Padraic Brown wrote:
> > Also, numbers can seem to imply rank,
>
>To the contrary, this system doesn't imply rank
>at all - it is fundamentally based on rank!:
>
>Africa - 1
>Asia - 2
>Europe - 3
>N America - 4*
>Australia - 5*
>S America - 6
>Antarctica - 7
>
>*Could be switched depending on which got people
>first.
>
>The ranking is based on the timescale of when
>humans got to which continent - it too is totally
>divorced from politics and the sticky situation
>of "discovery".
Unless some spectacular shift on archaeological dating has happened since
last I checked, people got to Australia way before they got to North
America.
[snip]
> > Tectonic plates need names too, of course, but
> > that's more technical
> > nomenclature.
>
>They have names. And you're in luck: several have
>"Native" names - though you can most safely bet
>your life that no Native ever had the concept
>until science came up with it.
I think we can equally safely bet our lives that no non-Native had the
concept before the geologists came up with it either, for obvious
consistency reasons.
Andreas
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail