What's so bad about 'USian'?

[Person012345]

It implies smaller entities under another. That's a type of government.

But under what type of government? Monarchical, dictatorial, republican, no central government, what? It doesn't. It doesn't imply any form of government, it only implies that many states are working together.

Monarchy isn't a single form of government, therefore the United Kingdom isn't a title.

A monarchy is a form of government in which all political power is absolutely or nominally lodged with an individual or individuals. As a political entity, the monarch is the head of state, generally until their death or abdication, and "is wholly set apart from all other members of the state."[1] The person who heads a monarchy is called a monarch. It was a common form of government in the world during ancient and medieval times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy

Monarchy is a form of government.

[Caninope]

It implies smaller entities under another. That's a type of government.

But under what type of government? Monarchical, dictatorial, republican, no central government, what? It doesn't. It doesn't imply any form of government, it only implies that many states are working together.

Monarchy isn't a single form of government, therefore the United Kingdom isn't a title.

A monarchy is a form of government in which all political power is absolutely or nominally lodged with an individual or individuals. As a political entity, the monarch is the head of state, generally until their death or abdication, and "is wholly set apart from all other members of the state."[1] The person who heads a monarchy is called a monarch. It was a common form of government in the world during ancient and medieval times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy

Monarchy is a form of government.

But there are different forms of monarchy.

[Person012345]

It implies smaller entities under another. That's a type of government.

But under what type of government? Monarchical, dictatorial, republican, no central government, what? It doesn't. It doesn't imply any form of government, it only implies that many states are working together.

Monarchy isn't a single form of government, therefore the United Kingdom isn't a title.

A monarchy is a form of government in which all political power is absolutely or nominally lodged with an individual or individuals. As a political entity, the monarch is the head of state, generally until their death or abdication, and "is wholly set apart from all other members of the state."[1] The person who heads a monarchy is called a monarch. It was a common form of government in the world during ancient and medieval times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy

Monarchy is a form of government.

But there are different forms of monarchy.

As there are different forms of [insert most government types here]

United States is not a government type. There is no definition that makes it a government type. Please, if you disagree, find me a definition of the government type "United States" from a reliable source. And don't do what maurepas did and pull up a word that isn't united states and claim it's the definition of united states.

[Enn]

Personally, I've always liked 'seppo'.

If United States isn't a form of government, then surely Australians should be called Commonwealthers? A Commonwealth doesn't really say much about what form of government we have. The way Cromwell set up the original one really doesn't have much to do with what we've got nowadays - heck, we've even got monarchy!

[Person012345]

Personally, I've always liked 'seppo'.

If United States isn't a form of government, then surely Australians should be called Commonwealthers? A Commonwealth doesn't really say much about what form of government we have. The way Cromwell set up the original one really doesn't have much to do with what we've got nowadays - heck, we've even got monarchy!

Except, get this, australia is australia. America in "the USA" refers to the continent(s) of america (disputed, see previous argument on this). Thus there is no reason to give the "A" in it's name preferend to the "US"

[Maurepas]

Personally, I've always liked 'seppo'.

If United States isn't a form of government, then surely Australians should be called Commonwealthers? A Commonwealth doesn't really say much about what form of government we have. The way Cromwell set up the original one really doesn't have much to do with what we've got nowadays - heck, we've even got monarchy!

Except, get this, australia is australia. America in "the USA" refers to the continent(s) of america (disputed, see previous argument on this). Thus there is no reason to give the "A" in it's name preferend to the "US"

I thought you said you didn't dispute calling Americans, Americans?

[South Norwega]

Personally, I've always liked 'seppo'.

If United States isn't a form of government, then surely Australians should be called Commonwealthers? A Commonwealth doesn't really say much about what form of government we have. The way Cromwell set up the original one really doesn't have much to do with what we've got nowadays - heck, we've even got monarchy!

Except, get this, australia is australia. America in "the USA" refers to the continent(s) of america (disputed, see previous argument on this). Thus there is no reason to give the "A" in it's name preferend to the "US"

Actually Australia as a continent in the now generally accepted geographical term includes Papua New Guinea and part of Indonesia.

[Person012345]

Personally, I've always liked 'seppo'.

If United States isn't a form of government, then surely Australians should be called Commonwealthers? A Commonwealth doesn't really say much about what form of government we have. The way Cromwell set up the original one really doesn't have much to do with what we've got nowadays - heck, we've even got monarchy!

Except, get this, australia is australia. America in "the USA" refers to the continent(s) of america (disputed, see previous argument on this). Thus there is no reason to give the "A" in it's name preferend to the "US"

I thought you said you didn't dispute calling Americans, Americans?

I don't, I dispute the people saying "it's name is america" based on nothing. The only thing that would confirm this is popular lexicon, based on the presumption that america is the name and to use it to demonstrate that the name is america would be circular logic.

[Person012345]

Personally, I've always liked 'seppo'.

If United States isn't a form of government, then surely Australians should be called Commonwealthers? A Commonwealth doesn't really say much about what form of government we have. The way Cromwell set up the original one really doesn't have much to do with what we've got nowadays - heck, we've even got monarchy!

Except, get this, australia is australia. America in "the USA" refers to the continent(s) of america (disputed, see previous argument on this). Thus there is no reason to give the "A" in it's name preferend to the "US"

Actually Australia as a continent in the now generally accepted geographical term includes Papua New Guinea and part of Indonesia.

Now, but not when it was named, which is the key thing. I believe that when the USofA was named that "America" in the name referred to the continent.

[Maurepas]

Personally, I've always liked 'seppo'.

If United States isn't a form of government, then surely Australians should be called Commonwealthers? A Commonwealth doesn't really say much about what form of government we have. The way Cromwell set up the original one really doesn't have much to do with what we've got nowadays - heck, we've even got monarchy!

Except, get this, australia is australia. America in "the USA" refers to the continent(s) of america (disputed, see previous argument on this). Thus there is no reason to give the "A" in it's name preferend to the "US"

Actually Australia as a continent in the now generally accepted geographical term includes Papua New Guinea and part of Indonesia.

Now, but not when it was named, which is the key thing. I believe that when the USofA was named that "America" in the name referred to the continent.

I actually think at the time it was more in reference to it being the only colony in the Americas to achieve independence.

[Enn]

Personally, I've always liked 'seppo'.

If United States isn't a form of government, then surely Australians should be called Commonwealthers? A Commonwealth doesn't really say much about what form of government we have. The way Cromwell set up the original one really doesn't have much to do with what we've got nowadays - heck, we've even got monarchy!

Except, get this, australia is australia. America in "the USA" refers to the continent(s) of america (disputed, see previous argument on this). Thus there is no reason to give the "A" in it's name preferend to the "US"

Well, the act of federation specifically didn't include Western Australia, since at the time of writing WA hadn't yet voted to join. Plus in the 30s WA voted to withdraw from the Commonwealth of Australia. So it would have been entirely possible for there to be two different countries on this continent. And yet, no-one would have ever thought of changing the demonym.

Plus, of course, there's the Principality of Hutt River. Can't forget that.

And also, Australia (the nation) extends beyond the continent itself. Tasmania, Torres Strait, Kangaroo Island, And even bits not even on the same continental shelf - Heard and Macquarie Islands, Norfolk (closer to Zealandia than Australia), the McDonnell's.

~~
On another note - what's with the hate for 'common usage'? Common usage is what gives words meaning. Hate to break it to you, but language doesn't use the logic of mathematics. Nor is a meaning forever the same, regardless of how people like to use it. Words change, because people change what they need the word to mean.
If you're going to go around using 'Americans' to refer to residents of both continents, simply because that's what the word used to mean, then I sincerely hope you're still using 'illustrious' to mean 'dark' - the words are of roughly equivalent age. Let alone going back into Middle or Old English.

Thus there is no reason to give the "A" in it's name preferend to the "US"

No reason, except that's what people have done. Funny thing about language, it tends to do things you don't expect.

[Allbeama]

You know, I've heard that claimed at least once in each of these threads that have been on NSG.

However, I've never actually *seen* it. Care to bring some proof to the table that any people from North, Central, or South America get upset at the Americans referring to themselves as Americans?

I've heard it in Spanish class quite a few times over the years. All my teacher have been gringos (one was actually Belgian. Not sure what's up with that), though one did live in Guatemala for a while and married a Guatemalan. Make of that what you will.

I live in Latin America, and I've never heard anybody from the region complain about the use of "American" as the US's demonym.

Because Peurto Rico is part of the real America anyway.

[Person012345]

Personally, I've always liked 'seppo'.

If United States isn't a form of government, then surely Australians should be called Commonwealthers? A Commonwealth doesn't really say much about what form of government we have. The way Cromwell set up the original one really doesn't have much to do with what we've got nowadays - heck, we've even got monarchy!

Except, get this, australia is australia. America in "the USA" refers to the continent(s) of america (disputed, see previous argument on this). Thus there is no reason to give the "A" in it's name preferend to the "US"

Actually Australia as a continent in the now generally accepted geographical term includes Papua New Guinea and part of Indonesia.

Now, but not when it was named, which is the key thing. I believe that when the USofA was named that "America" in the name referred to the continent.

I actually think at the time it was more in reference to it being the only colony in the Americas to achieve independence.

As I said, there are some legitimate points, and I don't think it can be proven either way. We actually sorted this argument a whil back, but someone started it again. For example, the wording of the declaration of independence might possibly support that if interpreted correctly ("unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America"), but it's in no way proof, and considering other things (like the USA only just came into existance so if they were using it it's unlikely it would have been in reference to the country) I still don't buy it.

[Person012345]

On another note - what's with the hate for 'common usage'? Common usage is what gives words meaning. Hate to break it to you, but language doesn't use the logic of mathematics. Nor is a meaning forever the same, regardless of how people like to use it. Words change, because people change what they need the word to mean.
If you're going to go around using 'Americans' to refer to residents of both continents, simply because that's what the word used to mean

I'm not. *cry* Why does nobody listen to what I say before they make fail arguments against me?

Thus there is no reason to give the "A" in it's name preferend to the "US"

No reason, except that's what people have done. Funny thing about language, it tends to do things you don't expect.

That is exactly my point. So you agree?

[Enn]

On another note - what's with the hate for 'common usage'? Common usage is what gives words meaning. Hate to break it to you, but language doesn't use the logic of mathematics. Nor is a meaning forever the same, regardless of how people like to use it. Words change, because people change what they need the word to mean.
If you're going to go around using 'Americans' to refer to residents of both continents, simply because that's what the word used to mean

I'm not. *cry* Why does nobody listen to what I say before they make fail arguments against me?

That bit wasn't specifically directed towards you, more the person/people above I saw completely dismissing the idea that a word means what it means because that's what people use it to mean. A hugely significant part of both semantics and historical linguistics.

Thus there is no reason to give the "A" in it's name preferend to the "US"

No reason, except that's what people have done. Funny thing about language, it tends to do things you don't expect.

That is exactly my point. So you agree?

Except I reach the opposite conclusion. What people use something to mean is the meaning of that word. Yes, it is affected by past usage. But the current meaning is the most important one to remember.

[Avenio]

Seriously. It's a fucking term. Some people prefer it because they consider it more precise than 'American'. Why is it such a huge problem when people use it?

Because we don't want to be mixed up with USians from the United States of Mexico. Seriously? USians? Will people get their fucking head out of their asses? It's not like we haven't been Americans for the last... 200 years. Their isn't another country with the name America in the world so why not call us Americas? Morons.

Personally, I think its because of people that take their nation far too seriously for their own good and will instantly switch to a knee-jerk ad hominem reaction as soon as someone comes up with a contrary opinion. Just my opinion.

Well said, Avatar.

Err, thank you? I'm not sure quite what you meant by 'Avatar', though...

Oh, I'm sorry, Aveeno.
Sorry, trying to make a point here... it's a bit annoying not to be called by the name we prefer, yes?

I never said that I supported the use of 'USian' to describe Americans, rather the opposite;

And would you use the preferred description when talking about and to those people, or woudl you use the one that most of them don't like because it's 'technically accurate'?

Of course I'd use the preferred description. I don't appreciate being called an "Igloo-dweller" or "French-Canadian folk-singing lumberjack", so likewise I pay the respect to the person and the nation involved and call it by their proper and accepted name. If the American people decided to rename themselves Supercalifragilisticexpialidocians, I would call them by their chosen name. It's simply common courtesy.

I was pointing out that there are behaviours amongst certain groups of Americans, particularly in regards to their national identity, that drives people to invent pejoratives for the sole purpose of irking them.

[Person012345]

Thus there is no reason to give the "A" in it's name preferend to the "US"

No reason, except that's what people have done. Funny thing about language, it tends to do things you don't expect.

That is exactly my point. So you agree?

Except I reach the opposite conclusion. What people use something to mean is the meaning of that word. Yes, it is affected by past usage. But the current meaning is the most important one to remember.

Yes, that's also what I'm saying. So you agree?

To re-iterate, I use the word american, but in response to someone who claimed it was, I said that just because you have "america" there in your name does not justify it's usage as a demonym. In fact, the only thing that justifies it as such is it's usage as such. Which doesn't originally justify it's usage as such.

[Blouman Empire]

Personally, I've always liked 'seppo'.

If United States isn't a form of government, then surely Australians should be called Commonwealthers? A Commonwealth doesn't really say much about what form of government we have. The way Cromwell set up the original one really doesn't have much to do with what we've got nowadays - heck, we've even got monarchy!

Except, get this, australia is australia. America in "the USA" refers to the continent(s) of america (disputed, see previous argument on this). Thus there is no reason to give the "A" in it's name preferend to the "US"

Actually Australia as a continent in the now generally accepted geographical term includes Papua New Guinea and part of Indonesia.

Well it is proposed rather than a simple this is what it is.

Personally I think Australia is the continent, while Tasmania, PNG and parts of Indonesia are on the continental plate rather than a part of the continent. Similar to how the Falkland Islands aren't apart of the continent but are on the same continental plate.

[Maurepas]

Personally, I've always liked 'seppo'.

If United States isn't a form of government, then surely Australians should be called Commonwealthers? A Commonwealth doesn't really say much about what form of government we have. The way Cromwell set up the original one really doesn't have much to do with what we've got nowadays - heck, we've even got monarchy!

Except, get this, australia is australia. America in "the USA" refers to the continent(s) of america (disputed, see previous argument on this). Thus there is no reason to give the "A" in it's name preferend to the "US"

Actually Australia as a continent in the now generally accepted geographical term includes Papua New Guinea and part of Indonesia.

Well it is proposed rather than a simple this is what it is.

Personally I think Australia is the continent, while Tasmania, PNG and parts of Indonesia are on the continental plate rather than a part of the continent. Similar to how the Falkland Islands aren't apart of the continent but are on the same continental plate.

I'd say they're all part of Oceania, myself, >_>

[Blouman Empire]

I'd say they're all part of Oceania, myself, >_>

Which they are along with plenty of other areas that aren't on the same plate. The land mass that is Australia is the continent.

[Maurepas]

I'd say they're all part of Oceania, myself, >_>

Which they are along with plenty of other areas that aren't on the same plate. The land mass that is Australia is the continent.

Idk, I though the point was to have them on the same plate?

[Blouman Empire]

I'd say they're all part of Oceania, myself, >_>

Which they are along with plenty of other areas that aren't on the same plate. The land mass that is Australia is the continent.

Idk, I though the point was to have them on the same plate?

Idk but the continent is the large mass of land rather than every piece of land. Hawaii (and I know someone is going to say it is not on the plate anyway hahaha, because I have the feeling it isn't) is apart of the plate that North America is on but not apart of the continent of North America. If you understand what I'm saying. Christmas Island is not apart of the continent of Australia but is apart of the same plate.

[Maurepas]

I'd say they're all part of Oceania, myself, >_>

Which they are along with plenty of other areas that aren't on the same plate. The land mass that is Australia is the continent.

Idk, I though the point was to have them on the same plate?

Idk but the continent is the large mass of land rather than every piece of land. Hawaii (and I know someone is going to say it is not on the plate anyway hahaha, because I have the feeling it isn't) is apart of the plate that North America is on but not apart of the continent of North America. If you understand what I'm saying. Christmas Island is not apart of the continent of Australia but is apart of the same plate.

Isn't Hawaii on the Pacific Plate?

[Concordant America]

Usian sounds quite weird. American is what thjey use as it does not sound so weird. Then again, the confusion spread makes it a good idea to change the term.

[The Archregimancy]

Well, the act of federation specifically didn't include Western Australia, since at the time of writing WA hadn't yet voted to join. Plus in the 30s WA voted to withdraw from the Commonwealth of Australia. So it would have been entirely possible for there to be two different countries on this continent. And yet, no-one would have ever thought of changing the demonym.

This is not entirely correct. While it's correct that WA didn't vote to join the federation until 1900, a year after the other colonies, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, which enabled federation, explicitly mentions WA - and New Zealand, for that matter.

Clause 3:

It shall be lawful for the Queen, with the advice of the Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being later that one year after the passing of this Act, the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, and also, if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia, shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia. But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation, appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth.

Clause 6:

"The Commonwealth" shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia as established under this Act.

"The States" shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called "a State".

"Original States" shall mean such States as are parts of the Commonwealth at its establishment.

The premable to the actual Constitution of Australia itself, however, doesn't mention WA, as it was drafted before the west's accession referendum - which is perhaps where the confusion comes in.



It is true that WA voted to secede from Australia in a referendum in 1933 - by a thumping 66% of the vote. There was subsequently much wrangling over the precise interpretation of the preamble to the Constitution which reads (emphasis added):

the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania [not WA] ... have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and under the Constitution hereby established.

The UK Parliament was asked to rule on the legality of secession, found it couldn't grant secession, and by 1940 the WA secession league had faded away.

And I dispute slightly that no change would have taken place in the demonym of either portion of the country had WA ever seceded. We might well have had "Western Australians" from Western Australia (capital Perth) and "Eastern Australians" from the Commonwealth of Australia (capital Canberra); but I doubt we would still have anyone whose nationality was just described as "Australian", unless perhaps WA had decided to change its name entirely to something like "Auralia" or "Hartogland".