Lemme ask you a question: was the poet Homer a European? He did not call the place he lived “Europe.”
Is it reasonable to refer to Lucy, the early human, as an early African?
There’s a type of bird called the American swallow-tailed kite. I’m pretty sure these birds don’t call the place they live America. Is the name therefore a misnomer?
As noted many times before, the United States of America ( which is the full and official name of the country ) is the only country in the Americas to use America in its title. Consequently the use of “American” to refer to its citizens is both logical and justified. Now if the Federal Republic of Central America/United States of Central America ( 1823-1840 ) was still in existence, this might be confusing. Since it is not, it isn’t.
You just sounded very antsy. If you weren’t, sorry. 
I don’t know. I just ventured an opinion and got jumped on.
I’m quite prepared to accept that other people have other opinions to which they are entitled and have as much validity as mine.
OTOH, a couple of people here seem to want to prove that my opinion is actually wrong.
This is why I thought seemed to be a little worked up. That’s not the same thing at all as it’s just a linguistic evolution. People referred to people who were so angry that acted as if they were mad - mad with anger. It wasn’t a case of someone sitting down and making a conscious decision to use an existing word to mean something completely different.
Just because you believe there isn’t any does not make that true for everyone under all circumstances. And, yes, it does seem to me to be slightly stupid to choose a term that already meant something quite different.
Evidently it doesn’t to you but then not everyone is the same. 
Was it a joke?
You were trying to make an analogy between two uses of a word in a context where there is no conceivable possibility of confusion and one where it’s very easy to demonstrate possible confusion.
It was a poor analogy because ‘beef’, although meaning two different things can almost certainly be understood from context whereas ‘native American’ can easily be used in a situation where the context would allow either interpretation.
To put it another way, if you didn’t know the slang meaning of ‘beef’ it would be obvious that you didn’t understand what was being said and you would need to look something up. OTOH, if you didn’t know the more recent meaning of ‘native American’ you would quite naturally apply the classic meaning - the one that fits the pattern of 'native <anything else> with no way of knowing you had misinterpreted what was being said.
That is certainly a logical argument, unless you want to employ the reasoning being used in this thread to claim that the term “Native American” is confusing. People from Asia are Asians and people from Europe are Europeans. And if we want to refer to people from either Europe or Asia, we would use the term Eurasian.
And people from N. America are N. Americans and people from S. America are S. Americans, but if we want to refer to people from either N. or S. America… uh, oh! Confusion city! (which is not actually a city, dang that English language.)
To be fair, an opinion is something like, “It’s dumb to call first-nations folks ‘Native Americans’ and not to use the term for anyone else.” Well, sure, that’s your opinion, and I guess it’s neither wrong nor right.
But when you start offering reasons for those opinions, those reasons may be sensible or they may be ridiculous. And people are free to call you on it if you post ridiculous reasons to support your opinions.
That’s only because I included additional context with the statement. And this is what you’ve been doing with your examples. You give an example of a short sentence with purposely ambiguous context (“Dave is a native American”) and then compare it to a long sentence (such as my beef sentence) which does contain additional context. The two examples are not equivalent as written. But I can craft any number of scenarios with ambiguous context which won’t give a clear indication of what the word “beef” means:
“Joe, I heard you had a problem with your order. Where’s the beef?” I might be talking about a problem, but it’s not clear from this series of statements. I might actually be talking about an order of beef.
I presume you meant: “And people are free to call you on it if they believe the reasons you give to support your opinions are ridiculous”.
In which case I’d have to agree.
However, what isn’t clear is how the view that someone making a deliberate choice to use a phrase that already has a clear meaning to mean something quite different even when used in the same context and, further, to make the meaning different to any other meaning using the same construct, can be considered ‘ridiculous’.
They may not agree - that’s their prerogative - but it seems a perfectly sensible view.
Oh, I missed this:
Unless there was some spontaneous mutual agreement between a large group of people to use the word “mad” both ways, somebody had to be the first person to do it. In other words, someone had to “make it up.” And to me, this sounds like some kind of just-so story, so unless you have an OED cite or something, I’m not prepared to take your version of how “mad” evolved linguistically at face value.
Your in-laws play football in Washington DC? Can you get me tickets? 
Native Americans are also native Americans, so it is being redundent, too.
In your example, what is the need for the distinction between emigrant and native? If Ian is naturalized, then both of them are Americans. If Ian is not a ciziten the Ian is <nationality> and Dave is American. Why would you overcomplicate what you are saying to add confusion?
Well, obviously it was ‘purposely ambiguous’. I was trying to demonstrate how the phrase could be ambiguous. It would have been pointless to write a piece that was not ambiguous. :rolleyes:
Nope, that’s not the same thing because there is already an underlying context. They are clearly discussing an order that either is or isn’t about cow meat (and whether it is or isn’t is known to both parties). Only a cretin would use the term ‘where’s the beef’ to mean complaint in a context where the location of some cow meat was uncertain. Even then you’ve changed the wording from the somewhat more common “what’s the beef” just to force the ambiguity.
OTOH, it’s actually quite likely that someone - particularly someone for whom English was not their first language - would read: “x was a native American” and naturally assume it followed the pattern of “x was a native <anything else>”.
Your prerogative, of course.
People using ‘mad’ as a short form of ‘so angry he acted as if mad’ seems a very sensible and logical explanation for the genesis of the usage.
Using Occam’s razor it seems the most likely.
Unless you can come up with some more credible alternative?
I dislike this because it’s so faux respectful, and possibly not true. They weren’t really particularly connected in any meaningful way, so given a choice I wouldn’t call them anything as an arbitrary group. They definitely weren’t nations and they might not have been first.
Thus, I prefer the nom de guerre Amerindians if I must use something. Tacking the “-indians” on may not make that much sense, but it’s not like the people who first called them that had ever met actual the other kind.
LOL - what a perfect example of how the term can become mired in ambiguity.
That’s irrelevant. It would depend on the rest of the conversation. Had it had something to do with the cultural environment that the people he had met were brought up in, quite a lot. Whatever, the point is that because of the ambiguity information that was intended to be passed may have been misinterpreted.
Not quite sure what you’re trying to say here.
One person is trying to convey some meaning to another. Because the term ‘native American’ has two meanings, both of which make perfect sense in exactly the same context, the recipient can misinterpret the intended meaning if he is not aware that said term has the alternative meaning.
Didn’t everybody already acknowledge it can be ambiguous? Given the way people speak, it’s not likely to be ambiguous.
Hard to say.
Given the length of the exchange that came about because I made the observation that deliberately adopting a phrase that can be ambiguous is not the brightest way to behave it seems that some people, at least, are not happy to accept that possible ambiguity.
Well, that’s one take.
You’re projecting. What people are saying, I think, is that the ambiguity is almost always resolved by context. I have never encountered a situation where I was not sure if a speaker meant “native American” or “Native American” (and when they are written down the capitalization is another clue). You managed to make up an example where it deliberately wasn’t completely clear, but that doesn’t match most people’s experience. You could do the same with a lot of other idiomatic phrases. And while it’s euphemistic, Native American is definitely more accurate than Indian, which in that case is based on a huge geographical error.
[QUOTE=qpw3141;12789486
OTOH, it’s actually quite likely that someone - particularly someone for whom English was not their first language - would read: “x was a native American” and naturally assume it followed the pattern of “x was a native <anything else>”.[/QUOTE]
Except that Native American, meaning indigenous occupant of North America at the time of European settlement, is a descriptive noun referring to a cultural grouping that should always be capitalized. Like European, Mongolian, or New Yorker.
It should also be noted however, that purely as a matter of culture and usage, the United States of America is not said to have a native population, other than the displaced Native Americans. Thus the term “native American” in common usage, has overtones many perceive as racist/anti-immigration and it is a usage to be avoided. The much more common and traditional term “natural born citizen” is preferred, if distinguishing a born citizen from a naturalized citizen is relevant and necessary.
So, since you are avoiding controversial usages, and always capitalizing correctly, (right?) no confusion normally occurs.
[Abe Simpson mode]I first recall hearing the term Native American on an episode of the TV show Alice in which Larry Hovis corrects someone who says “Indian.” At the time it offended me a bit, because I thought it implied that the rest of us who have lived our entire lives here aren’t native Americans. I had no problem with saying native American peoples or native American culture, but applying it to individuals of a particular ancestry seemed to exclude the majority of native Americans.
But you know what? I’ve realized in the past 20-odd years it doesn’t hurt me a bit. Most people who meet me assume I was born in this country, and if someone happens to think I’m from Canada, it’s no skin off my nose anyway.
Now, what if someone who looks Asian or Hispanic or speaks with an accent but was born in the United States wants to distinguish himself from immigrants? He can always say he is a native-born American. Yes, it’s an extra syllable, but it doesn’t seem like an undue hardship.
Finally, the term Native American seems to be one I only hear on TV or radio anyway. In conversation, I think people are much more likely to say Indian or, when more clarity is needed, American Indian. (I’m fairly certain I’ve never heard “Amerind” or “Amerindian” spoken aloud, although I’ve seen them in print.)
Someone can be a “natural born citizen” without ever having been to this country, which is why I suggested “native-born” for someone who was actually born within its borders.
qpw, all languages are rife with ambiguities. This is how language works. Examine your last response to me: grammatically it doesn’t even make any sense, given that it appears to be missing a predicate to a nested dependent clause. But again, how language works is that I’m able to figure out your meaning without difficulty.
You’re complaining about a central feature of language. What’s interesting is the particular example that you’re harping about.
If the phrase “Native American” virtually never causes confusion, and if it pulls in the connotations the speaker wishes to pull in (pointing out that the referent comes from a culture that’s been here many centuries longer than the cultures of more recent immigrants), then it’s a successful usage. The fact that you can’t come up with any real-life examples where the term causes confusion, needing to create hypotheticals, is telling.
And in your example, the speaker should have rephrased his information: “I was in the US last month. I had dinner with a Ian and Dave to discuss the merger. Ian emigrated there five years ago. Dave was born there”. It has the advantage of fewer syllables, parallel construction, and no ambiguity.
How do you ‘pose’ it, do you put a little dress on it? Sheesh:
assume a posture as for artistic purposes; “We don’t know the woman who posed for Leonardo so often” [syn: model, sit, posture]
Or maybe this:
Pretend to be someone you are not; sometimes with fraudulent intentions;