You can't think in 'North America' as a continent and apply it to the original concepts that's why you find it hard to separate.


----------



## fenixpollo

Tochi said:


> Why? because many Spanish speakers use the term the same way the people from the U.S. do to refer to themselves. For many 'americano' may have two usages, all to refer to the things related to America as a whole continent (myself) and to refer to the U.S. people, so the dictionary includes both usages but it doesn't mean that everything included is accurate. As I've said repeatedly nobody in L.A. sees the U.S. as 'America' even if they use the term 'americano' to refer to its citizens, anyway they are 'americanos' too.
> 
> If tomorrow a group of people decide to start calling 'love' to the hate and 'hate' to the love the obligation of lexicologists is to take note of it.
> 
> It does when you can't determine things without ambiguity.
> 
> Come on, it's not that hard to understand.
> 
> Why ? because all the terminology is based on the one-continent concept implanted by the Europeans.  That simple.


What I'm hearing from you, Tochi, is that you resent the fact that Americans seem to have "hijacked", in your view, the name of an entire continent for themselves, like a bunch of terrorists.  Not only do they use the incorrect word to refer to themselves, but everyone in your own country, in your own language, is forced to adopt the U.S. custom... which makes you very passionate and frustrated about the issue.

You seem to be on a Quest to eliminate ambiguity and irrationality from the English language's geographical naming conventions. You want to destroy the outdated, European-imposed concept of a one-continent "America"; and at the same time put the Unitedstatesians in their place, while simultaneously reclaiming your cultural identity.

I, for one, admire your passion, your focus, and your objective. I think that you are brave and that your Quest is noble. I wish you luck in changing a language convention that has existed for at least a century and is now observed by not only 300 million Unitedstatesians, but by scores of millions of people around the world -- including you and your countrymen. 

Power to the people!


----------



## Tochi

Fenixpollo, I go back to the first question I made to you, are you being sarcastic or something or simply you are passionate ?

Whatever, I don't resent anything, I don't think anybody 'hijacked' anything, I don't believe anybody is a language 'terrorist', nobody was forced to do anything, I'm not frustrated, I'm not trying to eliminate anything from 'English language', I'm not destroying, putting or reclaiming anything and thank you anyway for the wish.


----------



## fenixpollo

I'm not being sarcastic in my observations, or in wishing you luck. I am being a little facetious when I wish you luck in changing something unchangeable. I know that facetiousness doesn't type well, so I'm sorry that I came across as offensively sarcastic. 


> Whatever, I don't resent anything, I don't think anybody 'hijacked' anything, I don't believe anybody is a language 'terrorist', nobody was forced to do anything, I'm not frustrated, I'm not trying to eliminate anything from 'English language', I'm not destroying, putting or reclaiming anything and thank you anyway for the wish.


 Your long posts in which you address in excrutiating detail every single argument; and your combative phrases like "it's so simple" and "come on, it's not hard to understand" are sending a different message.  

I haven't seen anywhere in this thread where anyone has said definitively when was the first use of "America" to refer only to the USA, but my understanding of your words is that you think that it was a short time ago; and that therefore, Unitedstatesians shouldn't treat the custom of calling the US "America" like a sacred tradition.  Maybe you _aren't_ saying that we should change, but you certainly _are_ belaboring the point.


----------



## Tochi

<<I'm not being sarcastic in my observations, or in wishing you luck. I _am_being a little facetious when I wish you luck in changing something unchangeable.>>

Probably not but just a few years ago those alternate terms were unthinkable by most in the U.S. or the world but think how many people know them now even how many support them. Internet is a powerfull way to spread ideas. I hear all the time U.S. people who don't introduce themselves as 'americanos' anymore since they know and understand the controversy. Even some months ago when you tried to search for "unitedstatesian" Google used to suggest "United States" now it suggests "Unitedstatians". There are lots of new references about it and not only from Latin Americans, I'd say most of them are not aware of this 'keyboard polemic'.

<<Your long posts in which you address in excrutiating detail every single argument; and your combative phrases like "it's so simple" and "come on, it's not hard to understand" are sending a different message.>>

Please understand that the sense that I give to an English phrase could not correspond with the real sense that I want to give to it since English, as you can see, is not my mother language. My intention is not to be combative unless I perceive clearly such treatment. I always remember a friend who said once that the plain text was very cold and that you can't see the face of the other person to know exactly what he was trying to mean. 

<<I haven't seen anywhere in this thread where anyone has said definitively when was the first use of "America" to refer only to the USA, but my understanding of your words is that you think that it was a short time ago; and that therefore, Unitedstatesians shouldn't treat the custom of calling the US "America" like a sacred tradition.>>

Yes, and my intention has been trying to know what is a myth and what is a fact about this issue not to change or bother anybody more than to show that alternate terms are possible without regrets. 

<<Maybe you aren't saying that we should change, but you certainly are belaboring the point.>>

I don't think I'm doing that or at least it's not my main intention. I like to be honest and clear and I don't like to be condescending, that's all. 

By the way, just a question, are you really honest about the usage of an alternate term for American ? If your answer is yes, I'd like to know your reasons please.


----------



## Blehh.

So I'm guessing the safest thing to do when speaking in Spanish would be to call myself "estadounidense"?


----------



## cuchuflete

I'll try to see if I can summarize a few things, so that Tochi can highlight our differences of opinion, if any.

All of the following refers to what I am familiar with in the English language.  Many of these things are different in Spanish.  They may be better or worse or equal, but that's a discussion for another post or thread.

1. America:  In common AE usage, and from everything I've come across from other, non-AE English speakers and writers,
the word has two distinct meanings.  These are (A) The USA and (B) a geographic land mass or land masses.
The first usage, a synonym for USA, is the more common usage in AE.   BE and other English speakers can tell us which usage, A or B, is most common in their own variant of English.

America, as an alternate name for the USA, is used with some frequency in AE, but is absolutely *not *the most common name for the country, except among politicians.  Most people in normal colloquial and formal speech and writing refer to the country as "The US", "The United States", "The states", "The USA".  After politicians, the most common use I have seen for America=USA is in organization titles, which are often reduced to acronyms.  An example is ABAA, The Antiquarian Booksellers Association of America.  Such organization names are rarely pronounced in full, and are most often named in speech with the letters only.   In short, America is used relatively infrequently in comparison with other names for the country.

It is understood from context whether the word is used to name a country or a larger area.  That's about as clear and unambiguous as the language allows.  The overwhelming majority of readers and listeners have no difficulty at all in understanding which meaning is intended.  

Strictly personal opinion:  The term should not be used to name the country, as there are a number of more precise words and terms available.  It seems that, with the exception of politicians, the large majority of English speakers, both in the US and elsewhere, agree with me about this, as demonstrated by their use of alternate terms most of the time.  

2) American: This adjective also has at least two common usages.  The first, most common in AE and very frequently used by non-AE speakers (Check with them if you want to as to whether it is the predominant usage...I won't bother, as I have no issue with the uses of the word, while you seem to.) is applied to people and things from the US.  The secondary usage refers to people and things from the western hemisphere.  Context almost invariably indicates clearly which usage is being employed.  There is no ambiguity for a native speaker.  Bad writing can, of course, create ambiguity, but in any clearly written sentence there is nothing inherently ambiguous about the usages.  

3) How long have these words been in use in the ways described above?  I will not cite dictionaries or etymological sources, as these have already been invoked.  They have been commonly used as described above for many decades.  There is nothing magical or special about a usage that has been around for 80 years, or 150, or 500.  Length of use is not a point of honor or validity, once a terms passes from slang into standard vocabulary.  Languages evolve, and terms come and go. Some stay for a very long time, while others fade away.  

4) Should citizens of the US change their usages?
Regarding use of America for a country name, I personally would be happy to see the usage go from minority status to that of a historical relic.  For the adjective, I see no reason to change current usage; nor would I be in the least perturbed if it did change.  I take the language as I find it, and use it to attempt to communicate clearly.  I have never encountered any difficulty in communicating clearly with the adjective 'american'. 

Finally, literal translations of these words to or from Spanish doesn't work.  The terminology is distinct; the cultural overtones are distinct; the teaching of geography is distinct.  As with other words, I sometimes say something in either English or Spanish or another language, and in the back of my mind I "hear" the literal or figurative equivalent in another language, and there is some dissonance.  It's annoying.


----------



## Tochi

<<So I'm guessing the safest thing to do when speaking in Spanish would be to call myself "estadounidense"?>>

Safety doesn't have nothing to do, you only would be more accurate linguistically.


----------



## Blehh.

Tochi said:


> <<So I'm guessing the safest thing to do when speaking in Spanish would be to call myself "estadounidense"?>>
> 
> Safest not, accurate yes.



Ohh, okay. Gracias  Estoy sorprendida que mis profesores no me corrigieron <<(Is that the correct conjugation?). =/


----------



## cuchuflete

Just for curiosity's sake, I checked on the registered members of this forum—not a good sample of people in general, but still interesting.

Of those who listed their native country, we have

US or USA = 13963
United States and
United States of America= 3260
america or America (this may be overcounted, as most listed English or english (sic) as their language, but some may have been from non-English speaking countries.) 540.

Thus, of the presumed US citizens and residents, 2.5% used
america as a country name.


----------



## Tochi

Blehh. said:


> Ohh, okay. Gracias  Estoy sorprendida que mis profesores no me corrigieron <<(Is that the correct conjugation?). =/


 
Perfect , and "Estoy sorprendida *de* que mis profesores no me *corrigieran* is valid as well.


----------



## Blehh.

^Thanks! =D


----------



## fenixpollo

Tochi said:


> By the way, just a question, are you really honest about the usage of an alternate term for American ? If your answer is yes, I'd like to know your reasons please.


 As I said previously, do a forum search for the term and you'll see I'm serious. When I learned the word "estadounidense" in Spanish, I first thought, "Are you calling me dense?" and was offended.*  Then, I realized that it is a more precise term than "American", which as we have discussed ad nauseum, has multiple implications.
.
.
.

_*If you haven't seen the movie Barcelona, watch it and you will get the joke._


----------



## mplsray

Tochi said:


> If tomorrow a group of people decide to start calling 'love' to the hate and 'hate' to the love the obligation of lexicologists is to take note of it. That's just conventions of people from some area, no more no less. It doesn't have to do with how languages work.


 
But convention is _exactly_ how language works. It is utter nonsense to speak of a convention being _inaccurate:_ It is the very fact that it is a convention which prevents any possibility of its being inaccurate.

That does not mean there is no possibility of the convention being in conflict with with other conventions. If you go to the supermarket here in Minneapolis and pick up _ground buffalo,_ what you will get is ground bison. There's no conflict between the common meaning of _buffalo_ and legal conventions of naming meat products obviously, since otherwise the meat would not be so labeled. There _is_ a conflict between the common meaning of _buffalo_ and conventions used in biology, since according to biological taxonomy a bison is not a buffalo. But to claim, given these two conventions, that it is inaccurate to refer to ground bison as_ ground buffalo_ is a non sequitur.

Again, the US Supreme Court decided that tomatoes were vegetables and not fruit, establishing a legal convention (at least in the case of a particular law involving tariffs). But according to biological convention, tomatoes are indeed fruit. This does not mean that either the Supreme Court or the biologists are wrong. Neither is inaccurate. Rather, each is following established conventions (the Supreme Court decision itself having been based on other conventions, including ones from commerce and cuisine.)




Tochi said:


> <Ordinarily, a mix of political and geographic concepts poses no problem. The US is a political entity in the midst of the continent of North America, which is a geographic, not political concept.>>
> 
> It does when you can't determine things without ambiguity. You say the U.S. is 'America' but it is in North America which has a Central America in the south. There is not a consistency about the terminology if you split the mass. The concept **central** implies precisely THAT, that it is in the ** CENTER ** of something NOT in the SOUTH. Don't tell me that 'center' in the U.S. has other meaning, otherwise it deserves to be added to dictionaries as another usage.
> 
> Now, if there is not such unique continent called 'America', how could exist a north, a south, a latin or a CENTER part of it ?
> 
> <<Under the two-continent way of looking at the New World, the term Central America is a "living fossil," like the term American Midwest. (I think it's likely that there is some other term used in linguistics instead of "living fossil," but if so, I'm not familiar with it.)>>
> 
> No, your convention is ambiguous. The terms 'America/Central America/Latin America' don't match in your scheme. Why ? because all the terminology is based on the one-continent concept implanted by the Europeans.


 
It is irrelevant whether there is any ambiguity or not. A convention cannot be claimed to be inaccurate simply because ambiguity exists.

In any case, my point that the term _Central America_ is a linguistic fossil within the two-continent tradition is easy enough to demonstrate. If we wanted to name that part of the Americas in modern terms, it would be called _Central Americas,_ not _Central America._ That this is so is is evident to me as a native speaker. Fortunately, however, in this case I can point you to the Internet to find such similarly-formed terms as _central Netherlands, central Dakotas_ (the reference is to the combination of North Dakota and South Dakota, which are separate states), and _central Badlands._


----------



## gatogab

Phryne said:


> Verdad, pero así y todo ellos no lo cuestionan.
> 
> Yo estudié en mi infancia que el continente Americano era uno solo. Fuí la única? Qué opinan los europeos?


Creo que para los europeos, los americanos son los habitantes de EEUU. Todos los demas americanos son chilenos, argentinos, panameños, mexicanos, hondureños, costariqueños, brasileños, canadeses y asi adelante.
Gatogab


----------



## fenixpollo

mplsray said:


> But according to biological convention, tomatoes are indeed fruit. This does not mean that either the Supreme Court or the biologists are wrong. Neither is inaccurate. Rather, each is following established conventions (the Supreme Court decision itself having been based on other conventions, including ones from commerce and cuisine.)


 Actually, the supreme court based its definition of "tomato" in Nix v. Hedden (1893) on the Webster's Dictionary definition, which was based on the popular perception and the popular custom of calling anything that goes into a garden salad a "vegetable", while anything that is sweet and snackable is a "fruit".

You're correct that most biologists refer to a tomato as a fruit because it is a fleshy thing that protects seeds... so I agree with your point, but not your details. 

Am I quibbling too much about the fruit/vegetable controversy? Does it seem like splitting hairs? Much like this entire thread, then...


----------



## cuchuflete

Not to split hairs too finely, but under the Ray gun administration, in 1981 the US Department of Agriculture tried to declare ketchup/catsup to be a vegetable.  That was not the American Department of Agriculture, mind you.  How annoying.


----------



## mplsray

fenixpollo said:


> Actually, the supreme court based its definition of "tomato" in Nix v. Hedden (1893) on the Webster's Dictionary definition, which was based on the popular perception and the popular custom of calling anything that goes into a garden salad a "vegetable", while anything that is sweet and snackable is a "fruit".
> 
> You're correct that most biologists refer to a tomato as a fruit because it is a fleshy thing that protects seeds... so I agree with your point, but not your details.
> 
> Am I quibbling too much about the fruit/vegetable controversy? Does it seem like splitting hairs? Much like this entire thread, then...


 
If we're going to split hairs, then let's split them fine:

You say that the Supreme Court "based its definition of 'tomato'...on the Webster's Dictionary definition." Having read the Wikipedia article, and the link on that page to excerpts from the original decision, I'd say that the court decided the case based upon "the common language of the people, whether sellers or consumers of provisions," with dictionaries--not just Webster's Dictionary--"admitted, not as evidence, but only as aids to the memory and understanding of the court." The main point of the case, it seems to me, was that _dictionaries were specifically rejected as evidence,_ and that it was _improper_ for them to have been _read into evidence_ in the original trial, while on the other hand, the testimony of the witnesses called in the original case was acceptable.


----------



## Tochi

<<But convention is exactly how language works. It is utter nonsense to speak of a convention being inaccurate: It is the very fact that it is a convention which prevents any possibility of its being inaccurate.>>

A little simple example, have you heard about that brand 'Scotch' from 3M which makes adhesive tape ? I've hear people who refers to any kind of adhesive tape, no matter what brand it is, as 'Scotch tape' and this happens with lots of products. So if an adhesive tape brand 'Tip-tap-top' is called as 'Scotch', is not that inaccurate at all ?
If I want to buy a roll of 'Tip-tap-top' brand adhesive tape but I use the convention and ask to a seller for a 'Tip-tap-top Scotch' tape, am I being accurate using the convention ? The seller who could not know the convention could be confused by the terms. A convention could be terribly inaccurate, a convention could be anything since its origin could be precisely that: anything, and doesn't have to do with the language itself but with the people who use it. 

<<That does not mean there is no possibility of the convention being in conflict with with other conventions. If you go to the supermarket here in Minneapolis and pick up ground buffalo, what you will get is ground bison. There's no conflict between the common meaning of buffalo and legal conventions of naming meat products obviously, since otherwise the meat would not be so labeled. There is a conflict between the common meaning of buffalo and conventions used in biology, since according to biological taxonomy a bison is not a buffalo. But to claim, given these two conventions, that it is inaccurate to refer to ground bison as ground buffalo is a non sequitur.>>

Oh yes! now there is a conflict, I found this on the net:

"Many more water buffalo *(which are the true buffalo)* and water buffalo products have recently found their way into the American markets. This has caused the Bison industry to rethink the term buffalo being applied to our "Bison" products. Therefore, the NBA encourages all Bison producers and marketers to use the name Bison to avoid *confusion* with water buffalo and to help inform the American public that Bison is indeed the American Buffalo they know and love."

Note that they say "which are the *true* buffalo", the inaccuracy of the convention is implied in the phrase, the way 'buffalo' is used in U.S. is untrue. That convention is then inaccurate and produces now conflicts, then blame the people who invented such convention and not to the English language. The convention didn't 'prevent' any possibility of being inaccurate as you claim. 

<<Again, the US Supreme Court decided that tomatoes were vegetables and not fruit, establishing a legal convention (at least in the case of a particular law involving tariffs). But according to biological convention, tomatoes are indeed
fruit. This does not mean that either the Supreme Court or the biologists are wrong. Neither is inaccurate. Rather, each is following established conventions (the Supreme Court decision itself having been based on other conventions,
including ones from commerce and cuisine.)>>

I found these definitions on an English dictionary from Princeton University :

Vegetable:
1) Edible seeds or roots or stems or leaves or bulbs or tubers or *nonsweet fruits* of any of numerous herbaceous plants
2) Any of various herbaceous plants cultivated for an edible part such as the *fruit* or the root of the beet or the leaf of spinach or the seeds of bean plants or the flower buds of broccoli or cauliflower.

Fruit:
1) The ripened reproductive body of a seed plant.

Based on those definitions the tomato actually is a vegetable and a fruit. 

But let's say that it is just only a fruit. The convention in this case is premeditated and the inaccuracy (it is not a vegetable) is placed on a second plane since the importance of it is to get a gain through tariffs, taxes or whatever. Blame politicians not English.

<<It is irrelevant whether there is any ambiguity or not. A convention cannot be claimed to be inaccurate simply because ambiguity exists.>>

It is not, precisely inaccuracy could result in ambiguity.

<<In any case, my point that the term Central America is a linguistic fossil within the two-continent tradition is easy enough to demonstrate. If we wanted to name that part of the Americas in modern terms, it would be called Central Americas, not Central America. That this is so is is evident to me as a native speaker.>>

The term 'Central Americas' doesn't exist in any convention so there is not much to demostrate.

<<Fortunately, however, in this case I can point you to the Internet to find such similarly-formed terms as central Netherlands, central Dakotas (the reference is to the *combination* of North Dakota and South Dakota, which are separate states), and central Badlands.>>

Your examples are valid except for a detail, as you mention, a central part is a **COMBINATION** of both parts, a part is in North Dakota and the other part in the South Dakota. In the case of 'Central America', it should be a combination of both 'continents' (under your convention), correct ? You have tried to demostrate vast and repeatedly that Central America is located in North America as your convention claims, so a part of C.A. undoubtedly should be in South America. So is it ? Are then Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela part of 'Central America' as well ? Of course not !!


----------



## mplsray

Tochi said:


> <<But convention is exactly how language works. It is utter nonsense to speak of a convention being inaccurate: It is the very fact that it is a convention which prevents any possibility of its being inaccurate.>>
> 
> A little simple example, have you heard about that brand 'Scotch' from 3M which makes adhesive tape ? I've hear people who refers to any kind of adhesive tape, no matter what brand it is, as 'Scotch tape' and this happens with lots of products. So if an adhesive tape brand 'Tip-tap-top' is called as 'Scotch', is not that inaccurate at all ?


 
No. What you have there is a clash of conventions, a trademark and the generic use of a trademark. This involves potential ambiguity, not inaccuracy. I am happy to agree that words can be ambiguous. _Any_ word in English is prone to ambiguity, even a function word such as _and--_I expect there are jokes out there which play off the similarily of pronunciation between the word _and_ and _'and,_ the dropped_-h_ version of _hand._ I strongly disagree that this makes any given meaning of a word "inaccurate."

You made an interesting point about the term _central Americas. _Unfortunately for you, I think it hurts your case, since it constitutes further evidence that, given the current two-continent tradition for the Western Hemisphere, the term _Central America_ is a linguistic fossil.


----------



## Tochi

<<No. What you have there is a clash of conventions, a trademark and the
generic use of a trademark. This involves potential ambiguity, not
inaccuracy.>>

Then to say 'Pizza Hat' instead of 'Burger Ring' is accurate the same way
'buffalo' instead of 'bison'. Peculiar thought.

<<I am happy to agree that words can be ambiguous. Any word in English is prone
to ambiguity, even a function word such as and--I expect there are jokes out there
which play off the similarily of pronunciation between the word and and 'and, the 
dropped-h version of hand. I strongly disagree that this makes any given meaning 
of a word "inaccurate.">>

Yours is other story. The pronunciation has nothing to do with what we are 
talking about.

<<You made an interesting point about the term central Americas.
Unfortunately for you, I think it hurts your case, since it constitutes
further evidence that, given the current two-continent tradition for the
Western Hemisphere, the term Central America is a linguistic fossil.>>

"Linguistic fossil" is your own opinion, whatever it means, and really
doesn't contribute with much (or none) weight to your arguments.


----------



## mplsray

Tochi said:


> <<No. What you have there is a clash of conventions, a trademark and the
> generic use of a trademark. This involves potential ambiguity, not
> inaccuracy.>>
> 
> Then to say 'Pizza Hat' instead of 'Burger Ring' is accurate the same way
> 'buffalo' instead of 'bison'. Peculiar thought.


 
Peculiar conclusion.

_Pizza Hat_ and _Burger Ring_ are inaccurate as trademarks because the actual trademarks are _Pizza Hut and Burger King,_ respectively. You can look it up.

_Buffalo_ instead of _bison_ is not inaccurate at all. It clashes with biological taxonomy, which is where the expression _true buffalo_ comes from. But biologists determine what a word means in English only in their narrow specialty. _Buffalo_ for _Bison bison_ and _buffalo meat_ for the flesh of _Bison bison_ remain accurate in ordinary American (and, I expect, Canadian) English.




Tochi said:


> <<I am happy to agree that words can be ambiguous. Any word in English is prone
> to ambiguity, even a function word such as and--I expect there are jokes out there
> which play off the similarily of pronunciation between the word and and 'and, the
> dropped-h version of hand. I strongly disagree that this makes any given meaning
> of a word "inaccurate.">>
> 
> Yours is other story. The pronunciation has nothing to do with what we are
> talking about.


 
I was trying to make a larger point about ambiguity, that _any_ term is potentially ambiguous. The reason I mentioned the word _and_ was not to focus on questions of pronunciation, to to point out that even a _function word,_ which one might expect to be unambiguous, turns out not to be.



Tochi said:


> <<You made an interesting point about the term central Americas.
> Unfortunately for you, I think it hurts your case, since it constitutes
> further evidence that, given the current two-continent tradition for the
> Western Hemisphere, the term Central America is a linguistic fossil.>>
> 
> "Linguistic fossil" is your own opinion, whatever it means, and really
> doesn't contribute with much (or none) weight to your arguments.


 
Well, let's review why I said that it is a linguistic fossil. A linguistic fossil is something which remains in speech in a fixed form even though the language has changed around it. An example of a linguistic fossil is the _United Negro College Fund._ The word _Negro_ is no longer polite usage in American English (with rare, limited uses in scientific discussions), yet it remains in the name of that organization, which continues to be part of polite usage.

_Central America_ is a fossil in American English because _America_ is no longer used to refer to a continent in the Western Hemisphere. Instead, the Western Hemisphere is now considered to have two continents.

The adjective _American_ continues to be used in some circumstances in the sense "of the Americas." But in most cases, in all standard dialects of English, it means "of the United States." That's the case even among those English-speakers who think of the Western Hemisphere as containing one continent, _America._


----------



## Tochi

My conclusions:

It seems that when somebody in the US decided to separate the continent didn't
think in how to match the original terms with the new concept. The result was hard
to handle and explain without ambiguity, I'd say impossible.  and it's another mystery for me when and why although I suspect that it happened after the adoption of "America/Americans" usage based on the 
references that yourself have provided.


----------



## cuchuflete

Tochi...

My sincere apologies to you.  I tried to quote your last post, and by accident erased the first part of it. 

cuchuflete


----------



## mplsray

mplsray said:


> Well, let's review why I said that it is a linguistic *living* fossil. A linguistic *living* fossil is something which remains in speech in a fixed form even though the language has changed around it. An example of a linguistic *living* fossil is the _United Negro College Fund._ The word _Negro_ is no longer polite usage in American English (with rare, limited uses in scientific discussions), yet it remains in the name of that organization, which continues to be part of polite usage.
> 
> _Central America_ is a *living* fossil in American English because _America_ is no longer used to refer to a continent in the Western Hemisphere. Instead, the Western Hemisphere is now considered to have two continents.
> 
> The adjective _American_ continues to be used in some circumstances in the sense "of the Americas." But in most cases, in all standard dialects of English, it means "of the United States." That's the case even among those English-speakers who think of the Western Hemisphere as containing one continent, _America._


 
_Linguistic living fossil_ is better than simply _linguistic fossil_ because it shows that the expression in question is actually still in use. It's the linguistic equivalent of the coelacanth.

One more cite to show limitations put upon the word _American_ in English (in all standard dialects). The following is from the entry _American_ in _The Oxford Companion to the English Language,_ edited by Tom McArthur, Oxford University Press, © 1992:



> A Brazilian is _South American_ and _Latin American,_ but not, in English, _American._ Costa Ricans and Nicaraguans are _Central Americans_ or _Meso-Americans,_ but not _Middle Americans,_ who are typical US citizens (whether they live in Kansas or Hawaii).


----------



## Tochi

Dont' worry cuchuflete.
************************

I'll not comment on the same points one more time since I think I've repeated them over and over. So let's go to the main point for the last time. 

Ok, one more try, you say there is not such continent 'America' anymore. 

Perfect, then if the U.S. is called 'America' and its inhabitants 'Americans', based on your comments those terms have to be "fossils" from an old usage too, since 'Central America' is tied undoubtedly to the one continent concept of 'America'. If one is that then the others too, whatever what it implies. 

My conclusions:

It seems that when somebody in the US decided to separate the continent didn't think in how to match the original terms with the new concept. The result was hard to handle and explain without ambiguity, I'd say impossible. I'm assuming it happened in the US and it's another mystery for me *when* and *why* although I suspect that it happened after the adoption of "America/Americans" usage based on the references that you have provided. 

And you are right, the terms are way * alive *.


----------



## Tochi

<<The adjective American continues to be used in some circumstances in the sense "of the Americas.">>

No, in the sense of 'America' not 'Americas'. Otherwise "Americanses" would be more accurate but it doesn't exist.

<<But in most cases, in all standard dialects of English, it means "of the United States." >>

Correction : <<...it means ** TOO ** "of the United States.">>

<<That's the case even among those English-speakers who think of the Western Hemisphere as containing one continent, America.>>

Correct, there are English speakers who think that way, so don't generalize. You accept that the US convention is not absolutely global and a matter of English language.

<<One more cite to show limitations put upon the word American in English (in all standard dialects). The following is from the entry American in The Oxford Companion to the English Language, edited by Tom McArthur, Oxford University Press, © 1992:>>

Totally I agree, the word 'American' has lots of limitations when it's applied to US.

<<Quote:
A Brazilian is South American and Latin American, but not, in English, American. Costa Ricans and Nicaraguans are Central Americans or Meso-Americans, but not Middle Americans, who are typical US citizens (whether they live in Kansas or Hawaii).>> 

One more time implying that it's an English language matter when you have admitted, and I quote: "That's the case even among those English-speakers who think of the Western Hemisphere as containing one continent, America." So one more time, it's not an English matter, it's a US matter.

'Meso-American' is not a correct term to use in this case, first, it's a native American cultural concept and second the geographical area of Meso-America in the case of Costa Rica covers only the province of Guanacaste in the North Pacific area of the country, so I never could be a 'Meso-American', first I'm not a native American and second I wasn't born nor live in Guanacaste. 

Middle Americans ? this one is new for me. How are the people from northern and southern states called ? If the ones from the middle are 'Middle Americans' the northern ones must be 'North Americans' and the southern 'South Americans'.
No, of course not, it can't be, there are already 'South Americans'....and other 'North Americans'. How complicated !!


----------



## mplsray

Tochi said:


> <<The adjective American continues to be used in some circumstances in the
> sense "of the Americas.">>
> 
> No, in the sense of 'America' not 'Americas'. Otherwise "Americanses" would
> be more accurate but it doesn't exist.


 
No, in the sense of "of the Americas," because _American_ has been used in that sense since after the concept of one continent was dropped.

If an adjective were to be based upon _the Americas,_ it would likely be an attributive use, keeping the same form, _Americas._ Compare _Badlands species._



Tochi said:


> <<But in most cases, in all standard dialects of English, it means "of the
> United States." >>
> 
> Correction : <<...it means ** TOO ** "of the United States.">>


 
Your correction is pointless. Did you not see my "in most cases"?



Tochi said:


> <<That's the case even among those English-speakers who think of the Western
> Hemisphere as containing one continent, America.>>
> 
> Correct, there are English speakers who think that way, so don't generalize.
> You accept that the US convention is not absolutely global and a matter
> of English language.


 
We discussed this previously. I mentioned how you could use dictionaries which follow the "popular tradition" to demonstrate any differences between American usage and usage in other standard dialects of English in the use of the word _American,_ and showed by citing two British dictionaries that British usage agrees with American usage. I challenged you to find a dictionary in any other standard dialect of English (or even other British dictionaries) which would disagree.

The belief that this use of _American_ is unique to American English is unfounded.



Tochi said:


> <<One more cite to show limitations put upon the word American in English (in all
> standard dialects). The following is from the entry American in The Oxford
> Companion to the English Language, edited by Tom McArthur, Oxford
> University Press, © 1992:>>
> 
> Totally I agree, the word 'American' has lots of limitations when it's
> applied to US.
> 
> <<Quote:
> A Brazilian is South American and Latin American, but not, in English,
> American. Costa Ricans and Nicaraguans are Central Americans or
> Meso-Americans, but not Middle Americans, who are typical US citizens
> (whether they live in Kansas or Hawaii).>>
> 
> One more time implying that it's an English language matter when you have
> admitted, and I quote: "That's the case even among those English-speakers who
> think of the Western Hemisphere as containing one continent, America." So one
> more time, it's not an English matter, it's a US matter.
> 
> 'Meso-American' is not a correct term to use in this case, first, it's a native
> American cultural concept and second the geographical area of Meso-America in
> the case of Costa Rica covers only the province of Guanacaste in the North
> Pacific area of the country, so I never could be a 'Meso-American', first I'm
> not a native American and second I wasn't born nor live in Guanacaste.
> 
> Middle Americans ? this one is new for me. How are the people from northern and
> southern states called ? If the ones from the middle are 'Middle Americans' the
> northern ones must be 'North Americans' and the southern 'South Americans'.
> No, of course not, it can't be, there are already 'South Americans'....and other
> 'North Americans'. How complicated !!


 
Tom McArthur is a Scottish linguist whose specialty is discussing English as a whole--in fact, he's edited a book called _The Oxford Guide to World English._ The book I cited previously was published by Oxford University Press. If it concerned only American English, it would say _American_ somewhere in the title (as the OUP's dictionaries of American English do, for example).

I think your view of _Meso-American_ is correct. 

The _Middle American_ which McArthur has in mind is a cultural or political, not geographical, category, the adjective form of _Middle America,_ as in the following definition from the _Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:_



> *3:* the middle-class segment of the United States population; _especially_ *:* the traditional or conservative element of the middle class.


 
The first two definitions given are older definitions (Merriam-Webster's dictionaries follow the "scholarly tradition"), the first a geographic definition referring to the Americas as a whole and the second a geographic definition referring to the Midwest of the US . I don't believe I have never heard the term _Middle America_ used in either fashion, and I expect McArthur hasn't either. I have heard it used in the cultural sense. In dictionaries which follow the "popular tradition," such as the _Microsoft Encarta College Dictionary,_ the cultural sense is given first, since it is the most common usage.


----------



## Tochi

<<No, in the sense of "of the Americas," because American has been used in that sense since after the concept of one continent was dropped.>>

Probably by you but not by us who still use the original one. America/Americans is used since the whole mass was one even in the US. Your words "Even back when America was considered one continent in American English, Central America was a part of North America." 

<<Central America is a living fossil in American English because America is no longer used to refer to a continent in the Western Hemisphere. Instead, the Western Hemisphere is now considered to have two continents.>>

I ask you again: if the US is called 'America' when the term 'America' ** WAS ** really one continent (see your quote at top) then 'America/Americans' are "living fossils" as you said, whatever what it implies ? 

<<If an adjective were to be based upon the Americas, it would likely be an attributive use, keeping the same form, Americas. >>

Ok, what is that adjective based upon the ** AMERICAS ** ?

<<Your correction is pointless. Did you not see my "in most cases"?>>

It's not, your comments always seems to be absolute when they must not. This definition is again from the Princeton University:

Adjective: American
1. of or relating to the United States of America or its people or language or culture
2. of or relating to or characteristic of the continents and islands of the Americas

See what I mean ? 'American' adjective ** IS NOT ** exclusive of the US. Based on that I am an 'American' even in English. They are saying that Central America is valid no matter if you deny it. If you tell me that the definition #2 doesn't mention people I would understand that Cuba is an American island but its inhabitants are not Americans which really would be a nonsense of the highest kind.

<<I mentioned how you could use dictionaries which follow the "popular tradition" to demonstrate any differences between American usage and usage in other standard dialects of English in the use of the word American, and showed by citing two British dictionaries that British usage agrees with American usage. I challenged you to find a dictionary in any other standard dialect of English (or even other British dictionaries) which would disagree. The belief that this use of American is unique to American English is unfounded.>>

Again, dictionaries only write about definitions and conventions independiently of accuracy and that doesn't mean that all people will follow estrictly their meanings. You will find 'americano' as an US person in any Spanish dictionary too but hardly somebody normal will call me 'North American' even if all your dictionaries say that my country is in North America. 

<<Tom McArthur is a Scottish linguist whose specialty is discussing English as a whole--in fact, he's edited a book called The Oxford Guide to World English. The book I cited previously was published by Oxford University Press. If it concerned only American English, it would say American somewhere in the title (as the OUP's dictionaries of American English do, for example).

I think your view of Meso-American is correct. >>

You thought is correct and it's not my * VIEW * it is a real fact. What is amazing is that a linguist didn't know that, unless he was talking about American natives.


----------



## Tochi

A real story:

Korea, like America, commenced as one. Later, like America, it was divided into two parts: the north and the south and both parts were called the Koreas, like the Americas. And their inhabitants, like in the Americas, were called North Koreans and South Koreans. But, unlike the Americas, any inhabitant of any part is called Korean.


----------



## Clemx

Tochi said:


> A real story:
> 
> Korea, like America, commenced as one. Later, like America, it was divided into two parts: the north and the south and both parts were called the Koreas, like the Americas. And their inhabitants, like in the Americas, were called North Koreans and South Koreans.


Se podría decir lo mismo sobre cualquier país o territorio que se haya dividido de una manera similar... East Germany/West Germany, por ejemplo. Pero en esos casos la gente *ya se conocía* como "Germans/lo que sea" antes de la división. Por eso, tu ejemplo no me parece muy bueno.


----------



## mplsray

Tochi said:


> <<No, in the sense of "of the Americas," because American has been used in that sense since after the concept of one continent was dropped.>>
> 
> Probably by you but not by us who still use the original one. America/Americans is used since the whole mass was one even in the US. Your words "Even back when America was considered one continent in American English, Central America was a part of North America."


 
My point is that for those who do not think of _America_ as a continent, it makes no sense to claim that _American_ means "of America" except when referring to the US. However, _American_ is indeed used on occasion in American English to mean "of the Americas," that is, "of North and South America." And see below my findings about Canadian and Australian English.



Tochi said:


> <<Central America is a living fossil in American English because America is no longer used to refer to a continent in the Western Hemisphere. Instead, the Western Hemisphere is now considered to have two continents.>>
> 
> I ask you again: if the US is called 'America' when the term 'America' ** WAS ** really one continent (see your quote at top) then 'America/Americans' are "living fossils" as you said, whatever what it implies ?


 
That's a non sequitur. The term _Central America_ is a linguistic living fossil, but that does not make either of the terms _America_ or _Americans_ by _themselves_ linguistic living fossils. It does indeed make _America_ in _the United States of America_ a linguistic living fossil, if _America_ in that name is taken to refer to the "continent of America," as I expect many educated citizens of the US would take it. (Just as such people would take _Columbus discovered America_ to mean that Columbus discovered the "continent of America").

Note that identifying a usage as a linguistic living fossil is an objective matter, neither complimentary nor disparaging. That a coelacanth is a living fossil does not make it either better or worse than other fish.



Tochi said:


> <<If an adjective were to be based upon the Americas, it would likely be an attributive use, keeping the same form, Americas. >>
> 
> Ok, what is that adjective based upon the ** AMERICAS ** ?


 
_Americas,_ as I said. It's just not used, because there was never a need for it. The word _American_ was already available for use.

If you wanted a "true adjective," rather than a noun used attributively, based upon the name _the Americas,_ there would be two possibilities for forming one. One would be to use the root, _America,_ as the adjective (something like this happened in the case of the term _scissor-tailed flycatcher,_ which is based upon the noun _scissors_). The other would be to use the root and add an adjectival suffix, with _-an_ a likely such suffix, a "suffix of Latin origin, forming adjectives which are or may be also used as nouns." as _The Century Dictionary_ puts it. This would give us, from _Americas, Americ-_ + _-an,_ yielding, once again, _American. _



Tochi said:


> <<Your correction is pointless. Did you not see my "in most cases"?>>
> 
> It's not, your comments always seems to be absolute when they must not. This definition is again from the Princeton University:
> 
> Adjective: American
> 1. of or relating to the United States of America or its people or language or culture
> 2. of or relating to or characteristic of the continents and islands of the Americas
> 
> See what I mean ? 'American' adjective ** IS NOT ** exclusive of the US. Based on that I am an 'American' even in English. They are saying that Central America is valid no matter if you deny it. If you tell me that the definition #2 doesn't mention people I would understand that Cuba is an American island but its inhabitants are not Americans which really would be a nonsense of the highest kind.


 
At no point did I say or imply that _American_ meant exclusively "of the US" and it is a grave error to see "in most cases" as "seem[ing] to be absolute."



Tochi said:


> <<I mentioned how you could use dictionaries which follow the "popular tradition" to demonstrate any differences between American usage and usage in other standard dialects of English in the use of the word American, and showed by citing two British dictionaries that British usage agrees with American usage. I challenged you to find a dictionary in any other standard dialect of English (or even other British dictionaries) which would disagree. The belief that this use of American is unique to American English is unfounded.>>
> 
> Again, dictionaries only write about definitions and conventions independiently of accuracy and that doesn't mean that all people will follow estrictly their meanings. You will find 'americano' as an US person in any Spanish dictionary too but hardly somebody normal will call me 'North American' even if all your dictionaries say that my country is in North America.


 
Modern general dictionaries follow language rather than leading it. 

I found two more non-American English dictionaries, that is, dictionaries in addition to those which I cited previously, which follow the "popular tradition" of listing the most common definition first and which identify "of the US" as the most popular meaning of _American_ in the standard dialect which is their subject.

The following comes from the entry _American_ in _The Canadian Oxford Dictionary,_ edited by Katherine Barber, Oxford University Press, © 1998

"*American* ... _adj. & n., adj_ *1* of, relating to, or characteristic of the US or its inhabitants *2* (usu. in _comb_[_ination_]) of or relating to the Americas (Latin-_American_ )."

The other dictionary is _The Australian Oxford Dictionary,_ 2nd ed., edited by Bruce Moore, Oxford University Press, © 2004. The first meaning it gives for _American_ is "of, relating to, or characteristic of the United States and its inhabitants."

What was particularly interesting to me in these dictionaries is that both listed _America_ as an entry for a land mass identified as consisting of "the continents of North and South America." The Canadian dictionary listed this as the second sense of _America,_ while the Australian listed it as the first.

Remember, at no point did I claim that in all standard dialects of English _America_ has the most common meaning of "the US." Rather, I made the point that in those dialects _American_ has the most common meaning of "of the US," and the dictionaries I have cited do indeed support this.

What was surprising to me in these definitions was the treatment of _America_ as a land mass which was _not_ a continent in itself, but instead was one consisting of two continents. This makes sense in the case of _the Americas,_ but it strikes me as odd when used with simply _America,_ which I would expect to be used only by people who took _America_ to be a continent.

But note: That I find this usage odd does not mean that I find it objectionable.



Tochi said:


> <<Tom McArthur is a Scottish linguist whose specialty is discussing English as a whole--in fact, he's edited a book called The Oxford Guide to World English. The book I cited previously was published by Oxford University Press. If it concerned only American English, it would say American somewhere in the title (as the OUP's dictionaries of American English do, for example).
> 
> I think your view of Meso-American is correct. >>
> 
> You thought is correct and it's not my * VIEW * it is a real fact. What is amazing is that a linguist didn't know that, unless he was talking about American natives.


Perhaps he was. We would have to ask him to find out. He was discussing various sorts of terms, geographical, ethnic or linguistic, and political or cultural.


----------



## Tochi

<<Se podría decir lo mismo sobre cualquier país o territorio que se haya dividido de una manera similar... East Germany/West Germany, por ejemplo. Pero en esos casos la gente ya se conocía como "Germans/lo que sea" antes de la división. Por eso, tu ejemplo no me parece muy bueno.>>

Quieres decir que los habitantes de America no eran conocidos como americanos o Americans en ingles hace cien o ciento cincuenta años ? Que los ingleses no utilizaban el gentilicio para referirse a sus colonias ? Estas seguro de lo que quieres decir ?


----------



## Tochi

Well, it seems we are landing at last. 

<<It does indeed make America in the United States of America a linguistic living fossil, if America in that name is taken to refer to the "continent of America," as I expect many educated citizens of the US would take it. (Just as such people would take Columbus discovered America to mean that Columbus discovered the "continent of America").>>

I'm glad you can note the ambiguity that the separation produces or could produce and which I've tried to explain many times. By the way let's drop this matter of the "fossils" thing which I think leads to nowhere. That's a tie.

<<This would give us, from Americas, Americ- + -an, yielding, once again, American. 

Correct, for the Americas, 'American' is the best.

<<At no point did I say or imply that American meant exclusively "of the US" and it is a grave error to see "in most cases" as "seem[ing] to be absolute.">>

A fact is that people in the U.S. consider themselves exclusively as Americans (in English) and again hardly somebody will call me American or North American when both terms are thought to refer to themselves and not to anybody else but the  definitions (whichever) show that it's valid too to call something else as 'American' outside the U.S. even persons. 

<< (*) Modern general dictionaries follow language rather than leading it. >>

Amen.

<<I found two more non-American English dictionaries, that is, dictionaries in addition to those which I cited previously, which follow the "popular tradition" of listing the most common definition first and which identify "of the US" as the most
popular meaning of American in the standard dialect which is their subject.>>

Your previous comment (*) resumes perfectly any comment from me so more words are not necessary.


----------



## mplsray

Tochi said:


> <<At no point did I say or imply that American meant exclusively "of the US" and it
> is a grave error to see "in most cases" as "seem[ing] to be absolute.">>
> 
> A fact is that people in the U.S. consider themselves exclusively as Americans
> (in English) and again hardly somebody will call me American or North American when
> both terms are thought to refer to themselves and not to anybody else but the
> definitions (whichever) show that it's valid too to call something else as
> 'American' outside the U.S. even persons.


 
To repeat a point which you don't seem to have grasped yet, it is not that people in the U.S. consider that _American_ applies only to them, and not to other inhabitants of the Americas, but that "citizen of the US" is the _default_ meaning of the term. _Default_ does not mean "exclusive" nor does it mean that non-default meanings are "invalid." It _does_ mean that one should be careful, when using any non-default meanings of the word, to ensure that context disambiguates matters.

To repeat another point: It is not just people of the US who use _American_ to mean "of the US." That is the default meaning of _American_ for all native speakers of English.



Tochi said:


> << (*) Modern general dictionaries follow language rather than leading it. >>
> 
> Amen.
> 
> <<I found two more non-American English dictionaries, that is, dictionaries in
> addition to those which I cited previously, which follow the "popular tradition" of
> listing the most common definition first and which identify "of the US" as the most
> popular meaning of American in the standard dialect which is their subject.>>
> 
> Your previous comment (*) resumes perfectly any comment from me so more words are
> not necessary.


 
But if you yourself do not follow the actual usage of standard speakers of a language (which is what current general dictionaries represent) you are merely being eccentric. As the old saying goes, "Usage is king."


----------



## modus.irrealis

Tochi said:


> A fact is that people in the U.S. consider themselves exclusively as Americans
> (in English) and again hardly somebody will call me American or North American when
> both terms are thought to refer to themselves and not to anybody else but the
> definitions (whichever) show that it's valid too to call something else as
> 'American' outside the U.S. even persons.



I'd have to disagree here. My feeling is that just because a word can have a certain meaning in some context, doesn't mean it has that meaning in every context. I fully agree with mplsray's saying that usage is king, and dictionaries are only an approximation to that usage and not every meaning assigned to a word is on an equal footing.

But, speaking only for my own English, "American" used of people can only mean "of the U.S." The statement "I am an American" (referring to me) is unambiguously false in any context because it just cannot mean (for me) "I am of the Americas," which is true for me. Apologies if this has been brought up before, but for me it's similar to the question of whether French Canadians are Latin-Americans. In my English, they're not, because "Latin-American" has acquired a meaning that is not entirely explicable through its etymology and the same has occured with the word "American."


----------



## Tochi

<<To repeat a point which you don't seem to have grasped yet, it is not that people in the U.S. consider that American applies only to them, and not to other inhabitants of the Americas, but that "citizen of the US" is the default meaning of the term. Default does not mean "exclusive" nor does it mean that non-default meanings are "invalid."...>>

Yes I got the point but the common people don't differentiate between "default usage" as you say and exclusivity, they just believe what was taught to them. I'm almost sure that the "non-default" definitions are not taught and your
expectation in your comment:

"...if America in that name is taken to refer to the "continent of America,"  as I expect many educated citizens of the US would take it. (Just as such people would take Columbus discovered America to mean that Columbus discovered the "continent of America")"

gives me the impression that my statement could be true. I'm sure that you don't consider me as an American (or North American) although you say that those non-default definitions are valid as well. Anyway I still believe that if to be American in 'default' is different to be 'American' in 'non-defaul' is an ambiguous nonsense. I mean, you are American and I am Latin American but not American.

<<To repeat another point: It is not just people of the US who use American to mean "of the US." That is the default meaning of American for all native speakers of English.>>

This is like to say that the one who screams louder is the one who owns the truth. As I've said before I think this was induced by the U.S., it's influence reached even the original British convention which automatically spread to
its commonwealth. But many English speakers and others have started to reconsider the US convention or at least they have started to know the reasons.

<<But if you yourself do not follow the actual usage of standard speakers of a language (which is what current general dictionaries represent) you are merely being eccentric. As the old saying goes, "Usage is king.">>

I can't follow what I don't believe, but think that the prior usage was king for four centuries and it was dethroned by eccentrics, my new one goes, "Usage, like a king, doesn't last forever". The best part is that it seems I am not the only 
eccentric.  ;-)

Ok, we have talked enough about the adjective but what about the noun ? Why people in the US think that America is a name for a country ? I don't believe that they don't know where the name came from. Although cuchuflete have pointed that it's not a generalized usage, what position does it have in your dictionaries, a 'default' or 'non-default' ? 
Do you really believe by conviction that 'America' is the name of your country ?


----------



## Tochi

<<The statement "I am an American" (referring to me) is unambiguously false in any context because it just cannot mean (for me) "I am of the Americas," which is true for me.>>

I think that is only on the mind. You are Canadian, for me you are as American or Americano as anybody in the Americas no matter the complicated and ambiguous reasons, I prefer the good sense, if you believe you live in the Americas you are an American too. The same way in my example of the Koreas, no matter if they are in the north or south they live in the Koreas, they are Koreans. 

<<Apologies if this has been brought up before, but for me it's similar to the question of whether French Canadians are Latin-Americans. In my English, they're not, because "Latin-American" has acquired a meaning that is not entirely explicable through its etymology...>

That's an interesting point but could you be more specific about that meaning ? Please be honest.

By the way, would you believe that I am North American ?


----------



## mplsray

Tochi said:


> <<To repeat a point which you don't seem to have grasped yet, it is not that people in the U.S. consider that American applies only to them, and not to other inhabitants of the Americas, but that "citizen of the US" is the default meaning of the term. Default does not mean "exclusive" nor does it mean that non-default meanings are "invalid."...>>
> 
> Yes I got the point but the common people don't differentiate between "default usage" as you say and exclusivity, they just believe what was taught to them. I'm almost sure that the "non-default" definitions are not taught and your
> expectation in your comment:
> 
> "...if America in that name is taken to refer to the "continent of America," as I expect many educated citizens of the US would take it. (Just as such people would take Columbus discovered America to mean that Columbus discovered the "continent of America")"
> 
> gives me the impression that my statement could be true. I'm sure that you don't consider me as an American (or North American) although you say that those non-default definitions are valid as well. Anyway I still believe that if to be American in 'default' is different to be 'American' in 'non-defaul' is an ambiguous nonsense. I mean, you are American and I am Latin American but not American.


 
You managed to get the exact opposite impression that I intended to convey, since the non-default meanings are indeed taught. It is because they are taught that I made reference to "educated citizens of the US." The implied contrast was with non-educated citizens of the US.

I don't understand your point about "ambiguous nonsense." Could you explain it?



Tochi said:


> <<To repeat another point: It is not just people of the US who use American to mean "of the US." That is the default meaning of American for all native speakers of English.>>
> 
> This is like to say that the one who screams louder is the one who owns the truth. As I've said before I think this was induced by the U.S., it's influence reached even the original British convention which automatically spread to
> its commonwealth. But many English speakers and others have started to reconsider the US convention or at least they have started to know the reasons.


 
The situation is emphatically _not_ like saying "the one who screams louder is the one who owns the truth." This is because many sorts of truth involve objective matters, and it is the person who believes that which is objectively true who might be said, if only poetically, to "own the truth."

In the case of language, from a linguistic point of view, it is meaningless to speak of a usage being either correct or true if it is used in a manner which does not represent how speakers of the language or dialect actually use the term, and meaningless to speak of a usage being standard if it does not represent how speakers of the standard dialect of a language actually use the term. Modern general dictionaries are objective measures of what is standard usage because they are corpus-based.



Tochi said:


> <<But if you yourself do not follow the actual usage of standard speakers of a language (which is what current general dictionaries represent) you are merely being eccentric. As the old saying goes, "Usage is king.">>
> 
> I can't follow what I don't believe, but think that the prior usage was king for four centuries and it was dethroned by eccentrics, my new one goes, "Usage, like a king, doesn't last forever". The best part is that it seems I am not the only
> eccentric. ;-)


 
As I recently said in another thread in this forum, all nonstandard dialects started from a standard dialect. The funny thing is that you are contradicting yourself. Usage indeed does _not_ last forever, and _American _in the sense of "of the continent of America" long ago lost its status as the default sense (at least as long ago as 1895, judging by the quotation I cited from _The Century Dictionary_).

I don't think you have enough evidence to demonstrate that the "of the US" meaning of _American_ is a creation solely of speakers of American English. It seems to me to be an Anglo-American creation.



Tochi said:


> Ok, we have talked enough about the adjective but what about the noun ? Why people in the US think that America is a name for a country ? I don't believe that they don't know where the name came from. Although cuchuflete have pointed that it's not a generalized usage, what position does it have in your dictionaries, a 'default' or 'non-default' ?
> Do you really believe by conviction that 'America' is the name of your country ?


 
It is _a_ name for my country, yes. And when speaking of contemporary matters, I would never use _America_ to refer to the land mass consisting of the continents of North and South America. I call that land mass _the Americas._

Of the three American or North American dictionaries I could find online which both follow the "popular tradition" of listing definitions and have an entry for _America,_ all three gave the US meaning as the default meaning. These dictionaries are the _Encarta World English Dictionary,_ North American ed.;_ The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,_ 4th ed.; and the _Random House Unabridged Dictionary._


----------



## modus.irrealis

Tochi said:


> <<The statement "I am an American" (referring to me) is unambiguously false in any context because it just cannot mean (for me) "I am of the Americas," which is true for me.>>
> 
> I think that is only on the mind. You are Canadian, for me you are as American or Americano as anybody in the Americas no matter the complicated and ambiguous reasons, I prefer the good sense, if you believe you live in the Americas you are an American too. The same way in my example of the Koreas, no matter if they are in the north or south they live in the Koreas, they are Koreans.



That may be true in some varieties of English but it is simply not true in mine. In fact, if someone were to insist on calling me an American, depending on my mood, I would eventualy become offended.



> <<Apologies if this has been brought up before, but for me it's similar to the question of whether French Canadians are Latin-Americans. In my English, they're not, because "Latin-American" has acquired a meaning that is not entirely explicable through its etymology...>
> 
> That's an interesting point but could you be more specific about that meaning ? Please be honest.


The meaning of Latin-American? It refers to Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries south of the States (I'm not sure whether it includes French-speaking countries south of the States since I know very little about them), but Canada is certainly not a Latin-American country (in English, and probably not in any language). And why wouldn't I be honest?



> By the way, would you believe that I am North American ?


Going by your location, sure -- I'm North American too, but drop the North, and it's no longer true.


----------



## Tochi

<<I don't understand your point about "ambiguous nonsense." Could you
explain it?>>

Ok, let's see if I understand you, you say the adjective 'American' is not 
exclusive for the U.S., your words: 

"it is not that people in the U.S. consider that American applies only to them,..."

and that it could be applied to other inhabitants, your words:

"...and not to other inhabitants of the Americas..."

but because of the 'default' usage it implies 'the US people' at first sight.

"... but that "citizen of the US" is the default meaning of the term." 

Under what context a non-US inhabitant is consider as 'American' too ?

Are you refering to Latin 'American' or native 'American' or Central 'American' ? 
If you are, that's what I find ambiguous, as I said, if you are 'American', I am
Latin 'American' or Central 'American' BUT I am not 'American'.

You say for 'the Americas' = Americans, for the U.S. = Americans. That's ambiguous
to me.

That really doesn't have sense to me since you are a inhabitant of the Americas too 
but you already are an American and then you would be American American otherwise the
meaning of the adjective is being used conditionally, some like: this is red but this,
which is red too, is not red because of this. 

"Ambiguity is the property of words, terms, and concepts, (within a particular
context) as being undefined, undefinable, or otherwise vague, and thus having an
unclear meaning. A word, phrase, sentence, or other communication is called
"ambiguous" if it can be interpreted in more than one way." 

If this is not what you meant, I apologize, you are right I have not grasped your 
thoughts, just right now my mind is like a pop-corn machine trying to match your
concepts with your usage. For us it's so simple, from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego 
we all live in America and we all are Americans/americanos/américains/Amerikaans.

<<I don't think you have enough evidence to demonstrate that the "of the US" meaning 
of American is a creation solely of speakers of American English. It seems to me to 
be an Anglo-American creation.>>

I agree about evidence but this far I've not seen any of your theory either. Anyway
I would find way odd that British (or Spaniards) would switch in calling America 
(as the name of the continent) to a country, in the sense at least that the US people 
give to the name today. It would be as odd for Brittish as calling  Asia to India or 
Hong Kong, or Africa to Egipto or even to South Africa, or America to Canada or Jamaica.
I've noted that generally other people are the ones who give you nicknames. During the
immigration period in the middle of 19th and early 20th century lots of europeans came
to America to countries like Brasil, Argentina, Chile, etc., even to my country some 
hundreds of germans and italians came, but millions did it to the U.S. I've heard that
it was very common for them to say that they will move to 'America', in the sense of
the continent as it was in that time, so possibly the name and the adjective from that
moment just started to stick among them in the US, in fact they were in America, and 
that usage slowly became general and changed the whole convention. At least I think
this has more sense. Who knows.


----------



## Benjy

someone said:
			
		

> ...so more words are not necessary.



Quite. To paraphrase a certain British premier: 

"Never has so much been said about something which matters so little"


----------

