ZMan: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.

The root Hisp/ does not exist in Esperanto as far as I know...

The fact is that Esperanto's system of naming people is set out in the Fundamento, so the correct choices are quite clear, they aren't a matter up for debate for anyone other than language reformists.

I find the insistence on distinguishing between ethnicity and citizenship to be unnecessarily confusing (how to name someone is no longer simple - you have to find out a load of personal details before naming someone, it seems) but more importantly, I find it quite patronising and even insulting.

If a person is born in the UK to foreign parents, grows up in the UK, goes through the UK school systems, etc (but maybe eats their ethnic foods at home and speaks the language of their parents). I think it would be quite patronising to tell that person "You are a UK citizen but you are not British; you are Indian/Pakistani/Russian/whatever". This person is surely more British than me (born and bred American, US citizen but with UK citizenship through my mom - "ethnic" British, if you will).

If someone is a British citizen but is opposed to identifying themselves as British for some reason, they can certainly add an adjective as necessary. A British citizen who "feels" Italian can surely call himself an "etne itala brito", or an "etna italo", or a "kultura italo".

But italulo, italano, it's silly nonsense. But sure, go ahead and do it if you want to. Your distinction - cultural heritage versus citizenship - will be lost on the Esperanto world at large, so you should be prepared to explain yourself repeatedly. Well-meaning Esperanto speakers will assume you've made a simple mistake in using these inventions, rather than working up your own complex naming system.

You know, as someone learning Esperanto and still building vocabulary, this whole debate just seems so silly. It reminds me a lot actually of when people argue about the GLBTQ acronym and when bisexuals and pansexuals get into fights over what the right identity is. And then someone goes "We should just call everyone queer so we don't get into these arguments!" and then someone else goes "But that used to be a slur and it implies otherness! I want to call myself homoflexible" and it get's pretty silly.

If Korean Esperantists have a certain term they want to identify as, let them use it! Calling them what you think they should call themselves is offensive just because they don't want to call themselves that. It'd be like telling a lesbian "No! You aren't a lesbian, you're gay! That way it's unisex and everything is regular."

If you're an ethnic minority Esperantist in Korea or Japan, and there's no possible way to describe your ethnicity in Esperanto, then you've found a hole and the problem becomes relevant. Then you get to go to the Academy and try to find a solution.

In the mean time, how country names get derived doesn't seem like a terrible inconsistency. Learning my Esperanto vocabulary, I don't even notice these differences because they still all conform to the same rules of grammar anywhere. Whether it uses -ujo or -ano it's still just a noun to me. It definitely doesn't seem like a big enough deal to start another Ido over.

When I show my friends the Esperanto-USA's postal course (the one with "Lesson One!" in big bold friendly letters) they always comment on how on the first page it has "NO EXCEPTIONS!" under the grammar rules.

Esperanto isn't going to be perfect, so long as it actually gets used it's going to evolve. If you compare it to English or French or Mandarin it is still significantly easier to learn, more consistent (in that assuming you know your vocabulary you won't even notice inconsistencies) and more suited to be a lingua franca than any other language.

The reason "we don't do that in English" was an argument is because it's pointing out that this sort of "perfection" would be perfecting something that doesn't even exist elsewhere. Oh no, what will we do if Esperanto isn't a perfectly morphemic agglutinative language. I bet next all the people at the U.N are going to say "Hey! The morpheme Li is a pronoun that refers to men, but Ili is gender neutral! And sometimes Li shows up in the middle of words with no reference to men at all! This kind of linguistic variance shall not be tolerated! Esperanto is unfit to be a lingua franca!"

Let Koreans call themselves Koreans. It's okay to use adjectives just like every other language does.

Also the morpheme -ujo seems more like "something that X is inside of" not "a container for X" and so it doesn't contain the same implications English "Contain" contains.

Gxesio:You know, as someone learning Esperanto and still building vocabulary, this whole debate just seems so silly.

so that is why you bumped it after six days after we had fortunately already forgotten about it.

erinja:"You are a UK citizen but you are not British; you are Indian/Pakistani/Russian/whatever". This person is surely more British than me (born and bred American, US citizen but with UK citizenship through my mom - "ethnic" British, if you will).

Well that only counts if you compare them to an ethnic british person. If you call all people from England Britujanoj, there's no problem.

I thought someone from a country where the main populace has taken over the lands of others would understand why it's good to not assume ethnicity and just say "you are of this nationality - I don't know where your ancestors come from".

It's not that hard to be politely ambiguous. Then again it is a cultural difference. Americans tend to be much more direct in speech, which in other cultures seems bossy, while cultures where assumptions are avoided probably seem round-about and silly to people from more direct cultures. That's ethnography and culture differences for you.

Not to mention generational gaps. I guess as a digital native or whatever we're called, applying labels about peoples identity seems like trollbait. Better just to call someone from Britain British and not English, someone from Asia Asian rather than try and narrow it down, if they've got an American-sounding accent assume they're only from North America, if they've got an Australian-sounding accent assume they are from the Southern Hemisphere, etc. Normal non-conlangy people of my generation seem to get offended when you make assumptions about their culture or identity in a direct manner.

I think both systems for that reason should coexist and be used equally. Currently though the strangely rigid despite being unsystematic method is the one predominately used and thought to be right. And the beauty of Esperanto is as long as the roots used make sense together, you can make a word, right? So what makes "Britujano" any words than "Brito"? The meaning is slightly different that's all. For example, I'm a Brito de Aŭstralio - my culture, customs, and heritage and therefore ethnic identity mostly come from that area, but I was born and bred in Australia.

Mind you, "britano" sounds stupid to me. "I'M A MEMBER OF A BRITISH PERSON!"

Gxesio:Also the morpheme -ujo seems more like "something that X is inside of" not "a container for X" and so it doesn't contain the same implications English "Contain" contains.

Yep, more or less. I learnt that one the hard way.

ceigered:I thought someone from a country where the main populace has taken over the lands of others would understand why it's good to not assume ethnicity and just say "you are of this nationality - I don't know where your ancestors come from".

I'm afraid that you've written a long message that completely misses the point but I'm not going to discuss this publicly anymore, this thread has gone on long enough. I will respond privately to your comments. I believe you've completely misread my prior comments in the thread.

erinja:

ceigered:I thought someone from a country where the main populace has taken over the lands of others would understand why it's good to not assume ethnicity and just say "you are of this nationality - I don't know where your ancestors come from".

I'm afraid that you've written a long message that completely misses the point but I'm not going to discuss this publicly anymore, this thread has gone on long enough. I will respond privately to your comments. I believe you've completely misread my prior comments in the thread.

I apologise if that's the case. I haven't really been hanging around here much lately as you might have noticed.