I think it’s: Yo y Pablo somos … Y todos nosotros somos…
You may be right; I find some of the more idiomatic uses of ser and estar highly confusing. (To say nothing of the theological implications of Soy vivo, but Estoy muerto. ;))
That would be: the United Mexican States. See also the Constitucion Politica de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos.
Yeah, native speakers of English get to arrogate to ourselves collectively what English usage is. Native speakers of Spanish don’t.
It doesn’t matter a whit what it is in Spanish. And when you’re talking from Niles from Manchester, he’s also going to assume that someone who refers to himself as an “American” is from the United States, and not from Mexico or Peru.
What Hipolito from Madrid assumes when someone is speaking to him in Spanish is different from what he assumes when someone is speaking to him in English.
As English speakers, yes we do. And the most common meaning of “American” in English (at least in reference to people), whether in the US, UK, or Australia, is a citizen or resident of the United States of America.
That’s incorrect; as far as Niles is concerned, since he speaks English, “American” generally means a citizen of the US. And since Hipolito speaks Spanish, he doesn’t get a vote on English usage.
Except that a Spanish speaker would almost never refer to Pablo as a norteamericano; that term is almost universally reserved for use for estadounidenses.
In my own personal experience, Latin Americans only bring up this issue in order to needle the gringos. They aren’t actually interested in referring to themselves as americanos, or in being precise about language, since they commonly misuse norteamericano themselves to include Americans but exclude Canadians and Mexicans. It’s fine if they want to call Americans norteamericanos, or estadounidenses, or for that matter gringos in Spanish, but they don’t have any call to dispute the use of the word in English.
As I understand it, ser is an essential copula, and estar is an existential qualifier. I am (ser) American. But I am (estar) in America. At any rate, it was more the conjugation that I was thinking about.
The translation “United States of Mexico” might not be common, but it is certainly in use. This is one cite of many found on Google.
Even the US government agrees that it can be translated that way:
As for my major point, others have made it much better than I can. The word ‘America’ in the English language has only one meaning, and it does not include Canada or Tierra del Fuego.
Anglo geograhers consider North America and South America to be seperate continents. From Mexico south, they are considered one continent, América.
It’s also worth noting that “American” is used to refer to people from the “United States of America”, primarily because the name of the country is “America”. “United States of” is simply modifying that name. It wouldn’t make any sense to refer to ourselves as Unitedians, or Statesians, just like the People’s Republic of China yields Chinese, not Republicans.
Cite please? Wikipedia disagrees
Actually, my multiply-ichtious fellow Doper, when it comes to tectonic plates, we in the Carib islands to the southeast of Cuba do sit on our very own plate (and will North and South America please stop shoving? 
).
But yes, by virtually every definition except the cultural-linguistic one, Mexico is part of the North American continent. When I was in Grade School I recall a description that the “corners” of North America were the Bering Strait, Greenland, and the isthmus of Tehuantepec (the “narrow” point of Mexico). Didn’t know how they figured that even then, but heck, it was what you were supposed to answer in the test…
I suppose in any English language source you will find them to be 2 seperate continents. That is why my posts reads “anglo geographers”. But there are other people in the world other than English speakers and sometimes they hold a different perspective on things.
Do you know what the five rings on the Olypmic flag represent?
OTOH, these geographers will say that North and South America are just one continent, yet Eurasia is two.
“In classical antiquity 3 continents were established [as known]: Europe. Africa, and Asia. With the discovery of America and the first voyage around the world, and as a consequence geographical knowledge of them, it was necessary to add two more continents, America, which was discovered by Columbus, and Oceania, the continent of the ocean . . .These are the 5 classical continents, that are always named since they are all inhabited.”
Note that Oceania, rather than Australia, is regarded as a continent as well, yet Europe and Asia are divided. What is a “geographical continent” is a matter of definition.
I must disagree. What about “Columbus discovered America”?
There’s unambiguously ambiguity there.
Ho Ho Ho! Merry isthmus!!
… er, I’ll shut up now.
But here Wikipedia agrees to disagree!
The Merriam-Webster says you’re wrong, and I’ll take their word over yours. That may be its most used meaning, but it does have more than one meaning.
TIC
Didn’t NAFTA make Mexico a part of North America?
No. Mexico already was a part of North America, hence the name of the agreement,