Monthly Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
Categories
- Did you know? (30)
- Essays (17)
- Foreign exchanges (13)
- News (69)
- Odds and ends (54)
- Tips on language learning (21)
Demonyms: Naming Nationalities
While in the midst of editing the culture notes for an upcoming Croatian language course, I started to notice the oddity of the word "Croats." I thought about it: why do we say "Croats," and not "Croatians?" Surely this goes against all the rules of naming nationalities. We have "Russians" (not "Russes"), "Romanians" (not "Romans"), "Albanians" (not "Albans"), "Austrians" (not "Austers")... so why "Croats," and not "Croatians?" And why "Poles," not "Polandese?" "Irish," not "Irelanders?"
The adjective we use to refer to the language spoken in Croatia is obviously Croatian - we don't often talk about the Croat language, though my co-worker did just show me a book that says otherwise. (She, by the way, just happens to be a Croat. Which sounds slightly odd to both of us, but there you have it.) So why wouldn't the nationality match the adjective?
These words, I discovered today, are called "demonyms" or "gentilics," and while most countrymen and countrywomen get their demonyms from suffixes (-n, -ian, -ine, -ite, -ish, -ese, etc.), and while they do mostly derive from adjectives, some are irregular lopped off versions of the country's name. Thus we have Arabs, Danes, Finns, Poles, Swedes, Swiss, and Thai. And, apparently, Croats. I suppose I'll get used to it.
How often do we actually use these words, though? For instance, I honestly can't remember the last time I said the word "Spaniard." We hear demonyms in speeches ("my fellow Americans...") or in sports terminology ("the 24-year-old Spaniard was in top form during last night's match..."), but there are few other instances I can think of in which we'd use demonyms on a daily basis.
Is this because of a resistance to collective terms? Is there a difference between saying "I'm an American" (possible meaning: one of a collective group of people from the same country) and saying "I'm American" (possible meaning: my place of origin is only one of the many aspects of who I am)? Or do the social implications of demonyms merely arise when we employ tone?
Language Log had a discussion a while back about the other possible social implications of the adjectives involved (Chinese, and not Chinian), in reaction to an article contending that certain categories of demonyms might be considered discriminatory remnants of colonial periods in history. Regardless of where you fall in this debate, I think it's fair to say that the system used to come up with these demonyms is far from predictable. Kosovars? Senegalese? Pakistanis? Cameroonians? Bretons, Basques, and Balts?
In many other languages, for the record, the conversion from country name to demonym is a very regular process - why does English always have to go and complicate things? I know a Croat who would very much like to know. (SUZANNE)
Tags: Croatian, demonyms, English language
July 25, 2008
