What are the people who live in the same city are called? Any words for that? I want to use it in the following context:

I and my ____ are happy.

  • I'm pretty sure there IS NO single-word solution there in English. You'd have to say something like "Me and everyone else who lives here is happy."
    – Fattie
    Commented Mar 27, 2014 at 7:12
  • 5
    Pls refer also to: ell.stackexchange.com/questions/19722/…
    – user66974
    Commented Mar 27, 2014 at 9:22
  • 1
    If you're going to use proper English, you need to say, "My XXXXs and I are happy." Commented Mar 27, 2014 at 12:07
  • 5
    @Panzer: that is not any more proper. It is exactly as proper.
    – RegDwigнt
    Commented Mar 27, 2014 at 12:48
  • 2
    @Panzercrisis is right. The correct English is "My ___ and I are...".
    – Phil Perry
    Commented Mar 27, 2014 at 20:03

14 Answers 14



I and my fellow townsfolk are happy.

Citizens is also a possibility, but could be misinterpreted.

  • 5
    Note that using "fellow" here is required to convey the meaning desired by the OP. "Townsfolk" on its own does not convey that meaning.
    – Muhd
    Commented Mar 28, 2014 at 0:27
  • 2
    But what are you going to say if it is a large city like Chicago or Manchester? Townsfolk doesn't really work for anywhere much bigger than Chipping Sodbury, Gloucestershire. 'Citizens' has acquired a different meaning. It was once associated with a city state. But one doesn't talk about the 'citizens of London'. Nations have citizens, not cities.
    – WS2
    Commented Mar 28, 2014 at 13:31
  • 1
    I've heard city folk used... sounds kind of odd like this though. Usually in contrast to country folk
    – Brad
    Commented Mar 28, 2014 at 17:39

I think the word you need is 'denizens'.

'The denizens of Boston showed great solidarity in the face of a terrorist attack'.

'I and my fellow denizens are happy'.

  • 6
    One of my favorite words, but I think it needs qualification to have the meaning the OP seeks.
    – user63230
    Commented Mar 27, 2014 at 7:50
  • I agree with denizens; I think it is probably the closest to what the OP is asking for. If you want a single word, you could maybe get away with 'co-denizens', but I don't really like that; it doesn't sound right.
    – Spudley
    Commented Mar 28, 2014 at 10:55
  • @Spudley Doesn't sound right to me either. I thought 'fellow denizens'. It is two words but as far as I know there is no tax on the number of words you use.
    – WS2
    Commented Mar 28, 2014 at 11:26

Typically the way to say this is:

Fellow [name for locals]

For example:

I want to make my fellow New Yorkers happy.

  • 1
    I don't want to mention any cities. Is it possible to say "make my fellows happy?"
    – Shayan
    Commented Mar 27, 2014 at 7:03
  • My original sentence is similar to: "And individual and his XXXXs are ...."
    – Shayan
    Commented Mar 27, 2014 at 7:09
  • 4
    You can not use "fellows" alone without a city name, it would make no sense.
    – Fattie
    Commented Mar 27, 2014 at 7:11
  • 1
    'fellow residents of X'?
    – smci
    Commented Mar 27, 2014 at 13:30
  • 6
    @Shayan Fellow citizens, perhaps
    – Mynamite
    Commented Mar 27, 2014 at 21:17

Locals is also applicable, as in ,

Locals of Chocmallow Town

  • This word also works without specifying a city: "The locals and I are..."
    – Izkata
    Commented Mar 30, 2014 at 5:18

You can use townspeople or townsfolk.

the people who live in a town or city.


I would have to advocate the word citizen(s) as it really is the correct word, common-place parlance has reduced/expanded (depending on you point of view) its validity, however the word still stands as being the correct term for an inhabitant of a city. The word fellow can be used to indicate an affinity or shared membership of a group; hence, in the context of the phrase mentioned by the OP it would be more appropriate to utilise a two word insertion to clarify the meaning:

I and my ____ are happy.:

I and my citizens are happy. - this makes it appear that the citizens belong to the writer, perhaps not the image/meaning intended to be conveyed.

The citizens and I are happy. - this makes the writer and the citizens appear to be happy, although no affiliation is implied or inferred.

I and my fellow citizens are happy. - this states writer and citizens are both happy whilst also delineating that the writer wishes his status as a part of their group to be known, although this shared status is proprietorial and is from his/her view only and does not indicate the citizens feel the same way.

As Josh61 already mentioned there is a very similar chat going on here


Paraphrasing from one of my other posts:

The popular usage of citizen (a person who lives in a particular town or city, originally a concatenation of the word city and denizen, cit(y)-(den)izen => cit-izen => citizen) actually makes citizen mean the same as national (someone who officially belongs to a particular country). This does not however, alter the original meaning of the word, which remains (from the Oxford dictionary) "An inhabitant of a particular town or city:" exemplar usage: the good citizens of Edinburgh.

Therefore in correct English I would be a citizen of Glasgow if I lived in Glasgow and a British national/countryman/compatriot (dependant on convection of specific meaning required) if I lived in Britain.

Analysis of the etymology of the word allows for the conclusions, as well as the fact that I am quite particular in word usage. I understand language evolves over time (the modern usage is more ambiguous than the original meaning), however, the original context and meaning can still be utilised to be concise and to the point.

In regards to the evolution of language, I agree it happens however that does not preclude any given person being aware of past or lesser used meanings and utilising them to illustrate a point or create a precision and disambiguity in their language (for example, the word idiot stems from the Greek idiotai which was an appellation indicating a private citizen(hence the reason for its use as an example here): over the span of the Greek era it evolved to mean a person holding no official role in public forums, then later as a term for people who did not cast votes at public referenda, and later as a term of disparagement of belittlement, much as it is used today.


citizen (n.) early 14c., "inhabitant of a city," from Anglo-French citezein (spelling subsequently altered, probably by influence of denizen), from Old French citeien "city-dweller, town-dweller, citizen" (12c., Modern French citoyen), from cite (see city) + -ain (see -ian). Replaced Old English burhsittend and ceasterware. Sense of "inhabitant of a country" is late 14c. Citizen's arrest recorded from 1941; citizen's band (radio) from 1947. Citizen of the world (late 15c.) translates Greek kosmopolites.

from Online Etymology Dictionary

Etymological diagram:

Etymology of citizen

Online sources utilised as to provide alternate proof to English language etymology texts (My books do not fit in the scanner)

Physical sources:

  • Chambers Dictionary of Etymology
  • The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology
  • Citizens is more to do with countries or civilisations than a town/city
    – JamesRyan
    Commented Mar 28, 2014 at 10:56
  • citizen has more to do with cities in its proper meaning, however, it is true that in modern usage it has had its meaning expanded to allow people a more dumbed-down subset of vocabulary to encompass a greater scope. If you analyse the vocabularic usage of a random cross section of the populace nowadays I think you may be shocked by how limited and abbreviation-filled it is.
    – GMasucci
    Commented Mar 28, 2014 at 11:22
  • OED lists both definitions with the city based one as the alternate so I'm not sure how you can call that the 'proper' definition and the main usage 'dumbed-down'. Changes in use are not incorrect use and this is not even a recent one. Language evolves, deal with it.
    – JamesRyan
    Commented Mar 31, 2014 at 11:02
  • 1
    However much you want to obfuscate what you are saying with extraneous words that you have read in a thesaurus, and regardless of it's heritage, the word in question simply does not carry the meaning in common usage. People would not understand your intended implication and while you can try and beautify what you are saying with fancy vocabulary, at the end of the day none of that is any use if you fail to communicate.
    – JamesRyan
    Commented Mar 31, 2014 at 16:55
  • 1
    Clearly the word 'citizen' has followed a journey to arrive at where it is today. The OED says: A civilian as distinguished from a soldier; in earlier times also distinguished from a member of the landed nobility or gentry. Johnson says ‘a man of trade, not a gentleman’. This was undoubtedly its original meaning in Britain, and inherited by America. However my feeling is that the great event in world history that carried 'citizen' to its supreme status which it enjoys today was the French Revolution. It is synonymous with the nationalism and concomitant elevation of the citizen to power. cont
    – WS2
    Commented Apr 1, 2014 at 21:29

Taken from a comment made by the OP

My original sentence is similar to: "And individual and his XXXXs are ...."

  • This citizen and his compatriots are ...

  • This townsman/woman and their fellow townsmen are ...

  • This dweller and the people who live locally are ...

  • This individual and the local residents are ...


'fellow residents of X'

There is no one-word way, and also no natural-sounding way to say it without naming the city.

or 'fellow New Yorkers/Bostonians/San Franciscans/Dubliners/Londoners/Parisians/...' if there is a specific noun for residents of that city.

  • 2
    This is good, too. I'm glad you posted it separately instead of just as a comment on my post.
    – David M
    Commented Mar 27, 2014 at 16:00

Now everyone who lives here is happy.


Now everyone who lives here, including me, is happy.

Maybe take out "now."


I suggest 'townies' usage ' the townies are going nuts because the high school football team is going to the state finals'

In New England, there is a distinction between townies and other people, usually students or tourists who are in the area for less than a lifetime. The movie Good Will Hunting is about a townie whose talents take him away from the life he expected to lead.

  • While accurate, it is worth mention that townie has a number of connotations that skew its meaning. - It's used by rural folks to identify city-folk - It's used by university students to identify the non-student population of a college/university town - It's used by city folks to identify rural folk
    – vsrixyz
    Commented Sep 9, 2023 at 1:33

For some cities, a common way today is to use their demonym, e.g. [cityname][modifier], e.g.

  • Bostonians
  • New Yorkers
  • Chigacoans
  • Bedfordians
  • Cantabrigian
  • Torontonian

Full list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjectivals_and_demonyms_for_cities


There can also be cultural implications. Filipinos, for example, routinely refer to their fellow "townmates."

For Americans, if the people of a city have a commonly used name, such as "Chicagoans," then words like that would fit, nicely... as another answerer, here, wrote.

Beyond that, I think it's a question of figuring out what city-specific name ties everyone, and figuring out how to put it into the proper tense.

I also agree with those who insist that it should be "My ___ and I are happy."

For whatever any of that is worth.

Hope that helps!


Denizens has possible negative connotations and possibly townsfolk suggests too small a location for city dwellers so maybe that is it!


Man I am answering this late and there is no steam left but why not...In WWII documentaries I hear soldiers giving shout-outs to other soldiers from their same hometown. The soldiers would refer to them as their "home boys".


My home boy from Akron is a great pilot.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.