Language desk
< November 2	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 4 >

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.

November 3[edit]

Demonyms[edit]

Is it true that demonyms of U.S. states are used only as predicatives, and not attributes, i.e. not Ohioan man, only Ohioan? --40bus (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is such a rule, the memo has not reached all writers' desks: "Alabaman resident",^[1] "Alaskan woods",^[2] "Arizonan desert",^[3] ..., "Wyomingite mentality".^[4] --Lambiam 12:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But as a general rule, yes it's true. If I saw something like "Arizonan desert" or "Californian oranges" I'd guess the writer was British. --184.145.50.17 (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In American English, it is common, but not universal, to use the Noun adjunct (aka the attributive noun) rather than the adjective, in most cases. Thus, "California voters" is more common than "Californian voters", but "I met a Californian the other day" is standard as well. Use of the form "Californian voters" is not wrong, but only slightly marked. You can see here from Google ngrams, that the adjective form "Californian voters" is known, but MUCH rarer than "California voters". --Jayron 32 16:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a British English thing. Bazza (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the same source it is just as much a US English thing. --Lambiam 17:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Californian voters" is not exactly wrong, but "California voters" is much more idiomatic. --Trovatore (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The exception that comes to mind is "Hawaiian". Of course that one is an exception in other ways because of its dual sense (relating to the state, or relating to the descendants of the indigenous population) but I'm not convinced that's the full explanation. --Trovatore (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The full explanation is "language is inconsistent often, and there is often no reason why some word or phrase does not follow a general rule". --Jayron 32 18:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the specific example given, "Ohioan" and "Ohio man" (or woman) would be equivalent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But it would mark you as a dang furriner that done talk funny. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Ohio it wouldn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also not in Michigan: "Ohioan male".^[5] --Lambiam 11:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to remind everyone, just because you can find an example (or even two or three) does not mean it is standard usage. Ohioan male does not even register in ngrams. That one can be found is both unsurprising and irrelevant to the main question at hand. It still is not standard usage. --Jayron 32 14:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]