Talk:List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names
What is the point of this article? Isn't that wikipedia is not a dictionary? If you want to know about adjective form of certain nouns, consult a dictionary not an encyclopedia. -- Taku 02:24 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)~
- I think the "wikipedia is not a dictionary" rule is mostly there to keep it from being merely a dictionary. Yeah, this is stuff that would be in a dictionary, but probably not in list form. Some might find it kind of handy, in case I ever wonder "What's someone from Turkmenistan called?" And obviously, it's not just for nouns (that really would be pretty excessive) - just place names. -- Wapcaplet 02:29 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- If someone wants to move it to Wiktionary, I'd be fine with that. I would be interested in this once the basic and obvious ones are done, even if I'm not really trying to find the adjectival form of a specific place-name. If it had cities and other non-obvious ones, I think it would be an interesting list in its own right, which would make it more encyclopedic. Tuf-Kat
- Where different, I added what call a person from these places. If someone knows what the guidelines are (i.e. most, though not all, that end in an a are formed by adding an n -- but is there a reason why Somalia and Argentina are different?) that could make this more encyclopedic? Tuf-Kat
- These could link to lists of famous people from each country, state and city. GUllman 03:39 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Where different, I added what call a person from these places. If someone knows what the guidelines are (i.e. most, though not all, that end in an a are formed by adding an n -- but is there a reason why Somalia and Argentina are different?) that could make this more encyclopedic? Tuf-Kat
- If someone wants to move it to Wiktionary, I'd be fine with that. I would be interested in this once the basic and obvious ones are done, even if I'm not really trying to find the adjectival form of a specific place-name. If it had cities and other non-obvious ones, I think it would be an interesting list in its own right, which would make it more encyclopedic. Tuf-Kat
- The article can be more encyclopedic and should be so without doubt. For example, the difference between Chinaman or Chinese can be interesting to note, or how should we call people from Hong Kong or Taiwan? Are they really Chinese, the same as those from China or Hong Kongnees or Taiwanees. In officla sports game, players from Taiwan are often referred as Chinese Taipei or something. Why is that? On the other hand, the adjective form of Japan is Japanese, which is so boring and completely worthless to note in encyclopedia.
-- Taku 03:18 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Chinaman is derogatory (a little bit -- not as bad as chink, but still forbidden in polite conversation) so probably shouldn't be here. Some people might say a person from Iraq is called a camel-fucker, but I don't think that should be here. Tuf-Kat
Censorship? I don't see any reason that we should avoid mentioning a term that is politically sensitive. -- Taku 03:25 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I'm just waiting to hear about the adjectival forms for Battle Mountain, Nevada... :-) Stan 03:26 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Wiktionary? -- Taku
How about naming the article like Labeling of place names or something? Naming, calling and others you think of are also good. We are more interested in the discussion like above (maybe except camel-fucker). I had no idea that Chinaman is rather provocative. It is true sometimes that there is some dispute about how to call places or people. For example, some people argue that far east is a misnomer because it implicitly imposes Europe-centric point views. -- Taku
A person from London is not called a cockney but a Londoner. Cockney is a slang term referring to someone from inner-city London, not the general London area. (If I remember correctly, a cockney is someone who was born within hearing distance of the bells of particular church in the inner city and no further.) FearÉIREANN 05:43 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
BTW is someone from Connecticut really called Nutmegger? FearÉIREANN 05:47 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Someone from Afghanistan is an Afghan. Afghanistani is not used in the press, and is not in Oxford, Webster's, or the CIA world factbook. An afghani is a unit of currency. - Efghij 05:58 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- But it is used in the Longman dictionary (2001).. that's why I thought that it was correct. I also searched @ google.com for "Afghanistani" and there were many pages, where "Afghanistani" is used.
- Anyway, since the Oxford say that it's not Afghanistani, I can agree with you. :)
- By the way, can you check what's the adjective from "Quebec"? Longman says it's Quebecois, not Quebec. webkid 12:21 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- According to Oxford, "Quebecois" is the right adjective, but not the right noun. As a noun it refers only to French-Canadian or Francophone Quebecers. - Efghij 17:01 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Added note about this. In English, the proper form is indeed "Quebec" as in, "a Quebec Doctor". See first paragraph of this Toronto Star article: [1]
This page is getting long now, and I think it's purely because of the tabular format. Can we simplify it? Deb 22:06 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Sure, if you want the former version, just copy+paste it. webkid 14:21 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I tried to simplify the structure by removing some of the optional elements, thus also reducing page-size. I'm not too sure about using style-formatting instead of the [[image:wikiwhite.jpg]], as it's not visible in all browsers. -- User:Docu
This text gives Barbados' adjective as "Barbadian", but I have a source that seems to use "Bajan", and googling seems to confirm that this is also a use. Are both valid? Tuf-Kat 09:01, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)
- According to OED, yes, there are several accepted spelling, but Barbadian is oldest and most-used (since the 18th century). There is also Badian (since 1910, just a shortening), and its variant Bajan and Bajun. --Menchi 09:14, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks! I've added these others in such a way that I think shows that "Barbadian" is the most common term. Tuf-Kat 09:26, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)
New Zealand & Maori
The entry for New Zealand currently reads "New Zealand or Maori". Perhaps I'm interpreting this incorrectly, but I don't think this is correct - "Maori" isn't an adjective for "New Zealand". "Maori" refers to one ethnic group living in New Zealand (the first, although no longer the largest) - it can't be used generally for all New Zealanders. Nor can it be used for the country's physical or geographic features, or for animals or plants - you can say "New Zealand rivers" and "New Zealand birds", but not "Maori rivers" or "Maori birds" unless you're talking about actual possession and ownership. This is true in the Maori language, too - "Maori" and "Aotearoa" ("New Zealand") are distinct words, and are not interchangable. If "Maori" is listed, it should probably be as the adjective for "Maori", not for "New Zealand". I thought I'd mention it here before doing anything, though, since someone might have a different view. -- Vardion 16:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- This doesn't make sense. How can New Zealand = Maori? I don't even think it's a nickname. --Menchi 16:28, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I've removed Maori from the New Zealand entry, then. -- Vardion 05:47, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not saying anything, but the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Third Edition with New Words Supplement 2001, says that the adjectives from New Zealand are New Zealand and Maori.
Croat
According to Dictionary:croat and several others, the word can also designate a native of Croatia. Therefore, I included it. -- User:Docu
- Try telling that to some Croatian Serbs... :) The word "Croatian" can mean both ethnic Croatian and that which is from Croatia, but the shorter form is supposed to be limited only to the ethnicity. --Shallot 14:00, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Ok, I wont (promissed!). A footnote or note directly before the word should do. -- User:Docu
Can someone please fix the article such that they are all either left justified or centered? I am a comparative newbie, and as such, do not fully get the whole Wikicode.--65.2.115.25 02:59, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- There are <center> </center>-tags to that. According to the introduction: "In most cases, a person from these places is referred to with the same word. In cases where this is not so, this form is given after the adjective.", thus the 2nd column is usually empty. -- User:Docu
- "In most cases, a person from these places is referred to with the same word. In cases where this is not so, this form is given after the adjective."
What does this really mean? Is this mean American can mean an adjective form of America and people from America? -- Taku 23:40, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Yes. Tuf-Kat