The “Catálogo de los gentilicios canarios” devotes a specific section to analyzing how the Diccionario de la Real Academia Española (DRAE) addresses Canarian gentilics, pointing out both strengths and shortcomings in the dictionary’s treatment [1].
According to Gonzalo Ortega Ojeda, one of the main issues is the DRAE’s limited and sometimes inaccurate coverage of gentilics related to the Canary Islands. While the inclusion of gentilics in a general dictionary can be debated, the author argues that the diversity and widespread use of certain forms in Spanish justify their presence, especially when they have become semi-official or widely recognized [1].
The catalogue notes that the DRAE correctly defines some gentilics, such as “gomero, ra”, “herreño, ña”, “palmero, ra”, “lanzaroteño, ña”, and “majorero, ra”. However, it criticizes the lack of proper consideration for others, such as “canario, ria”, which, according to the author, should include a specific meaning for natives of Gran Canaria, as this usage is common among older speakers from other islands [1].
Ortega Ojeda also points out errors like the DRAE’s inclusion of “canario” for people from “Canalones” (sic) in Uruguay, when in fact the term is used due to the historical presence of Canarians in that region, as supported by referenced studies [1].
The author highlights the limited use of terms like “canariense”, which only appears in very specific contexts, such as “diócesis canariense” for the diocese of Las Palmas [1].
Regarding derivatives like “canarismo”, the catalogue criticizes the DRAE’s second definition—“love or attachment to the typical things of the Canary Islands”—as “fantasmagoric” and not actually used in the Canary Islands [1]. Conversely, it laments the absence of “canariedad”, a term genuinely used to describe what is unique to the Canary Islands.
For popular or pejorative gentilics, the catalogue notes that the DRAE correctly lists “canarión” as pejorative but omits the truncated form “chicha”, used in opposition to “canarión”. It also criticizes the definition of “chicharrero, ra”, which only includes the metonymic sense of ‘Tenerife native’, while in Tenerife it is also used for people from Santa Cruz de Tenerife specifically [1].
Finally, the catalogue points out the absence of terms like “conejero, ra” (from Lanzarote) in the DRAE, despite their widespread use and the loss of their original negative connotations, making them equivalent to “lanzaroteño, ña” [1].
In conclusion, the “Catálogo de los gentilicios canarios” recommends a thorough revision of the DRAE to address these shortcomings and better reflect the real usage and richness of Canarian gentilics [1].