Who are Native Americans?

[BrightNShiny]

Oh, and yes, I do realize that I incorrectly used the word "you're" in my previous posts. I missed the edit window.

[qpw3141]

Originally Posted by BrightNShiny

Well, if you're going to continue to fling insults (which indicates that you can't back up your argument) then I'd say the stupid person is the one who can't comprehend a word with a clear definition, such as Native American.

Firstly, there is no insult in the piece you quoted.

Secondly, 'Native American' is not a word, it is a phrase and it has two meanings. One is clear by using the normal rules of English semantics on the constituent words. The other requires that you are aware of the irregular meaning when you use 'American' rather than any other nationality.

Yes, when you give your arbitrary ambiguous examples, they're peachy. When anybody else gives an ambiguous example, there's some mysterious logic in your head that makes them cretins.

Except that isn't what I said. You are again conflating 'only a cretin would do <x>' with 'you are a cretin'. The two are in no way equivalent.

Oh, please, there's nothing respectful about what you're doing here. You're throwing a tantrum because nobody wants to play along with your pedantic word games.

I'm far from throwing a tantrum. I just have an opinion to which I'm perfectly entitled. I fully accept that others have a different opinion. You are the one who is working herself up into a furore because you disagree with my opinion. I'm merely defending the logic upon which my opinion is based.

I've gotten plenty of traction here. You're the one who's not coming off well in this thread. You're flailing around makes it clear you have no argument.

So, you are claiming that other people agree that 'it would be stupid if A did B' is the same as saying 'you're stupid'? I think you may be misunderstanding what others have been saying.

Ah, yes. Even more insults. The fact that you have to resort to insults (even though you initial threw a tantrum over the tone of other people's posts) just shows that you have no argument.

Where was the insult? All I'm saying is that I don't think two phrases are equivalent and you are somehow getting that that is an insult.

This makes no sense. Language is inherently about what "everyone does." If you can't grasp that basic concept, then you have no business trying to lecture people about language.

You seem to be suffering very severe confusion here. Yes, language comes about because 'everyone' tends to understand the same thing from the same collection and ordering of words. That is in no way the same thing as saying because the language contains ambiguities it's intelligent to deliberately introduce even more.

So, you're not planning to back up your attempted factual statements? You know, there's a whole group of people who study language as their career. You could check them to see if what you're saying is true. But instead, you've just decided to pretend that what you think is reality. Have fun, but I doubt many people are going to take your viewpoint, since you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

There is no reason to 'check with people who do something as a career' when simple logic will suffice. Do you go and check with a mathematician every time you want to know what 2+2 equals? Do you consult a dietitian before every meal?

That's why we have these things called dictionaries. To make people aware of potentially irregular or idiomatic usages (although the term "Native American" is neither idiomatic or irregular). But apparently, you've never heard of a dictionary. So, you think you're limited understanding of the English language applies to everyone.

ROFLMAO.

How can you say that "Native American" is not irregular when it means something quite different to "native <anything else>"?

And, please explain why anyone who had never heard of the expression "Native American" (as meaning something different to "Native <anything else>" would know that they need to look in a dictionary to find that they may need to treat the phrase differently.

Originally Posted by BrightNShiny

Or, to sum up, you're entire argument is: I'm going to make up stuff and people who don't agree with me are stupid cretins. Big deal. It's not a persuasive argument, but have fun trying to convince yourself that it is.

That is a complete misrepresentation of any argument I've made.

Originally I simply said that I didn't think deliberately choosing a nomenclature that already meant something quite different was the brightest of things to do. I still don't but it isn't a particularly big deal.

The only reason that it might look like a big deal is that you've been banging away criticising any arguments I make (with such gems as stating that an example I made up to demonstrate possible ambiguity is deliberately ambiguous, or conflating "it would be stupid to do X" with "you are stupid"). Thus I feel a natural desire to defend the arguments I've made even though the underlying proposition is not of any great importance.

[BrightNShiny]

More tantrums and more making stuff up. I'm done here. Have fun pretending that you have a point.

[qpw3141]

Originally Posted by BrightNShiny

More tantrums and more making stuff up. I'm done here. Have fun pretending that you have a point.

B&S, there is no evidence of anything even remotely approaching a tantrum in my post above.

All I have done is to calmly highlight the errors in your assertions and reasoning.

I notice that you are very loath to actually argue points, instead preferring to assert that things are insults or 'made up' without ever addressing the underlying arguments. Either that or you argue by diktat - for example, stating that "Native American" is not an irregular construction without ever explaining how that can possibly be the case when it means something different to "Native <anything else>".

Again, this is not a particularly big deal - it has only been made to appear that way by your continued insistence that my opinion has absolutely no validity and only yours can be considered 'correct'.

On the other hand, I'm perfectly prepared to accept that my opinion is not the only one that exists and may well be a minority one. I merely defend the logic upon which that opinion is based.

Have a good day.

[BrightNShiny]

Please. You haven't actually responded to any of the arguments presented to you in this thread. All you've done is hand-wave the arguments away. You've also hypocritically applied one standard to yourself (you're ambiguous constructions are great) while trying to apply another standard to others (others ambiguous constructions are used by cretins). You've also made up stuff, and when you're called on it, you claim you're using "logic." Logic doesn't consist of making stuff up. If you want to claim an etymology for a word, then provide proof. There's no reason to take you seriously at all. And now, I've got work to do, so I'm really done. This is a pointless argument with someone who thinks that just because something exists in his head, it must be true.

[qpw3141]

Originally Posted by BrightNShiny

... I'm done here. ...

OK.

But:

Originally Posted by BrightNShiny

Please. You haven't actually responded to any of the arguments presented to you in this thread. All you've done is hand-wave the arguments away. You've also hypocritically applied one standard to yourself (you're ambiguous constructions are great) while trying to apply another standard to others (others ambiguous constructions are used by cretins). You've also made up stuff, and when you're called on it, you claim you're using "logic." Logic doesn't consist of making stuff up. If you want to claim an etymology for a word, then provide proof. There's no reason to take you seriously at all. And now, I've got work to do, so I'm really done. This is a pointless argument with someone who thinks that just because something exists in his head, it must be true.

I would have to say that the above looks somewhat like an unfocused rant to me.

To try and calm things down a little, I'd like to ask you to justify three things that you have come up with. If you would like to do the same I would be happy to oblige.

1) Why do you think it is valid to complain that someone has used a 'purposely ambiguous context' when they are attempting to demonstrate possible ambiguity.

2) Why do you conflate saying 'only a cretin would do <x>' with calling someone a cretin when no evidence of anyone doing that thing has been presented or even suggested?

3) How can you claim that "Native American" is not irregular when it means something different, mutatis mutandis, to "Native <anything else>"?

Try and answer those questions calmly and accurately without resorting to vague accusations about insults and making things up and I will do the same for any questions you might care to pose.

[tomndebb]

TWEEET!

The next post that continues the bickering over who should be able to say what or whether or not another poster is "worked up" will receive a Warning for hijacking the thread.

Address the specific issue of the OP, or take it to the BBQ Pit.

[ /Moderating ]

[Anne Neville]

Originally Posted by qpw3141

Ah, the 'everyone else does it so it's OK to do it', argument. Not one that goes down well with everybody.

It may not be a good argument in other contexts, but it is how language works. If enough people use a word to mean something, it does mean that. It doesn't matter if that meaning is illogical.

[tim-n-va]

I have the solution. We'll call them donarbea for "descendents of north american residents before europeans arrived".

[Anne Neville]

Originally Posted by tim-n-va

I have the solution. We'll call them donarbea for "descendents of north american residents before europeans arrived".

Good luck with that. Ask the Academie Francaise just how successful a campaign to change language usage can be. They've been trying, without too much success, to get rid of English loan-words in French.

[qpw3141]

Originally Posted by Anne Neville

It may not be a good argument in other contexts, but it is how language works. If enough people use a word to mean something, it does mean that. It doesn't matter if that meaning is illogical.

That was not the point I was making. It is well known that there is much about language that is ambiguous - even very formal language. In most cases the ambiguity come about through gradual evolution.

What I was suggesting is that just because there are aspects of language that have evolved to be ambiguous does not mean that actually consciously choosing a name to mean something when it already has a natural meaning that is quite different in very similar contexts is a very clever thing to do.

Before whoever it was came up with the term 'Native Americans' to mean what it, to many, now means, it already meant something that was a superset of the new meaning.

It would be rather as if an aircraft manufacturer produced a new range of wide bodied jet aircraft using a new alloy that caused them all to glow brilliant white and decided to identify the range by the name 'light aircraft'. Not clever because 'light aircraft' already has an established meaning at odds with the new range. On the other hand if that's the term the public evolved to identify them there's not much you can do about it.

[qpw3141]

Originally Posted by Anne Neville

Good luck with that. Ask the Academie Francaise just how successful a campaign to change language usage can be. They've been trying, without too much success, to get rid of English loan-words in French.

Which is odd when you consider how impoverished the English language would be if we were to remove all the words we originally 'borrowed' from the French.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Basically, the word used in English, (where the phrase occurs), to identify the two major land masses and related islands that are separated from Eurasia and Africa by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans is "America," (North and South).

That doesn't cover the native Hawaiins, also considered native Americans.

The people who lived here before the arrival of the English speaking settlers from Europe would be considered natives. Hence, the phrase "Native American" can be used to identify them in English.

This should be news for the French and the Spanish settlers here before Jamestown.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by The Flying Dutchman

That doesn't cover the native Hawaiins, also considered native Americans.

"Native American" is pretty much never used by Yanks to refer to aboriginal Hawaiians. They tend to be called Hawaiian or Polynesian. I would not claim that the term is never applied to them, but is so rare as to be insignificant. (The same thing tends to be true of the Eskimoes, although as mainlanders associated with neighboring non-Eskimo peoples, the term might occasionally show up there.)

Originally Posted by The Flying Dutchman

This should be news for the French and the Spanish settlers here before Jamestown.

A rather pointless nitpick, given that the Spaniards were driven from Florida and the French were vastly outnumbered by English in Detroit and Vincennes as soon as the English arrived. A tiny number of outliers does not change the general movement or the language. (And remember, "Native American" tends to be a U.S. term, so the people employing it are not really looking at Quebec or Mexico City when they use it.)

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by qpw3141

That was not the point I was making. It is well known that there is much about language that is ambiguous - even very formal language. In most cases the ambiguity come about through gradual evolution.

What I was suggesting is that just because there are aspects of language that have evolved to be ambiguous does not mean that actually consciously choosing a name to mean something when it already has a natural meaning that is quite different in very similar contexts is a very clever thing to do.

OK. You have made your point.

However:
Lots of terms--even those deliberately chosen--have flaws in their underlying logic;
"Native American" is not really a commonly used phrase, given that the peoples to whom it applies generally do not use it and the people who do use it tend to have no contact with the people to whom it refers;
To the extent that it is used, it immediately conveys its intended meaning in 99.99999% of those occasions, making objections to its "logic" rather pointless.

If you need to fight over a poorly chosen word, go pick a battle over the misuse of "shrapnel" for "shell fragment."

Now can we drop the hijack?

[Lemur866]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

The same thing tends to be true of the Eskimoes, although as mainlanders associated with neighboring non-Eskimo peoples, the term might occasionally show up there.

In Alaska, Eskimos are called Eskimos. But the more usual term is "native" or "Alaska native", which means Eskimo or Athabaskan or Indian or Aleut. Most white people just lump everyone into the "native" category unless there's a particular reason not to. And of course, "native" can be used with a certain tone of voice that turns it from a neutral descriptor into an ethnic slur, I'm sure everyone has heard "black" used the same way.

[qpw3141]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

OK. You have made your point.

Thanks. I know I have.

Lots of terms--even those deliberately chosen--have flaws in their underlying logic;
"Native American" is not really a commonly used phrase, given that the peoples to whom it applies generally do not use it and the people who do use it tend to have no contact with the people to whom it refers;
To the extent that it is used, it immediately conveys its intended meaning in 99.99999% of those occasions, making objections to its "logic" rather pointless.

If that is your opinion I completely respect your right to hold it.

If you need to fight over a poorly chosen word, go pick a battle over the misuse of "shrapnel" for "shell fragment."

I wasn't looking for a fight. I made a simple point (something you have conceded) which seemed to cause a great deal of angst and a lot of strawman counter arguments that I felt I ought to defend.

Now can we drop the hijack?

If you go back and look at how the 'hijack' started you'll see that it was a perfectly sensible and, more importantly, on topic, comment; that to determine who native Americans are you first have to decide which definition you are using.

Nothing more than that.

I had hoped I'd finished with this thread until you posted this. As far as I'm concerned it's now dropped. Let's hope no one decides to pick it up and start again.

[Hello Again]

Originally Posted by qpw3141

[If you go back and look at how the 'hijack' started you'll see that it was a perfectly sensible and, more importantly, on topic, comment; that to determine who native Americans are you first have to decide which definition you are using.

You have fully ignored my point though.

Even if the determination of what "native American" means is given to some degree of doubt, the determination of what "Native American" means, is not. The same distinction may be made, for instance, between south African, and South African.

[qpw3141]

Originally Posted by Hello Again

You have fully ignored my point though.

Even if the determination of what "native American" means is given to some degree of doubt, the determination of what "Native American" means, is not. The same distinction may be made, for instance, between south African, and South African.

We've been asked not to continue with this so called hi-jack.

Just to answer your points, though: Spoken communications and 'Native' at the beginning of a sentence. And compass points should always be capitalised so you should never see 'south African'.

[smiling bandit]

Originally Posted by spark240

They were nations.

Errr... not so much, no. We're not entirely clear just how closely connected even nominally-similar tribes were ethnically. Lingually, some seem to have been divided. Culture was usually shared significantly with a tribe, but the tribes were also spread out and intermixed, and rarely had a significant government over them as a tribe.

I will grant that evidence is sparse and incomplete now, because many languages have vanished, records never created or gone, and peoples assimiilated. But there's evidence of two or three migrations now, not just one. Languages seem to have been substantially divergent over area, with little commercial contact between people of the same tribe, let alone neighboring ones.

[Lemur866]

Our notions of the systems of government in North America are skewed, because aside from early Spanish contact, European contact happened after the continent-wide pandemics. The Mississippi valley is full of earthworks from the Mound Builders, but by the time European settlers arrived the Mound Builder civilization was gone. These earthworks weren't constructed by a few scattered bands of hunter-gatherers. The Spanish famously encountered many state level civilizations during their conquests. The Pilgrims famously were taught how to farm by the Indians.

The vast majority of Indians in 1491 were farmers, not nomadic hunter-gatherers. State level social organization was common. Continent-wide trade networks existed, although we see interesting things, like tobacco paraphernalia showing up in Alaska in the 1600s--apparently tobacco was introduced from the Americas to Europe, and across Eurasia to Siberia, and showed up in Alaska the long way round.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

A rather pointless nitpick, given that the Spaniards were driven from Florida and the French were vastly outnumbered by English in Detroit and Vincennes as soon as the English arrived. A tiny number of outliers does not change the general movement or the language. (And remember, "Native American" tends to be a U.S. term, so the people employing it are not really looking at Quebec or Mexico City when they use it.)

This is pure bullshit. We simply do not define "native americans " any where in the New World continents or in the United States of America or anywhere else on the globe based on who lived where before English speakers arrived anywhere. It was a completely stupid statement on your part and frankly, I know that you know that as well.

"Native americans" is a term commonly used in Canada as well when we refer to your aboriginals or first nations. You Americans don't own the English language.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by The Flying Dutchman

This is pure bullshit. We simply do not define "native americans " any where in the New World continents or in the United States of America or anywhere else on the globe based on who lived where before English speakers arrived anywhere. It was a completely stupid statement on your part and frankly, I know that you know that as well.

I know that you are getting awfully testy over a rather minor nitpick.
Whatever settlers arrived from Europe before the British involved fewer than a couple thousand people (in a land populated by many millions) and began fewer than 110 years prior to the arrival of the British, (as opposed to the several thousand years that people migrating from Asia had been here).

Originally Posted by The Flying Dutchman

"Native americans" is a term commonly used in Canada as well when we refer to your aboriginals or first nations. You Americans don't own the English language.

I never claimed that the U.S. owned the language. I am sorry to hear that some of your co-nationalists have picked up some of the bad habits of their Southern neighbors, given that the people identified as "Native Americans" generally eschew that phrase, themselves.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

The next post that continues the bickering over . . . whether or not another poster is "worked up" will receive a Warning for hijacking the thread.

Originally Posted by tomndebb

I know that you are getting awfully testy over a rather minor nitpick.

Oooh, I'm telling....

That said, qpw, one of the areas of language least amenable to logic is idioms. It's never helpful to pick nits over idioms.

Here's the best history of the term that I can find--Wikipedia, of course.

In The Peyote Cult, (Yale University Press, 1938, 5th ed. 1989), Weston La Barre traces the meaning of "Native American" as "American Indian" to the year 1918, when leaders of the Peyote Religion in Oklahoma incorporated as the Native American Church (of Oklahoma). In 1950 they incorporated as the Native American Church of North America.

In 1918, the State of Oklahoma repealed its earlier ban against the sacramental use of psychotropic peyote. But the same year, the national Bureau of Indian Affairs sought to impose a federal ban. In response, a group of Oto, Kiowa, and Arapaho met at Cheyenne, Oklahoma to "decide upon measures of defense for peyotism." The group considered but rejected a proposed name of "First-born Church of Christ". "The title ultimately chosen was the 'Native American Church', which emphasized the intertribal solidarity of the cult, as well as its aboriginality." (Quoted material is from La Barre, page 169.)

Among the earliest titles (in the OCLC database) in which "Native American" means "American Indian" are these:

Peyote Songs: Music of the Native American Church of North America (Indian) (sound recording, 1967)
Native American Arts (Indian Arts and Crafts Board, Washington, D.C., 1968)
Buffalo Hearts, A Native American's View of Indian Culture, Religion and History (Sun Bear, 1970)
Indian Voices: the Native American Today (Convocation of American Indian Scholars, 1971)
Native American tribalism; Indian Survivals and Renewals (D'Arcy McNicle, 1973)

The Oxford English Dictionary (article on "Native", note 15) offers the year 1956 as the earliest usage of "Native American" meaning "North American Indian", the example being a letter in which Aldous Huxley mentioned the "Native American churchmen." The only other early-usage examples are dated 1973–1974 and are from the Black Panther and New Society magazines. One of the articles refers to the Native American Church and the other two do not.

To summarize: "Native American" originally meant "originating in America" (specifically the United States), without reference to American Indians. In 1918, the "Native American Church" was incorporated. Beginning in the 1960s, the term "Native American", sometimes pertaining to the Church and sometimes not, began to appear more widely in titles of books, magazine articles, and musical recordings.

Note that the term started off in the 19th century being non-idiomatic, that is, literally meaning "born in America." By the mid-twentieth century, however, this usage had virtually disappeared, and the usage of "Belonging to a cultural group whose presence in North America predates European presence" prevailed.

The phrase should now be understood as an idiom, along with such phrases as, "You're welcome," "what's up," "keep your eye on the ball," and, "when come back, bring pie." Insisting on understanding it as two separate words will only lead to confusion.

And yes, someone learning our language needs to learn the more common idioms. Learning only the grammar and the vocabulary will lead to an impoverished linguistic experience.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Oooh, I'm telling....

Hey, we are all human.

[G-SE]

Originally Posted by Anne Neville

Good luck with that. Ask the Academie Francaise just how successful a campaign to change language usage can be. They've been trying, without too much success, to get rid of English loan-words in French.

But African Americans (negros, colored people, people of color, blacks, American Negroes, Black-Americans, Afro-Americans) successfully change what they'd like to be called about every 10 years, and everyone goes along with it.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by G-SE

But African Americans (negros, colored people, people of color, blacks, American Negroes, Black-Americans, Afro-Americans) successfully change what they'd like to be called about every 10 years, and everyone goes along with it.

Two changes in 43 years, one of them not all that successful, after a couple of hundred years with no real change, does not quite qualify as "every ten years," and the distinction from "donarbea" is that they selected the change rather than having it imposed from outside. (In fact, one of the better arguments against "Native American" has nothing to do with the rather weak complaint against ambiguity and everything to do with it being imposed by people outside the group.)

Note that among your catalogue, "Negro" and "colored" were used equally by all of society for a very long time and "people of color" and "Afro-Americans" were suggestions that never made it out of a few rhetorical circles. I have never even seen a serious effort for "American Negroes" or "Black-Americans" and they certainly never made it into general use.

[tim-n-va]

Originally Posted by tim-n-va

I have the solution. We'll call them donarbea for "descendents of north american residents before europeans arrived".

Sorry. Thought the and were implied.

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by Bernieyeball

I always get grief when I pose this question but I think it is a reasonable inquiry.
I suspect the humans who inhabited this continent before the arrival of Europeans did not call it North America or America.
How can they be Native "Americans"?

Especially since they came across the Bering land bridge and migrated southwards.

OMFG!!!! They were illegal immigrants!!!!

[The Flying Dutchman]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

Especially since they came across the Bering land bridge and migrated southwards.

OMFG!!!! They were illegal immigrants!!!!

You think thats funny ? Let me tell you that the incursion of non aboriginals into the Americas hasn't exactly worked out for the aboriginals. Every immigrant (and I'm an immigrant) simply has a netgative impact on their quality of life that they would have had without us Europeans. Or Asians Or the Africans for that matter, who were willing enough to work as slaves for the whites and thereby justifierd their existence in the new world.

[BrightNShiny]

Since there's has been a "TWEET" in this thread, I feel I am limited in how I can respond. I will just say this:

There are multiple definitions for the term "native" and I see no reason to arbitrarily pick a preferred definition and claim it is the "regular" term. For example, you can use the term "native copper." Is that irregular? There's no fixed criteria for determining which definition of a word is regular or irregular. Some people are exposed to certain usages more often than others, but their own personal experience doesn't determine what constitutes "regular" usage of a word. At least not in English.

[qpw3141]

Originally Posted by BrightNShiny

There are multiple definitions for the term "native" and I see no reason to arbitrarily pick a preferred definition and claim it is the "regular" term. For example, you can use the term "native copper." Is that irregular? There's no fixed criteria for determining which definition of a word is regular or irregular. Some people are exposed to certain usages more often than others, but their own personal experience doesn't determine what constitutes "regular" usage of a word. At least not in English.

Well, if:

1) The normal interpretation of the English words juxtaposed in that context yields a particular meaning.

and

2) Every other construct of "Native <place>/ian/er" has the same meaning as the normal English interpretation of the two words.

Then it seems pretty safe to say the the construction or interpretation used in all cases bar one is the 'regular' and the one that, alone, means something different, is the irregular.

Is it not possible to accept that everyone agrees that the original objection is extremely minor without attempting to twist definitions of regular and irregular beyond their breaking point?

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by qpw3141

Well, if:

1) The normal interpretation of the English words juxtaposed in that context yields a particular meaning.

and

2) Every other construct of "Native <place>/ian/er" has the same meaning as the normal English interpretation of the two words.

Then it seems pretty safe to say the the construction or interpretation used in all cases bar one is the 'regular' and the one that, alone, means something different, is the irregular.

Is it not possible to accept that everyone agrees that the original objection is extremely minor without attempting to twist definitions of regular and irregular beyond their breaking point?

However, to even have this sidebar discussion, one must break down the phrase into constituent parts. This works from a strictly syntactical perspective, but it really does not work as a part of language. "Native American" is a phrase, in itself, regardless of its constituent parts. People who continue to use the phrase "steam shovel" pretty much never consider its constituent parts, even though they are probably using the phrase simply because their first experience with the phrase was in having Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel read to them as young children, despite the fact that the point of the book, when it was written 71 years ago, was that steam shovels were already obsolete. People in construction do not call the various excavating devices "steam shovels," but the phrase continues to be the word employed by a lot of people outside the construction industry.

"Regular" and "irregular" are meaningless in this context. Once a phrase becomes a commonly employed term, the individual words cease to have weight except as etymological pointers. "Fell swoop" remains in the language despite fewer than one person in a thousand understanding "fell" as "fierce" or "savage." We periodically have long (acrimonious) discussions about "white trash" for the same reasons.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

However, to even have this sidebar discussion, one must break down the phrase into constituent parts. This works from...

TWEET

What is the difference between a sidebar discussion and a serious hijack?

[BrightNShiny]

Again, I have no reason to pay attention to someone arbitrarily deciding, based on nothing more than his own personal preference, that one particular usage of a term out of several particular usages is the preferred or regular usage. Stating that the term "Native American" is the only time that the term native is used differently in English is patently false, as any perusal of a dictionary will show. The term "native" has several definitions, and no particular definition is the "correct" one or the "regular" one. Simply repeating one's own personal preference over and over again is not an argument, and there's no reason to give that any more weight than anyone else's preferred usages.

Also, because of the TWEET, I'm not going to directly tackle certain arguments, so there's no point in responding to me with the same nonsense over and over.

[qpw3141]

Originally Posted by BrightNShiny

Again, I have no reason to pay attention to someone arbitrarily deciding, based on nothing more than his own personal preference, that one particular usage of a term out of several particular usages is the preferred or regular usage. Stating that the term "Native American" is the only time that the term native is used differently in English is patently false, as any perusal of a dictionary will show. The term "native" has several definitions, and no particular definition is the "correct" one or the "regular" one. Simply repeating one's own personal preference over and over again is not an argument, and there's no reason to give that any more weight than anyone else's preferred usages.

Just stating that something is nonsense or false, over and over again doesn't make it so.

You need to provide an argument,

In the sense of language constructs being regular, if you can show that any significant majority behaves one way and a very small minority (in this case one) behaves another then it is perfectly reasonable to say that the majority case is 'regular' and the single exception is 'irregular'.

Introducing irrelevancies such as 'native oysters' or 'native copper' is just a distraction technique.

The construction under discussion is 'Native <place>/er/ian'.

[qpw3141]

Originally Posted by The Flying Dutchman

TWEET

What is the difference between a sidebar discussion and a serious hijack?

Who knows?

It's rather hard to see why, in a forum called 'Great Debates', a continuing debate should be considered a 'hijack'.

Are there a large group of people fuming because the thread has been taken somewhere they don't want to go?

I think not.

I've refrained from adding to the drifted subject (which I'm not even convinced is a hijack) but, obviously, I'm going to respond to weak or faulty logic attacking an argument that I believe is sound.

[BrightNShiny]

I have provided an argument. It just keeps being hand-waved away. It is a fact that the term "native" has multiple definitions. It is a fact that the term "America" applies not only to the country called the United States, but also to the continent which it rests on. Those are statement of facts. It is a fact that a proposed etymology has been made in this thread, but nobody has provided any evidence of the proposed etymology.

Simply repeating over and over that one's preferred usage is the majority usage is nothing more than a statement of belief. Calling something a "distraction" is not an argument, it is a statement of personal preference.

[qpw3141]

Originally Posted by BrightNShiny

I have provided an argument. It just keeps being hand-waved away. It is a fact that the term "native" has multiple definitions. It is a fact that the term "America" applies not only to the country called the United States, but also to the continent which it rests on. Those are statement of facts. It is a fact that a proposed etymology has been made in this thread, but nobody has provided any evidence of the proposed etymology.

Simply repeating over and over that one's preferred usage is the majority usage is nothing more than a statement of belief. Calling something a "distraction" is not an argument, it is a statement of personal preference.

It isn't 'hand waved' away.

It's just irrelevant.

Native may have more than one definition. That's not the point.

It's the construction: "Native <place>er/ian" that has one constructed meaning for every single value of <place> except America that leads to the assertion that 'Native American' is irregular.

Note, if this is what's worrying you, that 'irregular' in no way implies 'wrong'.

[BrightNShiny]

Originally Posted by qpw3141

It isn't 'hand waved' away.

It's just irrelevant.

This is the definition of hand-waving. If your only response to an argument is to declare it irrelevant, then it's clear that you have no counter-argument.

Native may have more than one definition. That's not the point.

It's the construction: "Native <place>er/ian" that has one constructed meaning for every single value of <place> except America that leads to the assertion that 'Native American' is irregular.

Again, this statement is false. It is not the only time that native is used in this sense. For example, the term "Native Australian" can be used as a synonym for Aborigine. See here and here. Of course, I can predict the response, which will be that since you personally don't use the term "Native Australian" that must mean that the term is irrelevant.

Note, if this is what's worrying you, that 'irregular' in no way implies 'wrong'.

I'm not the one who doesn't understand the term "irregular." Of course, this is just another repeated attempt at "distraction."

[BrightNShiny]

Other usages of the term "Native":

Native Fijian: Referring to the native (that is, Melanesian) population of Fiji (see here for examples usages).

Native Hawaiian: Referring to the native (that is, Polynesian) population of Hawaii (see here for example usages).

There is nothing irregular about this construction. It is commonly found in English.

[BrightNShiny]

Even more usages:

Native Peruvian: Referring to the indigenous people of Peru (that is, Incan, etc.). See here for example usage.

Native Siberian: Referring to the non-Eastern European population of Siberia. See here for example usage.

Native Samoan: Referring to the native (that is, Polynesian) population of Samoa. See here for example usage.

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by Death of Rats

Native Americans are also native Americans, so it is being redundent, too.

Wouldn't, say, an ethnic Mayan in Honduras or a Salish in Canada qualify as the former but not the latter?

[Polycarp]

"Native" in ethnological usage generally refers to the inhabitants present when their home region was "discovered" by Europeans, AFAIK regardless of whether they were in fact the first colonizers of the region or in fact replaced preceding peoples. American Indians are Native Americans in the same way as Malays are Native Indonesians, Khoikhoi Native South Africans, etc.

I might point out that, since no pre-Columbian language evolved a term that distinguishes the speakers of that language and their neighbors throughout the Americas from (to them hypothetical) other human beings, we are stuck with two English phrases, American (or Red) Indians (the alternative a Britticism) and Native Americans, or the neologism portmanteaued from the first, Amerind(s). Though an obvious coinage from American Indian, it does have the virtue of being non-ambiguous and non-pejorative.

[BrightNShiny]

Native Andamanese: Referring to the aboriginal inhabitants of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. See here and here for example usage.

[BrightNShiny]

Native Oaxacan: Ok, I just like saying Oaxaca. But see here for example usage.

[42fish]

Originally Posted by qpw3141

Which of the following means something completely different to all the others.

Native Londoner
Native New Yorker
Native Californian
Native Italian
Native American
Native Texan
Native Mexican

"Native New Yorker"--it's the only one that's a disco hit.


(PS: If I call Bob a "native New Yorker," is he a native of the state or the city?)

[qpw3141]

Originally Posted by 42fish

"Native New Yorker"--it's the only one that's a disco hit.


(PS: If I call Bob a "native New Yorker," is he a native of the state or the city?)

LOL.

Yes, and anyway it seems I was 100% wrong on this.

What's weird is that it took five days before anyone actually got around to checking and pointed out that primary error that completely invalidated my objection. (And then couldn't seem to stop. )

[BrightNShiny]

Dictionary: A book where you can look up the meaning of words. See here for definitions.

[qpw3141]

Originally Posted by BrightNShiny

Dictionary: A book where you can look up the meaning of words. See here for definitions.

Good to know you now realise not only that they are available but how to use one to actually prove your point.

As I said, I was wrong about this but, had I been on the other side of the argument, the very first thing I would have done was to check the dictionary and quote the definition that indicated the mistake.

Just imagine all the time that would have been saved all round if only someone had taken that obvious course.

Still, you got there in the end. Well done.