In 2008, Gonzalo Ortega Ojeda published the Catálogo de los gentilicios canarios with the Academia Canaria de la Lengua, a work that collected, organized and commented on the extraordinary variety of gentilics used in the Archipelago [1]. Among its sections, it included one devoted to the treatment that the Diccionario de la Real Academia Española —the 2001 edition, known as DRAE-01— gave to these words. The author pointed out successes, but also deficiencies, omissions and definitions that did not reflect actual usage.
This article takes that study as its starting point, but does not reproduce it as if it described the current situation. The academic dictionary is not a closed work: more than two decades of revisions have elapsed between DRAE-01 and the current Diccionario de la lengua española (DLE). The aim here is to distinguish which of Ortega’s observations responded to the edition he was analyzing, which have been addressed by academic lexicography, and which remain open in 2026.
Gonzalo Ortega’s study
Ortega Ojeda started from an observation: gentilics are not exactly regionalisms, but outside their area of use they usually lack contrastive value, so general dictionaries record them selectively [1]. Even so, he considered that the most widespread forms, or those that had achieved a certain semi-official status, deserved a place in the academic work.
In his analysis of DRAE-01, Ortega positively valued the inclusion of gentilics such as gomero, ra, herreño, ña, palmero, ra, lanzaroteño, ña and majorero, ra [1]. However, he detected problems in other cases: incomplete definitions, omissions of popular senses and striking absences. These criticisms referred to a specific edition of the dictionary; what the reader finds today in the DLE does not necessarily coincide with what Ortega read then.
From DRAE to DLE: more than two decades of revisions
When Ortega wrote his catalogue, the latest edition of the academic dictionary was the 2001 edition. Since then, the RAE and the Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española (ASALE) have published new editions and have consolidated the online DLE, a tool that is updated continuously. That means that some of the deficiencies he pointed out are no longer observed to the same extent.
This is not about presenting the academic dictionary as an institution that “accepts” or “rejects” how Canarians speak. Dictionaries describe and document uses, and their entries evolve as the available evidence changes. The contrast between the 2008 study and the current DLE allows us to see that evolution concretely.
Gentilics that the DLE has corrected or nuanced
chicharrero
One of the clearest examples of change is chicharrero, ra. Ortega criticized the fact that DRAE-01 only recorded the metonymic sense of ‘Tenerife native’, ignoring that in Tenerife the term is used specifically for natives of Santa Cruz de Tenerife [1].
In the current DLE the situation has changed: chicharrero appears with several senses, and the second of them is defined as equivalent to santacrucero [2][3]. The Academy thus distinguishes the gentilic of the Tenerife capital. As the Academia Canaria de la Lengua itself explains in the context of Ortega’s study, outside Tenerife chicharrero may be used with a broader sense, whereas within the island its fundamental use designates the santacrucero [1]. The DLE has therefore incorporated the distinction that Ortega missed.
canarión
Another illustrative case is canarión, na. In the edition that Ortega analyzed, DRAE-01 recorded it as pejorative [1]. The current DLE, in contrast, defines it as “adj. colloq. Gran Canarian”, without a pejorative label [4].
That modification is not minor. It reflects the semantic neutralization process that the word has undergone: although historically it had pejorative origins or uses —especially in inter-island contrast—, in much contemporary usage it has lost that charge and functions as a colloquial form for referring to natives of Gran Canaria, in parallel to grancanario [1].
Issues that remain open
canario and the ‘Gran Canarian’ use
The DLE currently defines canario, ria mainly as “native of the Canary Islands, archipelago or autonomous community of Spain” [5]. The entry still does not explicitly include the traditional use of canario as ‘native of Gran Canaria’, which Ortega documented as current, especially among older speakers from other islands [1].
That gap does not prevent the DLE from offering a clear alternative: the unambiguous gentilic for natives of Gran Canaria is grancanario, ria. However, the use canario = ‘from Gran Canaria’ remains documented in Canarian speech, especially in inter-island contexts and in certain generations [1]. The difference between the general meaning —native of the Canary Islands— and the traditional meaning —native of Gran Canaria— is still not reflected explicitly in the academic entry.
Canelones, not Canalones
Ortega also noted that DRAE-01 included canario as ‘native of Canalones (sic), city or department of Uruguay’ [1]. The correct name of the Uruguayan department is Canelones, as the author himself pointed out [1]. The current DLE records that sense with the correct form: “native of Canelones, city or department of Uruguay” [5]. The spelling error that Ortega criticized has been corrected.
conejero
The case of conejero, ra is different. Ortega regretted that DRAE-01 did not record this Lanzarote gentilic, despite the fact that its use was widespread and it had lost the negative connotations it may originally have had [1].
In 2026, the DLE still does not include conejero as a Lanzarote gentilic. Its entry only records senses related to the hunting or breeding of rabbits [6]. The Academia Canaria de la Lengua and the Catálogo itself, however, document the use of conejero, ra as a gentilic of the island, in practice equivalent to lanzaroteño, ña [1]. This omission therefore remains a pertinent criticism.
The case of canariedad: DLE and DHLE
Ortega considered the absence of canariedad from the academic dictionary especially striking. In contrast to canarismo —which, according to him, included a “phantasmagorical” second sense—, canariedad was a word actually used to designate “the quality of what is peculiar to the Canary Islands” [1].
The current DLE does not record canariedad as an independent headword either. Nevertheless, academic lexicography has documented it in another work: the Diccionario histórico de la lengua española (DHLE) records canariaje with the sense of “character or condition of a Canarian” and cites canaridad and canariedad as synonyms [7]. The DHLE, unlike the general DLE, is constructed as a diachronic database that records examples from the 20th to the 21st century.
That is why it is misleading simply to state that “the RAE does not recognize canariedad”. The fact is that the general DLE has not lemmatized it, but the Diccionario histórico does document and record its use. The distinction between the two works —one a general reference work and the other a historical documentation tool— is key to understanding the current situation.
canariense and canarismo: two divergent realities
The evolution of the DLE has not been uniform. While in some cases it corrects what Ortega criticized, in others it maintains exactly what he questioned.
canariense still appears in the DLE as equivalent to canario in the sense of ‘native of the Canary Islands’ [8]. Ortega emphasized its low frequency and its appearance almost restricted to formulations such as diócesis canariense [1]. In the current edition, the academic dictionary does not seem to mark it as restricted usage, although its presence in everyday speech is still clearly lower than that of canario.
canarismo is even more striking. The DLE keeps the two senses already recorded by DRAE-01: ‘word or linguistic usage typical of the Canarians’ and, in a second sense, ‘love or attachment to things Canarian’ [9]. Ortega precisely described this second definition as “phantasmagorical” and without real use in the Canary Islands [1]. On this point, academic lexicography has not followed his judgment.
What remains of the 2008 critiques?
The Catálogo de los gentilicios canarios remains an indispensable reference work for understanding the richness and complexity of the Archipelago’s gentilics. Its section on the academic dictionary is still useful, but it should be read as an analysis of a specific edition, not as a permanent diagnosis.
Eighteen years later, the DLE has addressed several of Ortega’s observations: it has corrected the spelling of Canelones, distinguished the santacrucero use of chicharrero, and removed the pejorative label from canarión. Other issues, however, remain open: the lack of an explicit sense of canario as ‘native of Gran Canaria’, the absence of conejero as a Lanzarote gentilic, and the survival of the second sense of canarismo.
The case of canariedad also shows that academic lexicography’s response is not uniform: the same word may not appear in the general DLE and yet be documented in the Diccionario histórico. That difference between lemmatization and historical documentation is fundamental for not oversimplifying the debate. Dictionaries change; the value of Ortega’s study is precisely that it established a starting point from which to measure that change.