Language desk
< March 24	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 25

Demonyms ending with -er

wikt:-er says for "Etymology 2" that adding -er to a proper noun gives a meaning of "resident or inhabitant of", with examples including New Yorker and Londoner. The particular case I'm interested in is "New Zealander", but I believe these all behave similarly. It is correct to say "Jane is a New Zealander", but it is incorrect to say "Jane is a New Zealander actress". In the latter case, I would say "Jane is a New Zealand actress", and this is based mostly on my lifetime of speaking English, which mostly gives me an instinct for correct usage. Trying to apply the rules of grammar, I would say that "New Zealander" is a noun because all usages of -er result in nouns other than comparatives (such as taller). For the sentence "Jane is a New Zealand actress", the words "New Zealand" are acting as an adjective, and this is perfectly acceptable. I know there are noun adjuncts which modify other nouns, e.g. chicken soup, but I don't feel that concept applies here without being able to explain why it doesn't apply.

"New Zealander" is the correct formal demonym for someone from New Zealand. There's also the informal "Kiwi" which has no problem being used as an adjective, but it is not normally suitable for use on Wikipedia biographies.

The case in point is that I frequently find editors modifying biographical articles on New Zealanders in a way I consider incorrect, and I'm in the process of a more in-depth discussion on this than usual at User talk:Mcc1789#Demonyms and adjectives (also partly at User talk:Gadfium#Demonyms and adjectives).

Can anyone point me to a reliable source which gives a guideline about whether demonyms ending with -er can be used as adjectives or noun adjuncts in these situations?-gadfium 00:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer what boils down to an interesting question, but I hope to clear some misconceptions. First, For the sentence "Jane is a New Zealand actress", the words "New Zealand" are acting as an adjective, and this is perfectly acceptable. I know there are noun adjuncts which modify other nouns, e.g. chicken soup, but I don't feel that concept applies here without being able to explain why it doesn't apply. In "New Zealand actress", "New Zealand" is best thought of as a single, compound word. (You don't interrupt it, other than perhaps than with strained jocosity: ?"New beautiful Zealand".) This compound word is a nominal, functioning as an attributive modifier. This is something that most adjectives do (but not all: *"the afraid actress", *"the galore whisky"); and it's something that nominals routinely do as well ("the police presence"). I have to say that "a New Zealander actress" sounds odd (perhaps ungrammatical) to me too, but I wondered -- and sure enough, iWeb shows "New Zealander" being used attributively by people who seem to be L1 users of English. (Example: "I first heard the term bushwalking from a New Zealander friend of mine, who once told me that he did not grow up hiking, but rather 'bushwalking'.") So its status is likely to vary among people, and you shouldn't assume that those you want to persuade will agree with you (or me) on the acceptability of "a New Zealander actress" and the like. -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So would either usage be acceptable here?-Mcc1789 (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Watching this thread eagerly, especially since gadfium is the one who answered this question when I recently asked it at WT:NZ. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read "a New Zealander friend of mine" as an appositive with elided commas, probably due to quotation of informal speech, thus not an adjective. The very expression "friend of mine" pretty much forces an informal register. Try replacing it with a word or expression that forces a formal register (e.g. "epidemiologist") and see how it sounds each way. Mathglot (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations – which may, however, not be entirely accurate. Interestingly, the only demonyms given there ending on -ers, other than those ending on -landers (such as Icelanders and Cook Islanders), are Liechtensteiners, Luxembourgers, and Surinamers. Lacking an authoritative body regulating "acceptable usage", we have to go by actual use and the sensibilities of the audience. Personally I find it strange to hear demonyms used as noun adjuncts applied to people when one could have used an adjectival, but for other entities it feels normal to me (e.g. "a Gibraltarian perspective"). It is not difficult to find uses of non-adjectival demonyms as noun adjuncts (e.g. "Surinamer victims" – I would have used "Surinamese victims"), so not everyone finds this strange. To me, "a Turk scholar" does not just sound strange, but is plainly wrong. --Lambiam 05:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies so far. Hoary's reply teaches me something about English grammar, and Lambian's reply gives me the link to the useful List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations, which I have seen before but had forgotten. There was the odd term "New Zealandic" there, added by an anon at the end of last July, which I have removed, as it isn't in common use. I welcome further answers.-gadfium 08:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do the English call a Londoner who is a dentist a "London dentist" or a "Londoner dentist"? Do Americans talk of "New Yorker dentists" or Canadians of "New Brunswicker dentists" or "Newfoundlander dentists"? By the way, I can't give overmuch credence to a source that has "Surinamer friends and aquintances" (heh!) Another handy list is Demonym#-(e)r. Nurg (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was why it seemed off to me. I've never heard anyone simply called by what country/city they hail from. New Yorker I know is indeed used (though I'm not sure about if linked with a profession), but can't say for all the rest.-Mcc1789 (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching with interest because I was the editor that corrected Elizium23's good faith mistake. I put her/his confusion down to what I see as the considerable German language influence on how US citizens use 'English'. Eddaido (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is "person of color" an adjective?

According to Wiktionary, not to mention common sense, "person of color" is a noun. I would never have imagined it could be used as an adjective. Yet today I read this:

Alice Sparkly Kat is a queer, person of color astrologer based in Brooklyn, New York, whose practice is grounded in decolonisation. (Clem Bastow, 'Harmony and understanding', The Saturday Paper, 9-15 March 2019, p. 28)

Is this a recognised usage? If so, could a person be legitimately described as "a person of color person"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, nominals can be used as attributive modifiers. "A person of color astrologer" sounds odd to me too; but within it, "person of color" is a nominal, not an adjective. Yes, if you look in worthwhile books about grammar (which might be one percent of them), you'll see that they recognize the use of a nominal as an attributive modifier. "Zinc" is a noun. "Fireplace" is a noun. In "a zinc fireplace", "zinc" is a nominal (consisting of a single noun). -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz, it's a noun that's been adjectivised, like "an apple tree". It would have made much more sense if Alice Sparkly Kat was described as a "queer astrologer of color". Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 02:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy usage. Could have said, "A queer astrologer and poc". Mathglot (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or "astrologer and qpoc", thereby emphasizing the intersectionality. --Lambiam 21:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would tend to suggest her queerness applies to her person-of-colorness but not to her astrologerness. I guess, with all the new and emerging terminology we have to battle with these days, one can be a part-time queer. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Person of color" is not often used as an adjective, but the abbrev "POC" is. I wouldn't be surprised if the writer used the short form, and the editor expanded it to the long form. Temerarius (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it is so used, it should at least be hyphenated (person-of-color) for clarity. Jmar67 (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That gets back to my original question: Is anyone ever referred to as "a POC person"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply look it up in a corpus? Meanwhile, yes, I've done just that (it only took me a few seconds; it would only take you a few seconds too). And the answer is yes, on occasion, though probably only satirically. As for "a POC [noun]", where the noun is something other than "person", then yes. -- Hoary (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do companies take the pronoun "it" or "they"?

Resolved

– Question answered. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm editing a long article right now and previous editors mentioned a company by name and then used the pronoun "it" to refer back. Does anyone know if companies are treated as singular entities and thus can be referred to as "it", or would they be considered collective groups that would take "they"? --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 02:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:ENGVAR issue. Bands, corporations, and other multi-person entities are plural in British English, and singular neuter in American English. Elizium23 (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little more complicated. In informal American English, even though a company is singular, the pronoun for it is commonly "they" (which, like any other singular they, then takes a plural verb). For example, in this article in a small newspaper, someone is quoted as saying "This is a big company. They have a lot of money." (Emphasis added.) This sort of thing is not appropriate usage in Wikipedia, though, since Wikipedia does prefer a formal tone, so when writing here, you can generally go by the rule that Elizium stated. --69.159.8.46 (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. See English plurals#Singulars with collective meaning treated as plural, and Collective noun#Agreement in different forms of English. Mathglot (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this UK news item we find "Marks and Spencer have introduced" and "Tesco have announced", but here we see "Tesco has announced" and "Tesco has more than 3,400 stores", and here "Tesco stops sale of skimmed milk" in the headline – this while the body uses "they" to refer to the company. So the use in the UK is not uniform. (I have been told that Americanisms in British publications are often due to the large number of US expats working in the UK news industry, but I have no way of estimating their impact.) If companies are people, too, people who agree should use "he" or "she" to refer to them, or use the gender-neutral singular "they". --Lambiam 04:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the handy links to the articles, everyone. I'll keep the regional differences in mind. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right bank

The article Osijek tells me that "Osijek is located on the right bank of the river Drava..." Which way do I have to be facing to determine which is the right bank? Upstream or downstream? HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Downstream. See the image at the top of Bank (geography). Deor (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard this terminology applied anywhere except Paris; in London we have the South Bank. Alansplodge (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite common anywhere rivers are discussed. You might call a bank of a river the "South Bank", but note that even on the Thames, the side of the river that's on the south at that location is on the north, east, and west of the river further upstream. Left and right are unambiguous. Some river sports enthusiasts make it clearer by always saying "river left" and "river right". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Left and right are unambiguous." If that was the case, I would never have asked my question. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That you didn't know the definition does not mean the definition is ambiguous. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It requires knowledge that isn't part of simply "left and right". Without that information, it IS ambiguous. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused by Geneva initially. What the locals call the "right bank" of the city is actually to the west or, to my simple brain, left of Lake Geneva. The "left bank" is to the right of Lake Geneva. It seems to be that way because the banks of the lake are named with reference to the Rhone where it enters Lake Geneva at Montreux. Facing downstream of the Rhone, looking towards Geneva, the right bank is on the right and the left bank on the left. --Viennese Waltz 18:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rhône flows out of Lake Geneva, not into it. If you were looking downstream, you would be looking away from the lake. It empties into the Mediterranean in the vicinity of Arles. --Jayron 32 20:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically it does both, I suppose, since Lake Geneva is properly part of the River, but from the City of Geneva, which is downstream of the lake, if you were facing the lake, you would be looking upstream. --Jayron 32 20:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, I guess I'm confused, Are you standing in the city, looking towards the lake, or standing at the lake and looking towards the city? Regardless, however, language is inconsistent. If Genevans use the upstream direction rather than the downstream direction, oh well, that's how they do it. They aren't wrong. They can name their local geography however they want. --Jayron 32 20:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "facing [perhaps "looking" would have been better] downstream of the Rhone", I meant if you were at Montreux, where the river enters Lake Geneva, not if you were in Geneva. --Viennese Waltz 20:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since Switzerville was mentioned, and this is purely anecdotal though coming from someone living there: Referring to left and right banks according to the downstream direction of a river is certainly common in texts, but in everyday speech a lot of people (not just younger people) here would be confused and have to think about it as well (if they even had the river's direction of flow mapped in their brain), unless it's really part of the local toponymy, such as quarters or other named features being named after it's leftorrightness. In other cases it is probably more common to refer to whatever named place there is there (unless one's a nerd like my dad). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The city of Geneva is not "downstream of the lake". It is reasonably described as being centered around the point where the river flows out of the lake, so that parts of the city are on each side of the lake and another part is downstream. The city's transit system includes cross-lake passenger boats that remain entirely within the city. If you arrive at the city by train and walk 500 meters down Rue des Alpes you will reach the lake (the north side, or more like northwest at Geneva, aka the right bank).

The Rhone does not exactly enter the lake at Montreux either, but the place where it does is only a short distance from Montreux. --69.159.8.46 (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a separate entry on this in the German Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orographisch_links_und_rechts. It says that 'left' and 'right' in this context are defined topographical terms: looking downstream (as Deor and jpgordon above have already explained). --Morinox (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. As I said much earlier, I am now educated, and happy that the term has a definite meaning, but still not sure it's 100% clear for all our other readers. I doubt I'll be the only person to ever be unsure about it in future. (There did seem to be others above.) Maybe our MOS should recommend a Wikilink to Bank (geography) whenever the term is used. Or it could be a redirect. HiLo48 (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a definition in River#Topography:

The term left bank refers to the left bank in the direction of flow, right bank to the right.

HTH.

CiaPan (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]