←back to thread

606 points saikatsg | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
afavour ◴[] No.43929124[source]
> "Cardinal George of Chicago, of happy memory, was one of my great mentors, and he said: 'Look, until America goes into political decline, there won't be an American pope.' And his point was, if America is kind of running the world politically, culturally, economically, they don't want America running the world religiously. So, I think there's some truth to that, that we're such a superpower and so dominant, they don't wanna give us, also, control over the church."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-pope-could-it-be-american-c...

replies(6): >>43929272 #>>43930430 #>>43930746 #>>43932503 #>>43932802 #>>43934298 #
bbor ◴[] No.43929272[source]
For what it’s worth, I was just reading that Leo wasn’t seen as “completely” American due to his many years in Peru — he’s even a citizen. Take that as you will.
replies(9): >>43929321 #>>43929934 #>>43930040 #>>43930174 #>>43930642 #>>43931332 #>>43931534 #>>43931541 #>>43933011 #
javiramos[dead post] ◴[] No.43931541[source]
[flagged]
dmayle ◴[] No.43932285[source]
You could educate yourself, you know, instead of trying to regurgitate something that someone else said that you thought looked clever.

What would you call Americans? United Statesians?

There are two countries called the United States in North America, there's the United States of Mexico, and the United States of America. People from the United States of Mexico are called Mexicans, and people from the United States of America are called Americans.

And what about people from the continent of North America? There's called North Americans, just like people from South America are called South Americans.

replies(6): >>43932361 #>>43932824 #>>43932893 #>>43934621 #>>43934810 #>>43934814 #
dragonwriter ◴[] No.43932361[source]
> There are two countries called the United States in North America

No, actually, there aren't.

> there's the United States of Mexico, and the United States of America.

No, México’s formal English name (which is an exact literal translation of its Spanish name) is United Mexican States (it is Estados Unidos Mexicanos not Estados Unidos de México)

replies(1): >>43934649 #
sebastiennight ◴[] No.43934649[source]
> Estados Unidos Mexicanos

I think this would translate to Mexican United States ; you're mixing up the word order.

replies(1): >>43934717 #
1. dragonwriter ◴[] No.43934717[source]
> I think this would translate to Mexican United States

If Estados Unidos existed in Spanish as a compound, non-proper, noun phrase—that is, if "a united states" was a generic name for a thing—rather than Unidos and Mexicanos both being adjectives that modify Estados, then that would be a plausible translation. But that's (1) not the case, and (2) even if it was the case, that's not how it is used in the actual official name of the country of México.

> you're mixing up the word order.

To be clear, you are asserting that the government of México messed up the word order in its own official English name.

replies(1): >>43935235 #
2. sebastiennight ◴[] No.43935235[source]
Sorry, I did not realize this was the official translation.

I was just commenting on the fact that adjective order in Spanish is usually reversed vs. the English one, and the adjective closest to the noun remains closest to the noun.

Wikipedia mentions that an alternate official name is Estados-Unidos Mexicanos:

> All three federal constitutions (1824, 1857, and 1917, the current constitution) used the name Estados Unidos Mexicanos[29]—or the variant Estados-Unidos Mexicanos,[30] all of which have been translated as "United Mexican States"

Interesting that it's still translated this way. I'm wondering if there are some political considerations there (eg to avoid being called the "Mexican US"). Thanks for your response. I learned something today.