PinkShinyRose wrote:That's because the English word "continent" doesn't translate to the Dutch world "continent" but to the Dutch word "werelddeel". Just don't insist on translating to false cognates. Of course, Antartica is often skipped in the Netherlands as it's mostly uninhabited.
Well, it really depends. In geology, a "continent" is defined by continental plates. In England, "the Continent" refers to the "continental" part of Europe (excluding Great Britain, Ireland, and other islands), and the word "continental" is used similarly in other situations. On the other hand, when referring to "the seven continents" or "the continent of Asia" or something similar, you usually mean the political sense of the word.
PinkShinyRose wrote: LockeZ wrote:
operagost wrote:I'm sick of people calling the US "America".
Too bad, it's our country, we get to call it whatever we want!
If we follow the logic of the US government consistently you probably need a licence to use the brand and pay a couple billion dollars to America as a whole (or to Spain, I'm not sure how that works) for every day you use the brand without their permission. Then again, their rules never apply to themselves, and only to their people if it suits them (which is usually the case with brand laws, but this may be an exception).
That is not even close to how branding works.
Of course we can call our country whatever we want. And other people can call it whatever they want. Nobody gets to decide what other people say. This is an utterly ridiculous argument.
As for which terms you like best, well personally I think "USian" and "United Statesian" sound really awful, "US American" is marginally better if necessary to avoid ambiguity, and "American" is probably the best except if there is a serious risk of being misunderstood. But in that case you could always go for something like "from the United States."
PinkShinyRose wrote:The problem is that it's ambiguous: it's like refering specifically to someone from the United Arab Emirates as an "Arab", to someone from Saudi-Arabia as an "Arab", to someone from England with the word "Great-Brit and Northern Irelander", to someone from the Federated States of Micronesia as a "Micronesian" or, if this ever becomes a thing, to someone from the EU as a "European". Besides, part of the US isn't even near America: calling someone from Hawai'i an American is just ridiculous, akin to calling someone from Vladivostok "European" because most Russians happen to live in Europe.
These are terrible comparisons. The UAE has no demonym at all, because people identify with its constituent emirates. If it had one, it would probably be "Arab." Saudi Arabians have a simple and unambiguous demonym that makes grammatical sense and is in common use. Englishmen are from England, not from GB or NI in general, and are correctly described as such. To suggest that "America" is never synonymous with "the USA," in the same way "England" is never synonymous with "the UK" or even "Europe" is to demonstrate total ignorance of the subject.
You have to just accept the fact that to most people, "America" can mean either "the Americas" (double continent) or "the United States of America" (country). When you realize this obvious fact, the word "American" makes perfect sense. The fact that it can be ambiguous (but rarely actually is) is just unfortunate. By that logic, maybe we should also rename our state of Georgia and our many cities with names like London, Paris, Athens, Cairo, Lisbon, and so on.
Klear wrote:I have a couple ore pairs like this, though it so happens I can't think of any right now.