Re: OT: Renaming the continents

Tristan writes:
 > Tim May wrote:
 >
 > >It seems to me that Vespucci was a fairly minor figure, and if you're
 > >going to name the continent after a European explorer at all, it
 > >should have been Columbus.  (And it probably would have been, if he
 > >hadn't insisted it was Asia.)
 > >
 > Didn't Columbus die believing he'd made it to Asia?* With that in mind,
 > I don't think you can say that Columbus made the European discovery of
 > America (and not just because it wasn't America at that stage :) ).
 >
Well, that is a point of view, I suppose.  Vespucci may, in fact, have
been the first person to realize that it was a new continent.  But I'd
still say Columbus discovered it - he was the one who sailed out
there, found land at a certain distance, and sailed back, even if he
was labouring under a misapprehension.

 >
 > >Ideally, I'd prefer a native derivation*, or some kind of neutral description.
 > >
 > >
 > Why? Unless the natives speak English, it's none of their business what
 > the English name for the continents are, and if they do speak English,
 > than the words of native derivation would be North and South America.
 >
I'm not thinking specifically of English here, but in general
international terms, and specifically for use in my own conlang.

 > >I can't see any inherent reason to favour the name America.
 > >
 > And there's no inherent reason to favor any other name. A name is just a
 > word, and a word is merely a particular sequence of sounds which have a
 > particular meaning.
 >
I'm not claiming any special importance, but it's not as if people
never care about names.  Who is or is not commemmorated is of some
small importance.

Replies