The naming of countries in Esperanto is a very tired subject. Far too much hot air has been generated. Why people have in the past been so exercised over it is beyond me.

I just happens that some country names end in ujo. When this is the case the inhabitants are the stem of the ujo country name.

For example, Francujo is France and the people of that country are francoj, and their wine is franca vino.

And Aŭstralio is the name of that large island at the bottom of the world and the people there are referred to as aŭstralianoj - their wine is aŭstralia vino.

There's no need to make a fuss over it. It is no more than the way the language works and to draw any conclusions about racial or other implications is just a bit silly.

If the inhabitants of any particular country don't want to call themselves anoj of that country, and prefer to generate the country name from a name of the inhabitants, it is no big deal.

The actual suffix used to generate a country name from a people is not always -ujo, Sometimes it is -lando. eg Pollando, Skotlando, Finnlando, whose inhabitants are poloj, skotoj, finnoj. (But in Nederlando the lando is not a suffix, and the inhabitants are nederlandanoj).

Some Esperantists have got very silly about country naming and have come up with things like Anglio or even Anglo-lando.

Note that Pakistano is the name of the country and Pakistananoj the inhabitants. To refer to them as pakistoj would be too comic.

Consequently, I cannot see anything comic about "Pakistoj". If I can take "Japanoj" seriously, then I can just as well believe in "Pakistoj".

The vort/lud/o sudanglo is making here is: pak/i means to pack so pak/ist/o would be a person whose profession is to pack.

I do find it funny but not too funny as this used to be also my profession for a while

It is worth nothing that with the other "-istan" countries the "-istan" is dropped and the country name is derived in the normal Esperanto way: thus we have the countries Uzbek/uj/o, Taĝik/uj/o, Turkmen/uj/o, Kazaĥ/uj/o (alternative underived forms of these country names Uzbeki/o, Taĝiki/o, Turkmeni/o, Kazaĥi/o do exist) and people from there are called uzbek/o/j, taĝik/o/j, turkmen/o/j, kazaĥ/o/j.

However, this is never done with Pakistan/o, probably because the word Pakistan is derived in a different way, thus we have Pakistan/o being the country and the inhabitants are called pakistan/an/o/j.

A sardine tin with Uzbeks inside it. Well, that is a tight way to be laid out with each other, but if they prefer being compartmentalized like that, it's their prerogative.

Forigite

Hyperboreus:

mateno2:However, this is never done with Pakistan/o, probably because the word Pakistan is derived in a different way, thus we have Pakistan/o being the country and the inhabitants are called pakistan/an/o/j.

The morpheme -stan in Pakistan is the same as in the other Stans.

There is no reasoning behind these irregularities. They might as well call it Pakujo. It may be due to the shortness of pakistan. It's not long like Uzbekujo.

If we follow the Japanese example, then we should call it Punjabio.

Wow, this has generated more intense debate than I expected...

darkweasel:Concerning Korea, earlier the usual system was Koreo for the country and koreanoj for the people, but the current recommendation is to use koreoj for the people and Koreujo for the country.

Oooh, really? Where did you hear about this? Assuming it's accurate, I think it proves an interesting point that the system can and has changed, so one doesn't need just accept the current system because "that's the way it is and always has been."

erinja:Therefore by calling Koreans "koreanoj", it's as if to say that there is no Korean ethnicity.

I don't think it has to mean that. Why can't "koreano" mean "Korean citizen" and "koreo" mean "ethnic Korean"?

erinja:I think you can understand why Koreans might find that offensive

I can also see how ethnic minorities in various countries might be offended that their nationality can only be expressed by the name of the majority ethnicity, which in many instances has oppressed and discriminated against the minority groups.

erinja:Ethnicity is the *origin* of the names

In the case of China, Japan, and Korea, the English names are not derived from the name of an ethnic group, so I'm further confused as to why this racial naming system has been applied to those countries.

erinja:but people are primarily named by their citizenship, not their ethnicity.

Which is why I don't see the harm in using "koreano" to mean "Korean citizen".

erinja:You must have noticed that we do the same thing in English, and somehow we all manage to speak English just fine.

For one thing, the system in English is riddled with ambiguity and controversy, and has changed to reflect changing attitudes. No one says "Chinaman" or "Jap" anymore. Furthermore, I don't think saying "we do it in English (or any other natural language)" is good justification. As a constructed language lauded for its rule-based regularity, I expect more from Esperanto.

erinja:But the best choice is to stick with Esperanto's traditional system

Is it true what darkweasel said about it previously being more common to say "koreano"?

To be continued...

They will keep their irregularities and wonder why they have lost energy and why Esperanto hasn't Venki'ed yet. They have these dull irregularities and they are like speedbumps that slow down the language conservatively.

I might also protest Usono. That label is completely fictitious, more than any other nation:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Usono

Usono has nothing to do with USA. It's a kitschy name promoted by Frank Lloyd Wright. I dont like his Ranch houses and I dont like this word!

Here is a fun idea: one of my ex girlfriends was Hispanic and called USA "Gringolandia" or land of the Gringos.

We could adapt it thus: Gringujo. And Americans can all be called "Gringoj"!

Either that or we go back to square one and call ourselves "Yankoj" and the states as "Yankio". Not a bad policy. I would support the change to Yankio or Yankujo.

erinja:Korea is one of the most ethnically homogenous countries on the planet (that's a fact, not a racist conspiracy)

There's some conspiracy in there, I believe. The concept of a unique and pure Korean ethnicity emerged largely in response to Japanese occupation in the early 1900s. Koreans, while relatively homogeneous compared to other countries like China, are not AS homogeneous or unique as commonly believed. A genetic study I read about in a newspaper found that less than half of modern Korean DNA is uniquely Korean. Nearly a quarter is Chinese and a fifth Japanese. I would imagine that there is more genetic similarity between Koreans and Northern Chinese than there is between Chinese from the far north and far south. The distinction between China, Korea, and Japan seems more linguistic, cultural, and political than racial, much like the situation in Western Europe.

sudanglo:There's no need to make a fuss over it. It is no more than the way the language works and to draw any conclusions about racial or other implications is just a bit silly.

Unfortunately it seems that quite a few people DO perceive racial implications, since the system IS in fact based on names of races/ethnicities. Also, I reiterate that, in my opinion, "that's just the way it works" is not satisfactory justification for irregularities in a constructed language touted as being completely regular and rule-based. Other terms and methods of word formation have changed over the years in response to changing attitudes, so I see no reason why this can't change as well.

sudanglo:If the inhabitants of any particular country don't want to call themselves anoj of that country, and prefer to generate the country name from a name of the inhabitants, it is no big deal.

Superficially this sounds fine, but in reality there is almost no chance of a complete consensus. Also, I would imagine that the ethnic majority would be far more supportive of ethnic naming than ethnic minorities.

After all the explanations and justifications given for the current system, I still don't see why all nationalities can't be expressed by affixing "-ano" to the country name, regardless of the origin of said name. In addition to being completely regular, it removes the controversial and divisive issue of race/ethnicity by simply labeling everyone as a member of the country in which they're a citizen.

Forigite