rcardwell1988:

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."

The current Listo de Rekomendataj Landnomoj has:
Nord-Koreujo/Nord-Koreio* KP
and
Sud-Koreujo/Sud-Koreio* KR
and it superseded the Listo de Normaj Landnomoj from 1989 which had:
Koreo
under the "unua klaso de landnomoj" listing.

rcardwell1988:

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"?

What does it mean to add -an to a word that already signifies a person? Also: Which other language makes such a distinction? English doesn’t seem to, otherwise you wouldn’t need to use the phrases "Korean citizen" (korea civitano) and "ethnic Korean" (etna koreo).

And BTW, I disagree with the sentence you quoted from erinja - after all, irlandanoj and nederlandanoj clearly are or can be ethnicities.

rcardwell1988:

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.

Sure, but this is not something Esperanto invented. In English you also derive "Germany" from "German", which is in no way different from deriving Germanujo from germano. Of course it’s true that with Japan, China and Korea, European languages don’t do this, but I don’t think that this makes Esperanto worse in any way.

And BTW, please stop arguing that Esperanto "has failed" because of its linguistic features. Most people who don’t learn the language don’t decide not to learn it because of its linguistic features.

So the argument sounds like this: the ethnicity-based naming system in Esperanto is inherently bad because it could possibly engender racist attitudes and further marginalize the ethnic minorities (within the Esperanto community?). Hmm, sounds like the weak version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. If this is the case, then cite convincing proof for the argument.

You see what I mean S-ro Cardwell about the subject generating a lot of hot air.

Does it matter about there being two systems here, one in which the names of the inhabitants are derived from the country name, and another in which the country is named after the inhabitants? I think not.

In many cases there is no dispute over what the country name should be. I can't imagine anybody referring to Irlando as Irujo and the inhabitants as Iroj. In the case of Irlando and Islando, no doubt, these forms are internationally more recognizable.

Some fun can be had with Esperantujo (the land of the Esperantoj). That disillusioned bunch of defeatists, the Raŭmistoj, can thought of as living in Esperintujo.

And those from the outside world who wish to mock the Esperantists can refer to Esperanto-lando, much in the same way the English take the piss out of the adherents of the single currency by referring to their countries collectively as Eŭro-lando.

That some country names end in ujo, some in io, some in lando, and others like Brazilo, Kanado, Peruo, Usono etc have no identifiable ending, isn't something worth getting worked up over.

And personally I shall continue to think of Barato as Hindujo, probably at least for the next ten years.

sudanglo:I can't imagine anybody referring to Irlando as Irujo and the inhabitants as Iroj.

Actually I can (though it’s of course incorrect). German uses Irland for Ireland and Ire for Irishman.

But do German Esperantists say Irujo?

sudanglo:But do German Esperantists say Irujo?

It’s obviously incorrect, but it’s an imaginable error (though I don’t recall seeing it).

rcardwell1988:

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.

I didn't say "unique" and "pure" (whatever that means). I said homogenous. Homogenous means that people are very much like one another, NOT that people are extremely distinct from some other group. Or to look at it from the other direction, Koreans do not vary very much from on another, when it comes to their exact ethnic mix. One French person is much more (genetically) different from another French person, than a Korean is different from another Korean.

rcardwell1988: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.

That would be a massive language reform. If you're interested in such reforms, I suggest learning a language other than Esperanto, because Esperanto is no longer open to massive reforms of the way its grammar works. A newer language might be open to such a change. Esperanto has two regular country naming systems, and it's possible for a name of a country to switch from one system to another (with an explanation from the Academy - you can read their original document on why they changed their recommendation from Koreo to Koreujo and Egipto to Egiptujo). But a massive overhaul of its entire system of naming places and people isn't in the cards. Interestingly, such an overhaul would surely introduce more problems than it solves.

And we would still be naming countries after ethnic groups (even if it's a foreign name for an ethnic group - there are many different ethnicities in China, but they are all "ethnic Chinese" as far as an outsider is concerned), so your suggested changes would be a slight cosmetic difference at best. If we remove all ethnic group naming, what do we call these countries? And are we being offensive to the Chinese by implying, by their name, that they are citizens of the long-defunct Qing dynasty?

There was a book written on the topic of country names, and there is review of the book that also contains an interesting summary of its contents and arguments.

If this topic is of great interest to you, you might want to buy the book and read it, to better inform yourself on the topic.

A small post to make something clear that perhaps wasn't clear early in this thread - It isn't the case that Korea was called "Koreo" by everyone, and then it changed to Koreujo.

What happened was that some people used "Koreo" for Korea, and but most used "Koreujo" (notably, the Koreans themselves used Koreujo). Many people used "Egiptujo" for Egypt, but some used "Egipto". In 1988 the Academy of Esperanto issued a statement saying that the correct forms are "Koreo" and "Egipto". At the time, apparently, it was said that most Esperantists used Koreujo and Egiptujo, and the decision of the Academy was vastly opposed (and ignored). It was said that as soon as the then-president of the Academy left his post, that the Academy would reverse its decision.

In 2003, the Academy did reverse the decision, stating that "Koreujo" and "Egiptujo" are the correct and recommended forms. And in any case, "Koreujo" is what the Koreans wanted to be called the whole time; most Esperantists are sensitive to that, and happy to call people what they want to be called, so "Koreujo" (or its alternate form "Koreio") are the widespread forms today.

In any case, "Koreujo" and "Egiptujo" are nothing new, and have always seen use. The main changes have come in the recommendations of the Academy, not in the actual linguistic use of Esperanto speakers.

Hyperboreus:

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

Sounds legit. And yes, "Usono" is the worst patronymic so far. As is "Usonujo". But also in English the names for USA are mostly misnomers:

"United States of America": Well, "United States of Part of America"

"United States": Mexico is also called "United States". Its official name is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos"

"America": Ok, a bit of megalomania.

Yeah I know you dont like the USA being USA. As I mentioned my ex was hispanic and obviously she informed me of this fact, and numerous other Hispanics have pointed it out to me over the years. You are not the first.

If we change Usono, will the words in the Kajto song about trains also have to change?

I might take a pass on using "ujo" for naming nations. It sounds weird for a nation to be a container of this kind, as ujo can be attached to numerous little things that might even signify a holster of some kind. Since there are alternatives, I see no reason to follow this pedantic line of naming.

And obviously the reason to have just one system of nation-naming is that the idea of "ano" is turned into an insult, so that now beginners always have the opportunity to insult someone accidentally, where if it was entirely regular, the word for a nation could be invented based on a clear rule, rather than just remembered or understood by means of a complex idea about race in one land versus another.

If you want to get technical, many Americans are of fairly the same mongrelization and constitute a separate race, just as much as say the British, who are mongrelized from all kinds of stock such as Scandinavian, etc...