How do you suggest a word gain common usage without people first using the term while it is both wrong and uncommon? It requires being adopted into peoples vocabulary before it could ever become a common word.
>Beyond being very uncommon, it's also distracting even to people who do understand it. The capitalization is non-standard, and it's difficult to pronounce.
The data points from this thread paint the opposite picture. You seem to be the only person distracted by it or having difficult pronouncing it.
It always irks me that some linguists dislike the "changing" nature of living languages. Words and phrases go in and out of style, new phrases and words are invented, and some of those new words and phrases will make it into the common lexicon. Others will die out.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with them using USian other than it not being an "official" word. The intended meaning seems to be well understood by those reading it and there is no reason to assume motives, that behavior is annoying in and of itself. There is enough context clues in the message that even if the meaning isn't picked up on immediately, one can infer it.
If the crux of your argument rests on people being confused by the word - the same could be said about a plethora of words.
Languages are going to change whether we like it our not. However, until something is in common use, using it makes your speech and writing more difficult to understand.
A word may be in common use in the future, or it may have been in common use in the past, but if it isn't currently in common use, using it decreases your understandability.
>The data points from this thread paint the opposite picture. You seem to be the only person distracted by it or having difficult pronouncing it.
2 out of 5 people in the thread who have expressed an opinion said it was distracting and hard to pronounce. 40% of our small sample size finds it distracting. I also have a fair amount of upvotes for my original comment.
>If the crux of your argument rests on people being confused by the word - the same could be said about a plethora of words.
If the percentage of your intended audience that is distracted by or doesn't understand "plethora" is larger than the percentage that prefers it to "a lot", I'd argue that you shouldn't use "plethora" either.
>The intended meaning seems to be well understood by those reading it and there is no reason to assume motives, that behavior is annoying in and of itself.
It's not common and was created for political purposes. There is a decrease in understandability over using the accepted term, what other purpose is there for using it?
The term was specifically created and promoted by people who dislike the term American.
>A word may be in common use in the future, or it may have been in common use in the past, but if it isn't currently in common use, using it decreases your understandability.
How do you propose a word become common to use without early adopters? If people did as you suggested and never used a word until it was in common use, nobody would use the word and it would never enter common use.
"Common use" first and foremost denotes that people use the word. It's a requirement. A word has to be used and be picked up upon by others to either replace a synonym or take on a new meaning. There has to be early adopters of the word that are using it before it is in common usage.
> There has to be early adopters of the word that are using it before it is in common usage.
You're right, but using a word that may be popular in the future decreases the effectiveness of your writing today. Are you writing to effectively communicate, or are you writing to spread the adoption of new words for future generations?
I'm also not arguing that no one should ever use uncommon words. I'm arguing that there is a cost to using uncommon words, so the benefit should be worth the cost.
Usually a word becomes common because there is a need for it, because it fills a niche better than available words--either because it is easier to say or write, or because it is more descriptive than available terms. If that is the case, the word will spread incredibly fast. There are many examples, the most recent I can think of is "selfie". It became common over the course of a few months.
I wouldn't advise that an individual writer should have started using the word selfie 2 years ago simply because it was going to become common, anymore than I would've advised Charles Dickens to describe writing love letters as sexting.
USian has no benefit over American other than political, and people have been pushing for it's adoption for decades. It hasn't happened, it's not likely to happen, and the only result of using it, is that your writing is less effective.
>Beyond being very uncommon, it's also distracting even to people who do understand it. The capitalization is non-standard, and it's difficult to pronounce.
The data points from this thread paint the opposite picture. You seem to be the only person distracted by it or having difficult pronouncing it.
It always irks me that some linguists dislike the "changing" nature of living languages. Words and phrases go in and out of style, new phrases and words are invented, and some of those new words and phrases will make it into the common lexicon. Others will die out.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with them using USian other than it not being an "official" word. The intended meaning seems to be well understood by those reading it and there is no reason to assume motives, that behavior is annoying in and of itself. There is enough context clues in the message that even if the meaning isn't picked up on immediately, one can infer it.
If the crux of your argument rests on people being confused by the word - the same could be said about a plethora of words.