[defrost]

It's accepted by all on planet Dirt that they live on planet dirt.

Elsewhere, others living on orbiting aggregates with surface soil like to occassionally disambiguate.

Naturally this seems insane to the exceptionalist denizens of Dirt.

Mexico alone is clear, a Mexican is a citizen of the UMS. The UK is equally clear.

Outside of the United States, particlularly with other American, North, South, or Central ESL speakers, it's not so clear.

This is why the practice arose many years past, why the BBC once had clear style guides on not using "American(s)" in any articles until after the full name United States of America had been used to establish context for which Americans wre intended.

> it's just pedantry to complain about "America."

Being clear isn't a complaint. It's taken as such by the small minded with a horizon limited by a halo about their head.

[SR2Z]

I'm not complaining about clarifying. I'm complaining that the meaning of the word is obvious from context in almost every case and this is a really annoying form of pettiness which is hardly being applied evenly.

I don't think I have EVER seen "American" used to refer to "North and South America" outside of geography. That goes for when I'm outside the US, too. It's certainly not what reasonable people would assume you're talking about.

This discussion is really unproductive, so I guess we'll just have to disagree.

[defrost]

> I don't think I have EVER seen "American" used to refer to "North and South America" outside of geography.

I'll refrain from reproducing the OED 2nd Edition entry for American unless you really want it, there are three uses as a adjective, five as a noun, the Adjective Use 2, variation c is "United States specific", ( 1.a is "Belonging to the continent of America. Also, of or pertaining to its inhabitants." )

So, you know, a few hundred years of printed use, with citations, says that others have seen it used more widely than yourself.

To be fair, that's all an aside to me .. what has caught my eye in the past few months is a few commenters on HN getting quite upset at "USAian, USofAian, etc" variations appearing here. Clearly this is new to some, others have seen such contractions about forums for four decades.

It follows from pre 2000 (ish) BBC and other style guides that eschew using "Americans" to refer to US citizens until after the context has been established, leading to older BBC articles and broadcasts opening stories with "In the United States today .... Americans reported ...".

From that, in (say) forums discussing i18n and|or l10n (the usual contractions for Internationalization and Localization) with Koreans, South Americans, various Commonwealth types etc. USian became a short fast way to specify which group of North Americans reference might be made to.

This seems straightforward, reasonable, non evangelical, and something a majority immediately "got" w/out batting an eye .. certainly causing less fuss than using "i18n" and other contractions.

I have to agree with you that the meaning of "Usian" is obvious from context in almost every case and it is a really annoying form of pettiness that makes a song and dance about it in protest every time it appears.