Discussion:
An American
Add Reply
Lewis
2017-10-09 01:37:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?

You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.

Yes No
--- ---
American English
German French
Mexican Dutch
Italian Danish
Norwegian Brazilian (?)
Korean Spanish
Austrian Chinese
Hungarian Japanese
Egyptian Polish
Persian
Indian
Thai
Cuban


Brazilian is probably actually OK, but at least around here the word
without qualifier means a particular form of genital torture.

What's the pattern?
--
Like the moment when the brakes lock/And you slide towards the big
truck/You stretch the frozen moments with your fear
Ross
2017-10-09 03:45:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
Yes No
--- ---
American English
German French
Mexican Dutch
Italian Danish
Norwegian Brazilian (?)
Korean Spanish
Austrian Chinese
Hungarian Japanese
Egyptian Polish
Persian
Indian
Thai
Cuban
Brazilian is probably actually OK, but at least around here the word
without qualifier means a particular form of genital torture.
What's the pattern?
I'll be very impressed if somebody finds one.
"Chinese" and "Japanese" have been used as nouns for people, but that
usage is pretty old-fashioned now.

And the alternatives for the "No" group are quite varied: awkward phrases
with "person" for some, unless you want to use the -man suffix; morphologically
different forms for others (Dane, Pole, Spaniard). Any of these is liable
to be viewed by somebody or other as old-fashioned if not offensive. No
clear pattern that I can see, except that adjective-for-person use seems
to be the default when one considers a wider range of countries (which
English speakers don't so often have occasion to refer to): Bangladeshi,
Samoan, Bolivian, Nigerian...
RH Draney
2017-10-09 07:50:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
And the alternatives for the "No" group are quite varied: awkward phrases
with "person" for some, unless you want to use the -man suffix; morphologically
different forms for others (Dane, Pole, Spaniard). Any of these is liable
to be viewed by somebody or other as old-fashioned if not offensive. No
clear pattern that I can see, except that adjective-for-person use seems
to be the default when one considers a wider range of countries (which
English speakers don't so often have occasion to refer to): Bangladeshi,
Samoan, Bolivian, Nigerian...
A Sahrawi, a Monegasque and a Burkinabe walk into a bar....r
GordonD
2017-10-09 08:54:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Ross
And the alternatives for the "No" group are quite varied: awkward phrases
with "person" for some, unless you want to use the -man suffix; morphologically
different forms for others (Dane, Pole, Spaniard). Any of these is liable
to be viewed by somebody or other as old-fashioned if not offensive. No
clear pattern that I can see, except that adjective-for-person use seems
to be the default when one considers a wider range of countries (which
English speakers don't so often have occasion to refer to): Bangladeshi,
Samoan, Bolivian, Nigerian...
A Sahrawi, a Monegasque and a Burkinabe walk into a bar....r
Is that the beginning of the joke where they weren't allowed in without
a Thai?
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Whiskers
2017-10-09 18:55:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for
French, Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm
certain it is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican
are fine. Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
Yes No
--- ---
American English
German French
Mexican Dutch
Italian Danish
Norwegian Brazilian (?)
Korean Spanish
Austrian Chinese
Hungarian Japanese
Egyptian Polish
Persian
Indian
Thai
Cuban
Brazilian is probably actually OK, but at least around here the word
without qualifier means a particular form of genital torture.
What's the pattern?
I'll be very impressed if somebody finds one. "Chinese" and
"Japanese" have been used as nouns for people, but that usage is
pretty old-fashioned now.
And the alternatives for the "No" group are quite varied: awkward
phrases with "person" for some, unless you want to use the -man
suffix; morphologically different forms for others (Dane, Pole,
Spaniard). Any of these is liable to be viewed by somebody or other as
old-fashioned if not offensive. No clear pattern that I can see,
except that adjective-for-person use seems to be the default when one
considers a wider range of countries (which English speakers don't so
often have occasion to refer to): Bangladeshi, Samoan, Bolivian,
Nigerian...
It hadn't occurred to me that 'Pole' 'Dane' or 'Spaniard' might be
old-fashioned, and certainly not offensive. 'Brazilian' I am aware of
having recently gained a saucy association with a style of pubic
hair-cut, but context would usually make it clear what was meant.

'Franc' (a person from France) and 'Angle' (a person from England) seem
to have become obsolete, although 'Scot' (a person from Scotland) is
still current. 'Brit' and 'Britisher' are modern inventions for 'a
person from Britain'. 'Gael' for 'a person who speaks Gaelic' works,
but there's no equivalent for 'a person from Ireland'. 'Fleming'
probably still works for 'a person from Flanders', although Flanders is
not currently a 'country'.

'Tis curious ...
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Ken Blake
2017-10-09 19:20:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
It hadn't occurred to me that 'Pole' 'Dane' or 'Spaniard' might be
old-fashioned, and certainly not offensive.
I don't find any of those three to be old-fashioned, especially not
"Spaniard," which I think is fairly common.
occam
2017-10-09 10:00:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
Yes No
--- ---
American English
German French
Mexican Dutch
Italian Danish
Norwegian Brazilian (?)
Korean Spanish
Austrian Chinese
Hungarian Japanese
Egyptian Polish
Persian
Indian
Thai
Cuban
Brazilian is probably actually OK, but at least around here the word
without qualifier means a particular form of genital torture.
What's the pattern?
The ending 'an'? (The only exception is Thai, but that is borderline.)

Here are some others that support the 'an' theory:


Asian
Tibetan
Australian
Armenian
Porto Rican
Hawaian
Guatemalan
etc
Lewis
2017-10-09 16:45:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
Yes No
--- ---
American English
German French
Mexican Dutch
Italian Danish
Norwegian Brazilian (?)
Korean Spanish
Austrian Chinese
Hungarian Japanese
Egyptian Polish
Persian
Indian
Thai
Cuban
Brazilian is probably actually OK, but at least around here the word
without qualifier means a particular form of genital torture.
What's the pattern?
The ending 'an'? (The only exception is Thai, but that is borderline.)
Filipino
Bangladeshi
Sikh
Post by occam
Asian
Tibetan
Australian
Armenian
Porto Rican
Hawaian
Guatemalan
etc
It seems than -an might always be acceptable without a qualifier like
--
Personal isn't the same as important
occam
2017-10-10 08:05:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lewis
Post by occam
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
Yes No
--- ---
American English
German French
Mexican Dutch
Italian Danish
Norwegian Brazilian (?)
Korean Spanish
Austrian Chinese
Hungarian Japanese
Egyptian Polish
Persian
Indian
Thai
Cuban
Brazilian is probably actually OK, but at least around here the word
without qualifier means a particular form of genital torture.
What's the pattern?
The ending 'an'? (The only exception is Thai, but that is borderline.)
Filipino
Bangladeshi
Sikh
Sikh is not a country, it is a religious group. Like Hindu, Muslim,
Bahai. Religions seem to be exceptions. Filipino, Bangladeshi, Pakistani
are more difficult to explain.
Don Phillipson
2017-10-09 15:23:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or
(2) a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist, while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable (except among people who talk
about fisherpersons, police officers and firepeople.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-10-09 16:30:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or
(2) a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist,
That's true, but I've no idea why.
Post by Don Phillipson
while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable
Frenchman, Englishman, Welshman, Irishman, Dutchman, Frenchwoman,
Englishwoman, Welshwoman, Irishwoman, Dutchwoman all seem OK (though
I'm not sure I've ever actually heard "Dutchwoman"). The reason why the
Dutch but not the Germans enter this select company is probably that
"German" already ends in "man".

I've sometimes wondered what Icelanders, Luxemburgers, New Zealanders
and Newfoundlanders have in common that causes them to make their
personal nouns in the same way. Maybe Liechtensteiners as well, but I
don't often have occasion to refer to them. (In the past one had
Hollanders as well, but not now, I think.)
Post by Don Phillipson
(except among people who talk
about fisherpersons, police officers and firepeople.)
--
athel
J. J. Lodder
2017-10-09 20:14:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or
(2) a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist,
That's true, but I've no idea why.
Post by Don Phillipson
while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable
Frenchman, Englishman, Welshman, Irishman, Dutchman, Frenchwoman,
Englishwoman, Welshwoman, Irishwoman, Dutchwoman all seem OK (though
I'm not sure I've ever actually heard "Dutchwoman"). The reason why the
Dutch but not the Germans enter this select company is probably that
"German" already ends in "man".
I've sometimes wondered what Icelanders, Luxemburgers, New Zealanders
and Newfoundlanders have in common that causes them to make their
personal nouns in the same way. Maybe Liechtensteiners as well, but I
don't often have occasion to refer to them. (In the past one had
Hollanders as well, but not now, I think.)
What's changed?

Jan
Peter Moylan
2017-10-10 08:28:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I've sometimes wondered what Icelanders, Luxemburgers, New Zealanders
and Newfoundlanders have in common that causes them to make their
personal nouns in the same way. Maybe Liechtensteiners as well, but I
don't often have occasion to refer to them. (In the past one had
Hollanders as well, but not now, I think.)
What's changed?
Probably the growing perception that Holland is only part of The
Netherlands. (Question: why do we capitalise the article, given that
there is no article in the Dutch name of the country? I suspect that
it's a hangover from the now-obsolete phrase "the nether lands".)

I have occasionally heard Netherlanders.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Adam Funk
2017-10-10 09:31:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I've sometimes wondered what Icelanders, Luxemburgers, New Zealanders
and Newfoundlanders have in common that causes them to make their
personal nouns in the same way. Maybe Liechtensteiners as well, but I
don't often have occasion to refer to them. (In the past one had
Hollanders as well, but not now, I think.)
What's changed?
Probably the growing perception that Holland is only part of The
Netherlands. (Question: why do we capitalise the article, given that
there is no article in the Dutch name of the country? I suspect that
it's a hangover from the now-obsolete phrase "the nether lands".)
Not to be confused with "the nether regions", of course.
--
You're a brave man. Go and break through the lines. And remember,
while you're out there risking your life and limb through shot and
shell, we'll be in be in here thinking what a sucker you are.
--- President Rufus T Firefly
Jerry Friedman
2017-10-10 13:15:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I've sometimes wondered what Icelanders, Luxemburgers, New Zealanders
and Newfoundlanders have in common that causes them to make their
personal nouns in the same way. Maybe Liechtensteiners as well, but I
don't often have occasion to refer to them. (In the past one had
Hollanders as well, but not now, I think.)
What's changed?
Probably the growing perception that Holland is only part of The
Netherlands.
But why don't we refer to people from the Holland part as Hollanders?
Maybe because we (I mean "I") don't know which part it is. For that
matter, maybe some of us do say "Hollanders".
Post by Peter Moylan
(Question: why do we capitalise the article, given that
there is no article in the Dutch name of the country? I suspect that
it's a hangover from the now-obsolete phrase "the nether lands".)
Some of us don't capitalize the article.
Post by Peter Moylan
I have occasionally heard Netherlanders.
--
Jerry Friedman
b***@shaw.ca
2017-10-10 18:49:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I've sometimes wondered what Icelanders, Luxemburgers, New Zealanders
and Newfoundlanders have in common that causes them to make their
personal nouns in the same way. Maybe Liechtensteiners as well, but I
don't often have occasion to refer to them. (In the past one had
Hollanders as well, but not now, I think.)
What's changed?
Probably the growing perception that Holland is only part of The
Netherlands.
That's part of it, but not all.
Post by Jerry Friedman
But why don't we refer to people from the Holland part as Hollanders?
Maybe because we (I mean "I") don't know which part it is. For that
matter, maybe some of us do say "Hollanders".
My family said "Hollanders", but we came from the province of South Holland and didn't realize other Dutch were sensitive about that.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
(Question: why do we capitalise the article, given that
there is no article in the Dutch name of the country? I suspect that
it's a hangover from the now-obsolete phrase "the nether lands".)
Some of the earliest names of the country -- De Verenigde Nederlanden, Het Koningkrijk der Nederlanden -- used an article. Oddly, in Dutch it's just Nederland and Nederlanders now, but "the Netherlands" has survived in English.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Some of us don't capitalize the article.
Post by Peter Moylan
I have occasionally heard Netherlanders.
But for most people, it's simply "the Dutch".

bill
J. J. Lodder
2017-10-10 14:42:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I've sometimes wondered what Icelanders, Luxemburgers, New Zealanders
and Newfoundlanders have in common that causes them to make their
personal nouns in the same way. Maybe Liechtensteiners as well, but I
don't often have occasion to refer to them. (In the past one had
Hollanders as well, but not now, I think.)
What's changed?
Probably the growing perception that Holland is only part of The
Netherlands. (Question: why do we capitalise the article, given that
there is no article in the Dutch name of the country? I suspect that
it's a hangover from the now-obsolete phrase "the nether lands".)
From the Republic I guess, in full
'De Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Nederlanden'.
(The Republic of the Seven United Netherlands)
The plural still remains in the full official name nowadays:
'Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden'
(The Kingdom of The Netherlands) [1]
Post by Peter Moylan
I have occasionally heard Netherlanders.
Yes, it exists too,

Jan

[1] For extra confusion there is also
'Het Verenigd Koninkrijk der Nederlanden'
(The United Kingdom of the Netherlands)
which is used by historians for the Kingdom, (1815-1830 or 1839 de jure)
that consisted of The Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg.
Ross
2017-10-09 20:24:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or
(2) a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist,
That's true, but I've no idea why.
Post by Don Phillipson
while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable
Frenchman, Englishman, Welshman, Irishman, Dutchman, Frenchwoman,
Englishwoman, Welshwoman, Irishwoman, Dutchwoman all seem OK (though
I'm not sure I've ever actually heard "Dutchwoman"). The reason why the
Dutch but not the Germans enter this select company is probably that
"German" already ends in "man".
I've sometimes wondered what Icelanders, Luxemburgers, New Zealanders
and Newfoundlanders have in common that causes them to make their
personal nouns in the same way. Maybe Liechtensteiners as well, but I
don't often have occasion to refer to them. (In the past one had
Hollanders as well, but not now, I think.)
The -burgers and -steiners are presumably directly based on the German.
The others all end in -land, and the same suffix is used for various
"X Islanders" (Norfolk, Stewart, Pacific, Channel, etc.) though these are not
actual countries.
Ross
2017-10-09 20:58:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or
(2) a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist,
That's true, but I've no idea why.
Post by Don Phillipson
while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable
Frenchman, Englishman, Welshman, Irishman, Dutchman, Frenchwoman,
Englishwoman, Welshwoman, Irishwoman, Dutchwoman all seem OK (though
I'm not sure I've ever actually heard "Dutchwoman"). The reason why the
Dutch but not the Germans enter this select company is probably that
"German" already ends in "man".
I've sometimes wondered what Icelanders, Luxemburgers, New Zealanders
and Newfoundlanders have in common that causes them to make their
personal nouns in the same way. Maybe Liechtensteiners as well, but I
don't often have occasion to refer to them. (In the past one had
Hollanders as well, but not now, I think.)
The -burgers and -steiners are presumably directly based on the German.
The others all end in -land, and the same suffix is used for various
"X Islanders" (Norfolk, Stewart, Pacific, Channel, etc.) though these are not
actual countries.
"Islander" goes back to early ModEng (1500s). In its discussion of the
-er suffix, OED noted (1891):

"A special use of the suffix, common to the modern Germanic languages though scarcely to be found in their older stages, is its addition to names of
places or countries to express the sense ‘a native of’, ‘a resident in’,
e.g. Londoner, New Yorker, Icelander."
occam
2017-10-10 08:07:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or
(2) a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech.  Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist,
That's true, but I've no idea why.
Post by Don Phillipson
 while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable
Frenchman, Englishman, Welshman, Irishman, Dutchman, Frenchwoman,
Englishwoman, Welshwoman, Irishwoman,  Dutchwoman all seem OK (though
I'm not sure I've ever actually heard "Dutchwoman"). The reason why the
Dutch but not the Germans enter this select company is probably that
"German" already ends in "man".
I've sometimes wondered what Icelanders, Luxemburgers, New Zealanders
and Newfoundlanders have in common that causes them to make their
personal nouns in the same way. Maybe Liechtensteiners as well, but I
don't often have occasion to refer to them. (In the past one had
Hollanders as well, but not now, I think.)
Where would you put people from Hong Kong? How would you even refer to
them?
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-10-10 08:11:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or
(2) a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech.  Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist,
That's true, but I've no idea why.
Post by Don Phillipson
 while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable
Frenchman, Englishman, Welshman, Irishman, Dutchman, Frenchwoman,
Englishwoman, Welshwoman, Irishwoman,  Dutchwoman all seem OK (though
I'm not sure I've ever actually heard "Dutchwoman"). The reason why the
Dutch but not the Germans enter this select company is probably that
"German" already ends in "man".
I've sometimes wondered what Icelanders, Luxemburgers, New Zealanders
and Newfoundlanders have in common that causes them to make their
personal nouns in the same way. Maybe Liechtensteiners as well, but I
don't often have occasion to refer to them. (In the past one had
Hollanders as well, but not now, I think.)
Where would you put people from Hong Kong? How would you even refer to
them?
No idea what is generally done, but I would say “people from Hong
Kong“, or maybe “Hong Kong Chinese“.
--
athel
Lewis
2017-10-10 16:28:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or
(2) a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech.  Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist,
That's true, but I've no idea why.
Post by Don Phillipson
 while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable
Frenchman, Englishman, Welshman, Irishman, Dutchman, Frenchwoman,
Englishwoman, Welshwoman, Irishwoman,  Dutchwoman all seem OK (though
I'm not sure I've ever actually heard "Dutchwoman"). The reason why the
Dutch but not the Germans enter this select company is probably that
"German" already ends in "man".
I've sometimes wondered what Icelanders, Luxemburgers, New Zealanders
and Newfoundlanders have in common that causes them to make their
personal nouns in the same way. Maybe Liechtensteiners as well, but I
don't often have occasion to refer to them. (In the past one had
Hollanders as well, but not now, I think.)
Where would you put people from Hong Kong? How would you even refer to
them?
Honger.
--
People only think for themselves if you tell them to.
Tak To
2017-10-11 04:28:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or
(2) a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech.  Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist,
That's true, but I've no idea why.
Post by Don Phillipson
 while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable
Frenchman, Englishman, Welshman, Irishman, Dutchman, Frenchwoman,
Englishwoman, Welshwoman, Irishwoman,  Dutchwoman all seem OK (though
I'm not sure I've ever actually heard "Dutchwoman"). The reason why the
Dutch but not the Germans enter this select company is probably that
"German" already ends in "man".
I've sometimes wondered what Icelanders, Luxemburgers, New Zealanders
and Newfoundlanders have in common that causes them to make their
personal nouns in the same way. Maybe Liechtensteiners as well, but I
don't often have occasion to refer to them. (In the past one had
Hollanders as well, but not now, I think.)
Where would you put people from Hong Kong? How would you even refer to
them?
There is no common demonym (in English) associated with Hong Kong.
There wasn't much of a need.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-09 21:38:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or
(2) a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist, while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable (except among people who talk
about fisherpersons, police officers and firepeople.)
firefighters
Whiskers
2017-10-10 12:19:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or
(2) a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist, while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable (except among people who talk
about fisherpersons, police officers and firepeople.)
firefighters
fishfighters?
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-10 12:29:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or
(2) a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist, while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable (except among people who talk
about fisherpersons, police officers and firepeople.)
firefighters
fishfighters?
I've heard fisherfolk ... why not simply "fishers"? (Already in KJV.)
Tony Cooper
2017-10-10 13:10:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 05:29:02 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or
(2) a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist, while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable (except among people who talk
about fisherpersons, police officers and firepeople.)
firefighters
fishfighters?
I've heard fisherfolk ... why not simply "fishers"? (Already in KJV.)
"Anglers" is neutral.

The grandsons participate in fishing tournaments sponsored by the
Florida Disabled Anglers. From the FDA website:

"FDA organizes six Bass fishing tournaments each year on Central
Florida lakes. A disabled angler is paired with an able-bodied boat
captain."
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Jerry Friedman
2017-10-10 13:48:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 05:29:02 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or
(2) a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist, while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable (except among people who talk
about fisherpersons, police officers and firepeople.)
firefighters
fishfighters?
I've heard fisherfolk ... why not simply "fishers"? (Already in KJV.)
"Anglers" is neutral.
...

I sometimes use it for that reason, but it doesn't include people who
fish commercially using nets.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-10-10 13:59:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:10:39 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 05:29:02 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or
(2) a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist, while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable (except among people who talk
about fisherpersons, police officers and firepeople.)
firefighters
fishfighters?
I've heard fisherfolk ... why not simply "fishers"? (Already in KJV.)
"Anglers" is neutral.
Yes, but it doesn't include trawlermen.
Post by Tony Cooper
The grandsons participate in fishing tournaments sponsored by the
"FDA organizes six Bass fishing tournaments each year on Central
Florida lakes. A disabled angler is paired with an able-bodied boat
captain."
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Adam Funk
2017-10-10 14:12:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 05:29:02 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Don Phillipson
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or
(2) a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist, while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable (except among people who talk
about fisherpersons, police officers and firepeople.)
firefighters
fishfighters?
I've heard fisherfolk ... why not simply "fishers"? (Already in KJV.)
"Anglers" is neutral.
The grandsons participate in fishing tournaments sponsored by the
"FDA organizes six Bass fishing tournaments each year on Central
Florida lakes. A disabled angler is paired with an able-bodied boat
captain."
In BrE there's a distinction between "angling" & "coarse fishing"
according to the type of fish you're after.
--
The history of the world is the history of a privileged few.
--- Henry Miller
Whiskers
2017-10-10 15:02:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 05:29:02 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter T. Daniels
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or (2)
a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist, while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable (except among people who talk about
fisherpersons, police officers and firepeople.)
firefighters
fishfighters?
I've heard fisherfolk ... why not simply "fishers"? (Already in KJV.)
"Anglers" is neutral.
The grandsons participate in fishing tournaments sponsored by the
"FDA organizes six Bass fishing tournaments each year on Central
Florida lakes. A disabled angler is paired with an able-bodied boat
captain."
In BrE there's a distinction between "angling" & "coarse fishing"
according to the type of fish you're after.
And both mean 'people who torture fish for fun' rather than 'people who
catch fish for food'.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Tony Cooper
2017-10-10 15:11:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:02:18 +0100, Whiskers
Post by Whiskers
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 05:29:02 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter T. Daniels
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or (2)
a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist, while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable (except among people who talk about
fisherpersons, police officers and firepeople.)
firefighters
fishfighters?
I've heard fisherfolk ... why not simply "fishers"? (Already in KJV.)
"Anglers" is neutral.
The grandsons participate in fishing tournaments sponsored by the
"FDA organizes six Bass fishing tournaments each year on Central
Florida lakes. A disabled angler is paired with an able-bodied boat
captain."
In BrE there's a distinction between "angling" & "coarse fishing"
according to the type of fish you're after.
And both mean 'people who torture fish for fun' rather than 'people who
catch fish for food'.
I guess, then, you'd label my grandsons to be "war criminals" for
their catch-weigh-measure-and-release participation in bass fishing
tournaments.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Whiskers
2017-10-10 16:50:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:02:18 +0100, Whiskers
Post by Whiskers
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 05:29:02 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter T. Daniels
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or (2)
a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist, while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable (except among people who talk about
fisherpersons, police officers and firepeople.)
firefighters
fishfighters?
I've heard fisherfolk ... why not simply "fishers"? (Already in KJV.)
"Anglers" is neutral.
The grandsons participate in fishing tournaments sponsored by the
"FDA organizes six Bass fishing tournaments each year on Central
Florida lakes. A disabled angler is paired with an able-bodied boat
captain."
In BrE there's a distinction between "angling" & "coarse fishing"
according to the type of fish you're after.
And both mean 'people who torture fish for fun' rather than 'people who
catch fish for food'.
I guess, then, you'd label my grandsons to be "war criminals" for
their catch-weigh-measure-and-release participation in bass fishing
tournaments.
I wouldn't go that far, but I do disapprove.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Cheryl
2017-10-10 15:55:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 05:29:02 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter T. Daniels
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or (2)
a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist, while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable (except among people who talk about
fisherpersons, police officers and firepeople.)
firefighters
fishfighters?
I've heard fisherfolk ... why not simply "fishers"? (Already in KJV.)
"Anglers" is neutral.
The grandsons participate in fishing tournaments sponsored by the
"FDA organizes six Bass fishing tournaments each year on Central
Florida lakes. A disabled angler is paired with an able-bodied boat
captain."
In BrE there's a distinction between "angling" & "coarse fishing"
according to the type of fish you're after.
And both mean 'people who torture fish for fun' rather than 'people who
catch fish for food'.
If you've ever met a sports fisherperson who doesn't eat hir catch, your
local fisherpeople are very different from those around here. I know
that there are people who put stuffed fish on their walls - I watch TV
and read about other places - but really, what a waste of a fish.
--
Cheryl
Whiskers
2017-10-10 17:01:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cheryl
Post by Whiskers
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 05:29:02 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter T. Daniels
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or (2)
a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist, while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable (except among people who talk about
fisherpersons, police officers and firepeople.)
firefighters
fishfighters?
I've heard fisherfolk ... why not simply "fishers"? (Already in KJV.)
"Anglers" is neutral.
The grandsons participate in fishing tournaments sponsored by the
"FDA organizes six Bass fishing tournaments each year on Central
Florida lakes. A disabled angler is paired with an able-bodied boat
captain."
In BrE there's a distinction between "angling" & "coarse fishing"
according to the type of fish you're after.
And both mean 'people who torture fish for fun' rather than 'people who
catch fish for food'.
If you've ever met a sports fisherperson who doesn't eat hir catch, your
local fisherpeople are very different from those around here. I know
that there are people who put stuffed fish on their walls - I watch TV
and read about other places - but really, what a waste of a fish.
There's always a possibility, however slight, that a 'stuffed fish' was
eaten, leaving only the skin for the stuffer. But you can't eat a fish
and then throw it back alive, and some of the fish competed for are
pretty inedible anyway.

I have no complaint about fishers who kill as quickly and painlessly as
they can and have the intention that their catch will be eaten. I can
just about tolerate those who 'tag' their catch and throw it back for
scientific research reasons. I'm uneasy about net methods that inflict
a slow death - but I do eat commercially caught fish.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Jerry Friedman
2017-10-10 17:13:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cheryl
Post by Whiskers
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 05:29:02 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter T. Daniels
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or (2)
a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist, while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable (except among people who talk about
fisherpersons, police officers and firepeople.)
firefighters
fishfighters?
I've heard fisherfolk ... why not simply "fishers"? (Already in KJV.)
"Anglers" is neutral.
The grandsons participate in fishing tournaments sponsored by the
"FDA organizes six Bass fishing tournaments each year on Central
Florida lakes. A disabled angler is paired with an able-bodied boat
captain."
In BrE there's a distinction between "angling" & "coarse fishing"
according to the type of fish you're after.
And both mean 'people who torture fish for fun' rather than 'people who
catch fish for food'.
If you've ever met a sports fisherperson who doesn't eat hir catch, your
local fisherpeople are very different from those around here. I know
that there are people who put stuffed fish on their walls - I watch TV
and read about other places - but really, what a waste of a fish.
We have more people and fewer fish down here than you do, and I imagine
the Brits could say the same. Catch-and-release fishing (I too have
been known to call it "fish torture") has been popular here for decades.
--
Jerry Friedman
Tony Cooper
2017-10-10 17:25:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cheryl
Post by Whiskers
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 05:29:02 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter T. Daniels
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or (2)
a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist, while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable (except among people who talk about
fisherpersons, police officers and firepeople.)
firefighters
fishfighters?
I've heard fisherfolk ... why not simply "fishers"? (Already in KJV.)
"Anglers" is neutral.
The grandsons participate in fishing tournaments sponsored by the
"FDA organizes six Bass fishing tournaments each year on Central
Florida lakes. A disabled angler is paired with an able-bodied boat
captain."
In BrE there's a distinction between "angling" & "coarse fishing"
according to the type of fish you're after.
And both mean 'people who torture fish for fun' rather than 'people who
catch fish for food'.
If you've ever met a sports fisherperson who doesn't eat hir catch, your
local fisherpeople are very different from those around here. I know
that there are people who put stuffed fish on their walls - I watch TV
and read about other places - but really, what a waste of a fish.
Not so down here. There are a lot of catch-and-release sports
fishermen - both saltwater and freshwater - in Florida. The catch is
usually weighed and measured, and then thrown back.

It's required, too, especially in offshore saltwater fishing. You can
only keep certain fish during a designated season, and some can be
kept only if they are of a certain length.

The person fishing can't control what fish takes the hook, so there
has to be some catch-and-release.

What bothers me are the vacationers who come down here and go out on a
charter boat, catch a mess of fish that they have the crew clean, and
then realize the fish won't stay edible on the vacationer's drive
home. The fish end up in a dumpster near the motel.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Cheryl
2017-10-10 15:54:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 05:29:02 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or
(2) a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist, while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable (except among people who talk
about fisherpersons, police officers and firepeople.)
firefighters
fishfighters?
I've heard fisherfolk ... why not simply "fishers"? (Already in KJV.)
"Anglers" is neutral.
The grandsons participate in fishing tournaments sponsored by the
"FDA organizes six Bass fishing tournaments each year on Central
Florida lakes. A disabled angler is paired with an able-bodied boat
captain."
I thought anglers were sports fishermen. Fishers can be either
professional or amateur around here, although I think a fisher would be
assumed to be a professional, er, fisherperson, unless the context
indicates otherwise.

I don't think I ever hear local people call themselves anglers or say
that they're going angling. Do anglers go angling or do they go fishing?
--
Cheryl
Mack A. Damia
2017-10-10 16:00:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cheryl
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 05:29:02 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or
(2) a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist, while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable (except among people who talk
about fisherpersons, police officers and firepeople.)
firefighters
fishfighters?
I've heard fisherfolk ... why not simply "fishers"? (Already in KJV.)
"Anglers" is neutral.
The grandsons participate in fishing tournaments sponsored by the
"FDA organizes six Bass fishing tournaments each year on Central
Florida lakes. A disabled angler is paired with an able-bodied boat
captain."
I thought anglers were sports fishermen. Fishers can be either
professional or amateur around here, although I think a fisher would be
assumed to be a professional, er, fisherperson, unless the context
indicates otherwise.
I don't think I ever hear local people call themselves anglers or say
that they're going angling. Do anglers go angling or do they go fishing?
Acute point.
Tony Cooper
2017-10-10 16:06:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cheryl
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 05:29:02 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or
(2) a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist, while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable (except among people who talk
about fisherpersons, police officers and firepeople.)
firefighters
fishfighters?
I've heard fisherfolk ... why not simply "fishers"? (Already in KJV.)
"Anglers" is neutral.
The grandsons participate in fishing tournaments sponsored by the
"FDA organizes six Bass fishing tournaments each year on Central
Florida lakes. A disabled angler is paired with an able-bodied boat
captain."
I thought anglers were sports fishermen. Fishers can be either
professional or amateur around here, although I think a fisher would be
assumed to be a professional, er, fisherperson, unless the context
indicates otherwise.
I don't think I ever hear local people call themselves anglers or say
that they're going angling. Do anglers go angling or do they go fishing?
"Anglers" was just offered as a neutral term. In actuality, when the
grandsons go after bass, they say they are going "fishing".

I suppose the FDA chose "Anglers" over "Florida Disabled Fishermen"
just to avoid the conflict of "...men". I don't think the word
"anglers" ever comes up in their conversations.

I haven't seen a female boat captain, but several of the youngsters
participating in the program are female. At the average tournament,
about 40 boats go out with a captain and three or four fisherkids.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Cheryl
2017-10-10 12:31:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or
(2) a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist, while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable (except among people who talk
about fisherpersons, police officers and firepeople.)
firefighters
fishfighters?
No, no, that's fishers - which still reminds me of "fishers of men" even
when it's clearly being used in another context, as in "Recreational
fishers are limited to five groundfish per day (including cod)."

Police officers and firefighters seem to be the default terms for those
occupations around here. I've seen "fishermen" and "fishers" used in the
same article; poor editing, no doubt, prevented the consistent use of
one or the other.
--
Cheryl
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-10 12:36:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cheryl
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or
(2) a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist, while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable (except among people who talk
about fisherpersons, police officers and firepeople.)
firefighters
fishfighters?
No, no, that's fishers - which still reminds me of "fishers of men" even
when it's clearly being used in another context, as in "Recreational
fishers are limited to five groundfish per day (including cod)."
Police officers and firefighters seem to be the default terms for those
occupations around here. I've seen "fishermen" and "fishers" used in the
same article; poor editing, no doubt, prevented the consistent use of
one or the other.
"Officer" has always been the default vocative Down Here -- "I'm sorry, officer, I had no idea
I was going 30 mph above the speed limit!" Apparently police sergeants can get huffy when they're
addressed as mere "officers."
Jerry Friedman
2017-10-10 13:47:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cheryl
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or
(2) a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech.  Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist, while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable (except among people who talk
about fisherpersons, police officers and firepeople.)
firefighters
fishfighters?
No, no, that's fishers - which still reminds me of "fishers of men" even
when it's clearly being used in another context, as in "Recreational
fishers are limited to five groundfish per day (including cod)."
Police officers and firefighters seem to be the default terms for those
occupations around here.
...

A fire marshal told me that if he'd ever been heard to say "fireman",
the union would have filed a grievance.
--
Jerry Friedman
Joseph C. Fineman
2017-10-09 22:21:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Phillipson
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or
(2) a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist,
"Chinaman" seems to have been one of the earliest victims of this kind
of squeamishness. Fowler, in the original MEU (1927), distinguishes it
finely from "Chinese" (n.), the idea being that "Chinaman" is more
appropriate for individuals or small numbers. In Gowers's update
(1965), "*Chinaman* has acquired a derogatory flavour and is falling
into disuse...". In between, George Orwell observed with some
bemusement that since the original publication of his novel _Burmese
Days_ (1934), "Chinaman" had become offensive, and he was put to the
trouble of changing it to "Chinese" in the second edition.
Unfortunately, this observation was plucked by my memory from the
Complete Works, so I cannot quote or date it.
Post by Don Phillipson
while the similar noun Frenchman is unobjectionable (except among
people who talk about fisherpersons, police officers and firepeople.)
Not all that similar. Exact analogy would have produced "Chineseman".

My impression is that, even among nonfanatics, the "-woman" versions of
the "-man" nouns (Frenchwoman, Englishwoman, Scotswoman, Welshwoman,
etc.), tho available in a pinch, are avoided wherever possible. For me,
at any rate, the problem is phonological: There is no comfortable way
to unstress the penultimate syllable. (Oddly, tho, I have no trouble
with "policewoman".)
--
--- Joe Fineman ***@verizon.net

||: The Creator, like a ten-year-old boy, is fond of collisions :||
||: and explosions. :||
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-10 12:12:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
My impression is that, even among nonfanatics, the "-woman" versions of
the "-man" nouns (Frenchwoman, Englishwoman, Scotswoman, Welshwoman,
etc.), tho available in a pinch, are avoided wherever possible. For me,
at any rate, the problem is phonological: There is no comfortable way
to unstress the penultimate syllable. (Oddly, tho, I have no trouble
with "policewoman".)
You were an Angie Dickinson fan?
Joseph C. Fineman
2017-10-10 21:59:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
My impression is that, even among nonfanatics, the "-woman" versions of
the "-man" nouns (Frenchwoman, Englishwoman, Scotswoman, Welshwoman,
etc.), tho available in a pinch, are avoided wherever possible. For me,
at any rate, the problem is phonological: There is no comfortable way
to unstress the penultimate syllable. (Oddly, tho, I have no trouble
with "policewoman".)
You were an Angie Dickinson fan?
I had never heard of her (I am not a movie person). However, I see that
for her it's "police woman".
--
--- Joe Fineman ***@verizon.net

||: "Mommy, can I be a computer programmer when I grow up?" :||
||: "You can't do both, dear." :||
Adam Funk
2017-10-10 09:30:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or
(2) a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist, while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable (except among people who talk
about fisherpersons, police officers and firepeople.)
But what I'd like to know is why "Chinaman" is racist --- it's
country+"man" rather than adjective+"man" (e.g., Frenchman,
Englishman) but that doesn't sound like an adequate explanation.

Interesting coïncidence: the Dr Seuss museum in Massachussetts has
taken down an allegedly offensive illustration:

The illustration was taken from a page of Seuss’s first book, And
to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street. The 1937 story follows a
young boy’s description of what he saw on a walk, which includes an
Asian man carrying a bowl of rice and chopsticks and wearing a silk
robe.

...
However, two local businessman then offered to buy it if it was
removed, with one, Andy Yee, telling the Republican: “That’s my
ancestors coming to this country in the 1930s. We did not come
wearing Louis Vuitton and Gucci. Why do you want to change
history?”

I haven't read the book for quite a while, but I'm pretty sure the
text has "a Chinaman who eats with sticks" on that page.
--
Dear Ann [Landers]: if there's an enormous rash of necrophilia that
happens in the next year because of this song, please let me know.
99.9% of the rest of us know it's a funny song! --- Alice Cooper
Whiskers
2017-10-10 12:57:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
Context usually helps clarify whether or not the Swede in question is
a vegetable.

'Chink' and 'Jap' function perfectly well, but aren't considered at all
polite.
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Don Phillipson
It would be naive to expect either (1) logical uniformity or
(2) a perfect match between the old rules of the language and the
newer protocols of polite speech. Notoriously the noun Chinaman
is nowadays unuseable because racist, while the similar noun
Frenchman is unobjectionable (except among people who talk
about fisherpersons, police officers and firepeople.)
But what I'd like to know is why "Chinaman" is racist --- it's
country+"man" rather than adjective+"man" (e.g., Frenchman,
Englishman) but that doesn't sound like an adequate explanation.
[...]

OED notes "2. A person (esp. a man) of Chinese birth or origin. Now
derogatory and offensive." but has no explanation for it.

I suspect that it has something to do with the very low status accorded
to Chinese labourers in 19th century USA such that 'Chinaman' acquired
many of the same connotations as 'nigger'. OED has a quote that
supports that idea, although it's from the 21st century:

2004 O. Starn Ishi's Brain ii. 43 His vocabulary grew to about
three hundred words (among them colloquialisms,..and also less benign
terms like ‘nigger’ and ‘Chinaman’).
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Adam Funk
2017-10-10 15:48:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by Adam Funk
But what I'd like to know is why "Chinaman" is racist --- it's
country+"man" rather than adjective+"man" (e.g., Frenchman,
Englishman) but that doesn't sound like an adequate explanation.
[...]
OED notes "2. A person (esp. a man) of Chinese birth or origin. Now
derogatory and offensive." but has no explanation for it.
I suspect that it has something to do with the very low status accorded
to Chinese labourers in 19th century USA such that 'Chinaman' acquired
many of the same connotations as 'nigger'. OED has a quote that
2004 O. Starn Ishi's Brain ii. 43 His vocabulary grew to about
three hundred words (among them colloquialisms,..and also less benign
terms like ‘nigger’ and ‘Chinaman’).
I guess so.
--
[Those cookbooks] seem to consider _everything_ a leftover, which you
must do something with. For instance, cake. This is like telling you
what to do with your leftover whisky. --- Peg Bracken
Peter Moylan
2017-10-11 00:21:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by Adam Funk
But what I'd like to know is why "Chinaman" is racist --- it's
country+"man" rather than adjective+"man" (e.g., Frenchman,
Englishman) but that doesn't sound like an adequate explanation.
[...]
OED notes "2. A person (esp. a man) of Chinese birth or origin. Now
derogatory and offensive." but has no explanation for it.
I suspect that it has something to do with the very low status accorded
to Chinese labourers in 19th century USA such that 'Chinaman' acquired
many of the same connotations as 'nigger'.
In Australia it's clear enough that it originated with anti-Chinese
feeling. The gold rush of the 1850s brought in a lot of Chinese, and for
whatever reason the other gold miners didn't like the Chinese miners.
That feeling persisted for at least the rest of that century, and was
the main reason for the White Australia policy that was one of the first
pieces of legislation introduced when the states federated.

One of the effects of that policy was that Australians rarely met
Chinese people, so anti-Chinese prejudice persisted for a long time
thereafter. Then WWII created a new wave of anti-Japanese prejudice, and
the two kinds of racism merged.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Tak To
2017-10-11 03:42:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Funk
[...]
But what I'd like to know is why "Chinaman" is racist --- it's
country+"man" rather than adjective+"man" (e.g., Frenchman,
Englishman) but that doesn't sound like an adequate explanation.
Probably the same reason as "Asiatic" a while back -- tainted
by the attitude of the persons who used it.
Post by Adam Funk
Interesting coïncidence: the Dr Seuss museum in Massachussetts has
The illustration was taken from a page of Seuss’s first book, And
to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street. The 1937 story follows a
young boy’s description of what he saw on a walk, which includes an
Asian man carrying a bowl of rice and chopsticks and wearing a silk
robe.
...
However, two local businessman then offered to buy it if it was
removed, with one, Andy Yee, telling the Republican: “That’s my
ancestors coming to this country in the 1930s. We did not come
wearing Louis Vuitton and Gucci. Why do you want to change
history?”
I haven't read the book for quite a while, but I'm pretty sure the
text has "a Chinaman who eats with sticks" on that page.
See the picture in
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/10/poll_are_you_offended_by_this.html

I don't know what this Andy Yee was talking about. The Chinese
laborers did not wear LV or Gucci, but they did not wear the
kind of clothing in the picture either -- wrong hat, wrong
pants, wrong robe, wrong shoes. Even the bowl is wrong. I am
not offended, just a tiny bit sad. I recognize that picture as
a good-natured caricature, but a caricature nonetheless.

Btw there is also the pigtail. To this day, there are still many
ethnic Hans who regard the pigtail as a symbol of humiliation,
historically forced upon them by the Manchu conquerors. To them,
the pigtail is as suitable a representation of things Chinese as
a pair of bound feet.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
b***@aol.com
2017-10-09 17:30:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lewis
Given the sentence, "An American walks into a room" why are some
nationalities not able to be substituted?
You could say and Englishman, but not an English. Similarly for French,
Chinese, Japanese (though I do see that use on occasion I'm certain it
is incorrect and bordering on racist). German and Mexican are fine.
Norwegian yes, but Swede? Probably.
Yes No
--- ---
American English
German French
Mexican Dutch
Italian Danish
Norwegian Brazilian (?)
Korean Spanish
Austrian Chinese
Hungarian Japanese
Egyptian Polish
Persian
Indian
Thai
Cuban
Brazilian is probably actually OK, but at least around here the word
without qualifier means a particular form of genital torture.
What's the pattern?
Offhand, the suffixes -an (your examples), -i (Iraqi), -ot (Chypriot),
-ois (Beninois), -ine (Argentine), -asque (Monegasque) can be used
for both adjectives and nouns. There may very well be others.
Post by Lewis
--
Like the moment when the brakes lock/And you slide towards the big
truck/You stretch the frozen moments with your fear
Garrett Wollman
2017-10-09 17:41:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lewis
Yes No
--- ---
American English
German French
Mexican Dutch
Italian Danish
Norwegian Brazilian (?)
Korean Spanish
Austrian Chinese
Hungarian Japanese
Egyptian Polish
Persian
Indian
Thai
Cuban
This list conflates adjective and noun demonyms. "English", "French",
"Dutch", "Danish", "Spanish", and "Polish" are adjectves, not nouns,
when used as demonyms -- historically, the noun forms are
"English(wo)man", "French(wo)man", "Dutch(wo)man", "Spaniard", and
"Pole", but the first three have the obvious problem that they are
gendered, and the only gender-neutral alternative is "{ADJ} person".

"Brazilian" is unobjectionable[1], and I think (not too deeply) that
all South American nationalities form demonyms in "-an" which serve
double duty as nouns and adjectives.

A taboo has developed around the use of East Asian noun demonyms,
regardless of form, as count nouns -- today it is nearly as
unacceptable to write "a Chinese" as it is to write "a Chinaman" --
whereas as mass nouns ("the Chinese") they are broadly acceptable, but
*only* when referring to the nationality, or metonymously as a
reference to the government of that country. ("The Japanese are
divided over amending the country's pacifist constitution" is
perfectly acceptable, whereas "The Japanese have been living in San
Francisco for more than a century" has more than a whiff of the
problematic.)

This brings up a related point: demonyms vary in scope. There are
demonyms for ethnic groups (Roma, Azeri, Javanese, Magyar, Basque,
Sami, Kurd, Bengali, Amazigh), and then there are demonyms for
nationalities (Azerbaijani, Hungarian, Norwegian, Kurdistani,
Bangladeshi). Often these don't entirely overlap, as with the Jewish
and Chinese disaporas, but most modern states are also substantially
multi-ethnic. There are also linguistic demonyms; in English we
usually form these using the suffix "-phone" (anglophone, francophone,
lusophone, russophone, but interestingly there's no such word for
"Spanish-speaking") so there's less chance for confusion.

"Persian" is another interesting case. Historically, it refers to an
ethnic group, an empire, and a language, but there is substantial
disagreement over whether any uses are appropriate today. Most people
I know say "Iranian" for the ethnicity and nationality (for count
noun, mass noun, and adjective) and "Farsi" for the language, but
within "Iranian" it's possible to disaggregate ethnic groups of which
modern-day "Persian" is only one. (Iranian Kurds are one of several
sizeable minority groups.)

-GAWollman

[1] I live in a region with a sizable population of Brazilian people,
attracted here in part by the presence of an earlier lusophone
population from mainland Portugal whose ancestors came here to work in
the fishing and whaling industries.
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-10-10 06:28:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
( ... )
"Brazilian" is unobjectionable[1], and I think (not too deeply) that
all South American nationalities form demonyms in "-an" which serve
double duty as nouns and adjectives.
Most, certainly, but

Surinam -> Surinamese
Guyane -> French
--
athel
occam
2017-10-10 08:16:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Garrett Wollman
A taboo has developed around the use of East Asian noun demonyms,
regardless of form, as count nouns -- today it is nearly as
unacceptable to write "a Chinese" as it is to write "a Chinaman" --
whereas as mass nouns ("the Chinese") they are broadly acceptable, but
*only* when referring to the nationality, or metonymously as a
reference to the government of that country. ("The Japanese are
divided over amending the country's pacifist constitution" is
perfectly acceptable, whereas "The Japanese have been living in San
Francisco for more than a century" has more than a whiff of the
problematic.)
This does not bode well for the above groups when it comes to "<native>,
<native>....walk into a pub" jokes. It looks like we must discriminate
against - by excluding them - in order not to offend them ;-)
Whiskers
2017-10-10 12:34:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by Garrett Wollman
A taboo has developed around the use of East Asian noun demonyms,
regardless of form, as count nouns -- today it is nearly as
unacceptable to write "a Chinese" as it is to write "a Chinaman" --
whereas as mass nouns ("the Chinese") they are broadly acceptable, but
*only* when referring to the nationality, or metonymously as a
reference to the government of that country. ("The Japanese are
divided over amending the country's pacifist constitution" is
perfectly acceptable, whereas "The Japanese have been living in San
Francisco for more than a century" has more than a whiff of the
problematic.)
This does not bode well for the above groups when it comes to "<native>,
<native>....walk into a pub" jokes. It looks like we must discriminate
against - by excluding them - in order not to offend them ;-)
Three persons of disparate ethnicity entered a generic refreshment
vendor's premises ... 'we throw it all up in the air and what [$deity]
doesn't want comes back down'.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Tak To
2017-10-10 20:45:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Lewis
Yes No
--- ---
American English
German French
Mexican Dutch
Italian Danish
Norwegian Brazilian (?)
Korean Spanish
Austrian Chinese
Hungarian Japanese
Egyptian Polish
Persian
Indian
Thai
Cuban
This list conflates adjective and noun demonyms. "English", "French",
"Dutch", "Danish", "Spanish", and "Polish" are adjectves, not nouns,
when used as demonyms -- historically, the noun forms are
"English(wo)man", "French(wo)man", "Dutch(wo)man", "Spaniard", and
"Pole", but the first three have the obvious problem that they are
gendered, and the only gender-neutral alternative is "{ADJ} person".
"Brazilian" is unobjectionable[1], and I think (not too deeply) that
all South American nationalities form demonyms in "-an" which serve
double duty as nouns and adjectives.
A taboo has developed around the use of East Asian noun demonyms,
regardless of form, as count nouns -- today it is nearly as
unacceptable to write "a Chinese" as it is to write "a Chinaman" --
whereas as mass nouns ("the Chinese") they are broadly acceptable, but
*only* when referring to the nationality, or metonymously as a
reference to the government of that country.
I have not noticed that there is such a taboo and "a Chinese"
meaning "an ethnic Chinese" is not offensive to me. However,
I do recognize that there is an emerging reluctance to denote
a person by his/her (perhaps superficial) ethnicity. It
reminds me of the phenomenon in which gentiles would eschew
"a Jew" in flavor of "a Jewish person" or "is Jewish" even
though the term per se is not actually perceived as offensive
by Jews themselves.
Post by Garrett Wollman
("The Japanese are
divided over amending the country's pacifist constitution" is
perfectly acceptable, whereas "The Japanese have been living in San
Francisco for more than a century" has more than a whiff of the
problematic.)
This brings up a related point: demonyms vary in scope. There are
demonyms for ethnic groups (Roma, Azeri, Javanese, Magyar, Basque,
Sami, Kurd, Bengali, Amazigh), and then there are demonyms for
nationalities (Azerbaijani, Hungarian, Norwegian, Kurdistani,
Bangladeshi). Often these don't entirely overlap, as with the Jewish
and Chinese disaporas, but most modern states are also substantially
multi-ethnic. There are also linguistic demonyms; in English we
usually form these using the suffix "-phone" (anglophone, francophone,
lusophone, russophone, but interestingly there's no such word for
"Spanish-speaking") so there's less chance for confusion.
"Persian" is another interesting case. Historically, it refers to an
ethnic group, an empire, and a language, but there is substantial
disagreement over whether any uses are appropriate today. Most people
I know say "Iranian" for the ethnicity and nationality (for count
noun, mass noun, and adjective) and "Farsi" for the language, but
within "Iranian" it's possible to disaggregate ethnic groups of which
modern-day "Persian" is only one. (Iranian Kurds are one of several
sizeable minority groups.)
"Chinese" is similar. There is no one Chinese language and
Han is the largest ethnic group.
Post by Garrett Wollman
-GAWollman
[1] I live in a region with a sizable population of Brazilian people,
attracted here in part by the presence of an earlier lusophone
population from mainland Portugal whose ancestors came here to work in
the fishing and whaling industries.
There was also a wave of Portugese immigration in the 1950's and
1960's.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Richard Tobin
2017-10-10 21:34:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tak To
I have not noticed that there is such a taboo and "a Chinese"
meaning "an ethnic Chinese" is not offensive to me. However,
I do recognize that there is an emerging reluctance to denote
a person by his/her (perhaps superficial) ethnicity. It
reminds me of the phenomenon in which gentiles would eschew
"a Jew" in flavor of "a Jewish person" or "is Jewish" even
though the term per se is not actually perceived as offensive
by Jews themselves.
I've mentioned before the comedy sketch by Jonathan Miller in which he
says "I'm not really a Jew; just Jew-ish, not the whole hog".

-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-11 03:15:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Tak To
I have not noticed that there is such a taboo and "a Chinese"
meaning "an ethnic Chinese" is not offensive to me. However,
I do recognize that there is an emerging reluctance to denote
a person by his/her (perhaps superficial) ethnicity. It
reminds me of the phenomenon in which gentiles would eschew
"a Jew" in flavor of "a Jewish person" or "is Jewish" even
though the term per se is not actually perceived as offensive
by Jews themselves.
I've mentioned before the comedy sketch by Jonathan Miller in which he
says "I'm not really a Jew; just Jew-ish, not the whole hog".
Did he say that before Woody Allen did? or Seinfeld?
Tak To
2017-10-11 04:38:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Tak To
I have not noticed that there is such a taboo and "a Chinese"
meaning "an ethnic Chinese" is not offensive to me. However,
I do recognize that there is an emerging reluctance to denote
a person by his/her (perhaps superficial) ethnicity. It
reminds me of the phenomenon in which gentiles would eschew
"a Jew" in flavor of "a Jewish person" or "is Jewish" even
though the term per se is not actually perceived as offensive
by Jews themselves.
I've mentioned before the comedy sketch by Jonathan Miller in which he
says "I'm not really a Jew; just Jew-ish, not the whole hog".
Did he say that before Woody Allen did? or Seinfeld?
That was a lot of pussyfooting by the media around calling Joe
Lieberman a Jew when he was Kerry's running mate. Thus lots of
jokes as well.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Loading...