Talk:US American

RFD

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

This and some alternative spellings (hyphen, periods) doesn't seem like a single unit to me. It just seems like attributive use of US with American. If we keep it, it needs usage notes.

It's the demonym associated to USA, isn't it? It's a good reason to keep it. Lmaltier 16:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be a demonym, but is not used by residents or citizens of the US in reference to themselves. Such folks refer to themselves as "Americans", as in: "I'm proud to be an American." I don't believe that any other country has "America" as part of its name, so the fact that citizens of the US have appropriated this term as preferred demonym doesn't put them in dispute with citizens of another country. But, because there are other uses for the term "American", "American" is modified by "US" to contrast citizens of the US (Or is that non-Latin citizens of the US?) with others who use "American", ie "Latin Americans". "Latin American" seems to have more of a claim as an entry because Latin America is a proper noun for which "Latin American" is a derived noun and adjective. "US America" is not a term that I have heard or read and is not plausibly an etymon of "US American".

To me an analogous case is "Northern Italian". "Northern" is just a contrastive adjective modifying Italian. DCDuring TALK 17:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete if DCDuring is right about the use cases, which I think is likely. To me it's "an American from the US" (contrasting with a [North or South] American from elsewhere). Equinox ◑ 23:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason this came up was a heated argument on Wikipedia that "US American" is not a legitimate English term. That in of itself demonstrates that it is not a simple phrase like "northern Italian", which no-one would even think to take issue with. Also, the argument from ignorance above is hardly convincing: that's what all the citations are for, to show the breadth of usage, though, granted, it is certainly an uncommon term. Equinox at least finds the phrase intuitive, as I do. However, several editors on Wikipedia (at the w:names for U.S. citizens article) said that it is grammatically incorrect, because "US" cannot be used attributively. They even cited the use of the phrase by that Miss America contestant to claim that only someone who was incoherent would use it. If it were not for their insistence that "US Americans" is not proper English, when it's something I use myself, I would not have bothered to create these pages. —kwami 14:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It is obviously perfectly acceptable English. It clearly has good use in the contrastive situation. It is also likely to annoy some people who view themselves as and prefer to be called Americans. Sometimes it might even be used for the purpose of annoying them. There may be an argument that I can't see at the moment that it should be included. [[See WT:IDIOM. Controversy alone is not sufficient reason for inclusion, though it is good reason to carefully consider whether the term should be included and to make sure the usage note is well crafted.

If the Northern Italian analogy doesn't speak to you, what about "GDR German"/"DDR German" and "FRG German"/"BRD German? All are prima facie attestable collocations. I don't think we'd include them. DCDuring TALK 15:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

US can't be used attributively? what about US Army or US Navy? Anyway, delete as it's either sum of parts or not used, quite possibly both. Mglovesfun (t) 15:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if this is deleted, I think we might consider:

1. Organizing and formatting the citations in their proper location (exact spelling) in Citation space.
2. Having an Appendix on approximately the same subject as the above-mentioned WP article, w:Names for U.S. citizens.

I have no idea how the WP article will turn out, but the NOR policy as applied there seems very limiting with respect to the use of terms as quoted terms. The limited type of OR that we do here is almost certainly essential for us to avoid copyright violations while having a comprehensive resource. The descriptivist lexicographic stance seems a great fit with NPOV. The combination seems to put us at an advantage relative to WP in accommodating certain language subject matter. Should we Transwiki the article? I would favor getting the version most inclusive of terms and do so now. Should we? Or should we wait until the article is more complete? DCDuring TALK 17:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"It is obviously perfectly acceptable English." Well, it is to me, which is why I was at a loss when people argued that it was ungrammatical. (I expect they would argue that "DDR German" is also not a legitimate term, and for the same reasons.) As for "US Army", that came up, and the answer was that it's valid because it's an abbreviation of "United States Army", whereas "US American" is not an abbreviation of *"United States American". The impassioned debate there shows that, as obviously acceptable as this is to you and me, it is just as obviously unacceptable to others. That's why I think it needs a place in Wiktionary. As for Mglovesfun saying it should be deleted because it's not used, again, that's what the citations are for! kwami 07:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Acceptability as English is one thing. Suitability for any specific purpose is another. I remain uncertain that the term is includable as an entry at Wiktionary. I really have no opinion about what role, if any, the term would have at WP.

But I was much more impressed with the vehemence with which the term "US American" was opposed at WP than with the logic. I was also surprised that they actually believe that they have special insight into linguistic correctness, so that they knew what was correct without any need to justify their position or indeed recognition (or acknowledgment, anyway) that it was a position. It isn't that we don't have conflicts. See WT:RFD#patriotism for an example. DCDuring TALK 00:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Acceptability as English is one thing. Suitability for any specific purpose is another. — This comment was unsigned.

And neither has anything to do with whether it should be in an English dictionary. No one here is/should be setting themselves as some authority to decide what is acceptable, what is suitable. Wiktionary should only be concerned with what is and is not used. If you want to decide what is acceptable or suitable use, or "Linguisitically Correct" you should go join the French Academy (or similar). The role of Wiktionary is not to decide any such thing. Is it used? Is there reasonable evidence of its use? There is. End of argument. Your request to delete is misguided, at best. Keep. --Richardb 09:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We routinely keep many things that are not acceptable in any major form of English, that are erroneous, obscene, offensive, inflammatory, and reminders of bad times for humanity. If this item is to be deleted, it will be because it is a sum-of-the-parts use of "US" and "American". We don't have an entry for "maroon red" though we have entries for maroon and red. "It wasn't a vermillion red. It was more a maroon red." is good English, but would not justify creating the entry. In my opinion, "US American" is closely analogous to "maroon red". DCDuring TALK 11:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The term US American is used outside the USA clearly to distinguish the group of Americans from USA from the more general group of Americans. Whilst looked at simply the term may be viewed as only Sum-of-Parts, it's use, instead of the more common American, is often a case of implied objection to the presumption that American applies only to those citizens of the USA who have presumed to take for themselves the term American. In this way US American is more than SoP, to some extent, intended or not, carrying this implicit objection, and thus should not be deleted. No doubt we will have many US Americans who really don't understand or accept this implied meaning, and will try to reject it on the SoP grounds. But that only continues and compounds the presumption that they own the word American. Unlike Wikipedia, we should be able to happily and easily accommodate this idiom. --Richardb 15:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC), UK & Australia. It's used, it's attested. KEEP.

Kept Mglovesfun (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)}}