PS: WW_ aka 'Professional' wrestling is often called gay because it's a male version of soap opera mixed with theater. Actual wrestling has long held 'sexual' overtones likely due to what it looks like to observers. where boxing/judo/karate sparing can also have a lot of physical contact, but rarely comes off as gay.

That's a tautology. dilap's point was that our views in society have changed, and acceptable physical contact between males has narrowed in modern history.

The accepted English demonym for inhabitants of the United States of America is American. It has been this way for 200 years. We call ourselves American, and every English speaking country calls us American.

The only measure of correctness for language is use, and when speaking in English, American is only commonly used in one way--in English, American is almost universally unambiguous. No other country name contains the word America, and no one else commonly refers to themselves as American in English.

But thinking about it, I guess "American" isn't really the most precise term, since there are a bunch of other countries in the Americas. I might be more aware of this, subconsciously, than your typical citizen of the USA because my wife is Mexican.

Googling around shows I'm certainly not the only person using the term "USian".

It's interesting how it's impossible to choose language without also choosing political sides. :)

>Googling around shows I'm certainly not the only person using the term "USian".

You're not, but nearly everyone using it is doing so out of some desire to avoid a non existent controversy. It's also used so rarely that you'll often run into people who've never heard the term.

In addition, it's very difficult to pronounce and will therefore likely never be widely adopted. Do you say "you-es-ians" when speaking?

It's a very similar situation to Australia. There is more than one country that is part of the Australian continent, yet people from the Commonwealth of Australia unambiguously refer to themselves as Australian.

It just seemed a natural term to me. I promise I wasn't using it to avoid a controversy (which I'm not even aware of!). In my experience with spanish speakers, they'll usually just say "gringos" (not as a derogatory term), but they'll also happily use "americanos" -- and don't seem to have any problem w/ it. (Tho Spanish it is literally an ambiguous word; you have to deduce from context whether it means from the USA or from the continent.)

I'd posit the only measure of correctness for language is the ability of being understood, even before the use. So when I read and understand USian, I don't really care that much that it's less used than American to deem it "incorrect".

If you don't like it, say so, but limited usage is a small reason to consider something "wrong".

The ability to be understood is directly tied to use. If you use nonstandard constructions, fewer people will understand you. Less people understand USian than American precisely because it's not in common use.

>but limited usage is a small reason to consider something "wrong".

No, most linguists consider lack of use pretty much the only reason to consider something "wrong". When something is used enough to be in common use is a bit arbitrary, but USian has definitely not met that standard. You might as well start using USican or USperson.

Beyond being very uncommon, it's also distracting even to people who do understand it. The capitalization is non-standard, and it's difficult to pronounce.

The purpose of writing is to effectively communicate, and unless your goal is to purposely pull people out of the flow of your writing, it's not a good idea to use it.

>Beyond being very uncommon, it's also distracting even to people who do understand it. The capitalization is non-standard, and it's difficult to pronounce.

The data points from this thread paint the opposite picture. You seem to be the only person distracted by it or having difficult pronouncing it.

It always irks me that some linguists dislike the "changing" nature of living languages. Words and phrases go in and out of style, new phrases and words are invented, and some of those new words and phrases will make it into the common lexicon. Others will die out.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with them using USian other than it not being an "official" word. The intended meaning seems to be well understood by those reading it and there is no reason to assume motives, that behavior is annoying in and of itself. There is enough context clues in the message that even if the meaning isn't picked up on immediately, one can infer it.

If the crux of your argument rests on people being confused by the word - the same could be said about a plethora of words.

A word may be in common use in the future, or it may have been in common use in the past, but if it isn't currently in common use, using it decreases your understandability.

>The data points from this thread paint the opposite picture. You seem to be the only person distracted by it or having difficult pronouncing it.

2 out of 5 people in the thread who have expressed an opinion said it was distracting and hard to pronounce. 40% of our small sample size finds it distracting. I also have a fair amount of upvotes for my original comment.

>If the crux of your argument rests on people being confused by the word - the same could be said about a plethora of words.

If the percentage of your intended audience that is distracted by or doesn't understand "plethora" is larger than the percentage that prefers it to "a lot", I'd argue that you shouldn't use "plethora" either.

>The intended meaning seems to be well understood by those reading it and there is no reason to assume motives, that behavior is annoying in and of itself.

It's not common and was created for political purposes. There is a decrease in understandability over using the accepted term, what other purpose is there for using it?

The term was specifically created and promoted by people who dislike the term American.

How do you propose a word become common to use without early adopters? If people did as you suggested and never used a word until it was in common use, nobody would use the word and it would never enter common use.

"Common use" first and foremost denotes that people use the word. It's a requirement. A word has to be used and be picked up upon by others to either replace a synonym or take on a new meaning. There has to be early adopters of the word that are using it before it is in common usage.

You're right, but using a word that may be popular in the future decreases the effectiveness of your writing today. Are you writing to effectively communicate, or are you writing to spread the adoption of new words for future generations?

I'm also not arguing that no one should ever use uncommon words. I'm arguing that there is a cost to using uncommon words, so the benefit should be worth the cost.

Usually a word becomes common because there is a need for it, because it fills a niche better than available words--either because it is easier to say or write, or because it is more descriptive than available terms. If that is the case, the word will spread incredibly fast. There are many examples, the most recent I can think of is "selfie". It became common over the course of a few months.

I wouldn't advise that an individual writer should have started using the word selfie 2 years ago simply because it was going to become common, anymore than I would've advised Charles Dickens to describe writing love letters as sexting.

USian has no benefit over American other than political, and people have been pushing for it's adoption for decades. It hasn't happened, it's not likely to happen, and the only result of using it, is that your writing is less effective.

I checked the list of sovereign countries. It's actually true.