To add to the confusion. The Americas (or America) comprise the landmasses of North and South America in the Western Hemisphere
People living in North and South America (or the Americas) can also be called American or Americans if the were referring to the landmass.
Strangely the United States IMO is the only country that seems to indicate the landmass its situated on when using the full name, the United States of America. Not to mention the indication of a union of individual states as well.
Several single-word English demonym alternatives have been suggested over time, for example Columbian, Columbard, Fredonian, Frede, Unisian, United Statesian, Colonican, Appalacian, Usian, Washingtonian, Usonian, Uessian, U-S-ian, Uesican, and United Stater.
Saying someone is a United Statesian or Statesian is probably the closest to how other countries like Canada (Canadian) or Mexico (Mexican) refer to themselves. If we forget that pretty much all other countries are a unity of states, counties, and or provinces.
You do know it is actually named “the United Mexican States”, right? The name of the US is simply bad from the beginning and sometimes you can’t fix bad. Unless they take over all of the Americas, I guess. Then it’s a good name. Bad move, but good name.
"Saying someone is a United Statesian or Statesian is probably the closest to how other countries like Canada (Canadian) or Mexico (Mexican) refer to themselves. If we forget that pretty much all other countries are a unity of states, counties, and or provinces. "
I was refering to this part of your post. United Statesian or Statesian doesn’t make sense to correlate to Mexicans. They are both united states. As for Canada, I think they might be a confederacy and thus united states as well, but I also believe their semi-official name is actually Canada.
As for most countries being united of sorts, I’m willing to accept that as an axiom, but I’m doubtful it is part of their cultural identity in the majority of cases. Maybe on a per capita basis.
All languages convey information at roughly similar rates. Those with less information per syllable tend to say more syllables per minute. It’s a fascinating area of linguistics!
All natural languages have ambiguities where the meaning of a word depends on context due to changes over time.
Several single-word English alternatives have been suggested
Some of these make sense, but several of them would only refer to a specific area in the U.S. (e.g. Washingtonian) or are really out of left field (e.g. Fredonian).
I’m assuming Washingtonian would be refering to the man, not the state that refers to the man. I mean, it’s a silly name, but not for the reason you state.
To add to the confusion. The Americas (or America) comprise the landmasses of North and South America in the Western Hemisphere
People living in North and South America (or the Americas) can also be called American or Americans if the were referring to the landmass.
Strangely the United States IMO is the only country that seems to indicate the landmass its situated on when using the full name, the United States of America. Not to mention the indication of a union of individual states as well.
Several single-word English demonym alternatives have been suggested over time, for example Columbian, Columbard, Fredonian, Frede, Unisian, United Statesian, Colonican, Appalacian, Usian, Washingtonian, Usonian, Uessian, U-S-ian, Uesican, and United Stater.
Saying someone is a United Statesian or Statesian is probably the closest to how other countries like Canada (Canadian) or Mexico (Mexican) refer to themselves. If we forget that pretty much all other countries are a unity of states, counties, and or provinces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonyms_for_the_United_States
Vespucciland -> Vespuccian.
At this point, I think we should just call US people Indian.
You do know it is actually named “the United Mexican States”, right? The name of the US is simply bad from the beginning and sometimes you can’t fix bad. Unless they take over all of the Americas, I guess. Then it’s a good name. Bad move, but good name.
I do, most countries are a unitity of states, counties, or provinces.
It would be so confusing if Mexico never settled on a name for its united states and called themselves the United States of America
"Saying someone is a United Statesian or Statesian is probably the closest to how other countries like Canada (Canadian) or Mexico (Mexican) refer to themselves. If we forget that pretty much all other countries are a unity of states, counties, and or provinces. "
I was refering to this part of your post. United Statesian or Statesian doesn’t make sense to correlate to Mexicans. They are both united states. As for Canada, I think they might be a confederacy and thus united states as well, but I also believe their semi-official name is actually Canada.
As for most countries being united of sorts, I’m willing to accept that as an axiom, but I’m doubtful it is part of their cultural identity in the majority of cases. Maybe on a per capita basis.
That’s wild what a plot twist
Call us Yankees because it’ll annoy the “the South will rise again” crowd
Thats’s cuz English Language sucks.
In Chinese Language for example: A 美國人 (American (Country)) and a 美洲人 (American (Continent)). But in English both are “American”.
Also so many syllabels converying so few info.
Literally 4 syllabels for “American”
But “美國人” or “美洲人” are both 3 syllabels and already contains [America-Country Person] or [America-Continent Person]
Sorry, no offense to English speakers, but as a polyglot, I just had to comment this xD
All languages convey information at roughly similar rates. Those with less information per syllable tend to say more syllables per minute. It’s a fascinating area of linguistics!
All natural languages have ambiguities where the meaning of a word depends on context due to changes over time.
Some of these make sense, but several of them would only refer to a specific area in the U.S. (e.g. Washingtonian) or are really out of left field (e.g. Fredonian).
I’m assuming Washingtonian would be refering to the man, not the state that refers to the man. I mean, it’s a silly name, but not for the reason you state.
Residents of Washington DC are also referred to as Washingtonians
That issue would be on them, if it is an issue. Not sure it matters for the argument at hand.