The lesson suggests that 'new world' countries in Oceania would have the same structure as the USA so Australia would be Aŭstralo and an Australian would be Aŭstralano. So is the lesson incorrect, have I misread it (always possible) or is the sentence wrong?
Edit - so, the lesson was not incorrect, I did not misread it, nor was the sentence wrong. I just missed the fact that Aŭstrali is the root, hence Aŭstralio and Aŭstraliano for the country and the people.
Good question. According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World), "New World" means the Americas and nearby islands. Unless you're talking about wines. Weird, right? Greenland btw is Grenlando or Groenlando according to learnu.net. I was curious. :D All in all it is a very unusual naming convention. After all Slovakia has only been around since the '90s but it's "old world". I do wonder if there's some contention about this practice.
Sorry, but I (as an Australian) have to disagree with this; 1. We only arrived at English for a national language because we shoved all native languages aside. A lot have either already become or are rapidly going extinct , despite recent attempts to include them in educational curricula. 2. As a multicultural society, many of us speak different languages. This sentence sounds like the insensitive people among us, saying "you need to learn the language to live here". English is not the only language we speak (even if it is the national language). This could either be worded better, or not include a language for Australia.