Re: OT: Renaming the continents

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 :) ).

*American history isn't taught very well in Australia. Most of what we
know of it comes from American television... But we still know more
about it than our own, which is taught all the time, it's just that
no-one listens (e.g. just about everyone can name America's first
President, but who could name Australia's first Prime Minister, or New
South Wales' first Governor? How many people could cope with considering
NSW as the equivalent to Australia in 1788?).

>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 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.

Tristan.

Reply