Style Notes: Brit and Uke are OK

News of the World favors the use of short forms for members of a national or ethnic group. Thus, we use:

1. Brit for British national
2. Uke for Ukraine national
3. Pole for Polish national
4. Yank or Ami for U.S. national
5. Balt for someone in or from the Baltic states of Lithuania, Estonia or Latvia
6. Bulgar for Bulgarian national
7. Frank for French national, but not often
8. As Russkie is not shorter than Russian, we normally don't use that one, but might on occasion.

and so on.

1. The history of the word and concept Britain is complex. For political reasons the term Britain was revived several hundred years ago. Yet the professors told us we must not refer to people from Britain as Britons because Britons were an ancient people. Make it Britisher, some said.

Well, since the revived name Britain refers to that very same race, the professorial logic is a bit shaky. NotW regards Britisher as forced and not pleasing to the ear. We see nothing wrong with Briton for 21st century usage. Neither is there anything wrong with the allegedly informal Brit.

2. I have heard at least one Ukrainian-American newspaperman refer to himself as a Uke. In fact, he said, "We Ukes are all over."

3. Pole was for a long time OK, though recently some overeducated journalists have decided that any short form must be somehow derogatory. Why they would think that?

4. Yank, Ami. These short forms are ones that we Americans don't use, but we should get used to them or some other short form. Yank in this sense does not refer to Yankee in the sense of a white from one of the New England states or in the sense of what southerners called white northerners during and after the Civil War. Rather, the term (and connotation) stems from World War II, when official U.S. media adopted the term Yank, which is what Brits of the time called any American. That usage was meant by official U.S. media to convey the concept of an American overseas. Even 30 years after WWII some U.S. newspapers used Yank in headlines to convey that concept.

I recall hearing the short form Ami on the lips of non-British Europeans some years back. The fact that Americans aren't used to the abbreviated form does not mean it's a useless word. Do Aussies hate being called Aussies? If so, I've nerver heard of any complaints. Pride should not rule out Ami.

5. There are quite a few other Baltic states, but traditionally Balt covers only those from the nations mentioned.

6. Several years ago Bulgaria was much in the news and I noticed a major British broadsheet used Bulgars in its one-column headlines to refer to the government of Bulgaria, as we -- depending on context -- use Russians to refer to the government of the Russian Federation.

Wikipedia urges that the 7th century tribespeople should not be confused with the current nation of Bulgaria. Well, when I scanned those headlines, I definitely was not confused as to who was meant. Ruling that one must never use Bulgar for a modern person is just more pettifoggery of the Britain/Briton type.

7. Frank for French national may prove unpopular for the reasons given in (6). Yet we are really only talking about an evolution in Parisian pronunciation over the centuries. If in particular a headline calls for it, that's what we will use. But mostly we won't use it, since Franks and French have the same character count.

8. Russkie vs. Russian. It's a nearly pointless distinction, since the character counts are identitical. But NotW may at times use Russkie for literary reasons (co-notation as opposed to de-notation).