komenstanto:Ah, you are not treating Americans as a people in your language

are we? I do not think so. Or do the Dutch complain about nederland-ano? The Irish about irland-ano? The class of a country name does not say ANYTHING about the concerning country/people.

komenstanto:Why should the Dutch be nederlandano but the British be brito? That is a clear inconsistency.

Of course it is an inconsistency. Just like it is an inconsistency that a Muslim is an islamano (← islamo) but a Jew is a judo (→ judismo). Somehow nobody complains about this.

Forigite

Hyperboreus:You can't get a language inconsistency free. As long as based on general agreement, the conveyed information is understandable, all is well.

Nederlandano vs Brito is an inconsistency.
Islamano vs Judo is an inconsistency.
Bruligi vs Vidigi is an inconsistency.
Paksitanano vs Taĝiko is an inconsistency.

And even redaktoro (no suffix) vs. instruisto (suffix) is an inconsistency. Sure thing that this is what keeps the world from learning Esperanto.

Forigite

It is my opinion that either suffixes -an- and -ul- should be used to refer to people. In ANY language. I think that this should be used for every country: the country itself should be referred to by suffixes -ej- or -uj-. While the use without any suffix should be avoided. For EVERY country.
When it comes to telling both pairs of suffixes: I think that distinction between -an- and -ul- should be made by the following criteria: does the person (or population) who is talked about simply belong to that concrete group/nation? Or do the country and its cultural background have any influence on him/her?
For example, talking about Spain, the terms Hispano and Hispulo should both be used; but, for a person who simply has Spanish nationality, one should use Hispano, while for a person whose essence if defined by being Spanish (for an example, someone who takes a nap every day and eats "Paella") one could use Hispulo.

ZMan:Hispulo.

I used -ano if I'm speaking Esperanto regardless of the country, unless I want to refer to the race for convenience. That is, I regard terms like "franco", "brito" etc as seriously as I regard "brit" and "frank" in English. I use them, but I won't call someone from England a "pom" unless I'm being colloquial. In normal formality I'd call them a "britujano" or "anglujano" (british/English). I mean, what happens if I call an-english-living Italo who is proud of their italian heritage a brito? I'm basically saying "no, you live here, therefore you get called this", which is a kick in the balls and a half (and yes, those situations occur quite frequently when you delve into these identity issues. Perhaps not in more nationalistic countries with higher levels of cultural assimilation though).

Perhaps it's because I was born as part of generation Z with all the electronics and internationalisation of the world going on, and because, like many like me, and many aussies, the topic of race and nationality are loaded to the brim. I regard it as being polite not to assume someone's race or accidentally deny them of their identity.

If the Old World style nations don't like it, well sorry, but get with the program. A lot of us are estranged from our race, our origins, we live in countries where we believe it wrong for one ethnic group to have dominance over each other where it can be helped. I don't mind people using brito, etc, rather than "britujano", but to rigidly use that all the time is silly to me. Similarly, rigidly forcing yourself to use "britujano" (or equivalent) would be strange. Neither way of referring to someone's identity is adequate enough to be fully functional in all manners possible, at least in terms of cross-cultural communication which requires flexibility.

Note though - this is not a pet peeve against Esperanto. It's a pet peeve against a particular USAGE in Esperanto.

darkweasel:

ZMan:Hispulo.

Haha... Just wait while I turn on my Hisplic music

On a more serious note though:

"hispujano" would be the logical naming convention if we have to use -ano (or hispaniano, depending if you're an io-ist or an ujo-ist).

The country is still "hispujo". "Hispan-" is the root. "Hispano" = hispanic person/spaniard. Hispanano = member of a hispanic person, which is nonsense (or kinky, either one).

Hispanujo = country of the spanish people
Hispanujano = member of the country of the spanish people, e.g. spanish in nationality (they might be a spaniard ethnically, they might not).

Difference is that hispano = has spanish ethnicity (or in conventional usage has adopted spanish ethnicity or been assimilated into the culture, which may be used to indicate nationality), can live anywhere. Hispanujano = has allegiance to the spanish nation.

darkweasel:Sure thing that this is what keeps the world from learning Esperanto.

Well, before you jump ahead there, how many of the 6-7 billion humans are learning Esperanto at the moment? Person might have a point, you never know.

Come on chaps. Let's have a sensible discussion, like how many angels can dance on a pinhead.