And the Esperanto's denomination for United Stadian people is one of the reasons I am loving this language! I'm from South America too, and I get pretty mad when US people call themselves "Americans" like they were the ONLY Americans. And the worse is that everyone else agree with them, and although I'm Brazilian it's almost like I couldn't call myself American. It's kind of sad.... and irritating.
Honestly, our nation's name is the weirdest ever, cause it's not actually a name. Nothing in it uniquely identifies us as a separate nation. "United States" only describes our political structure, and is shared by the formal name of Mexico (los estados unidos mexicanos) and in the past by other nations (like Columbia was once "United States of Columbia"), and "America" only indicates that we happen to occupy a portion of America. Things would've been so much simpler if an actual name had been picked at the beginning of our nation.
No, you cannot. "Multe" is an adverb and cannot directly modify a noun.
"Multe da usonanoj" would be grammatically correct and would also mean "many Americans".
"Multe usonanoj" is a bit like "a lot Americans" -- it has to be "a lot of Americans" and "multe da usonanoj". (On the other hand, "li multe amas min" and "he loves me a lot" are both fine without da/of.)
PIV disagrees -- it lowercases demonyms and adjectives that are roots (franco, germano, italo; latina, rusa) but capitalises demonyms and adjectives that are derived from country names (Kanadano, Usonano, Brazilano; Aŭstralia).
(Incidentally, both of those styles allow one to distinguish Kuba "Cuban" from kuba "cubical".)
So usage is not uniform.
Would it be more interesting or unnecessarily complicated to use the native words for names, places and languages? For example, 'Germanio' would be 'Deutschland', Parizo' would be 'Paris'. I know it would deviate from the grammar patterns we all love, but it would also be interesting to have a language where no-one would have to refer to their own country by an unfamiliar name. Thoughts?
Firstly, there’s no singular language that can be ascribed to every place on Earth, since in many places different (or even the same) people speak several languages. How one should decide whether to call Belgium “Belgique” (French), “België” (Dutch) or “Belgien” (German)? Should Ireland be called “Ireland” (English) or “Éire” (Irish)? Do we pronounce Barcelona as /baɾθeˈlona/ (Spanish) or /bəɾsəˈlonə/ (Catalan)? Don’t even make me start on Papua New Guinea... :D
Secondly, it’s impossible to expect that every person should be able to produce every sound from every language on Earth. If we would prefer the native name (however we should decide what that name should be) then people able of pronouncing that name with native pronunciation would make everybody else’s failed imitations of it seem uneducated. If we would agree that the pronunciation should be adjusted to the sound inventory of our language, then we just threw your idea of using native names straight to trash, because in numerous cases that would change the word completely.
Thirdly, one of the things we want to have in the international language is some level of international recognisability of the geographical names. I would have absolutely no idea what countries capital is “Krung Thep Maha Nakhon”.
But the word "usonanoj" isn't, it only refers to people from the USA (which was precisely the point in Esperanto - to make sure that a word like "American" isn't used to represent just a fraction of the continent). Whatever word people from the USA call themselves would be fine, but considering "American" is the most common, that's the one that was given.
@nph642: In a way, there is.
In Esperanto the word Uson·o (therefore uson·a and uson·an·o) come from an English word, proposed in early XXth century. At the beginning it was “Usona” (as an initialism for “United Stated of North America” [sic]), “usonian” (adjective) and “Usonian” (citizen), but later on more recognition had “Usonia” (to which the adjective and the noun for a citizen are the same). Two quotes on this matter:
We of the United States, in justice to Canadians and Mexicans, have no right to use the title “Americans” when referring to matters pertaining exclusively to ourselves.
James Duff Law — 1903
But why this term “America” has become representative as the name of these United States at home and abroad is past recall. Samuel Butler fitted us with a good name. He called us “Usonians”, and our Nation of combined States — “Usonia”.
Frank Lloyd Wright — 1927
(for the record, I entered
Many USA citizens live in Germany.
You are correct
Another correct solution: Many Americans live in Germany.
and, for the record:
I just translated it to
Many US citizens live in Germany.
(without the ending A of USA), and it was marked as correct (and without the "another correct solution is"-addendum)
I'm glad of that, I would be absolutely furious if "North American" was taken as a translation of "usonano". I'm Canadian and North American, but certainly not US-American (usonano).
Anyway, enough of my rant… I tried using "US-American" since Esperanto is supposed to be unambiguous between "usonano", "amerikano", and "nord-… mezo-… sud-amerikano" et c.. German does this, I'm pretty sure (US-Amerikanischer).
Duolingo did accept "US-American".
There was a movement to follow the Hispanic - south america approach of estadounidenses so that there was the English phrase UnitedStatesian but it was very unwieldy.
I would suggest that it is against the spirit and intention of Esperanto to use a term that assumes that the only Americans are from the US.
The fault may be Duolingo's rather than Esperanto.
It might be against the spirit of Esperanto, but we're talking about the English term here, not the Esperanto one. Esperanto has a specific term for an American from the United States, usonano.
It makes sense to translate Usonano into 'American', because that is the most commonly used term for people from the US in English. It's going to be widely understood. There's no point translating it into a term that virtually no one uses, like 'United Statesian'. If someone used United Statesian in an everyday conversation, the vast majority of native English speakers would be surprised, confused, amused, or try to correct them. At the very least they'd require an explanation.
Duolingo's job is to teach people the language as it is, not as we wish it to be. While it would be great for United Statesian or some similar term to catch on, it's not Duo's job to make political judgements about the language or correct perceived errors in dictionary-standard usage. It would be very unhelpful to people learning English through the Esperanto course to be taught United Statesian or a similar term instead of American. There might be an argument for accepting them as alternatives, but only if one can demonstrate regular usage in some part of the English speaking world.
I tried Usonian and it was incorrect (also United Statesian).
The former word has an interesting origin, according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usonia#Origin_of_the_word