Side note but, Americans take note: when you conflate "the world" with America like this, it really grinds everyone else's gears. This is an International misery.
I think he's probably talking in the context of the United States because you can't say that the world's misery is over. India, for example, is still experiencing bad numbers. If anything, if he had said the world's misery is ending, that would be US centric.
Just because the world is experiencing it doesn't also mean that a nation can't experience it. A family is Syria escaping the civil war can say their misery is ending without the civil war ending.
International Misery is made of many more or less separate National Miseries. This particular one, that affects the author personally the most is ending.
Do you have a problem with statements like "The Great Depression was the worst economic disaster in American history" because the same economic disaster was happening elsewhere (such as Germany, where it aided the rise of the Nazis).
I usually agree wholeheartedly that Americans conflate "the world" with America, and that it's really annoying. I can't say that's happening here, though: it's true that the great pandemic misery is near its end in the nation of the USA (and in some other nations). That's a fact. Stating it doesn't mean that one does not care that the misery goes on elsewhere.
From the beginning of the pandemic I've found myself calling it "my pandemic" owing to some recognition that in fact, my experience of it is so far removed from others as to be a different story altogether. For some people, their pandemic ended their lives in the early months before they even knew to fear it. For others it's still very present in their lives. My pandemic was quiet, anxious at first but gradually more settled and relaxed. It is now over; I'm vaxxed up and have little to fear from the virus, so whatever I am living now is just an early 2020's lifestyle. I still take precautions, but I am essentially in a holding pattern for the city to finish its reopening plans, and then I'll be doing some of the things I was doing last year before it hit.
The thing is that is called pandemic because a reason: the virus is still mutating, and I don't know how possible it is and it's up to discussion, but a mutation is possible and your nation (which by the way still has many cases) can be reinfected again.
To think that "my nation has less cases, all is over now for us" is to don't understand what pandemic means.
Pure speculation. Sure, the misery may come back. But for the US, UK, Israel, Australia, New Zealand and soon a bunch of European countries, the pandemic will soon be over. It is not over elsewhere, and it may come back to the aforementioned places. That doesn't mean one can't rejoyce that the misery is over (whether it's for now or for good).
It's an American writing for what's presumably a mostly American audience (he was a reporter at the New York Times). It's unfortunate that despite his use of "Great National Misery", links to graphs depicting the pandemic in America, "3 million Americans die each year", etc. is not enough to set the context for the average reader. He's not conflating the world with America, he's pretty much talking about America. Covid is a plague on the world, but this article is about America.
Even if you're going to ignore every country other than your own - before you use terms like "Great National Misery", please make it clear which nation you are talking about!
In the modern English language no such thing exists. There is North America and South America. There is a sub continental region called Central America, but that’s not a continent and the demonym is Central American, not American.
It may be that a different language treats things differently but wishing it in English doesn’t make it so.
"The Americas, which are also collectively called America, are a landmass comprising the totality of North and South America. The Americas make up most of the land in Earth's Western Hemisphere and comprise the New World."
It’s two landmasses not one. They are connected by an isthmus.
Claiming “America” is what people call both North America and South America together in standard modern English is being pedantic. Yes it is a rarely used vestige form, but it’s very rare in modern usage.
It’s like claiming Ceylon is a proper name for Sri Lanka because we have Ceylon tea and Ceylon cinnamon, etc. and it was widely used in the XIX century, or Kampuchea for Cambodia, etc.
In normal usage of modern standard English the combination of two continents in the Western Hemisphere are referred to as “The Americas”.
Moreover, a colleague in MDF confirms Americans (US to be clear) are referred to as americanos, norte americanos and less so as “estadunidense”. Gringos being rather informal.
Now, refer to French, German, Japanese, etc, and they all use a transliterated or translated version of American[1] for people from the USA.
> It’s two landmasses not one. They are connected by an isthmus.
Merriam-Webster's definition of landmass [0]:
"a large area of land"
Example of its usage in a sentence (also [0]):
"the islands of Ireland and Great Britain were once part of the Eurasian landmass"
So, you see, if Eurasia, including the British Isles, can be considered a landmass, surely using the Isthmus of Panama as a reason for America not being one is at least a little pedantic.
> Claiming America is what people call both North America and South America together in standard English is being pedantic.
I did no such thing. This is a strawman.
> Moreover, a colleague in MDF confirms Americans (US to be clear) are referred to as americanos, norte americanos and less so as “estadunidense”.
This is true. Americano(a) is probably the most common way to call the people from the US, closely followed by norte-americano. That doesn't mean it's not also used to reference people from the other American countries. Usually context can be used to make the distinction, or people can ask for clarification.
That said, nobody that I know refers to the USA as America over there, so this part of your argument is another strawman.
Quick side question: what's MDF in this context?
> In normal usage of modern standard English the combination of two continents in the Western Hemisphere are referred to as “The Americas”.
Perhaps. Also perhaps it's time to recognise that this can be seen as a form of cultural domination and change it.
In any case, you had said: "In the modern English language no such thing exists." and that's what I was refuting, so this is yet another strawman.
> Now, refer to French, German, Japanese, etc, and they all use a transliterated or translated version of American for people from the USA.
I have no idea why you are bringing this up as it doesn't seem to relate to the issue at hand in any way.
I’m sorry but this makes the whole discussion moot:
“ This is true. Americano(a) is probably the most common way to call the people from the US, closely followed by norte-americano. That doesn't mean it's not also used to reference people from the other American countries. Usually context can be used to make the distinction, or people can ask for clarification.”
Given that OP complained of that exact usage and moreover in English this ambiguity does not exist.
All Americans I know take USA and America to be one and the same, so no complaints here.
As far as I know people from the southern continent call themselves sudanericanos or alternatively sulanericanos in their native languages. Again, in English there is no confusion about what the word America refers to. It may make a difference in Brazilian or South American Spanish, but that’s their problem, not an English problem.
> All Americans I know take USA and America to be one and the same, so no complaints here.
Perhaps not for you, but that's pretty much the main point here. :)
> As far as I know people from the southern continent call themselves sudanericanos or alternatively sulanericanos in their native languages.
Sudamericanos, latinoamericanos, sul-americanos, latino-americanos OR americanos. They all work.
> Again, in English there is no confusion about what the word America refers to.
I'm pretty sure I speak English daily, and there is definite confusion. There's also the problem that this language excludes a lot of people.
> It may make a difference in Brazilian or South American Spanish, but that’s their problem, not an English problem.
Allow me to pick a small nit: the language is Portuguese. In some contexts it may make sense to distinguish the American from the European variety but it's still mainly Portuguese in the same way that US/American English is still English. That doesn't affect the point you're making in any way, of course.
No. In English, America refers to the US, the continents are North America and South America.
In Spanish and some other languages, America refers to the entire landmass from Alaska to Argentina.
This is equivalent to a Frenchman and German arguing over what countries are called in their language: of course they are different, the argument is nonsense, and they are both correct.
"The Americas, which are also collectively called America, are a landmass comprising the totality of North and South America. The Americas make up most of the land in Earth's Western Hemisphere and comprise the New World."
This is an English vs. Spanish issue. When talking in Spanish, one shouldn't use America to discuss just the USA.
But in English, you'd confuse the shit out of your audience if you said, "I went to America on vacation, Santiago is a cool city."
Similarly, in the English world, North and South America are considered two continents. Being the same landmass isn't the definition of continent--otherwise Europe, Asia, and Africa should be a single continent.
> But in English, you'd confuse the shit out of your audience if you said, "I went to America on vacation, Santiago is a cool city."
Perhaps. That said, most people in the UK tend to take a second or two to realise what I mean, which seems like a soft signal that they know I'm not wrong despite the fact that my usage of the term might not be the most common one (if you follow the rest of the thread you'll find that I provided Wikipedia and dictionary proof).
> Being the same landmass isn't the definition of continent
Side note but, Americans take note: when you conflate "the world" with America like this, it really grinds everyone else's gears. This is an International misery.