jpk wrote:Second, it's hard to avoid the sense that you're trying to play on the ambiguity of "Eurasian" which has been used in this discussion to refer to the land mass running from Calais to Cathay, but can also be used to refer to the "taint" at the center of that land mass.
I was unaware that anyone used that second sense. The only sense of "Eurasia" that I am familiar with is the sense of the land mass encompassing what otherwise might be called Europe and Asia, from Iberia to Siberia.
So if anyone were able to get up the courage to walk out on your rickety analogy, trusting that you mean what you seem to intend to mean (the latter sense) you could suddenly decide that you want "Eurasia" to include the Dutch - aha!, gotcha!
As above, I did intend "Eurasia" to include the Dutch. This is why I mentioned people calling themselves Europeans and Asians immediately after asking if anyone called themselves Eurasians. The analogy was of North America and South America to the Americas jointly (or "America"); a Mongolian is a Mongolian first and an Asian second and a Eurasian third in the same sense that a Venezualan is a Venezualan first and a South American second and an American third.
"Eurasia", as you say, is not a term used by anyone to refer to anywhere in particular.
It's a term used to refer to the geographical landmass. It's just not a term people use for their demonym. A Dutchman and a Mongolian are both technically Eurasian, but neither is going to identify themselves as such, even if they might admit "I guess, technically" if asked. I'm saying that to my knowledge people from other countries in the Americas are the same way; they are Canadian or Mexican or Venezuelan or Brazillian or Chilean, and "yeah I guess technically" American. People from the United States of America are equally "yeah I guess technically" American in that broader sense of American, but they are also definitively American in the more narrow sense of that is what people from the United States of America are called.
Why would anyone use it to name their country?
Why would one medium-sized country in the middle of North America call itself the "United States of America"? The point was to imagine an analogy to that scenario. My hypothetical U.S.E. would occupy a big chunk of Eurasia, but not the whole of it, just like the U.S.A. occupies a big chunk of America (in the broader sense), but not the whole of it.
But if I'm forced to take a positon on this, it's not too hard: if we allow that the term "Eurasia" is standardly used to mean anything broader than the area in your painful example, then the name "United States of (ow!) Eurasia" would be incorrect, and "Eurasian" would not be a felicitous term for the citizens of that nation.
So the name "United States of America" is incorrect as well? We should rename the country?