The performance of Puerto Rican musical idol Bad Bunny (real name — Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio) at the Super Bowl Show resonated across the United States and the Latin American world. It prompted me to reflect on linguistic matters. The Ukrainian language is a living organism, capable of evolving and improving. So, should we reconsider the word "American"?

After the dissolution of the USSR, the Ukrainian language gradually cleansed itself of excessive Russianisms, including among ethnonyms. Thus, forms like "канадієць" (Kanadiyets) instead of the Russian-sounding "канадець" (Kanadets), and "данець" (Danets) instead of "датчанин" (Datchanin) became established. The names of foreign cities also began to be reconsidered. However, this mainly involved using "г" instead of "х", which doesn't always seem natural, as in some languages, our "х" is closer to the original "h".

Cities in present-day Poland with ancient Ukrainian pronunciations — Peremyshl, Kholm, Riashev — remain officially as Przemysl, Chelm, Rzeszow. Similarly, in Russian, names like "Нью-Йорк" (New York) and "Новый Орлеан" (New Orleans) continue to be used. Why is Orleans new, but York is not? For example, in Polish, there is a counterpart for the Big Apple city: Nowy Jork. Perhaps Ukrainians should also adjust the name of the most populous city in the USA? And if not, then logically New Orleans should also be conveyed as "нью". At least, it would sound more natural for those who sing along to the famous ballad "The House of the Rising Sun" performed by The Animals.

This is to say that language changes, and we have the right to choose words that better fit the times and our level of knowledge.

Bad Bunny essentially conducted a cultural manifestation, directly asserting the uniqueness of the Spanish-speaking Puerto Rican culture. Moreover, he emphasized that all the diverse cultures of America, from Chile and Argentina in the south to Canada and the USA in the north, are American. That is, America is not just the USA, and accordingly, "Americans" are not only citizens of the USA.

In Spanish, such a distinction has long existed: americano — a resident of any country on the American continent, and estadounidense (literally — "United Statesian") — specifically a citizen of the USA. In Ukrainian tradition, "американці" (Amerikantsi) primarily refers to citizens of the USA. Should this be changed?

One might argue: the self-designation of USA citizens is "Americans," since the word "America" is in the name of their country. But the self-designation of European Union citizens is "Europeans." Does this mean we are not Europeans because Ukraine is not part of the EU? Clearly, this contradicts geography. So why do we deny Bolivians, Uruguayans, or Panamanians the right to be Americans?

There is another dimension to this topic — not purely linguistic, but human, directly linked to the war against fascist Russia. If you look at the statistics of foreigners who died for Ukraine, Colombians occupy the first place among volunteers by a large margin. In the top twenty, there are other American countries: the USA, Brazil, Canada, Peru, Argentina. Of course, their motives varied: some acted out of conviction, others — by contract. But they all fought and died for Ukraine. And for us, every fighter is important, regardless of their country of origin, who came to aid our Motherland and risk their own lives — or, unfortunately, already gave it. This also compels us to broaden our view of the word "Americans."

Perhaps, over time, the Ukrainian language will need a separate euphonious word for USA citizens — for example, "штатівці" (shtativtsi). Who knows if it will catch on. But the discussion itself already shows: language lives, reacts to changes in the world and our experience.