This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site, while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Cookie settings
hula skirt
gastronomía
Jan 17, 2020 13:36
4 yrs ago
11 viewers *
English term

American Cancer Society

Non-PRO English to Spanish Medical Medical (general) Medical
Hi,

What is the official translation of "American Cancer Society"?

"Sociedad Estadounidense contra el Cáncer" or "Sociedad Americana contra el Cáncer?
Proposed translations (Spanish)
4 +5 Sociedad Estadounidense contra el Cáncer (ACS)
5 +3 Sociedad Americana Contra el Cáncer
5 -2 Sociedad Américana contra el Cancer
References
Refs.
Estadounidense
Demonym/gentilic of the US people
Change log

Jan 20, 2020 05:00: Wilsonn Perez Reyes changed "Level" from "PRO" to "Non-PRO"

Votes to reclassify question as PRO/non-PRO:

Non-PRO (3): abe(L)solano, Luis M. Sosa, Wilsonn Perez Reyes

When entering new questions, KudoZ askers are given an opportunity* to classify the difficulty of their questions as 'easy' or 'pro'. If you feel a question marked 'easy' should actually be marked 'pro', and if you have earned more than 20 KudoZ points, you can click the "Vote PRO" button to recommend that change.

How to tell the difference between "easy" and "pro" questions:

An easy question is one that any bilingual person would be able to answer correctly. (Or in the case of monolingual questions, an easy question is one that any native speaker of the language would be able to answer correctly.)

A pro question is anything else... in other words, any question that requires knowledge or skills that are specialized (even slightly).

Another way to think of the difficulty levels is this: an easy question is one that deals with everyday conversation. A pro question is anything else.

When deciding between easy and pro, err on the side of pro. Most questions will be pro.

* Note: non-member askers are not given the option of entering 'pro' questions; the only way for their questions to be classified as 'pro' is for a ProZ.com member or members to re-classify it.

Discussion

Steven Huddleston Jan 20, 2020:
Thank you, Chema! Again, your lucid and rational consideration is worthy of praise. I have nothing to add and think I can safely rest my case.

I only regret that not all minds are as open to such, perhaps nuanced, but valid explorations.
Chema Nieto Castañón Jan 20, 2020:
3/3 It is not always easy to translate American. And yet in this case there is no doubt it means US; estadounidense. Is this the correct option as a translator? Or should I use an incorrect and culturally annoying translation just because it has a long tradition in Spanish and because it is actually the name that the Society officially uses/chooses as Spanish translation? There is no counter-argument to Steven's premise; one must either decide yes or no. Is the chosen translation a name itself -and thus it should be accepted as such? Or should it be taken -and treated- as a translation -and thus it might be corrected?

Linguistically there is no doubt "estadounidense/de Estados Unidos" is a better choice. Legally, when talking about the Society, I see no compelling reason to use their preferred Spanish rendering as long as the version with "estadounidense" does not generate any misunderstanding -at all- even if one is used to read/hear "Sociedad Americana".

Do you really think linguistic correctness is indeed irrelevant where given translated names are concerned?
Chema Nieto Castañón Jan 20, 2020:
2/3 And yet, Steven's point still holds; should we consider "Sociedad Americana contra el Cáncer" a name on its own or just a (bad) translation? Is it a legal question? Or a linguistic one? Should we address the well-established tradition of a given denomination, its "official" use or the name-owner preference when it comes to translating a descriptive name? Should we still abide when the official, chosen translation of a name is both incorrect and culturally annoying?

Even more; should we consider differently the "official" translation of a "real" name (i.e. "Kinki" in Kinki Nippon Tourist Co.) and a "descriptive" name (i.e. "Americana" vs. "Estadounidense" en Sociedad Americana contra el Cáncer)? Do we have the right -or the responsibility- to modify the name-owner preferred translation of their own name? Again, is this a legal matter or a linguistic one?
Chema Nieto Castañón Jan 20, 2020:
1/3 The use of “americano” meaning “estadounidense” is warned against by both the Fundeu and the Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas -in spite of “estadounidense” having been recently included as a recognized meaning of “americano” by the DRAE.

Check these out:

- https://www.fundeu.es/recomendacion/estadounidense-norteamer...
- https://elpais.com/elpais/2012/11/29/defensor_del_lector/135...
- https://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/esletra/pdf/04/056_silva.pdf

”Pero debe evitarse el empleo de americano para referirse exclusivamente a los habitantes de los Estados Unidos, uso abusivo que se explica por el hecho de que los estadounidenses utilizan a menudo el nombre abreviado América (en inglés, sin tilde) para referirse a su país. No debe olvidarse que América es el nombre de todo el continente y son americanos todos los que lo habitan.”
Panhispánico de Dudas (http://lema.rae.es/dpd/?key=   e introducir “estados unidos”; ver 3. y 4.)
Wilsonn Perez Reyes Jan 20, 2020:
Esta es una discusión estéril American = estadounidense.

Fin de la discusión.

Una traducción puede ser "oficial" y aun así estar errada.
-----------
"Americano" con el sentido de "estadounidense" está actualmente en el DRAE. Eso no quita para que se desaconseje llamar América a los Estados Unidos y, por tanto, "americanos" a sus habitantes.
https://www.fundeu.es/consulta/americano-1907/
Steven Huddleston Jan 20, 2020:
@Chema That is very well done and a lucid argument! But I still reserve the right to disagree on the following grounds:
1) The issue has not been sufficiently examined, nor has any recognizable authority categorically established that such use of the word "American" is incorrect.
2) That "it *might* be offensive" is not a valid argument. It either is or it is not. How some people feel should not *impose* on what other people believe. In any case, if an organization deliberately chooses to have a truly offensive name, that's their business!
3) Your opinion is noted. But it is an opinion ("I think...") and not, by any stretch of the imagination, universally held.

And finally, because linguistic correctness is indeed irrelevant where given names are concerned. That alone should trump any argument to the contrary!
Steven Huddleston Jan 20, 2020:
@Toni Perhaps you are right. But this is something you should address directly to the ACS. I and perhaps the overwhelming majority, beg to disagree.

I am not so sure that they would reconsider. You seem to assume that they would [naturally] take sides with *your* views. (That's interesting!) So please do send your objections and your appeal for change, to the ACS. Until they decide to change their official name, it *is* their official name. They are, after all, the only ones who have the right to do so.
Toni Castano Jan 19, 2020:
@Steven The American Cancer Association should carefully read all pros and cons set forth in this debate and take a stance on the issue. I would not be surprised if they reconsidered the current Spanish translation of its name. Things, societies, attitudes evolve as a natural process of human development and what might have been acceptable some years ago, it becomes now debatable because, as Bob Dylan says in his song, "things have changed". We translators are at times part of that process and occasionally play i.e. have to play a major role in it.
Chema Nieto Castañón Jan 19, 2020:
Do please allow me to give (imaginary) voice to the American Cancer Society:

1. We have been using "Sociedad Americana" for years and no one has ever complained
2. Now we find out that "Americana" might be an incorrect Spanish rendering of our English name. Should we change it?

- No, because it is already a well known "brand" name in Spanish and it is "well established" over many many years
- No, because after all we are also "americanos"
- No, because linguistic incorrectedness is irrelevant as far as naming goes
- No, because we do not share the thin-skinned cultural arguments against the use of "americano" in the Spanish rendering of our name

Is there any other argument for "no"?
Well, maybe this;

- No, because it is lenghty and costly to change a name

And for "yes"? Should we change our Spanish name? Only two reasons:

- Yes, because it is incorrect
- Yes, because it might be offensive

There might be some more into it but this is what I see so far...

Now, what about the translator; should a translator change the well-established translation of a name? I think that the answer to this question is yes as it is part of our responsibility to correct an erroneous translation.
Steven Huddleston Jan 19, 2020:
@Chema As I have said before, I agree that estadounidense is correct under most circumstances. Not this one. Only this one. For the reasons I've explained before and which everyone chooses to ignore or fails to address and therefore, to invalidate.

Please see item 2 of my response to Toni.

I understand and agree with what you are saying. But this organization has provided its own preferred standard for the Spanish market, has chosen (for whatever reasons) to keep it over many, many years (decades) and that such a condition precludes our personal feelings on this matter.
Chema Nieto Castañón Jan 19, 2020:
@Steven I am sorry, Steven; I just meant to provide a linguistic argument as you had asked for one. I am surprised to see how you can actually accept it as correct but dismiss it as irrelevant ;)

Anyhow, ok, estadounidense is the correct translation.

Now, the "this is the chosen one" argument is the one I was trying to address before when in previous comment I brought the (silly) example of Kinki Nippon Tourist Company: The fact that this American Society has chosen a particular Spanish rendering ("Sociedad Americana") to call themselves does not mean that we as Spanish translators must abide by it when it constitutes a clear mistake.

The name "American Cancer Society" is an English name. Should we change it and call it "US Cancer Society"? Definitely not; some might want to recommend a change but definitely not use a different name.

But what about the Spanish version "Sociedad Americana"? Now, this is a translation of an original English name. And it is an incorrect translation. Should we change it? Well, here I have little doubt; yes, I would correct their Spanish translation -and recommend a change of their official Spanish rendering.
Steven Huddleston Jan 19, 2020:
And 3... 3) Again, we cannot presume the audience the organization is addressing. This organization happens to have worldwide influence. So changing its given name to address the sensitivity of its target audience is an initiative that the organization must take first. We have no authority to rewrite their name just because we personally feel uncomfortable with how they choose to call themselves.
Steven Huddleston Jan 19, 2020:
@Toni These are all subjective and culturally based arguments.
1) You cannot assume that the "translator responsible for that rendering" committed a "faux pas" or would even consider changing it if he or she had the chance to do so. He or she may just as easily make the arguments I have made with just as much or more conviction. Such an argument is an entirely subjective categorization. Not a linguistic argument.
2) Our responsibility as translators ends when proper names are not only adopted, but well established. As I stated before, translators do not have that level of authority. I consider that argument, unjustifiably arrogant, to say the least. You are again missing (dismissing) the point that I am not saying this is the correct translation in the case of a statement, or even the description of an organization, in which case I agree that it should be "estadounidense," but that it is the correct translation in a *given name* that not only has been adopted and established in the target language, and no doubt is also registered officially as such, but is also provided by the entity itself, as the actual name in the target language by which they choose to be addressed. (Read that again)
Toni Castano Jan 19, 2020:
III. And last but not least a final point that no one has mentioned so far, I think. The Spanish translation is presumably targeting the Spanish speaking audiences in the US and the Americas. Another reason, truly fundamental I believe, for this US Association to think of its addressees and the language it uses in its translations to address them and handle this and other similar issues more tactful.
Toni Castano Jan 19, 2020:
II. Some final remarks: Sometimes we translators do have a responsibility that goes far beyond the mere linguistic transfer between languages. It is essential to bear in mind the translation context as a whole (political, social, potential sensitivities that might arise and be touched, etc.), not only the linguistic approach, to deliver a fine, fair, honest translation. This one is a paradigmatic example of what I am saying and I believe this discussion might perhaps become very useful in the future for some translators in order to think about how they do their job. So your argumentation line that the translation of the query expression as “Asociación Estadounidense/de EE.UU. contra el Cáncer” misses the point because there is already an official translation available and all the reasonings in favour of “Estadounidense” instead of “Americana” are therefore “utterly irrelevant”, as you point out, is in my view missing the central point of this debate too. On the contrary, the suggestion of “Estadounidense” instead of “Americana” goes into the real core of the problem.
Toni Castano Jan 19, 2020:
@Steven Yes, it is certainly true that the official translation into Spanish of the American Cancer Association name reads “Asociación Americana Contra el Cáncer”. You just need to open the link posted by abel(L)solano and see inside. However, I am just wondering if the translator responsible for that rendering would translate the official Spanish name that way again if they had the opportunity to read all lines of reasoning (pros and cons) exposed in this debate. To me the repetition of their faux pas is at least very debatable, to put it mildly.
Steven Huddleston Jan 19, 2020:
@Chema This is all true, but utterly irrelevant when we are talking about the given name that an organization *chooses* to use for itself. You misunderstand, and dismiss, my argument, based on a false assumption: that I am defending the use of "americana" instead of estadounidense as a translation, period. I have never made such a claim. In fact I agree that estadounidense is the correct translation, generally speaking. I do it all the time. But not in this case.

This case is an exception because we are talking about an organization's name, not a general statement. The *officially* established name of that organization, by themselves, who also have as much right to call themselves an American entity as you or I have it to call ourselves americanos simply because we are in fact from America, (not the United States but the continent).

It is "La Sociedad Americana Contra el Cancer" in TV and radio commercials and news reports throughout the Spanish speaking world! This case is different because that is how the organization chooses to call itself. The context requires that we as translators take note of that exception, and respect it.
Chema Nieto Castañón Jan 19, 2020:
@Steven The meaning of "americano" is not equivalent to "estadounidense". That is the linguistic argument; the original "American" means "estadounidense" and not "americano". In English it is a well established descriptor and yet US (as in US Navy versus American Navy) could substitute American in most contexts -if not all. But it is not English usage what is at stake here. In Spanish, in spite of a tendency to literally translate American into "americano", as it happens with other words, it is really a mistake, as americano does not mean estadounidense.

The rest of the arguments just point out how the mistake of a literal translation here generates some cultural (and linguistic) misunderstandings that could easily be avoided.
Mariana Gutierrez Jan 19, 2020:
Nombres de entidades, agencias, asociaciones Tengo dudas y casi me inclino a la sugerencia de Steven, considerando que es la forma que usa la institución en su página web.

Podemos abordar esto de dos maneras:
Una, tomarlo como nombre propio y traducirlo como lo hace la propia entidad, aunque su traducción en español no sea precisa (Steven).
Otra, traducirlo. Si se va a traducir, pensando "significado", habría que usar el término estadounidense, dado que americano en español es otra cosa (somos todos los que estamos en las Américas).

Me pregunto si el nombre no debería quedar directamente en inglés, si se considera que es un nombre propio y se agrega que en este momento histórico, nadie que pueda leer en español no entenderá que "American Cancer Society" significa en Sociedad Estadounidense contra el Cáncer.

Entiendo que nuestra tarea es traducir, pero creo que esta es una buena oportunidad de debatir y decidir como colectivo, de manera consensuada (si se puede) qué hacer en este tipo de situación. Incluso tal vez hasta podríamos hacer un glosario de instituciones Proz y uniformizar.
Steven Huddleston Jan 19, 2020:
Waiting for *linguistic* arguments... I don't get what could possibly be so "offensive" about the word "Americana." Especially when an organization that is in fact in the American continent decides to use it as part of its name. Since when have linguists had the authority to dictate the names that corporate entities choose to use to identify themselves? It is almost as if you feel you have proprietary rights over that word. So far all the arguments against are largely based on cultural bias, bordering on political prejudice, and personal feelings. These are not *linguistic* arguments as the Kudos rules clearly state they should be.

This organization has been calling itself "Sociedad Americana Contra el Cancer" since before some of you were born!

Please, if you have a legitimately linguistic argument, one that is not based on how you personally feel about it, I would love to hear it. I really would!
Chema Nieto Castañón Jan 18, 2020:
estadounidense vs americano Allow me just a silly example to address the fact that no translation of a given name should be taken as a good one just because it was chosen by the name-owner.

Japan’s second-largest tourist agency was mystified when it entered English-speaking markets and began receiving requests for unusual sex tours. Upon finding out why, the owners of Kinki Nippon Tourist Company decided to go with KNT in English-speaking countries.
https://gulfbusiness.com/top-10-brands-lost-in-translation/


"Sociedad Americana", referido a una sociedad estadounidense, no sólo chirría enormemente (también en la península) sino que resulta patéticamente chovinista -cuando no directamente ofensivo- por el desprecio implícito al resto de naciones americanas. Entiendo que nada de esto está implícito en el nombre original y de ahí que una traducción literal en este caso adultere a oídos hispanohablantes su sentido en una dirección no deseable. Nada tan grave como la Kinki Tourist Company, pero aún así creo que debería evitarse el uso de "americano" con el sentido de "estadounidense" -y especialmente en foros de traducción diría que ésta debería ser la norma en cuanto a recomendación de traducción.
Juan Jacob Jan 17, 2020:
Endless discussion. Que los estadounidenses se llamen a sí mismos "americanos", que los franceses (y otros) y muchos hispanoparlantes (básicamente peninsulares) también así los llamen -o norteamericanos o de la Unión Americana (!)- bien. En nuestro idioma -básicamente de América Latina- nos zumban las orejas tanto política como geográficamente. Nada más que decir: No es no.
Juan Gil Jan 17, 2020:
Granted, Mr Huddleston Sin embargo, si a me me dijeran "traduce para EEUU Federación Estadounidense de Squash", tenga la plena seguridad que escribiría American Squash Federation...

Thus, to preserve the psychological sense of the text (and to render it understandable within the framework of the receiving cultures), translators were entitled not only to make radical changes to the literal meaning of the original text, but also to its reference - Umberto Eco, Experiences in Translations.
Steven Huddleston Jan 17, 2020:
Regarding fallacies... Fallacies do not apply when corporations are registered in regional territories with specific variants of their names. It is not open for consensus, so, no "bandwagons."
In this case, the Confirmation Bias Fallacy comes to mind...
Juan Gil Jan 17, 2020:
Totalmente de acuerdo con Chema Lo único que puedo agregar con respesto al uso de "Americana" es la Bandwagon fallacy: Thou shalt not argue that because a premise is popular, therefore it must be true.
Chema Nieto Castañón Jan 17, 2020:
Steven is right. And yet, "americano/a" does not specifically refer to estadounidense and so it is a mistake in Spanish. It also makes it harder for the reader to know what it really refers to; "americano" conveys the idea of something/someone from anywhere in America.

La Fundeu también recomienda el uso de estadounidense versus americano y acepta norteamericano, aunque en puridad tampoco se corresponda exclusivamente con EEUU. Ver aquí:
https://www.fundeu.es/recomendacion/estadounidense-norteamer...

Así, a pesar de las traducciones clásicas con el término literal "americano", la referencia a Sociedad contra el cáncer de Estados Unidos / Sociedad Estadounidense contra el Cáncer parecen mucho más ajustadas en castellano que Sociedad "Americana" contra el Cáncer.

El que Estados Unidos utilice American, a falta de mejor gentilicio en inglés, no es óbice para que en castellano se utilice una voz literal ("americano"), no ajustada en sentido, y existiendo además "estadounidense".
Steven Huddleston Jan 17, 2020:
A note on the references and official usage. Much better and more reliable sources than Wikipedia have been offered.
In spite of how we may personally feel regarding the use of "American" to refer to the United States, it is a well established, centuries old practice and for all practical purposes, it *IS* the officially used terminology (as in *all* government communications, TV commercials, etc.) in Spanish in reference to this organization.

Proposed translations

+5
8 mins
Selected

Sociedad Estadounidense contra el Cáncer (ACS)

Según Wikipedia, que para estas cosas es una autoridad.

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Cancer_Society
Peer comment(s):
agree Mónica Algazi : Yo escribiría el original en cursiva y la traducción entre paréntesis.
16 mins
De acuerdo. Gracias, Mónica
neutral abe(L)solano : Yo me iría con mucho cuidado diciendo que Wikipedia es una autoridad, ya que cualquiera puede editar los artículos (!)
19 mins
abe, creo que para este tipo de institución Wikipedia es una buen fuente.
agree Juan Jacob : Estadounidense, por supuesto.
1 hr
Gracias, Juan.
agree Chema Nieto Castañón : Sociedad contra el cáncer de Estados Unidos / Sociedad Estadounidense contra el cáncer
1 hr
Gracias, Chema.
agree Juan Gil : América es todo un coninente, desde Alaska hasta Tierra del Fuego. Estadounidense. Y secundo la sugerencia de Mónica (Chema: ¿EEUU tiene cáncer? (...contra el cáncer de los EEUU))
2 hrs
Gracias, Juan.
agree Toni Castano : En mi opinión, esta sería la solución más coherente para un no estadounidense, pero al mismo tiempo tengo mis dudas de que pueda llegar a tener aplicación práctica en Estados Unidos.
2 hrs
Gracias, Toni
agree María Paula Gorgone : Coincido con la sugerencia de Mónica también.
2 hrs
Gracias, María Paula.
disagree patinba : Si el propio sitio del ACS en español dice en todos lados "Sociedad Americana Contra el Cáncer" esa denominación se debe respetar.
4 hrs
En vista de la paridad en los "coincido" creo que esta es una gran oportunidad para debatir.
disagree Diana Casoliba Bonache : https://www.cancer.org/es/quienes-somos.html
12 hrs
agree Wilsonn Perez Reyes : "Estadounidense", por supuesto. Una traducción puede ser oficial y aun así estar errada.
2 days 14 hrs
Something went wrong...
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer. Comment: "Thanks!"
+3
4 mins

Sociedad Americana Contra el Cáncer

Sic.
Reference:

http://www.cancerpuertorico.org/

Peer comment(s):
agree abe(L)solano : La propia organización traduce así su nombre en español: https://www.cancer.org/es.html
21 mins
¡Gracias, abe(L)solano!
agree Taña Dalglish : Sociedad Americana Contra el Cáncer (ACS por sus siglas en inglés) or as Mónica said below "original en cursiva y la traducción entre paréntesis".
43 mins
¡Gracias, Taña!
agree patinba
58 mins
¡Gracias, patinba!
neutral Juan Jacob : Estadounidense.
1 hr
Así no está registrado, ni se usa oficialmente. Ver enlace que ofrece abe(L)solano.
neutral Chema Nieto Castañón : Americana induce a error; estadounidense.
1 hr
Así no está registrado, ni se usa oficialmente. Ver enlace que ofrece abe(L)solano.
disagree Juan Gil : Por lo que explican Chema y mi tocayo Juan en la Discusión, no (y no puedo ser "políticamente correcto" con un neutral; no es no, como escribió Juan). // Mi opinión, Sr, apoyada por los comentarios mencionados; no una "bandwagon".
7 hrs
And there it is folks, the bandwagon approach! Thank you for your—candor—Mr. Gil! // Oh, right! How dare I!
agree Diana Casoliba Bonache : https://www.cancer.org/es/quienes-somos.html
12 hrs
¡Gracias, Diana!
agree María Patricia Arce : También en UNTERM y con la sugerencia de Mónica
1 day 10 hrs
¡Gracias, María!
disagree Wilsonn Perez Reyes : "estadounidense", por supuesto.
2 days 14 hrs
Yes, M'Lord! Your preference for absolutes has been noted.
Something went wrong...
-2
1 hr

Sociedad Américana contra el Cancer

Es una organización sin fines de lucros
Reference:

https://www.cancer.org/es.html

Peer comment(s):
disagree Juan Jacob : Ni Americana, mucho menos Américana, ni Cancer.
39 mins
Cierto tienes razón me equivoqué con las tildes 🙈
disagree Wilsonn Perez Reyes : Errada totalmente.
2 days 13 hrs
Something went wrong...

Reference comments

47 mins
Reference:

Refs.

I am not sure that there is anything official. When this happens and there is no clear evidence of an "official" denomination, I tend to use the number of hits. In this case, it would appear that "Sociedad Americana Contra el Cáncer (ACS) is more commonly used.

About 5,720 results (0.54 seconds)
"Sociedad Estadounidense contra el Cáncer"


Sociedad Americana Contra el Cáncer (ACS)
Page 35 of about 85,300 results
https://es.wikipedia.org/es.wikipedia.org › wiki › Cáncer
Cáncer - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre
Cáncer es el nombre común que recibe un conjunto de enfermedades relacionadas en las que ... De acuerdo con la **Sociedad Americana Contra el Cáncer**, 7,6 millones de personas murieron por esta enfermedad en el mundo durante el año ...


https://www.cancer.gov/espanol

https://www.cancer.gov/espanol/publicaciones/diccionario?exp...


https://es.oncolink.org/tipos-de-cancer/canceres-gastrointes...
¿Cómo podemos encontrar estos pólipos pre-cancerosos o cánceres tempranos? Detección temprana. Hay hoy un número de pruebas disponibles para detectar los cánceres colorectales, pero no todas las pruebas son creadas iguales. La preferencia del paciente, disponibilidad de la prueba y costo, todos juegan un papel en elegir la mejor prueba para un individuo. **La Sociedad Americana del Cáncer (ACS)**, el Grupo de Trabajo de Multi-Sociedad de los Estados Unidos sobre el Cáncer Colorectal (USMSTF) y la Universidad Americana de Radiología han desarrollado pautas para la detección temprana que utilizan las pruebas disponibles incluyendo cuando y cuantas veces realizarlas. Repasemos qué pruebas están disponibles, cómo se realizan y como de bien trabajan.

Perhaps you could try going to "good" Spanish links to see what they use (I included one above).
Peer comments on this reference comment:
agree Luis M. Sosa : I agree in this case that the number of hits can represent a good option.
7 mins
Gracias Luis.
agree Toni Castano : Yes, "Sociedad Americana Contra el Cáncer" prevails. The figures and data speak for themselves, but this fact does not rule out the other (logical) option being used, I sense.
1 hr
Thank Toni.
agree patinba : I think that if the ACS on its own Spanish site uses Sociedad Americana Contra el Cáncer, then it is indeed official.
4 hrs
Thanks Pat. I tend to agree. That is why I chose (refs. below) to go about the search, perhaps in an unconventional way, by hits to determine frequency of use - may be not the best approach?
Something went wrong...
1 hr
Reference:

Estadounidense

Sin duda "estadounidense". Americana en castellano induce claramente a error.



Sociedad contra el cáncer de Estados Unidos (ACS)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/elpais.com/diario/2005/06/07/sa...

https://www.dinero.com/actualidad/noticias/articulo/persiste...

https://contusalud.com/informacion-de-salud/enfermedades/176...

https://www.eluniverso.com/2005/08/07/0001/1064/C1CEB018CBBB...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.eltiempo.com/amp/archivo/do...

http://www1.rionegro.com.ar/arch200305/s22j31.html

Sociedad Estadounidense contra el cáncer (ACS)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/espanol/noticias/la-socie...

https://www.efe.com/efe/america/sociedad/el-cancer-costo-8-7...

https://www.larepublica.ec/blog/tag/sociedad-estadounidense-...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lavanguardia.com/ciencia/cu...
Peer comments on this reference comment:
agree Toni Castano : Comprendo tu punto de vista, y personalmente lo comparto, pero cuando hablan ellos, los ciudadanos de EE.UU. (no diré América, por supuesto) oirás voces claramente discrepantes. Adjunto unas referencias adicionales sobre el gentilicio.
2 mins
agree Wilsonn Perez Reyes : Por supuesto, "estadounidense".
2 days 12 hrs
Something went wrong...
2 hrs
Reference:

Demonym/gentilic of the US people

How people in the United States call themselves. Please see some references below:

https://grammarist.com/usage/american/
American
The word American, as both an adjective and a demonym, can be tricky. The word technically should apply to people and things both North and South American, but in practical usage it has come to refer mostly to people and things from the U.S.
American as a demonym
The United States has been accused of appropriating the term American out of conceitedness, but the issue is not so simple. Most countries in North and South America have obvious demonyms—for example, Canadian, Mexican, Honduran, Brazilian, Chilean—but for natives of the United States there is no obvious equivalent that rolls off the tongue. United Statesian doesn’t work. So while the appropriation might be unfair to other people of the Western Hemisphere, it’s also a matter of convenience.
(…)
We like to use U.S. instead of American as the adjective, and we’re not alone in this:
The new U.S. goods subject to tariffs also include grapefruit, pistachios, chewing gum, cheese and ketchup. [Bloomberg]
Berkeley’s City Council decided Tuesday night to put off a vote to honor a U.S. soldier who’s accused of sharing secret military data with WikiLeaks. [San Francisco Chronicle]


A little bit of history:
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-term-United-Staters-more-accura...
Is the term "United Staters" more accurate than Americans?
A little history if I may.
Originally, each one of the thirteen American colonies that rebelled against the United Kingdom regarded itself as an independent state. However, they knew they could only win the War of Independence collectively so they joined forces. Therefore everyone first thought of his or herself as a resident of their state, i.e. a Virginian, and as an American second, in much the same way people today in Europe think of themselves as a French person, for example, first and a European second.
After the war they realized they still needed each other so they formed a confederation called United States of America. In a confederation the part is greater than the whole so people still thought of themselves as a resident of their state first and as an American second. In fact, in those days, it was proper to say, The United States are (the plural) and not the United States is (the singular).
13 years later they realized the confederation wasn't working so they wrote The Constitution their confederation changed into a federation where the central government is superior (in some respects) to the states. However many still regarded their state as more important. This was especially true concerning slavery where many believed the state had the right to have slavery legal without interference from the federal government.
The battle between the states and the central government culminated in the American Civil War in which the Union forces prevailed. It is from this point people began to believe that being an American was more important than being a Virginian or New Yorker.
So you see, Americans, contrary to what some South Americans believe, did not wake up one day and say, “we are so great we will claim this name for ourselves and deny it to all others.” Rather being called American is the result of our nation evolving from 13 colonies to 50 states united.
From the American point of view, we are Americans, Canadians are North Americans and Brazilians are South Americans. However if you are from South America and want to call yourself American I could not care less. But understand, a name is a cup you give to others empty which they fill with their ideas of who they think you are. We have filled the cup called America and American. It will be very difficult so long as America is a world power for another nation to change the world’s opinion that this cup refers to them and to fill it with ideas in respect to themselves.


Unfortunalely, the alternative United Statian/United Stater does not seem to work, nobody uses it in the United States (to my knowledge), some US-Americans have told me personally that it sounds terribly pedantic.

https://www.yourdictionary.com/united-statian
United-Statian
Noun
(plural United Statians)
(rare) A citizen or inhabitant of the United States.
Adjective
(comparative more United Statian, superlative most United Statian)
Pertaining to the United States.
Origin
From United States +‎ -ian.


Here are some alternatives to “American”, but they don´t seem to be popular either: Usian, Colonican, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alternative_words_for_Ame...
Talk: Alternative words for American
(…)
Usian[edit]
I have lived in the USA for 24 years and I have not heard of this word before. Since not many people in the U.S. has heard this word before, nor my dictionary has an entry for it. Can the person who made up this word specify how this "word" is pronounced?
I tried many variations, none sounded right.
Us-Sian as in one of "us".
U-Sian as in one of "you".
U-S-sian as in U.S. of A.
U-S-ian?


I personally believe that US is a good alternative as an adjective. If you say United States Cancer Society or US Cancer Society there is no possible misunderstanding. I believe that expressions such as "American Cancer Association” may lead to confusion in the readership and can besides be offensive for other Americans.
Something went wrong...
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search