For more answers check out this previous thread:Why the ‘i’ in Canadian?
You might ask a Texian. 
I thought that was a Texican. You might also ask a Haligonian, a Glaswegian or a Liverpudlian.
Short answer from matt_mcl: “Go use SAMPA - ASCII representation of phonetic characters.” http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=119908
I might if those countries were named Germana, Franca, Japana, Scotlanda, and Swedena. These things definitely do follow patterns (though understandably less so in very old countries). Can you provide another example of a country that ends in “-a” and adds an “i” to the word for its nationality?
Seattleite (pronounced like “satellite”) and it’s not that wet here, thankyewverymuch.
[sub]For example, it’s not raining right this second. Earlier yes, later almost certainly, but not right now.[/sub]
Nope, Texian.
When I recently relocated to Baltimore I was asked by a NJ friend if I was now a Baltimoron.
Most of the British names mentioned by quicken78 are derived from latin naming protocols.
For example, Cambridge = Cantabrigia in latin, and an inhabitant of Cambridge is thus called a ‘cantabrigian’.
The same is true in Oxford (= Oxonia, hence ‘Oxonian’)
Because these naming models are well established (alumni from Cambridge University are called ‘old cantabrigians’, degrees from Oxford are written “MA (hons.) Oxon.”) they are applied to other cities in the UK, even those in which there is no established latin name. It’s kinda shoehorning things to fit an established model, even if there is no strict reason why it should be the case.
Mancunia is the latin (or at least, made-up latin) for Manchester, but although we keep the anglo-saxon name for the noun, the adjective follows the latin model because that’s wot is establised. Possibly the same happened with Canada: the cod-latin would ‘Canadia’, hence Canadians, but the noun remains in its original state.
Not sure why the latin convention has persisted:
-
maybe because it’s established, and (particularly from the point of view of the British) if pointless tradition is not respected then life ceases to hold any meaning.
-
It sounds nice (the eupony point made already). “Canadians” trips of the tongue nicely.
NB. Franconia and Germania have both existed as terms for parts of europe in the past, and their inhabitants were referred to as ‘Franconians’ (not sure about 'Germanians, though).
– Quirm
ps. This is all speculation for the most part. I have no specific cites to back me up, but it perhaps suggests some further lines of investigation.
Also, for Rickjay and Chula:
Scotland = Scotia in latin (cf. Nova Scotia = New Scotland; and Nova Scotians).
Sweden = Scandiavia in latin (orig. from O.N. Skaney “south end of Sweden”). Hence Scandiavians to refer to Swedes (and the others, but originally the Swedes).
I think people from Paris should be called Parisites.
Not true, I’m afraid. The Scandinavian peninsula takes it name from the mountain ridge separating Sweden and Norway, called Skanderna in Swedish.
Fair enough. I got my info here:
http://www.geocities.com/etymonline/s2etym.htm
Either way, my point is still that Scandinavia is the latin form of Skanderna (or a variant thereof), which then provides the adjective ‘scandinavian’.
Wouldn’t a Texican be someone from Texaco? 
Of course, it was the reference to the province of Skåne that I objected too. BTW, IIRC the name Skanderna itself is derived from Skade, a goddess in Norse Mythology.
Just for the record, a Germanian was an inhabitant of Germania Superior or Germania Inferior, the two provinces of the Roman Empire strung along the Rhine that were all that the Empire conquered of what is today Germany (along with part of the Netherlands).
Seattle-ite?
And then there are the people who try to make persons from Iowa be Iowegians because people from Norway are Norwegians.
Sheesh…
The people of Spain are Spanials. Like in Cocker Spanials. But some people call them spanners or even spankers.
But does euphony derive inherently or because we are used to saying Canadian and American?
I would wager that if we grew up saying Canadan, we’d think it sounds pleny euphonic.
Sua