GMG Classical Music Forum

To discuss an argument (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,8566.msg298970.html#msg298970) in the composer index thread, which some may have missed.

It was Earth first.

Still is.

(Said with tongue firmly panted in cheek)

If he is Austrian now, was he Third Reichian in 1938?  I do not think there can be an agreement based on later alterations to the map.
Probably best to call him a Holy Roman.  :)

Ostrogoth.

At least we can all agree that he was a Delta Tau Chi alumnus.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 04, 2009, 07:02:30 PM
Ostrogoth.

(Or: If Salzburg claims Mozart, and Salzburg is in what we in the present historical period call Austria; and also Mozart was artistically represented in the region that we presently call Austria, then I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to fiddle with this convention.)

I assume Mozart wouldn't have objected to being called either German or Austrian. The German-Austrian division didn't really become meaningful until Germany was unified (1870). In Mozart's time, Austria was just one of a number of "German states."

(BTW, do Belgians ever try to claim those great old Franco-Flemish composers as "Belgian"?)

Point, Spitvalve!

The main point is, that "nationality" isn't a useful concept for his situation and his time, the 18th century.

Nationality in the modern sense requires a nation state (I'm not talking about the older concept of a "nation", as in e.g. the "Jewish nation"). Around Salzburg, there was hardly such a thing as a nation state in operation before the 19th or even 20th century.

So, Mozart's "citizenship" was not directly related to the main state of his time, as the Holy Roman Empire didn't have such a concept. As a "citizen" Mozart belonged to the bishopry of Salzburg, as an employer he was also connected with the emperor and the empire, a.s.o. But no, no "nationality" yet.

Universarian

Masonic.

The (opposite) case could be raised for Mahler. He was born in a place which was at the time part of the Austrian Empire but which physically exists in the Czech Republic today. But Mahler is listed under Austria in the index.

How about Austro-Germanic, Austro-Hungarian, Bohemian... categories with duplicate entries for the ambiguous cases, just for the sake of completeness?

Quote from: opus67 on May 05, 2009, 10:03:44 AM
The (opposite) case could be raised for Mahler. He was born in a place which was at the time part of the Austrian Empire but which physically exists in the Czech Republic today. But Mahler is listed under Austria in the index.

Well, where is it widely known that he worked? . . .

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 05, 2009, 10:35:38 AM
Well, where is it widely known that he worked? . . .

So now, Scarlatti, Jr. and Boccherini become Spanish?

Quote from: opus67 on May 05, 2009, 10:49:22 AM
So now, Scarlatti, Jr. and Boccherini become Spanish?

I oculd arguably press the point, as they are less widely known to have worked in Spain, than Mahler is known for his association with Vienna.

Many of the cavils mentioned in this thread are well taken.  I should think that one of the points established early on in this discussion is, that a rigid cookie-cutter approach to the matter is a non-starter.

I should think that this should be especially apparent in matters of 'nationality'.

(Bartók, by the way, is a Romanian composer.)

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 05, 2009, 10:59:28 AM
(Bartók, by the way, is a Romanian composer.)

:D  Ok, I thought he was Hungarian?  Or Austro-Albanian, perhaps?

Quote from: ChamberNut on May 05, 2009, 11:48:19 AM
:D  Ok, I thought he was Hungarian?

He was born in a province called Banat (— and you know this is the perfect addition to this thread, when a paragraph in the Wikipedia article begins, The first known inhabitants of present day Banat were the Sarmatian Iazyges —) which is now partially in Romania, partially in Serbia, and the smallest part in Hungary.  The town of his birth is now called Sânnicolau Mare, and lies in Romania.

Sibelius was a Swede, naturally.  No Finnish name ends in -ius.  No Finnish name is accented on the antepenultimate syllable.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 05, 2009, 12:17:59 PMantepenultimate

Word of the day.

It's not a matter of polling, it's a matter of 1.) definition and 2.) opening a history book.

If you define nationality as being represented by or representing the political body that held legal authority over your birthplace (American way), then Mozart was Salzburgian.

Salzburg was not part of Austria during Mozart's life. He had to cross a border to get to Vienna. Before Salzburg was independent it was Bavarian, afterwards Austrian -- and lots of switching in-between. German nationality didn't exist until much later and the triple-misnomer Holy Roman Empire was long extinct. See Christo's point above.

Quote from: opus67 on May 05, 2009, 10:03:44 AM
The (opposite) case could be raised for Mahler. He was born in a place which was at the time part of the Austrian Empire but which physically exists in the Czech Republic today. But Mahler is listed under Austria in the index.

Listen to what the man himself said: "I am three times an outsider...as a native of Bohemia in Austria, as an Austrian among Germans, and as a Jew all over the world."

Here's a fun case - Ligeti. A Hungarian-speaking Jew from Romania (Transylvania), who lived in Hungary for a while but then settled in Vienna and became an Austrian citizen. What slot do you put him in?

Or Xenakis. Born to a Greek family in Romania, lived in Greece for a while, moved to France and became a French citizen.

Quote from: Spitvalve on May 05, 2009, 09:40:18 PM
Listen to what the man himself said: "I am three times an outsider...as a native of Bohemia in Austria, as an Austrian among Germans, and as a Jew all over the world."

We don't know if he said so. We only know Alma tells us that he had said it.  ;) We do know that a similar statement had been made by Anton Rubinstein about his position as a Jew in Russia. So what we know for certain is that it is a literary topos - maybe applied by Mahler on himself, maybe not.  ::)

Good examples of the complexity of "nationality" BTW !  :)

Quote from: Christo on May 05, 2009, 11:34:21 PM
We don't know if he said so. We only know Alma tells us that he had said it.  ;) We do know that a similar statement had been made by Anton Rubinstein about his position as a Jew in Russia. So what we know for certain is that it is a literary topos - maybe applied by Mahler on himself, maybe not.  ::)

That's interesting. I am almost certain that a similar statement has been attributed to Kafka as well, which would argue further in favor of its being a literary topos.

So maybe they said it - maybe they didn't!

IMO, what he considered himself, that is his nationality. Valid also for all other composers mentioned here.

Quote from: Florestan on May 06, 2009, 12:21:01 AM
IMO, what he considered himself, that is his nationality. Valid also for all other composers mentioned here.

That about sums it up. And why should anyone be restricted to one nationality anyway?

Quote from: Spitvalve on May 05, 2009, 09:40:18 PM
Or Xenakis. Born to a Greek family in Romania, lived in Greece for a while, moved to France and became a French citizen.

Xenakis, however, personally chose to fight with Greece in the (Second World) war, and then the Greek civil war (getting half his face blown off in the process). So it could be argued that his personal interest in Greece was great enough for him to be a Greek-French composer, vs. French, as he would've been if you argued using the artistic association criterion alone.

In general, I think a heuristic solution is the only viable one, for that sort of predicate (Greek, French, German, Austrian, etc.)...

Quote from: Spitvalve on May 06, 2009, 12:49:32 AM
That about sums it up. And why should anyone be restricted to one nationality anyway?

I should point out that I have no real concern about what people consider themselves in general - simply where to put him in the composer list, and trying to avoid just a gigantic list in alphabetical order of surname... Duplicate entries under different sections might work, but then I suppose people might object to not including no longer extant nations, and the neurosis will continue...

Quote from: Lethe on May 06, 2009, 02:59:01 AM
simply where to put him in the composer list

Austria will do just fine. :)

Nationality is not a function of political boundaries, but of tribal membership, determined primarily by language (which shapes one's world view and values more powerfully than any other influence) and other elements of culture, such as history, religion, mores, customs, and so on.

For the purposes of classification, as others have suggested, just call him Austrian and don't get your dress over your head trying to needlessly complicate things!

I've never thought of Mozart as anything but Austrian.

Well, that and the marzipan.

Quote from: DavidRoss on May 06, 2009, 04:43:43 AM
Nationality is not a function of political boundaries, but of tribal membership, determined primarily by language (which shapes one's world view and values more powerfully than any other influence) and other elements of culture, such as history, religion, mores, customs, and so on.

I beg to disagree (well, partially  ;)) The specific form of tribal identity that we call "nationality", is first and for all determined by the political order, in this case the modern nation state. It is the state that determines most of the cultural elements you mention. First of all language, but also religion (traditionally the base of a "nation" in the classical meaning), a shared historical mythology, aso.

One problem is, that in some languages the words for "nationality" and "citizenship" are equivalents, in other languages (= political systems, traditions) "nationality" can indeed also refer to a more tribal identity, for example based on religion, as you suggest. This applies especially to Eastern European traditions, and especially to Russia.

But in case a "nationality" is almost identical to the citizenship of a specific state, I would suggest it is indeed the state that is the determining factor.

Which would make Mozart a "Salzburgian" before anything else.  ;) 8)

You are welcome to disagree, but you are wrong.  If it's any comfort, you have plenty of company.

Quote from: DavidRoss on May 06, 2009, 05:30:21 AM
You are welcome to disagree, but you are wrong.  If it's any comfort, you have plenty of company.

I'm happy with the comfort - but a little explanation would be even more welcome!  :)

Quote from: Christo on May 06, 2009, 05:35:29 AM
I'm happy with the comfort - but a little explanation would be even more welcome!  :)

The "explanation" is what you disagreed with.

Rather than the political order determining nationality (except in the very narrow sense perpetrated by the ruling powers of modern nation-states), it is nationality that usually gives birth to the political order--except when such order is forced on nations, artificially dividing or uniting them into political entities, as practiced, for instance, by the great colonial powers of the 19th and 20th Centuries.

Quote from: DavidRoss on May 06, 2009, 05:52:52 AM
except when such order is forced on nations, artificially dividing or uniting them into political entities, as practiced, for instance, by the great colonial powers of the 19th and 20th Centuries.

Agreed. But this is exactly what happened in most of Europe (to continue my Eurocentric argument  ;)) as well as in the rest of the world. The creation of nation states by the common will of a "nation" is mostly a historical myth, I would say.  :)

Quote from: Christo on May 06, 2009, 05:58:33 AM
Agreed. But this is exactly what happened in most of Europe (to continue my Eurocentric argument  ;)) as well as in the rest of the world. The creation of nation states by the common will of a "nation" is mostly a historical myth, I would say.  :)

I never would have guessed it was even a belief, let alone one so commonly held as to constitute a myth.

Far from getting anywhere nearer clarity and light, we have the suggestion that Salzburgisch is a . . . nationality?

Someone recapitulate for me the "problems" in considering Mozart an Austrian?  TIA.

The question is: is nationality prior to the state, or is the state (political order of any kind) the determining factor in shared identities like nationality, but also language, religion, aso.

Generally speaking, I would opt for the second. Most of the world's present languages and religions are the result of some form of political order, now or in the past. The same applies to nationality, taken, as you do, as a tribal identity, a national identity.

To give just one other example: France. Untill probably the 20th, but certainly the 19th century, the majority of the "French" spoke another language than French. Yet in the end of a long historical process that created a French state, the majority not only spoke French, but were Catholics as well and shared a strong "national" identity, even a nationality. Had al those minorities (who together formed the majority of the "French" through the ages) become subjects of other, neighbouring states, the same process would have happened, with different nationalities as an outcome.

And, well, exactly the same applies to myself. I am from the East of the Netherlands, as were all of my relatives in the past. Had the region, at some point in history, been added to the German empire, I would have accepted German nationality, without even changing my mother tongue (Lox Saxonian) or much else. So I would say my accidental Dutch nationality is the outcome of a political process, more so than of self-identication. And I would think that the same applies to most people, worldwide.

What about the USA? Didn't you all, as immigrants I mean, accept American nationality as the result of the prior existance of a British political order and later on an American state? And start to speak English for that reason, and become Protestants, etc.?  ::)

Therefore I conclude that it makes little sense to call Mozart an "Austrian".  8)

I don't quite get your point, Christo. Do you imply that, apart from a political, quasi-fictitious construction, there is no such thing a Dutch nation?

Quote from: Florestan on May 06, 2009, 11:46:00 PM
I don't quite get your point, Christo. Do you imply that, apart from a political, quasi-fictitious construction, there is no such thing a Dutch nation?

No, not at all. But I would rather say the Dutch nation is a demos, not an ethnos. The "nation" arose from political circumstances, not from a pre-existant ethnicity or nationality.

Quote from: Christo on May 06, 2009, 11:51:10 PM
No, not at all. But I would rather say the Dutch nation is a demos, not an ethnos. The "nation" arose from political circumstances, not from a pre-existant ethnicity or nationality.

I'm not sure this is true. In the times when The Netherlands were part of the Spanish Empire, most of their inhabitants identified themselves as strongly distinct, to the point of violent rejection of any ties, from Spaniards, in terms of language, culture and religion. Does this not mean that, many years prior to the establishment of the political Dutch state, they had a sense of ethnicity, i.e. belonging to a specific place, speaking a specific language or a family of closely-related languages, sharing a common ancestry. a common history, a common culture and a common religion?

Quote from: Florestan on May 06, 2009, 11:46:00 PM
I don't quite get your point, Christo. Do you imply that, apart from a political, quasi-fictitious construction, there is no such thing a Dutch nation?

I think the dispute is not about the Dutch, per se, but the meaning of the word "nation."  Many people today mistakenly use the word as if it were identical in meaning to "nation-state," referring to a political entity instead of to a people.  "Nation" is properly a synonym of "race"--but then that is another word whose meaning has been muddled in recent decades.

The distinction is significant.  We may not be what we eat, but to a large extent, we are what we think.  Our liberty is all but lost if we come to identify ourselves with our political masters instead of with our brothers and sisters.

Quote from: DavidRoss on May 07, 2009, 05:06:09 AM
"Nation" is properly a synonym of "race". 

Not quite. There is a Dutch nation or a Romanian nation, for instance, which belong both to the white race, but there is no White nation.

I think the confusion is rather between citizenship and nationality. The former is a strictly political and technical identification, and it may or may not relate to nationality: in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, for instance, there were Germans, Hungarians, Italians, Slovaks, Czechs, Romanians, Slovenes, Croatians, Bosnians --- who were all citizens of the Empire; but their nationality was different, and in no way did a Romanian identify himself as an Austrian, or a Croatian as a Hungarian. Each group had its own language, religion, culture, customs, ancestry, history, each group had a sense of belonging where they lived and each group (except Germans and Hungarians) felt they were not free to assert themselves as such. In short, their sense of nationality collided with their citizenship. When the time was ripe, each group (again, save Germans and Hungarians) seceded from the Empire with no remorse or regret. Their national self-identification was not the result of a political construction, but completely the other way round: an extant political construction collapsed because of their strong national sentiment, which manifested itself long before there was any political artifact which reflected it.

So, the way I see it, nationality and national sentiment long predates their political manifestation in the form of nation-states. Witness the Basques or the Kurds, who have never had any state of their own, but whose national pride is all the more remarkable

Quote from: Florestan on May 07, 2009, 05:33:36 AM
Not quite. There is a Dutch nation or a Romanian nation, for instance, which belong both to the white race, but there is no White nation.

You might investigate the meaning of "race," just as Christo might investigate the meaning of "nation." The Oxford English Dictionary is the best place to start.

The Basques and the Kurds are perfect examples of nations distinct from states, just as Spain and Iraq are perfect examples of states whose citizens include people of different nationalities or races (having little or nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with "language, religion, culture, customs, ancestry, [and] history").

Quote from: DavidRoss on May 07, 2009, 06:35:10 AM
You might investigate the meaning of "race,"

If you can make a good point for the existence of a Romanian race, or a White nation, I am willing to change my views.

Quote from: Florestan on May 07, 2009, 07:11:44 AM
If you can make a good point for the existence of a Romanian race, or a White nation, I am willing to change my views.

Once again:  this has nothing to do with Romania or fair skin, but with the meaning of the terms "nation" and "race."  You evince unwillingness to consider that I, a moderately well-educated native English speaker whose general credibility is known to you, might be offering information helpful to better understand these terms.  That's your prerogative.  Consult the OED or other similarly authoritative sources if you wish to pursue the question.   

Quote from: DavidRoss on May 07, 2009, 07:43:36 AM
Once again:  this has nothing to do with Romania or fair skin, but with the meaning of the terms "nation" and "race."  You evince unwillingness to consider that I, a moderately well-educated native English speaker whose general credibility is known to you, might be offering information helpful to better understand these terms.  That's your prerogative.  Consult the OED or other similarly authoritative sources if you wish to pursue the question.   

David, there's no need to become nervous. You know very well that we are mostly in agreement on many topics. 0:)

I give you all the credit you deserve (moderately well-educated is a nice understatement) and have no doubt that in the English language "race" and "nationality" are synonimous. But I think that most educated people, whatever their native tongue, have different concepts in mind when speaking of "race" and "nationality" and that in the context of the discussion at hand we should make this distinction if we don't want to worsen the confusion.

He is a part of the holy roman empire. Mozart and Constantine were great chums!

We seem to be trying to apply a modern concept to Mozart, who existed in a time and place when that concept hardly existed and the word nation meant something very different than it does today.  Is it any wonder we can't agree? ??? ;D

It might be interesting to learn what was involved in traveling from Salzburg to Vienna in those days.  Was there a border checkpoint where young Wolfie had to show his "papers?"  Would he have had to establish citizenship or residence in Vienna to apply for the infamous Court appointment? ???

Quote from: jochanaan on May 09, 2009, 07:27:48 PM
We seem to be trying to apply a modern concept to Mozart, who existed in a time and place when that concept hardly existed and the word nation meant something very different than it does today.  Is it any wonder we can't agree? ??? ;D

It might be interesting to learn what was involved in traveling from Salzburg to Vienna in those days.  Was there a border checkpoint where young Wolfie had to show his "papers?"  Would he have had to establish citizenship or residence in Vienna to apply for the infamous Court appointment? ???

You didn't need a passport to travel in the 18th century.  Passports were documents given by monarchs to people who traveled through their realms, asking that they be given safe passage through that country.  Kings or Emperors didn't give them out to just anyone.  Ordinary people just got in a coach, or on a boat, or on a horse, or walked and took their chances.  If you arrived at a walled city before the gates were closed, you entered.  If not, you waited outside the walls for the gates to open the next morning.  Sort of like traveling through Oz -- without a passport you were subject to the whim of any petty noble, but with one you were only marginally safer.  In a time where the concept of a civilian police force didn't exist, roads were rife with bandits and highwaymen.  Travel even on "Royal" Highways was always chancy, especially at night.  That's why the wealthy usually traveled with entourages of outriders, grooms, etc. usually armed, for protection.

Quote from: c#minor on May 07, 2009, 01:19:37 PM
He is a part of the holy roman empire. Mozart and Constantine were great chums!

The Holy Roman Empire was neither Roman, nor holy, nor an empire for that matter.  It was a fairly loose confederation of states whose rulers were called "electors."   The Electors had the right to vote for the next emperor, but by the 18th century they voted for the heir to the last Emperor, a member of the Habsburg family.  By the 18th century, some of the Electors were not even Roman Catholic. 

Mozart's citizenship of birth was Salzburgian, he called himself "German", he spoke German as his first language, he didn't particularly love Salzburg, he created lot of his major creative output in Vienna, and travelled around Europe. I would say he was a cosmopolitan German composer. But calling him Austrian is OK to me also. I have always wondered what the real difference between an Austrian and a German is. Hitler was Austrian but he called himself a German etc...  ;D

Quote from: Bunny on May 09, 2009, 08:10:27 PM
The Holy Roman Empire was neither Roman, nor holy, nor an empire for that matter.  It was a fairly loose confederation of states whose rulers were called "electors."   The Electors had the right to vote for the next emperor, but by the 18th century they voted for the heir to the last Emperor, a member of the Habsburg family.  By the 18th century, some of the Electors were not even Roman Catholic. 

I was being facetious obviously. Referencing Constantine was to show my lack of seriousness. 

Quote from: Bunny on May 09, 2009, 08:10:27 PM
The Holy Roman Empire was neither Roman, nor holy, nor an empire for that matter.  It was a fairly loose confederation of states whose rulers were called "electors."   The Electors had the right to vote for the next emperor, but by the 18th century they voted for the heir to the last Emperor, a member of the Habsburg family.  By the 18th century, some of the Electors were not even Roman Catholic. 

Not all rulers were Electors, only a handful of them: between eight and ten, depending on the historical period. For comparison, in 1792 there were about 150 Imperial States (that had the right to vote in the Imperial Diet) while the number of all various separate territories with their own authorities exceeded 1800.  :)

Quote from: c#minor on May 10, 2009, 12:34:10 AM
I was being facetious obviously. Referencing Constantine was to show my lack of seriousness. 

Clearly you weren't clearly humorous. ::)

Quote from: Florestan on May 10, 2009, 07:40:47 AM
Not all rulers were Electors, only a handful of them: between eight and ten, depending on the historical period. For comparison, in 1792 there were about 150 Imperial States (that had the right to vote in the Imperial Diet) while the number of all various separate territories with their own authorities exceeded 1800.  :)

Didn't mean to imply that they were all electors, merely that by the time the HRE was superseded by Austrian Empire (or Eastern Empire to be precise) many of the electors were not Roman Catholic.

Quote from: DavidRoss on May 07, 2009, 06:35:10 AM
You might investigate the meaning of "race," just as Christo might investigate the meaning of "nation." The Oxford English Dictionary is the best place to start.

Why? We are discussing the concept of "nationality" here, not "nation" - which is indeed a much older concept, more in line with what you are arguing here. But "nationality" is a modern concept, and much more a political construct.

Quote from: Florestan on May 07, 2009, 07:55:25 AM
David, there's no need to become nervous. You know very well that we are mostly in agreement on many topics. 0:)

I give you all the credit you deserve (moderately well-educated is a nice understatement) and have no doubt that in the English language "race" and "nationality" are synonimous. But I think that most educated people, whatever their native tongue, have different concepts in mind when speaking of "race" and "nationality" and that in the context of the discussion at hand we should make this distinction if we don't want to worsen the confusion.

Well said, Andrei. Yet, I can hardly believe that in English or American English, "nationality" can ever be used as an equivalent of "race" or indeed "nation". Can it really have that meaning, David?

Quote from: Christo on May 20, 2009, 12:49:51 AM
Why? We are discussing the concept of "nationality" here, not "nation" - which is indeed a much older concept, more in line with what you are arguing here. But "nationality" is a modern concept, and much more a political construct.

An interesting way to look at it.  But again, what of the Kurds, the Basques, the Masai, the Hmong, French-Canadians, and so on?

QuoteWell said, Andrei. Yet, I can hardly believe that in English or American English, "nationality" can ever be used as an equivalent of "race" or indeed "nation". Can it really have that meaning, David?

Yes.  See above.  The issue is muddied, of course, by shifting meaning and application of such terms in common usage.  I suspect that the vast majority of English-speakers today use the term "race" interchangeably with "skin color" and have no awareness of its historical meaning. 

Well, the race is not always to the swift.

Quote from: DavidRoss on May 20, 2009, 04:08:08 AM
An interesting way to look at it.  But again, what of the Kurds, the Basques, the Masai, the Hmong, French-Canadians, and so on?

All of them: rather fine examples of "nations" in the classical sense. And in all cases, their "nationality" is a much more complicated matter, don't you think? To elaborate a bit: most Kurds hold either a Turkish, Iraqi, Iranian or Syrian passport and that would be their "nationality" too, if they're not migrated to Germany or the Netherlands.  ;)

For the Basques it's either Spanish or French, for the Masai mostly Kenyan, for the Hmong (according to Wikipedia  ;)) it's either China, Vietnam, Laos or Thailand and for Quebec it's Canada, Canadian.  0:)

Quote from: DavidRoss on May 20, 2009, 04:08:08 AM
Yes.  See above.  The issue is muddied, of course, by shifting meaning and application of such terms in common usage.  I suspect that the vast majority of English-speakers today use the term "race" interchangeably with "skin color" and have no awareness of its historical meaning.  

Yes, but: nationality? As far as I'm aware, the first meaning in most languages (or the few I know) is something like "citizenship of a particular nation, state". That, at least, is what I've been discussing here regarding Mozart's "nationality".  :)

Quote from: Christo on May 20, 2009, 04:52:02 AM
Yes, but: nationality? As far as I'm aware, the first meaning in most languages (or the few I know) is something like "citizenship of a particular nation, state". That, at least, is what I've been discussing here regarding Mozart's "nationality".  :)

In Romanian, "nationality" is markedly distinct from "citizenship", Thus, the former means "the fact of belonging to a nation" (and as such, all Kurds have Kurdish nationality) while the latter means "the fact of being a citizen of a state" (and as such, the Basques can be either Spanish or French citizens, while retaining their Basque nationality). For instance, the Hungarians in Transylvania are Romanian citizens of Hungarian nationality.

I hope this helps a bit for clarifying my use of both words.

Quote from: Florestan on May 20, 2009, 05:15:52 AM
In Romanian, "nationality" is markedly distinct from "citizenship", Thus, the former means "the fact of belonging to a nation" (and as such, all Kurds have Kurdish nationality) while the latter means "the fact of being a citizen of a state" (and as such, the Basques can be either Spanish or French citizens, while retaining their Basque nationality). For instance, the Hungarians in Transylvania are Romanian citizens of Hungarian nationality.

I hope this helps a bit for clarifying my use of both words.

A distinction with which I am familiar from residency in Russia, where the paperwork still retained those distinctions from the Soviet era (where one might be a Soviet citizen, but an Uzbek national, for instance).

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 20, 2009, 05:17:50 AM
A distinction with which I am familiar from residency in Russia, where the paperwork still retained those distinctions from the Soviet era (where one might be a Soviet citizen, but an Uzbek national, for instance).

Precisely. It might be that I am linguistically accustomed to this usage of the terms, but it seems to me the distinction is logical and fact-based.

Quote from: Florestan on May 20, 2009, 05:15:52 AM
In Romanian, "nationality" is markedly distinct from "citizenship", Thus, the former means "the fact of belonging to a nation" (and as such, all Kurds have Kurdish nationality) while the latter means "the fact of being a citizen of a state" (and as such, the Basques can be either Spanish or French citizens, while retaining their Basque nationality). For instance, the Hungarians in Transylvania are Romanian citizens of Hungarian nationality.

I hope this helps a bit for clarifying my use of both words.

Yes, actually I know. And about the Russian concept of nationality as well - as I already explained somewhere earlier in this thread.

But I didn't encounter this meaning in an English-language context, which I always considered close to the French, German (and Dutch  ;)) concept. In most of these environments, "nationality" and citizenship are almost equivalents. Very different from the Russian and Romanian use of it, indeed. :)

Quote from: Florestan on May 20, 2009, 05:21:28 AM
Precisely. It might be that I am linguistically accustomed to this usage of the terms, but it seems to me the distinction is logical and fact-based.

There's even historical usage to similar effect in (say) the English of Shakespeare.  There's a dust-up in Henry V between a Welshman and an Irishman (who are both subjects of the English crown), and the Welshman remarks:

Quote from: FluellenCaptain Macmorris, I think, look you, under your
correction, there is not many of your nation--

Bemidji, Minnesota

Great quotation. But again: this is about nation, not about nationality (a much more modern word, first used in English in 1691 ...)  ;)

Quote from: Christo on May 20, 2009, 05:24:51 AM
Yes, actually I know. And about the Russian concept of nationality as well - as I already explained somewhere earlier in this thread.

But I didn't encounter this meaning in an English-language context, which I always considered close to the French, German (and Dutch  ;)) concept. In most of these environments, "nationality" and citizenship are almost equivalents. Very different from the Russian and Romanian use of it, indeed. :)

I know. When living in France, it took me a rather long time to accomodate myself to the French use of those two words.  :)

Quote from: Mn Dave on May 20, 2009, 05:30:39 AM
Bemidji, Minnesota

"Sad-Eyed Lady of Salzburg"

Quote from: Mn Dave on May 20, 2009, 05:30:39 AM
Bemidji, Minnesota

As a former Cobber, with friends in Bemidji, I actually know your neck of the woods quite a bit.