> Don't make it like nonplussed, where Americans gave it a new meaning out of stubborn ignorance
I do believe you are mistaking how the English language works for stubborn ignorance.
There are many dialects of English, and the way I speak mine doesn't change how you speak yours.
It's very colonial of you to think that your way of doing things is the best and must be forcibly pressed upon others. That you feel embarrassed by the (correct!) use of a word in a different dialect means you have some work to do on yourself.
Okay, but ignorance on whose part? Because as has been repeatedly shown via links to dictionaries, wikipedia, etc by both myself and others, using "Scandinavia" to refer to Iceland is not incorrect.
Britannica lays it out for you, and yet you tilt at someone that lives there (vidarh) telling you the same?
> Scandinavia, part of northern Europe, generally held to consist of the two countries of the Scandinavian Peninsula, Norway and Sweden, with the addition of Denmark.
You've been found wanting in your claims.
> Some authorities argue for the inclusion of Finland on geologic and economic grounds and of Iceland and the Faroe Islands on the grounds that their inhabitants speak North Germanic (or Scandinavian) languages related to those of Norway and Sweden. Typically, when these other areas are added to Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, the group is called the "Nordic countries.”
The second quote you posted appears to directly support my stance, and that you think it shows my claim wanting throws your comprehension of the discussion into question.
Britannica is not authoritative, it is one view. It attempts to promulgate One Answer, not to capture the breadth of all English usage in all countries. It hedges itself with words like "generally".
I've never argued that the Britannica interpretation is invalid, just that mine is also valid. Nothing you posted contradicts that.
This all is like a French person getting annoyed at a Quebecois because they're using a different word. Or a Spaniard getting annoyed at an Argentinian. Different places use different words differently, and thinking it isn't so is simultaneously arrogant and ignorant.
Speaking of comprehension.. do you feel that Typically, when these other areas are added to Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, the group is called the "Nordic countries.” supports your claim and not that of the person you're fighting with?
You argued people weren't bringing sources. Now you're arguing your sources are infallible while any that refute you are open to interpretation?
When you feel the need to argue and fight with the people who are from the area you want to rename, then you should consider that as much as you're technically free to include whatever you want in whatever words, that also means I'm technically free to mean you when I use the term asshole. That doesn't mean it isn't rude and insulting.
It's already an English word with multiple meanings. I'm correctly using one of those meanings, in English.
I'm just informing people apparently unaware that the language I speak has that meaning for that word. If they don't care to learn about how the English language works, that is their choice. The learning opportunity is there.
I do believe you are mistaking how the English language works for stubborn ignorance.
There are many dialects of English, and the way I speak mine doesn't change how you speak yours.
It's very colonial of you to think that your way of doing things is the best and must be forcibly pressed upon others. That you feel embarrassed by the (correct!) use of a word in a different dialect means you have some work to do on yourself.