Diadem wrote:Anyway what's wrong with USian? It's short and clear, and doesn't seem to have any negative implications.
Even if overcoming linguistic inertia were, as it were, free, it's got the same problem (to a lesser degree) as the LibreOffice software project. To a native English speaker, there's no way to pronounce, and thus talk about, "LibreOffice" that doesn't sound either elitist, absurd, or both. Whoever came up with that name must have assumed the goal was maximal awkwardness. (My coping strategy, btw, is to proceed as though the project were based around a Reoffice Library.)
Djehutynakht wrote:To put it into context, one doesn't formally call people from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland "UKian". The UK can be used to refer to the country, but isn't a demonym for the people.
Well that's because we already have a good demonym for the people. Why would we need two?
I dunno, seems to me the Bretons in Brittany have about as much cause to be annoyed that they aren't considered "British" as anyone in the Americas that they aren't considered "American". Which is to say, they're probably not actually annoyed, but they could be if they wanted. Without actually looking it up, I suspect the average Breton has a lot more Britannic/Celtic descent than does the average Englishman. So the Anglo-Saxons can be British but the Bretons can't, and so far as I know, nobody makes a big deal of that.