"Ukraine" or "The Ukraine"?

[angrysoba]

Because in the term "The Czech Republic", the word "Czech" is an adjective, not a noun. It is qualifying the noun "Republic".

It's the same construction as "The Roman Empire" or (more topically, if the BBC is to be viewed...) "The Austro-Hungarian Empire". In both of those examples, you cannot simply take the adjective and use it as a stand-alone noun. You have to say "Austria-Hungary", and in fact there's no real fully-accurate stand-alone noun to represent "The Roman Empire", since "Rome" is usually a uselessly-ambiguous shorthand.

We're stuck, therefore, with "The Czech Republic", until and unless we bring into accepted usage the alternative noun of Czechia (which would be the accompanying noun to the adjective "Czech").

I think the highlighted are assumptions. While I agree that Czech is an adjective, in this case, I don't see why the adjective itself cannot serve as a noun, if it became commonly used that way.

 

[Rat]

I think the highlighted are assumptions. While I agree that Czech is an adjective, in this case, I don't see why the adjective itself cannot serve as a noun, if it became commonly used that way.

It already does serve as a noun. It is a language.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think the highlighted are assumptions. While I agree that Czech is an adjective, in this case, I don't see why the adjective itself cannot serve as a noun, if it became commonly used that way.

I don't think that its an "assumption" that the standard practice is not to use adjectives as nouns (especially in regard to place names).

Of course, language is not set in stone, and - as you say - it might just happen that the word "Czech" might become appropriated as a noun in the English language, as well as an adjective: Chelsea have a Czech goalkeeper; Chelsea's Goalkeeper hails from Czech.

But are there any precedents for such a move? For example, could/would "The French Republic" ever mean that we refer to the country as "French"? It might happen - and as you point out, there's no "rule" that says it cannot ever happen. However, I will suggest that it's not going to happen.

In the same way, I doubt that "Czech" will ever become adopted as a noun. In any case, I was in my previous post doing no more than pointing out why it's not logical to do so today (or in the past).


As a total footnote, there are a few examples in UK English of adjectives being "converted" into nouns - but these are, almost without exception, the province of lower-demographic colloquialisms. Perhaps the most pervasive example is the use of "electric" as a noun, usually when referring to one's electricity supply: "We got our electric cut off cos we didn't pay the bill".

 

[LondonJohn]

It already does serve as a noun. It is a language.

Well, strictly speaking it's a modified adjective when used in this sort of way - not a noun.

If one says "He speaks French" or "He wrote it in French", there is an implied missing noun: "language" (i.e. he speaks (the) French language; he wrote it in (the) French language).

In the same way, if I asked you what type of mustard you preferred, and you replied: "I prefer English to French", the words "English" and "French" in that sentence would not automatically become nouns: they would remain adjectives, modifying the unspoken-but-implied noun "mustard".

 

[LondonJohn]

In terms of demonyms, I can see that being true (as in 'the Americans' and so on), but I don't really see it in terms of place names, and certainly not countries. We have never had 'the India'; we had the Indies, of course, but that's a simple plural like the Solomon Islands. We never had the Kenya, or the Guinea, or anything similar. I can't really see a pattern where we used 'the' for what we saw as colonies of savages.

In terms of demonyms, we still refer to the French, for example, so it doesn't follow that we use it to refer to our inferiors.

Ahh. Firstly, the construction "The French" and "The Americans" is a totally different issue. That is a term used to describe the population of a nation. One can do it with virtually every nation: the Dutch, the Germans, the Poles, the Italians, the Indonesians, the New Zealanders, the Fijians, etc etc etc. Such a construction has no ulterior connotations.

But that's not what we are talking about here. Instead, we are talking specifically about the definite article being used in relation to an area - usually a geographically-defined area. I am arguing that it has in the past been employed to draw a distinction between the geographical area on the one hand, and any notions of national identity, national culture, sovereignty etc on the other hand. Hence "The Argentine" rather than "Argentina", "The Sudan" rather than "Sudan", and so on.

I suspect that there are specific reasons why countries such as India and Kenya have never directly been subordinated in this way - although it might have escaped your notice that it was extremely common to refer to India and Ceylon/Sri Lanka as "The Sub-Continent" (and anywhere further east as "The East Indies" or "The Orient").

Lastly, as I said in my original post, this is far more subtle (in my opinion) than looking down on "colonies of savages" (re-read my post for the part where I use the word "savages" for clarification). Instead, I think it's more accurately described as an attempt to impose a layer of depersonalisation/denationalisation of these sorts of countries/areas. And what I mean by that (as I thought I had explained before) is a desire - whether consciously or subconsciously - to disavow other countries' sovereign claims (or even those countries' claims to be on an even footing with The British Empire). In other words, it probably made it somewhat more "acceptable" for these regions to be exploited commercially, politically and socially by The British.

Thus (in my opinion), referring to (say) "The Argentine" carries with it the connotation that one is referring to the geographic region equivalent to that bounded by the borders of the nation of Argentina, but without the connotation that this area is a sovereign nation with (for example) its own right to its own resources, its own language, its own culture, its own army/defence, its own colonial ambitions, and so on. Again, I want to point out explicitly that this was (in my view) no more than a very subtle, near-subliminal form of bullying/condescention.

 

[Rat]

Well, strictly speaking it's a modified adjective when used in this sort of way - not a noun.

If one says "He speaks French" or "He wrote it in French", there is an implied missing noun: "language" (i.e. he speaks (the) French language; he wrote it in (the) French language).

In the same way, if I asked you what type of mustard you preferred, and you replied: "I prefer English to French", the words "English" and "French" in that sentence would not automatically become nouns: they would remain adjectives, modifying the unspoken-but-implied noun "mustard".

I see the point, but I don't agree with it. That's obviously the origin of those terms, but they are used unequivocally as nouns. "English As She Is Spoke", "English, as a language...", and so on. It is being used as a noun, and therefore it is a noun. I can substitute 'the English language' in almost any context where 'English' is used in terms of language, but that doesn't mean that it is intended that way.

 

[RSLancastr]

And, I would think that Russians referring to it as "The Ukraine" (which, as I understand it, was like referring to it as "The Frontier", is a belittling/demeaning thing similar to when the English sometimes apparently referred to the USA as "The colonies" (or, come to think of it, similar, in a way, to when either British or Americans refer to The Atlantic Ocean as "The Pond").

 

[Rat]

Ahh. Firstly, the construction "The French" and "The Americans" is a totally different issue. That is a term used to describe the population of a nation. One can do it with virtually every nation: the Dutch, the Germans, the Poles, the Italians, the Indonesians, the New Zealanders, the Fijians, etc etc etc. Such a construction has no ulterior connotations.

Yes, I was interested mainly from a linguistic point of view. I've never quite understood why demonyms are formed the way they are. We can talk about 'the Canadians' or 'Canadians'. We can talk about 'the French', but not 'French' (except as a language). Similarly for Dutch. For Danes/the Danish, we seem to have multiple options.

Again, I want to point out explicitly that this was (in my view) no more than a very subtle, near-subliminal form of bullying/condescention.

That's 'condescension'. You're welcome.

 

[angrysoba]

And, I would think that Russians referring to it as "The Ukraine" (which, as I understand it, was like referring to it as "The Frontier", is a belittling/demeaning thing similar to when the English sometimes apparently referred to the USA as "The colonies" (or, come to think of it, similar, in a way, to when either British or Americans refer to The Atlantic Ocean as "The Pond").

Yeah, and presumably it refers to Ukraine from a particular vantage point which suggests Ukraine and Russia have an instrinsic relationship. Not only is it the "edge", but it is "Russia's edge".

 

[Rat]

And, I would think that Russians referring to it as "The Ukraine" (which, as I understand it, was like referring to it as "The Frontier", is a belittling/demeaning thing similar to when the English sometimes apparently referred to the USA as "The colonies" (or, come to think of it, similar, in a way, to when either British or Americans refer to The Atlantic Ocean as "The Pond").

I'm bemused by your use of 'English' and 'British' in a single sentence; should I be offended? Personally I still refer to 'the colonies', but only with an audience that I know will understand, and it can refer to all of the colonial outposts, rather than just the USA, albeit that when referring (or refering, if you prefer) to colonial English, it usually means the USA.

The Pond is just meiosis, which along with litotes is a figure of speech that seems to come naturally to British English.

Also, could you close your bracket? Otherwise I'm going to read the rest of this thread as an afterthought.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, I was interested mainly from a linguistic point of view. I've never quite understood why demonyms are formed the way they are. We can talk about 'the Canadians' or 'Canadians'. We can talk about 'the French', but not 'French' (except as a language). Similarly for Dutch. For Danes/the Danish, we seem to have multiple options.

I suspect that there's a simple answer to this question: where one can pluralise the word for a member of the population such that it refers explicitly to a group of people rather than either a singular person or the language, you can drop "the": "Canadians are celebrating the ice hockey gold medal"; or "the Canadians are........"


But if the word for a member of the population is also used as a collective term that cannot be pluralised (French, Dutch, etc), you are forced to included "the" when referring to the collective population, in order to avoid any ambiguity with either the singular of population or the language: "the French are bemoaning their low medal tally in the Winter Olympics"

That's 'condescension'. You're welcome.

Erm, OK, thanks. Such are the perils of typing at speed, when not for publication in a reference volume. I've never once proof-read anything I've written on this forum, probably because 1) I believe that, by and large, my spelling and grammar are very good (and thus form no hindrance in themselves to the comprehension of my posts), and 2) I believe that communication of ideas and arguments trumps strict adherence to good spelling and grammar in this sort of environment (unless spelling and grammar are so poor as to render posts incomprehensible).

But all sub-editing help is always welcome. I guess.

 

[Rat]

I suspect that there's a simple answer to this question: where one can pluralise the word for a member of the population such that it refers explicitly to a group of people rather than either a singular person or the language, you can drop "the": "Canadians are celebrating the ice hockey gold medal"; or "the Canadians are........"


But if the word for a member of the population is also used as a collective term that cannot be pluralised (French, Dutch, etc), you are forced to included "the" when referring to the collective population, in order to avoid any ambiguity with either the singular of population or the language: "the French are bemoaning their low medal tally in the Winter Olympics"

But in the former case, four options are available, with subtly differing emphasis (Canadians are/the Canadians are/Canada is/Canada are). With France, only three of those formations are realistically available. I don't read anything into this other than its being a curiosity.

Erm, OK, thanks. Such are the perils of typing at speed, when not for publication in a reference volume. But all sub-editing help is always welcome. I guess.

Believe me, I would not have picked up on it had I not been handed such a perfect straight line as that word. Not to condescend condescendingly to correct the spelling of condescension would have been a sin.

 

[angrysoba]

I suspect that there's a simple answer to this question: where one can pluralise the word for a member of the population such that it refers explicitly to a group of people rather than either a singular person or the language, you can drop "the": "Canadians are celebrating the ice hockey gold medal"; or "the Canadians are........"


But if the word for a member of the population is also used as a collective term that cannot be pluralised (French, Dutch, etc), you are forced to included "the" when referring to the collective population, in order to avoid any ambiguity with either the singular of population or the language: "the French are bemoaning their low medal tally in the Winter Olympics"

Not sure if that works.

Chinese and Japanese is sometimes used to refer to a people: "The Chinese have been celebrating...", a singular (albeit increasingly rare) "This Japanese is celebrating..." and plurals "These Japanese are celebrating...", as well as in both forms "Japanese people are celebrating", "The Japanese people are celebrating".

Or I may be misunderstanding what you mean.

 

[Rat]

Chinese and Japanese is sometimes used to refer to a people: "The Chinese have been celebrating...", a singular (albeit increasingly rare) "This Japanese is celebrating..." and plurals "These Japanese are celebrating...", as well as in both forms "Japanese people are celebrating", "The Japanese people are celebrating".

Increasingly rare to the point that I would find it jarring. I would find 'this Japanese' as unnatural as 'this Chinee'.

 

[angrysoba]

I don't think that its an "assumption" that the standard practice is not to use adjectives as nouns (especially in regard to place names).

Of course, language is not set in stone, and - as you say - it might just happen that the word "Czech" might become appropriated as a noun in the English language, as well as an adjective: Chelsea have a Czech goalkeeper; Chelsea's Goalkeeper hails from Czech.

But are there any precedents for such a move? For example, could/would "The French Republic" ever mean that we refer to the country as "French"? It might happen - and as you point out, there's no "rule" that says it cannot ever happen. However, I will suggest that it's not going to happen.

In the same way, I doubt that "Czech" will ever become adopted as a noun. In any case, I was in my previous post doing no more than pointing out why it's not logical to do so today (or in the past).


As a total footnote, there are a few examples in UK English of adjectives being "converted" into nouns - but these are, almost without exception, the province of lower-demographic colloquialisms. Perhaps the most pervasive example is the use of "electric" as a noun, usually when referring to one's electricity supply: "We got our electric cut off cos we didn't pay the bill".

It's not always easy to predict how language will change, but one thing that has occurred in at least one example I can think of, but probably more, is the dropping of articles that were otherwise considered necessary.

As an example, The Tate Gallery later became Tate and its art galleries now eschew the definite article. Some roads do the same and others do not.

I could see the possibility of "the Czech Republic" one day being referred to as "Czech Republic" and then as "Czech" for short. In fact, if we had access to a language corpus of spoken English, we might find a lot of examples of that already happening.

Similarly, in the Wikipedia article, "The Ivory Coast" was mentioned with "ivory" presumably acting as an adjective in the title of the name, yet I am pretty sure that "Ivory Coast" is used a lot by speakers of English without the definite article.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Not sure if that works.

Chinese and Japanese is sometimes used to refer to a people: "The Chinese have been celebrating...", a singular (albeit increasingly rare) "This Japanese is celebrating..." and plurals "These Japanese are celebrating...", as well as in both forms "Japanese people are celebrating", "The Japanese people are celebrating".

Or I may be misunderstanding what you mean.

I think you're referring the use of substantive adjectives.

 

[LondonJohn]

But in the former case, four options are available, with subtly differing emphasis (Canadians are/the Canadians are/Canada is/Canada are). With France, only three of those formations are realistically available. I don't read anything into this other than its being a curiosity.

No. My argument (regarding the original issue of why one can drop "the" when referring to the Canadian population, but no when referring to the French population) is wholly based on the following observation:

2 people from Canada = 2 Canadians (including "s")
The adjective describing language (or,in this particular case, usually accent) = Canadian (no "s")

whereas

2 people from France = 2 French
The adjective describing language = French.

Incidentally, if one were to refer (demeaningly perhaps, and in a somewhat infantalised manner) to a French person as "a Frenchie" and therefore to the collective group of French people as "Frenchies", one would be able to drop "the" in the same way as with Canadians: "Frenchies are upset at losing"; or "The Frenchies are upset at losing."


I think that the "rule" (such as it is) is entirely predicated upon the avoidance of confusion between an intended reference to the collective population and the more abstract concept of the language etc.

Believe me, I would not have picked up on it had I not been handed such a perfect straight line as that word. Not to condescend condescendingly to correct the spelling of condescension would have been a sin.

Oh, OK. I see. (A smiley, even on a separate line) might have been helpful in that regard......

 

[Damien Evans]

I'm bemused by your use of 'English' and 'British' in a single sentence; should I be offended? Personally I still refer to 'the colonies', but only with an audience that I know will understand, and it can refer to all of the colonial outposts, rather than just the USA, albeit that when referring (or refering, if you prefer) to colonial English, it usually means the USA.

The Pond is just meiosis, which along with litotes is a figure of speech that seems to come naturally to British English.

Also, could you close your bracket? Otherwise I'm going to read the rest of this thread as an afterthought.

The Pond is clearly an inadequate term when compared to The Ditch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasman_Sea

 

[commandlinegamer]

But that's not what we are talking about here. Instead, we are talking specifically about the definite article being used in relation to an area - usually a geographically-defined area. I am arguing that it has in the past been employed to draw a distinction between the geographical area on the one hand, and any notions of national identity, national culture, sovereignty etc on the other hand. Hence "The Argentine" rather than "Argentina", "The Sudan" rather than "Sudan", and so on.

And perhaps it was more prevalent in the past because nation states weren't clearly defined.

 

[catsmate]

I believe The Gambia is still The Gambia.

That'd be because of the river of that name. Though I believe 'Gambia' is more common.

That reminds me of Congo. I thought it was just "Congo" but I heard Jon Stewart recently mention "the Congo", which puzzled me. In fact, other than "the US" and "the UK" (and formerly "the USSR") I can't think of any country where it sounds better (in English) to add a "the" article in front of it... "the Gambia", really?

The Netherlands, the Philippines.