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.
The normal interpretation of the English words juxtaposed in that context yields a particular meaning.
and
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
I’m not the one who doesn’t understand the term “irregular.” Of course, this is just another repeated attempt at “distraction.”
“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.
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. :D)
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.
