Gringisms:

[Nono]

Obstinate, and nonsensical, and self-contradictory: "Many of you indicate the US is commonly refered to as 'America' by other than gringoes, I wonder how true this is. (...) Governments, official documents, authorities and such don't use 'American' to refer to gringoes, though colloquially people everywhere have."
Well, if colloquially people everywhere have, ain't that usage?

Here's a little something from the United Nations guidelines on the official names and nationality adjectives of its member states (in all six official UN languages). For the United States, in English it's "American". In French, "américain". Don't know Russian, but it appears to be roughly similar phonetically. Arabic and Chinese are indecipherable to me. In Spanish, of course (owing to frustrated colonial ambitions), it's "estadounidense" or "norteamericane" (hey, what about Mexico, isn't it in the northern hemisphere?).

So why don't you admit defeat, rummie? :p

[G. Adams]

in Japanese it's americajin

[rmnunez]

In Spanish its "estadounidense" (united statian), "norteamericanos" are north americans (Mexicans, gringoes and Canadians). Did note the British adopted gringan usage before.

Maybe its easier to understand by analogy; an Italian comes from Italy, a German from Germany and people from the United States are therefore -United Statians.

[Nono]

Wishful thinking yes. Fact no.

[rmnunez]

Nono, I've never seen anything from the UN that refers to the US as America or to its citizens as Americans, can you provide some source? The flags waving outside the UN are arranged alphabetically and the gringan one is among the "Us" not the "As".

[Matt W]

The UN doesn't regulate other people's use of the language, rmnunez. Face it - people of the US are referred to as American by the majority of the world, and nothing you say or do will win this argument. Haven't you gotten this 'gringan' thing out of your system yet? Makes you sound like a pompous ass, and is getting the hackles up of many a poster here, which is a shame, because I personally enjoy reading your arguments & thinking through ways to refute you. It may be all about pride, but if you want, we'll refer to you as an American too.

[rmnunez]

Heavens no, I'm not an "American" in any sense of the word.

Matt, Nono said the UN called gringoes "Americans", I doubt they ever have, but wouldn't give the fact that they ever did much credit because as you note, they don't regulate language. Spanish is highly regulated (like most European languages) by the corresponding national academy. English isn't regulated by any official insitution. Its why I noted before, non-native speakers (now the majority) and especially native Spanish-speakers, would be more likely to favour the correct application of whatever gramatical rules prevail.

[Nono]

Nono, I've never seen anything from the UN that refers to the US as America or to its citizens as Americans, can you provide some source? The flags waving outside the UN are arranged alphabetically and the gringan one is among the "Us" not the "As".

Well, rummie, those flags are ordered according to the noun used for the country's name. I was talking adjectives.

Yes, a copy of this fascinating document was sent to me, at my request, by a friend who works as a translator at the UN. For her it's a working tool. On the cover it says "Terminology -- Bulletin No. 347/Rev. 1 -- Country Names". For each member state it has the official formal name ("the United Mexican States"), the less formal name ("Mexico") and the adjective ("Mexican"). And this in all six official languages.

Anyway, as MattW points out, it isn't about the UN -- it's just that an organization like the UN will be careful to prescribe terminology that reflects usage that won't arouse controversy.

[Matt W]

That's as maybe, rmnunez, but going by your logic, why the hell are you still using 'gringo'? It's not like the majority of English-speakers (Hispanic or not) use that term when referring to citizens of the US. Nor is it the term that most citizens of the US refer to themselves with. As I said before, it sounds insulting, and demeans the user. Find something else to use.

Besides which, it's a long-established fact in English that grammar is overidden by historical usage. We make things up, we crowbar words into sentences that really shouldn't go there - and that's the way English will always be, whether or not the majority of speakers are native or not. It's our language, we make the rules (what few there are). So, again, tough luck!

[Nono]

Yes, English is very uninhibited about its chaotic nature.
But rummie nurtures the illusion that other languages are somehow less chaotic. They ain't.

The Spanish-speaking countries each have an official Academy that takes lofty decisions regulating the language. But in the real world those decisions are virtually worthless, as are those of the Académie française for French. Nobody pays any attention. Human language is by nature anarchic, thoroughly democratic.

Look, rummie, how would it be if we started bitching that hispanophones should regularize those pain-in-the-ass irregular verbs in Spanish? Think they'd listen to us and smarten up?
But that's what you sound like when you say that English-speakers should stop saying "America" to mean the US. You're pissing into the wind.

[rmnunez]

I'm well aware of the informalities with unregulated English, what I was noting is that people whose native language is more rule-bound (most of the English-speakers now) would be more likely to follow whatever rules do apply.

The impact of language academies is trascendental. Governments adhere to the academy's edicts in official communications and business tends to conform with orthodox usage, these two together have considerable influence on how the average person speaks. Sure there will be colloquialisms, 'coined' expressions, foreign terms adopted before the academy establishes a rule, but there is a lot less of this in languages other than English. Ultimately usage will trump the academy, but there will always remain a reduct for people like me who can insist on 'proper' use based on whatever the language's rules. We all realize American is an adjective meaning from America, this is a fairly uniform English grammar rule that applies a suffix to the root of the thing adjectified. Since America is not the name of a country, using American as a national designation won't work (using English language rules). I use gringo because I can't properly call people from there "American" if this is taken to refer to only US citizens (though gringoes certainly are American too).

[Nono]

Quote by: mnunez I use gringo because I can't properly call people from there "American" if this is taken to refer to only US citizens (though gringoes certainly are American too).

In other words, rummie, you need a cheap, catch-all, derogatory epithet possessing the requisite note of hostility ("whites", "Europeans", "Anglos", etc. being maddeningly inoffensive). And "gringo" fits the bilious bill in this respect.

Maybe we should adopt "spic" to conveniently take in all of Latin America and the Iberian Peninsula. Purely in the interests of neat semantic inclusion, of course.

[Matt W]

I'd go with Nono. You wish to use something that invokes hostility from the people that you're using it about. It's cheap, it's crass, and it demeans you. Find something else.

[castille]

I prefer to call Americans by the Asian term, "morons with money to spend".

[rmnunez]

Wrong Nono, my adversity to labeling gringoes "Americans" has to do with that word's applicability to non-US citizens, not with any desire to find an appropriate epithet with adequate hostility. I already explained how I considered the options and discarded each in turn, gringo was the best choice.

[Nono]

(...) that word's applicability to non-US citizens (...)

Wrong, rummie. It has no applicability to non-US citizens. I oughta know: I'm a Canadian citizen -- born and raised in North America. And I'm here to tell you that I don't let people take me for an American.

If you can't accept the English language, I suggest you confine yourself to Spanish.

[rmnunez]

Nono, gringoes use "American" to name themselves and their compatriots, others use the term to describe things from America, which gringoes think is the name of their country. Canadians are as American as gringoes, just that they don't confuse by naming their country after a continent shared with others.

[Matt W]

You still have yet to explain why you cannot find a les offensive term than 'gringo'. Sort it out.

[rmnunez]

These are the possible alternatives for US citizen I considered and discarded (for likely the same reasons you would); Yankee (or yanqui), norteamericano (North American), estadounidense (United Statian), USAian and gabacho. Gringo is more precise than any of these, its short, readily understood and denotes nationality without highlighting the legal condition of citizenship. "American" is a good alternative, but it also refers to Mexicans (and about 30 other nationalities on the American continent).

[Matt W]

And it's obviously offensive to every 'norteamericano' on this board. I would recommend either 'norteamericano' or 'estadounidense'. Again, I still find it baffling why an obviously intelligent person like yourself takes pleasure in using a term you blatantly know to be offensive. I repeat, I would recommend you stop using it, unless you wish to find yourself on the receiving end of terms such as 'spic'.

And, personally, I use 'American' when I'm in a social situation involving people from the United States, citizens or otherwise. It's called being polite. If I'm talking to Mexicans, Brazilians, or people from other Hispanic countries, I'd likely avoid using the term at all. If I was talking to Canadians, I'd happily use 'Canadian', as they violently object to being labelled 'Americans'.

View it as a politeness issue rather than a nit-picking grammar issue, and you might get somewhere.