Americans refer to people being from "the UK" but they also refer to themselves as being from "the US". We seldom say that we come from "America". However, Brits very frequently call our country "America". Although this term is common in certain contexts ('God bless America' etc), Americans travelling abroad wouldn't normally say that they return to "America" on Tuesday, or that they live in "America". Normally we refer to returning to the US, we live in the US etc.

However no one really seems to call the US "la unuiĝintaj ŝtatoj" in Esperanto. There are MANY united states; I recall that a few countries in South America are the United States of [whatever]. Usono is the correct, accepted name. Unlike the Britain/UK distinction, there is no difference between "Usono" and "The United States" as far as what territory it covers.

angel32163:

Anyone know their bible? And what does it say for Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven?

I have an Esperanto Bible on my palm pilot, it says "La regno de la ĉielo", and "La regno de Dio"

I have an English bible (a couple in fact) and they say "The Kingdom of God", "The Kingdom of Heaven". I don't get what this avoidance of "la" is for quite frankly. Avoiding using "la" when it is in the language for specific things is no doubt just going to make those who don't have an equivalent in their languages even more confused.

RE this damned Regno word , I do not have the PIV, but from your definition you quoted for Monarĥio

defined in PIV as a regno regata de monarĥo

it seems rather clear that a reĝlando and a regno are not the same. The reason Reĝlando is stressed is because the countries that make up the UK are joined together not out of love or compassion but due to the fact that both thrones became combined.

A regno can be a "kingdom" just as much as it could also be a number of other things. A reĝlando is only a kingdom, and the name quite precise too.

So La Unuiĝinta Reĝlando is an unuiĝinta regno, but la unuiĝinta regno is not necessarily an unuiĝinta reĝlando. Without "la", how do you not know someone's referring to some fantasy setting or some other book about a "kingdom being united from years of turmoil by a knight in shinig armor"? Context mostly will help of course, but not all the time. And selectively leaving "la" on and off has the potential to confuse as well. (Vikipedio's article on the matter has a balanced approach with "la" being absent in titles but in normal text, "la" is present)

You can use "Regno" if you want but I feel that Reĝlando is more precise. If you think reĝlando is a comical or silly word and deem it wrong because of so, I certainly don't want to be convinced to use it because of those reasons.

EDIT: regarding that Kingdom of god/heaven stuff, Wikipedia (en) has "the" preceding it except once again in titles. French does this too. Hebrew and Greek are interesting in that they say "Kingdom of the God/Heaven", so they have their definite article, just not where we might expect!
Regard:
מלכות השמים‎ - Malkuth haShamayim (don't misread as "Mlachot haShamayim", since that means "queens of heaven/god" )
βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ - Basileia tou Theou
Βασιλεία τῶν Ουρανῶν - Basileia tōn Ouranōn

At first, I thought, this idle chatter about the name of my country was not a good example of how Esperanto can be one of the world's hardest languages, but such is the extent and vigour of the contributions, that may be it will well serve to make the point.

There could never be such a discussion about what to call the UK in French. You would just ask a Frenchman or consult a reputable dictionary.

Ladies and gentlemen, what authority would you accept?

The explicit mention of La Unuiĝinta Regno in PIV 1970 is not considered sufficient, and the arguments from logic, or analogy with other place names are brushed aside (not by all though).

Do we not have here the feature of Esperanto that causes distrust among the general public - who instinctively see language as determined by speakers who use it to conduct there daily lives and therefore can't believe in a language without shops, TV, lawyers, firemen, policemen and porn actresses.

UEA's website has Britio. I may have used Unuiĝinta Regno as well. But if anyone likes Britujo or Unuiĝinta Reĝlando, that's fine by me.

I'm not really sure why we're talking about "the kingdom of heaven" as an example. Proper names work differently than generic descriptions, so I think it isn't a relevant example here.

If I have a dog named Matilda, I can say "this is the dog", or "tThis is Matilda", but I wouldn't say "This is the Matilda".

It's all well and good to talk of "the kingdom of heaven", but if we call it by its "name" (which you could construe to be "Heaven"), then you just call it Heaven, not "the Heaven".

At any rate it doesn't change the fact that even if we wanted to refer to the UK as "La Unuiĝinta Reĝlando", it still isn't correct to refer to the US as "la Usono", or to the Hague as "la Hago", or to the Netherlands as "la Nederlando", regardless of what those places are called in their native languages.

sudanglo:
The explicit mention of La Unuiĝinta Regno in PIV 1970 is not considered sufficient

Maybe this is because that's rather an old edition of PIV? Revisions have since been made, and the accepted form is now 'La Unuiĝinta Reĝlando' (and I think the question of whether this should have an article or not is rather a trivial matter). There doesn't seem to be any doubt about this word as far as I can see. The Wells dictionary gives this version, the definition of 'regno' in ReVo makes it clear that it is not the suitable word in this context. And the NPIV2002 clearly backs this up, too. Not sure about the 2005 edition, don't have access to it.

Anyway, what's the big deal if there are sometimes aspects to Esperanto that are less than clear? It's normal for language to evolve. For example, there are loads of business expressions that Russians have big trouble describing in pure Russian - they often end up using the English word, with a nice alteration to the pronunciation, of course.

I think it is clear that there are many areas of vocabulary, where Esperanto is a bit lacking, but this is to be expected given the fact that there is a rather limited number of speakers at the moment. But, the language clearly has the ability to cover these gaps, the very nature of the language easily enables the creation of new words. The more Esperanto is used, the maturer it will get. This is a praiseworthy aspect to Esperanto, not something that we should grumble about!

Some examples of "La Unuiĝinta Reĝlando" from PMEG (and yes, the 'la' is indeed used):

1. "Anglujo estas unu parto de la Unuiĝinta Reĝlando de Britujo kaj Norda Irlando. La reĝlando ne nomiĝas “Britujo kaj Norda Irlando”, sed konsistas el la du partoj Britujo kaj Norda Irlando." (see the example sentences in the box here)

2. Or check this out. It's spelled out very clearly: La Unuiĝita Reĝlando

3. Sudanglo, I'm sure you'll like this link as it's a criticism of NPIV 2002 and 2005 regarding "Unuiĝinta Reĝlando". (search for 'unuiĝinta' on this page. Basically, it points out a certain lack of consistency, and also the failure to mention the word in the right places! Still, despite these criticisms, we can still establish that 'La Unuiĝinta Reĝlando' is now the accepted form.

erinja:At any rate it doesn't change the fact that even if we wanted to refer to the UK as "La Unuiĝinta Reĝlando", it still isn't correct to refer to the US as "la Usono", or to the Hague as "la Hago", or to the Netherlands as "la Nederlando", regardless of what those places are called in their native languages.

But "unuigxinta" and "regxlando" aren't proper nouns, they're common nouns. Nederlando, Usono, Hago etc are proper nouns, but "regxlando" is a common noun and "unuigxinta" is an adjective with expected use with a common noun (since proper nouns tend not to take adjectives, although they can I guess in the right circumstances ("Mia filo, kara Gxiorgxo")).

You can have (within normal expectations) only ever 1 current Nederlando in Esperanto, and the same for Usono (which is more a "constructed" special EO word from my understanding) and various others, but having multiple kingdoms which are united is a lot easier.

Maybe "Unuigxintregxlando" or "Unuigxintregno" counts as a proper noun, but otherwise it's too ambiguous without the "la" as to whether it's a common noun paired with an adjective or not.

If only N.Ireland counted as "Britain", then "Britujo" would solve this problem quick-smart!

PIV 2005 under "Britio" has Regno (Unuiĝinta Reĝolando..)! As an alternative to Britio, I might prefer Unuiĝinta Regno myself to the equivalents with lando, simply because it's shorter and simpler. Besides, Elizabeth II is the sovereign of the whole of the UK, so that it's one regno.

I think her Majesty may have a few places left in the Tower of London for recalcitrant foreigners who persist in showing lack of proper respect for her Regno.

What madness is there abroad that has compelled John Wells, President of the Esperanto Association of Britain and President of the Akademio, to change his entry in the Teach Yourself Esperanto Dictionary (on continuous sale from 1969 until recently) from Regno to Reĝlando in his new dictionary published by Mondial?

Outside the territory of certain well established country names (eg Finnlando, Nederlando), names with lando are often used to mock or introduce an element of fantasy.

If I want to be disparaging to the countries of the European Monetary Union then I will refer to them as 'Eŭrolando'.

If I wish to sneer at the Esperantists, I may speak of the inhabitants of 'Esperanto-lando'

In a Fe-rakonto I will refer to 'Karotlando' for the country dominated by a certain root vegetable.

Please take note denizens of the 'Prezidentlando NordAmerika'.