3 ms·

This is very typical, you observe that the expressions are slightly different linguistically, and then make a leap from that and posit that this makes it pejora

This is very typical, you observe that the expressions are slightly different linguistically, and then make a leap from that and posit that this makes it pejorative. It's a bit similar to how some people just posit that "The Ukraine" or "The Congo" is somehow pejorative just because most countries don't have a definite article.

smeej 2y ago
I don't even sort of follow what you mean here. All I'm doing is telling you what this set of words that nobody actually uses sound like they would mean to me. The term that does exist, Chinaman, already has its own pejorative sense. It doesn't need that from me. All I'm saying is that these other words (again, words that I didn't "make up," but also that nobody actually uses) would sound negative too, and are the actual parallels to the term in the parent's example.
- Grustaf 2y ago
  On the contrary, your example shows that any pejorative connotation is NOT related to the etymology. "Englandman" doesn't sound pejorative, it just sounds strange because it's not an actual word. "Englander" is a real word that is not pejorative, but derived from the name of the country.
  - smeej 2y ago
    Of course it is. It comes directly from the etymology. By using the name of the country rather than the demonym for its inhabitants, it implies some sort of preference for the country as country, to the degree that a person defines themselves by it, rather than a simple point of history about a person's ethnic heritage, over which the person had no control.
    - Grustaf 2y ago
      No it doesn't. It's just historical accident. If you look around you will notice that some demonyms are based on the country name, some or not. It doesn't correlate with it being pejorative. "Italian" or "Congolese" are not more pejorative than "Frenchman". They are just newer, because the countries are newer. Not that any normal person thinks that there is anything negative with "some sort of preference for the country as country, to the degree that a person defines themselves by it". It's politically quite extreme to see that as "pejorative".
      - smeej 2y ago
        I love that you're still arguing with me about what words I cobbled together--which are not actually words anybody uses--sound like they mean and why. I'm having real trouble coming up with a single country that has the demonym "[Country name]man." There is a meaningful difference between the name of a country and the term for someone from that country. The second is inherently neutral, because no one controls where they're born. The first connotes that someone defines themselves by their connection to the country as a country (or that the person calling them that sees that as their primary identity, subordinate to the identity of the country itself).
zeroonetwothree 2y ago
Technically neither of those has “the” as part of its official name. Now The Bahamas on the other hand…
- Grustaf 2y ago
  Putting aside the fact that it technically IS named "Republic of the Congo ", technically Mexico is named "The United States of Mexico", that's not really important. People who claim that "The Congo" is offensive don't say that because it's not the official name (which it is), I guess they just presume that there must be some colonial racist reason, and not just the fact that it's named after a river. "Republic of the Congo", or "République du Congo" in French, "du" being a shortened form of "de le", "of the". Other French speaking republics just have "République de N".
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    People who claim that "The Congo" is offensive don't say that because it's not the official name (which it is), Except it isn't. Not without "The Republic of ..." (or "The Democratic Republic of ..." if we're talking about that other much larger country the phrase usually refers to) in front. And given that there are two such countries -- there's absolutely no modern use case for "The Congo" as a country name in any case.
    - Grustaf 2y ago
      I responded to this: > neither of those has “the” as part of its official name which is clearly untrue. Yes, there are two Congos. Both of them have "the" in their official name: -République du Congo (The smaller one, with Brazzaville) -République démocratique du Congo (The larger one, with Kinchasa) It is true that the official "Republic of the Congo" is typically shortened to just Congo" in everyday speech, my original point was just that there is nothing "racist" or colonial about say "The Congo". It is not called that as a slur because it's somehow lesser than e.g. Namibia, it is just that it's named after the Congo river. But I have heard many people who like to be offended have a vague idea that the "the" is somehow offensive because most countries don't have it.
aguaviva 2y ago
People don't "just posit" that the outdated forms are pejorative. They hold that view because the countries themselves (at an official level) have deemed them to be so, due to their colonialist implications. And have therefore kindly requested you to stop using them.

smeej 2y ago

I don't even sort of follow what you mean here. All I'm doing is telling you what this set of words that nobody actually uses sound like they would mean to me. The term that does exist, Chinaman, already has its own pejorative sense. It doesn't need that from me. All I'm saying is that these other words (again, words that I didn't "make up," but also that nobody actually uses) would sound negative too, and are the actual parallels to the term in the parent's example.

Grustaf 2y ago
On the contrary, your example shows that any pejorative connotation is NOT related to the etymology. "Englandman" doesn't sound pejorative, it just sounds strange because it's not an actual word. "Englander" is a real word that is not pejorative, but derived from the name of the country.
- smeej 2y ago
  Of course it is. It comes directly from the etymology. By using the name of the country rather than the demonym for its inhabitants, it implies some sort of preference for the country as country, to the degree that a person defines themselves by it, rather than a simple point of history about a person's ethnic heritage, over which the person had no control.
  - Grustaf 2y ago
    No it doesn't. It's just historical accident. If you look around you will notice that some demonyms are based on the country name, some or not. It doesn't correlate with it being pejorative. "Italian" or "Congolese" are not more pejorative than "Frenchman". They are just newer, because the countries are newer. Not that any normal person thinks that there is anything negative with "some sort of preference for the country as country, to the degree that a person defines themselves by it". It's politically quite extreme to see that as "pejorative".
    - smeej 2y ago
      I love that you're still arguing with me about what words I cobbled together--which are not actually words anybody uses--sound like they mean and why. I'm having real trouble coming up with a single country that has the demonym "[Country name]man." There is a meaningful difference between the name of a country and the term for someone from that country. The second is inherently neutral, because no one controls where they're born. The first connotes that someone defines themselves by their connection to the country as a country (or that the person calling them that sees that as their primary identity, subordinate to the identity of the country itself).

zeroonetwothree 2y ago

Technically neither of those has “the” as part of its official name. Now The Bahamas on the other hand…

Grustaf 2y ago
Putting aside the fact that it technically IS named "Republic of the Congo ", technically Mexico is named "The United States of Mexico", that's not really important. People who claim that "The Congo" is offensive don't say that because it's not the official name (which it is), I guess they just presume that there must be some colonial racist reason, and not just the fact that it's named after a river. "Republic of the Congo", or "République du Congo" in French, "du" being a shortened form of "de le", "of the". Other French speaking republics just have "République de N".
- aguaviva 2y ago
  People who claim that "The Congo" is offensive don't say that because it's not the official name (which it is), Except it isn't. Not without "The Republic of ..." (or "The Democratic Republic of ..." if we're talking about that other much larger country the phrase usually refers to) in front. And given that there are two such countries -- there's absolutely no modern use case for "The Congo" as a country name in any case.
  - Grustaf 2y ago
    I responded to this: > neither of those has “the” as part of its official name which is clearly untrue. Yes, there are two Congos. Both of them have "the" in their official name: -République du Congo (The smaller one, with Brazzaville) -République démocratique du Congo (The larger one, with Kinchasa) It is true that the official "Republic of the Congo" is typically shortened to just Congo" in everyday speech, my original point was just that there is nothing "racist" or colonial about say "The Congo". It is not called that as a slur because it's somehow lesser than e.g. Namibia, it is just that it's named after the Congo river. But I have heard many people who like to be offended have a vague idea that the "the" is somehow offensive because most countries don't have it.

aguaviva 2y ago

People don't "just posit" that the outdated forms are pejorative. They hold that view because the countries themselves (at an official level) have deemed them to be so, due to their colonialist implications. And have therefore kindly requested you to stop using them.