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.
Richard Heathfield
2017-10-11 17:41:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
'Gael' for 'a person who speaks Gaelic' works,
but there's no equivalent for 'a person from Ireland'.
Many years ago, I happened to be discussing demonyms with an Irish
friend, and I asked him how the Irish preferred to be known. I'm not
entirely convinced that he treated the question seriously, though,
because when I suggested "Erse" as a possibility he replied that it
depended on whether both, or only one, of your parents were born there.
"If both your parents are natives, that makes you a complete Erse; but
if only one of them is, you're just half-Ersed."
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-10-11 19:26:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Whiskers
'Gael' for 'a person who speaks Gaelic' works,
but there's no equivalent for 'a person from Ireland'.
Many years ago, I happened to be discussing demonyms with an Irish
friend, and I asked him how the Irish preferred to be known. I'm not
entirely convinced that he treated the question seriously, though,
because when I suggested "Erse" as a possibility he replied that it
depended on whether both, or only one, of your parents were born there.
"If both your parents are natives, that makes you a complete Erse; but
if only one of them is, you're just half-Ersed."
<chuckle>
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
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
2017-10-11 09:52:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@shaw.ca
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.
Sensitivity about that is a fairly recent invention.
(Frisians excepted)
Apart from that, 'Hollands' -is- what is nowadays known as 'Nederlands'.
To a large extent 'Nederlands' is the language as it was (and still is)
spoken in Holland.
By legend it is the dialect of the town of Haarlem.
(the historical reasons for this are too far off-topic here)
Post by b***@shaw.ca
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".
Which most, Anglophone?
In many languages around the world some derivation of 'Holland'
is still the name of the country.

Jan
Adam Funk
2017-10-11 10:46:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by b***@shaw.ca
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
North Holland is the province containing Amsterdam; South Holland
contains the Hague. (I know this from my geocaching statistics.)
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Jerry Friedman
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.
Sensitivity about that is a fairly recent invention.
(Frisians excepted)
Do you mean that Frisians have been sensitive about it longer, or that
they still are not?


...
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by b***@shaw.ca
But for most people, it's simply "the Dutch".
Which most, Anglophone?
In many languages around the world some derivation of 'Holland'
is still the name of the country.
...and in the sauce.
--
Now you're climbing to the top of the company ladder
Hope it doesn't take too long
Can't you see there'll come a day when it won't matter?
Come a day when you'll be gone --- Boston
J. J. Lodder
2017-10-11 12:47:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Funk
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by b***@shaw.ca
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
North Holland is the province containing Amsterdam; South Holland
contains the Hague. (I know this from my geocaching statistics.)
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Jerry Friedman
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.
Sensitivity about that is a fairly recent invention.
(Frisians excepted)
Do you mean that Frisians have been sensitive about it longer, or that
they still are not?
Since forever.
The Frisians and the Hollanders have been at war for centuries,
before being united in the Republic.
Some Frisians feel that all of Holland is (or once was) part of Frisia,
under their mythical King Redbad.
(up to the Belgium border even)
They still call the northmost part of Holland 'West-Friesland'.

The Frisians have also kept their own language,
and after some Frisian agitation
their kiddies can learn Frisian in school.
Official documents are also in Frisian,
and placenames by the side of the road are bilingual.
There is a Frisian separatist movement too,
wanting independence.
(for all of their ± 650,000 inhabitants)
Post by Adam Funk
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by b***@shaw.ca
But for most people, it's simply "the Dutch".
Which most, Anglophone?
In many languages around the world some derivation of 'Holland'
is still the name of the country.
...and in the sauce.
Don't ask for trouble mentioning it to a Frenchman.
The French feel of course, how else could it be,
that this major ingredient of their grand cuisine
must of course be a French invention.
They have invented a fictive date for it,
namely in the Dutch campalgn of Louis XIV in 1672.

Unfortunately (for them) very similar recipies
are documented from Holland already in the 15th century,

Jan
Adam Funk
2017-10-11 13:26:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Adam Funk
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by b***@shaw.ca
But for most people, it's simply "the Dutch".
Which most, Anglophone?
In many languages around the world some derivation of 'Holland'
is still the name of the country.
...and in the sauce.
Don't ask for trouble mentioning it to a Frenchman.
The French feel of course, how else could it be,
that this major ingredient of their grand cuisine
must of course be a French invention.
They have invented a fictive date for it,
namely in the Dutch campalgn of Louis XIV in 1672.
Unfortunately (for them) very similar recipies
are documented from Holland already in the 15th century,
That's pretty funny.
--
A firm rule must be imposed upon our nation before it destroys
itself. The United States needs some theology and geometry, some taste
and decency. I suspect that we are teetering on the edge of the abyss.
--- Ignatius J Reilly
occam
2017-10-11 14:42:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Adam Funk
Do you mean that Frisians have been sensitive about it longer, or that
they still are not?
Since forever.
The Frisians and the Hollanders have been at war for centuries,
before being united in the Republic.
Some Frisians feel that all of Holland is (or once was) part of Frisia,
under their mythical King Redbad.
(up to the Belgium border even)
They still call the northmost part of Holland 'West-Friesland'.
After Catalunia, any chance of a Frixit?
Mack A. Damia
2017-10-11 14:59:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Adam Funk
Do you mean that Frisians have been sensitive about it longer, or that
they still are not?
Since forever.
The Frisians and the Hollanders have been at war for centuries,
before being united in the Republic.
Some Frisians feel that all of Holland is (or once was) part of Frisia,
under their mythical King Redbad.
(up to the Belgium border even)
They still call the northmost part of Holland 'West-Friesland'.
There is a movement now for the northern states of Mexico to break
away and form their own country - "The Republic of Northern Mexico".

http://tinyurl.com/yajue3w3

I don't think it will go anywhere.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-10-11 18:30:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Adam Funk
Do you mean that Frisians have been sensitive about it longer, or that
they still are not?
Since forever.
The Frisians and the Hollanders have been at war for centuries,
before being united in the Republic.
Some Frisians feel that all of Holland is (or once was) part of Frisia,
under their mythical King Redbad.
(up to the Belgium border even)
They still call the northmost part of Holland 'West-Friesland'.
There is a movement now for the northern states of Mexico to break
away and form their own country - "The Republic of Northern Mexico".
http://tinyurl.com/yajue3w3
I don't think it will go anywhere.
Some of the people further south might be very happy to have a buffer
state between them and the USA, and to concentrate as far as possible
the drug traffickers.
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-10-11 15:10:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by b***@shaw.ca
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.
Sensitivity about that is a fairly recent invention.
(Frisians excepted)
Apart from that, 'Hollands' -is- what is nowadays known as 'Nederlands'.
To a large extent 'Nederlands' is the language as it was (and still is)
spoken in Holland.
By legend it is the dialect of the town of Haarlem.
(the historical reasons for this are too far off-topic here)
Post by b***@shaw.ca
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".
Which most, Anglophone?
In many languages around the world some derivation of 'Holland'
is still the name of the country.
French has "Hollande", and Spanish has "Holanda", but you are more
likely to see "Pays-Bas" and "Países Bajos".
--
athel
b***@shaw.ca
2017-10-11 18:14:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by b***@shaw.ca
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.
Sensitivity about that is a fairly recent invention.
(Frisians excepted)
Apart from that, 'Hollands' -is- what is nowadays known as 'Nederlands'.
To a large extent 'Nederlands' is the language as it was (and still is)
spoken in Holland.
By legend it is the dialect of the town of Haarlem.
(the historical reasons for this are too far off-topic here)
Post by b***@shaw.ca
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".
Which most, Anglophone?
In many languages around the world some derivation of 'Holland'
is still the name of the country.
Yes, I was thinking of anglophones.
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
occam
2017-10-11 08:59:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tak To
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.
Not much need? Really? With over 7 million inhabitants, Hong Kong has
more of a need than Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, and a lot more.

What do the Chinese refer to Hong Kong residents, I wonder? "Trouble
makers" comes to mind. I guess their official title is "Chinese".

Aside - Is a resident of Malta a Malteser? Why should Berliners be the
only people with sweet-tooth associations?
Peter Moylan
2017-10-11 09:59:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by Tak To
There is no common demonym (in English) associated with Hong Kong.
There wasn't much of a need.
Not much need? Really? With over 7 million inhabitants, Hong Kong has
more of a need than Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, and a lot more.
Yes, but how many people would know how to refer to the Lichtensteiners
or the Luxembourgeois?
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
occam
2017-10-11 10:39:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
Post by Tak To
There is no common demonym (in English) associated with Hong Kong.
There wasn't much of a need.
Not much need? Really? With over 7 million inhabitants, Hong Kong has
more of a need than Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, and a lot more.
Yes, but how many people would know how to refer to the Lichtensteiners
or the Luxembourgeois?
All the reason for having a term for the Hong Kongers. I'm sure someone,
somewhere in China is right now thinking up a joke "A Taiwanese, a
HongKonger and a Hainanese walk into a restaurant ..."


P.S. The correct term for the ultra-conservative Luxembourgers is
"Luxembourgeoisie" (I was told :-) )
CDB
2017-10-11 15:16:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
Post by Tak To
There is no common demonym (in English) associated with Hong
Kong. There wasn't much of a need.
Not much need? Really? With over 7 million inhabitants, Hong
Kong has more of a need than Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, and a lot
more.
Yes, but how many people would know how to refer to the
Lichtensteiners or the Luxembourgeois?
All the reason for having a term for the Hong Kongers. I'm sure
someone, somewhere in China is right now thinking up a joke "A
Taiwanese, a HongKonger and a Hainanese walk into a restaurant ..."
I sometimes hear "Hongkongnese"; I don't know if it's a shortening of
"Hong Kong Chinese".

Googling turns up several websites, not noticeably Canadian, that use it.
Post by occam
P.S. The correct term for the ultra-conservative Luxembourgers is
"Luxembourgeoisie" (I was told :-) )
--
Bilinguisme 001:

TdR: "*un hambourgeois toutt vêtu pour sortir"
mieux: "A 'amburg all-dress to go"
Adam Funk
2017-10-11 10:44:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
Post by Tak To
There is no common demonym (in English) associated with Hong Kong.
There wasn't much of a need.
Not much need? Really? With over 7 million inhabitants, Hong Kong has
more of a need than Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, and a lot more.
Yes, but how many people would know how to refer to the Lichtensteiners
or the Luxembourgeois?
I believe Luxemburgers is also acceptable.
--
Java is kind of like kindergarten. There are lots of rules you have to
remember. If you don't follow them, the compiler makes you sit in the
corner until you do. --- Don Raab
Ken Blake
2017-10-11 17:38:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
Post by Tak To
There is no common demonym (in English) associated with Hong Kong.
There wasn't much of a need.
Not much need? Really? With over 7 million inhabitants, Hong Kong has
more of a need than Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, and a lot more.
Yes, but how many people would know how to refer to the Lichtensteiners
or the Luxembourgeois?
I believe Luxemburgers is also acceptable.
And I thought Luxemburgers were hamburgers with melted luxem on top.
J. J. Lodder
2017-10-11 11:16:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
Post by Tak To
There is no common demonym (in English) associated with Hong Kong.
There wasn't much of a need.
Not much need? Really? With over 7 million inhabitants, Hong Kong has
more of a need than Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, and a lot more.
Yes, but how many people would know how to refer to the Lichtensteiners
or the Luxembourgeois?
Why use the French name for them?
French is a small minority language in Luxembourg.
(The French-speaking part of the country
was annexed by Belgium at their independnece)

Jan
Adam Funk
2017-10-11 13:28:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
Post by Tak To
There is no common demonym (in English) associated with Hong Kong.
There wasn't much of a need.
Not much need? Really? With over 7 million inhabitants, Hong Kong has
more of a need than Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, and a lot more.
Yes, but how many people would know how to refer to the Lichtensteiners
or the Luxembourgeois?
Why use the French name for them?
Because nobody but the Lëtzebuergesch knows how to spell
"Lëtzebuergesch". (I just looked it up by googling an approximation.)
Post by J. J. Lodder
French is a small minority language in Luxembourg.
(The French-speaking part of the country
was annexed by Belgium at their independnece)
--
I don't quite understand this worship of objectivity in
journalism. Now, just flat-out lying is different from being
subjective. --- Hunter S Thompson
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-10-11 15:18:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
Post by Tak To
There is no common demonym (in English) associated with Hong Kong.
There wasn't much of a need.
Not much need? Really? With over 7 million inhabitants, Hong Kong has
more of a need than Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, and a lot more.
Yes, but how many people would know how to refer to the Lichtensteiners
or the Luxembourgeois?
Why use the French name for them?
French is a small minority language in Luxembourg.
It is, nonetheless, an official language.
Post by J. J. Lodder
(The French-speaking part of the country
was annexed by Belgium at their independnece)
Jan
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-10-11 15:15:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
Post by Tak To
There is no common demonym (in English) associated with Hong Kong.
There wasn't much of a need.
Not much need? Really? With over 7 million inhabitants, Hong Kong has
more of a need than Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, and a lot more.
Yes, but how many people would know how to refer to the Lichtensteiners
or the Luxembourgeois?
Or even to know how to spell Liechtenstein? (Lichtenstein was a
designer who fooled the pretentious that he was producing art.)

Not knowing how to spell Luxemb(o)urg is not the same case, because two
spellings have wide currency in English, though fewer than R(o)(u)mania.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-11 12:20:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by Tak To
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.
Not much need? Really? With over 7 million inhabitants, Hong Kong has
more of a need than Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, and a lot more.
What do the Chinese refer to Hong Kong residents, I wonder? "Trouble
makers" comes to mind. I guess their official title is "Chinese".
Aside - Is a resident of Malta a Malteser? Why should Berliners be the
only people with sweet-tooth associations?
? Danish.
Richard Tobin
2017-10-11 09:33:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tak To
Post by occam
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.
You could say "Hong Kong Chinese".

-- Richard
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-10-11 13:16:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Tak To
Post by occam
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.
You could say "Hong Kong Chinese".
That would be 93% of the population according to:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/hk.html
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-10-11 17:37:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 14:16:09 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Tak To
Post by occam
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.
You could say "Hong Kong Chinese".
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/hk.html
I've just noticed that page has:

Nationality:
noun: Chinese/Hong Konger
adjective: Chinese/Hong Kong
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
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.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-10-11 15:33:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
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.
... he said gravely.
--
athel
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
GordonD
2017-10-11 10:04:25 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)."
Never heard of a groundfish. All the fish I'm aware of live in the water.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Cheryl
2017-10-11 10:53:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GordonD
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)."
Never heard of a groundfish. All the fish I'm aware of live in the water.
There's ground under the water. Wet ground, but still ground.

I actually wouldn't have classified cod as groundfish, but I would have
been wrong. My knowledge of marine biology is surprisingly limited for
someone living near the ocean - I'm the person who once thought it was a
sensible idea to buy a halibut, like most people would buy a trout. I
suspect, though, from the fact that the author of the regulations
thought it necessary to specify (including cod) that I'm not the only
local who puts cod in a category of its own.
--
Cheryl
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
Adam Funk
2017-10-11 13:38:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tak To
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.
I had a look at some information about this, & that's quite
understandable. (I guess the Manchu wouldn't be offended by the
pigtail.)

BTW, the picture in your link doesn't have a pigtail. I think this is
from the original book:

<Loading Image...>

but

In 1978, Dr. Seuss author Theodor S. Geisel had altered the Chinese
character in question for later editions of the book. His revised
version appears in the museum mural.

"I had a gentleman with a pigtail. I colored him yellow and called
him a 'Chinaman.' That's the way things were 50 years ago," the
late author once said. "In later editions, I refer to him as a
'Chinese man.' I have taken the color out of the gentleman and
removed the pigtail and now he looks like an Irishman."

Random thing I didn't know:

The Creedence Clearwater Revival song "Lookin' Out My Back Door"
was partially inspired by the Dr. Seuss book, according to
singer-songwriter John Fogerty. He said the song's reference to a
parade passing by was taken from "And To Think That I Saw It On
Mulberry Street"

<http://www.masslive.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2017/10/is_the_and_to_think_that_i_saw.html>

TBH, I think a more serious matter comes from his
anti-Japanese-American political cartoons, but I'm inclined to agree
with those who think he repented sufficiently.

<https://freshwriting.nd.edu/volumes/2015/essays/can-we-forgive-dr-seuss>
--
The three-martini lunch is the epitome of American efficiency.
Where else can you get an earful, a bellyful and a snootful at
the same time? --- Gerald Ford
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-10-11 15:28:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Tak To
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
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Tak To
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.
I had a look at some information about this, & that's quite
understandable. (I guess the Manchu wouldn't be offended by the
pigtail.)
BTW, the picture in your link doesn't have a pigtail. I think this is
<http://mjoseph.comminfo.rutgers.edu/mulberry2.gif>
but
In 1978, Dr. Seuss author Theodor S. Geisel had altered the Chinese
character in question for later editions of the book. His revised
version appears in the museum mural.
"I had a gentleman with a pigtail. I colored him yellow and called
him a 'Chinaman.' That's the way things were 50 years ago," the
late author once said. "In later editions, I refer to him as a
'Chinese man.' I have taken the color out of the gentleman and
removed the pigtail and now he looks like an Irishman."
The Creedence Clearwater Revival song "Lookin' Out My Back Door"
was partially inspired by the Dr. Seuss book, according to
singer-songwriter John Fogerty. He said the song's reference to a
parade passing by was taken from "And To Think That I Saw It On
Mulberry Street"
<http://www.masslive.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2017/10/is_the_and_to_think_that_i_saw.html>
TBH,
Post by Adam Funk
I think a more serious matter comes from his
anti-Japanese-American political cartoons,
I don't think one can get too upset about racist epithets for the enemy
during wartime, thoi I would avoid them myself. During the Falklands
war the trashier newspapers talked about Argies.

Something I found very interesting when they were showing Histoires
Parallèles on La Sept (now Arte) a couple of decades ago, when they
showed newsreels from the two sides made during the Second World War,
was that the American (and to some extent British) newreels were _much_
more given to racist insults about the Germans and Japanese than the
Germans were about British or, after 1942, the Americans. Even the Jews
didn't feature as much in German newsreels as the Huns did in the
American ones. Another surprising thing was that early in the war
(before they started losing) the German newsreels had a much lighter
and humorous touch than either the American or the British.
Post by Adam Funk
but I'm inclined to agree
with those who think he repented sufficiently.
<https://freshwriting.nd.edu/volumes/2015/essays/can-we-forgive-dr-seuss>
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-11 16:19:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Tak To
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
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Tak To
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.
I had a look at some information about this, & that's quite
understandable. (I guess the Manchu wouldn't be offended by the
pigtail.)
BTW, the picture in your link doesn't have a pigtail. I think this is
<http://mjoseph.comminfo.rutgers.edu/mulberry2.gif>
but
In 1978, Dr. Seuss author Theodor S. Geisel had altered the Chinese
character in question for later editions of the book. His revised
version appears in the museum mural.
"I had a gentleman with a pigtail. I colored him yellow and called
him a 'Chinaman.' That's the way things were 50 years ago," the
late author once said. "In later editions, I refer to him as a
'Chinese man.' I have taken the color out of the gentleman and
removed the pigtail and now he looks like an Irishman."
The Creedence Clearwater Revival song "Lookin' Out My Back Door"
was partially inspired by the Dr. Seuss book, according to
singer-songwriter John Fogerty. He said the song's reference to a
parade passing by was taken from "And To Think That I Saw It On
Mulberry Street"
<http://www.masslive.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2017/10/is_the_and_to_think_that_i_saw.html>
TBH,
Post by Adam Funk
I think a more serious matter comes from his
anti-Japanese-American political cartoons,
I don't think one can get too upset about racist epithets for the enemy
during wartime, thoi I would avoid them myself. During the Falklands
war the trashier newspapers talked about Argies.
Something I found very interesting when they were showing Histoires
Parallèles on La Sept (now Arte) a couple of decades ago, when they
showed newsreels from the two sides made during the Second World War,
was that the American (and to some extent British) newreels were _much_
more given to racist insults about the Germans and Japanese than the
Germans were about British or, after 1942, the Americans. Even the Jews
didn't feature as much in German newsreels as the Huns did in the
American ones. Another surprising thing was that early in the war
(before they started losing) the German newsreels had a much lighter
and humorous touch than either the American or the British.
And of course you _know_ that the snippets shown were not chosen to exaggerate
the very point that so impressed you.
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
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-11 12:19:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tak To
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.
Not, however, by Lieberman himself. Clearly, many many people would refuse to vote for a Jew for
near-president, but I'm unable to find any state in which the antisemitic vote was sufficiently
large a factor to have switched the state to Gore.

The only reason Gore-Lieberman lost in 2000 was Ralph Nader, who stole enough votes in New
Hampshire to change the result. If Gore had won New Hampshire's 3 electoral votes, Florida would
have been irrelevant.

The Arab-American Nader was thus responsible for both 9/11 and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands
of Arabs since 2002.
Richard Tobin
2017-10-11 09:34:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Richard Tobin
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?
You asked that last time. I'm not answering it again.

-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-11 12:30:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Richard Tobin
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?
You asked that last time. I'm not answering it again.
If you've said it before, why did you repeat it?

It's not as if it's the bonest mot that's ever been moted.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-10-11 15:53:11 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".
I saw Beyond the Fringe in Toronto in 1961. Until that sketch it was
riotous laughter all the time. Jonathan Miller's remark was greeted
with embarrassed silence, and after it the whole show fell a bit flat.

Actually it was an answer to something that Peter Cook said, along the
Post by Richard Tobin
I expect that you may have noticed that Jonathan and I are upper-class
[laughter] whereas Dudley and Alan are lower-class [more and louder
laughter]. However, Jonathan is a Jew [much intake of breath, followed
by embarrassed silence].
The Bollard sketch (a take-off on Capstan cigarette advertisements of
the time) occurred earlier and got plenty of laughter, but I don't
think it would today. Nowadays the idea of stereotypical homosexuals
pretending to be manly smokers of manly cigarettes would not go down
well with big-city audiences.
--
athel
Richard Tobin
2017-10-11 19:17:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Actually it was an answer to something that Peter Cook said, along the
Post by Richard Tobin
I expect that you may have noticed that Jonathan and I are upper-class
[laughter] whereas Dudley and Alan are lower-class [more and louder
laughter]. However, Jonathan is a Jew [much intake of breath, followed
by embarrassed silence].
That's a rather condensed version, at least compared to the one on the
Complete Beyond the Fringe CD. Peter Cooke patronizingly describes
how he and Jonathan Miller "come from good families" while the other
two are working class, and Jonathan Miller agrees. Then:

Alan [Bennett]: Well, I suppose we are working class. But I wonder how
many of these people have realised that Jonathan Miller's a Jew.

[The laughter at this point is noticeably subdued compared to what
went before.]

Dudley [Moore]: I suppose he gets away with it because of his ginger
hair actually.

Alan: I'd rather be working class than be a Jew.

Dudley: Oh any day. But think of the awful situation if you were
working class *and* a Jew.

Alan: There's always somebody worse off than yourself.

Jonathan: In fact, I'm not really a *Jew*, just Jew-ish. Not the whole
hog you know.

It would be interesting to know how it was received in America, but the
version on the CD performed in New York doesn't have Jonathan Miller,
and the Jew-ish joke doesn't appear.

-- Richard
Ken Blake
2017-10-11 17:44:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tak To
"Chinese" is similar. There is no one Chinese language and
Han is the largest ethnic group.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the language was Chinese
and all of the many regional variations were dialects, rather than
different languages.
Richard Tobin
2017-10-11 18:00:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Tak To
"Chinese" is similar. There is no one Chinese language and
Han is the largest ethnic group.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the language was Chinese
and all of the many regional variations were dialects, rather than
different languages.
That is a political claim rather than an objective fact. A language
is a dialect with an army and a navy, as the saying goes.

[Yes, that was a cross-thread reference.]

-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-11 18:05:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Tak To
"Chinese" is similar. There is no one Chinese language and
Han is the largest ethnic group.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the language was Chinese
and all of the many regional variations were dialects, rather than
different languages.
"A language" is a political, not a linguistic, notion. If Mr. Xi wants to claim
that the eight mutually unintelligible Sinitic speech forms are all the Chinese
language, more power to him.
David Kleinecke
2017-10-11 18:10:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Tak To
"Chinese" is similar. There is no one Chinese language and
Han is the largest ethnic group.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the language was Chinese
and all of the many regional variations were dialects, rather than
different languages.
"A language" is a political, not a linguistic, notion. If Mr. Xi wants to claim
that the eight mutually unintelligible Sinitic speech forms are all the Chinese
language, more power to him.
Loading...