--- Tim May <butsuri@...> wrote:
> Ekh. The naming of the continents by Europeans
> is a minor point. My
> principle objections... actually, objection is
> too strong a word. The
> principle factors of the current names which I
> see no reason to
> perpetuate are the following.
I guess I just don't see any of those things as
troublesome!
> * Europe and Asia are considered to be
> continents on the same level as the rest.
I don't understand why they _shouldn't_ be.
> * America is named after a fairly minor
> historical figure, for no very compelling
> synchronic reason.
So what?
> * While Australia was a perfectly
> reasonable name when it was first
> applied, we are now aware of the even
> more austral Antarctica.
It's one of the southlands. Antarctica makes
sense in that it is the anti arctic. That leaves
Australia free.
> So, if we take it that I consider these
> problems
OK. It's your game, after all!
> worthy of reectification -
> which for the purposes of this
> thought-experiment I do - Australia and
> the Americas at least need new names. To this
> I add the newly
> continentalized Eurasia. Eurasia suggests a
> combination of Europe and
> Asia.
It's simply the landmass that sits on the
Eurasian plate.
> Now I have nothing against Europe, which
> is very definitely a
> real region which it makes sense to speak of as
> a unit.
Just not as a continent, I suppose.
> Asia, on the other hand, is a fiction.
?
> Iran has virtually
> nothing in common with
> Kamchatka that it does not also have in common
> with Spain.
Well, these are political considerations. So you
want political subdivisions, then? I think the
whole idea of "continent" should be out, then.
The US has very little in common with Guatemala
or Greenland; Morocco has precious little in
common with South Africa. Apart from sitting on
the same "continent", that is!
> Once the
> idea of Europe as a continent is abolished, so
> is the need for any
> term to cover the rest of Eurasia.
Obviously. Just call the whole thing Eurasia,
then.
> If "Asia" is obsolete,
> there is no reason for it to accompany Europe
> in "Eurasia".
If you abolish the two as separate entities, then
you'd need a name for the one. Eurasia works. It
encompasses both the principal divisions of the
landmass.
> So of our six remaining continents, four
> require new names. Where are
> they to come from? If appropriate native terms
> exist, I do not see
> why they should not be used.
OK. Though you'll run into the same political
troubles as giving them Westernnonasialandmassian
names. Also, you still have to satisfy me as to
_which_ natives will give the name and the
justification for the choice. Should the name for
NA be from Seneca or Nahuatl? Inuktitut (?) or
Mayan? Should they even be in the same continent?
> (There is no particular reason why a
> European term for Eurasia should not be used,
Except that there's little bit sticking off the
east end of Europe. They might be miffed at being
named by European terms.
> but so far as I am aware
> we have only "Eurasia" which I have already
> rejected.
But not particularly explained. I can certainly
see a reason why "Europe" and "Asia" should be
scrapped, geologically if for no other reason;
but not why "Eurasia" should be scrapped. You'd
just have to come up with a new name - or make
more than two divisions. But you already scrapped
the idea of dividing the landmass at all, so,
this line of reasoning makes less sense. And if
you leave it one landmass, where does the name
come from? And since you one landmass is composed
of "Europe" and "Asia", why not call it
"Eurasia".
> "Asia" would be too confusing.
Really, only at the western end. Just as "Europe"
becomes confusing only in the east.
> In fact, I doubt anyone has a
> term for Eurasia,
Traditionally? No. Nor did they have much a
concept of "Europe" or "Asia" or "Africa".
> although the idea of extending a Yupik term for
> the Chukotskiy
> (Chukotka?) Peninsula is intriguing.)
>
> If we're changing all the other names, I'd
> certainly consider a
> new name for Africa, although there's no
> particular need for one.
Well, it's not an "African" name! Be consistent,
at least.
> And how is it anti-European to argue that
> Europe should not be counted
> as a continent?
"Antieuropean" may have been too strong a term. I
can't think of a better one at the moment,
though.
> What benefit do Europeans
> derive from an imaginary
> line drawn down the Urals?
What benefit does anyone gain from drawing
imaginary lines _anywhere_? Sense of place? Us v.
Them?
> > > And that's how I understand
> > > the term "continent" in English,
> >
> > Then that's a point of confusion. I quoted a
> > dictionary definition, which is how I
> understand
> > the word. How that land is divvied up is a
> matter
> > of history and practicality; and that
> history and
> > practicality have divided the lands seven
> ways.
> >
>
> I don't see anything particularly practical
> about a system that groups
> Kazakhstan and Vietnam within one member, and
> Hungary in another.
Or Germany and France in one and Iran and India
in another.
Then you really need more than seven continents!
> Historically, yes, but part of the point of
> this is to try to do away
> with accidents of history.
Well, gee!
> The current division is a convention
> which can in principle be changed.
But, _why_ should it be?
> I was perhaps unclear when I said "understood
> in English" - what I
> meant is that that is the definition of a
> _prototypical_ continent.
That still eludes me. A prototype is simply the
first model of something.
> I agree that it contains some arbitrary
> elements, but I maintain that
> the set of Eurasia, Africa, N. America, S.
> America, Australia and
> Antarctica is less arbitrary than the present
> system. For more on
> this point, see below.
Then explain how dividing NA and SA is not
arbitrary. Also how dividing Africa and Eurasia
is not arbitrary.
> Incidentally... "three or four"? Four I can
> see, but how would you
> reduce it to three?
Afroeurasia; America; Antarctica; Australia, only
if you don't consider it a big island - this gets
back to quantifying things. Is it really a
continent or isn't it?
Really, divisions any smaller are political (and
accidentally historical) in nature.
> I did suggest in my
> original post that it might be preferable to
> regard each of the two
> Americas, and Africa and Eurasia, as
> subdivisions of larger units.
OK. We agree in principal - though if you keep
Afroeurasia as one landmass, it seems
inconsistent to divide the Americas.
> I'm not entirely clear why you're willing to
> divide up the Americas,
Um. I thought it was _you_ that wanted to divide
the Americas!
> but not Africa from Eurasia - Suez is a pretty
> narrow isthmus, if not
> as narrow as Panama.
I wouldn't divide either landmass. Though, I
could _understand_ why a space observer might
divide the Americas: there are two clear blobs;
whereas Afroeurasia is only one big blob with
smaller blue blobs in.
> (One could claim that the construction of the
> Panama and Suez canals
> has split previously unitary continents, but
> this would seem to make
> things unnecessarily complicated.)
Also geographically unsatisfying. It's only a
little canal - not a sundering sea.
You'd also have to consider NA two continents on
account of the canal around Chicago that seems to
connect the Illinois R and Lake Michigan. I don't
think anyone would seriously claim that a little
canal makes for a real continental division.
> > > I don't know what you mean by "fail".
> >
> > Because you can't quantify continent. I.e.,
> how
> > big an island can be or how small a
> continent can
> > be.
> >
>
> You can if you like. The decision will be
> arbitrary, but that doesn't
> prevent it from being useful.
Indeed. It only does if we can't agree on the
numbers.
> This is _exactly_ analogous to the
> situation with respect to the term "planet".
I don't disagree. That's just as arbitrary. It's
just a matter of mass and composition until you
get a small star as opposed to a big planet.
> There's a difference between a system that
> categorizes something by
> arbitrary divisions of an objectively
> measurable quantity, and one
> that makes completely arbitrary categories
> which can only be described
> by listing their members. A precise definition
> of "continent" as it
> is currently understood is of the latter type.
Whatever. "Continents" are arbitrary however you
choose to divide them up or name them.
The only nonarbitrary method is to number the
lands in order of area. That makes moot the
differentiation between continent and island and
obviates the need for names. Any other system is
essentially arbitrary.
Padraic.
=====
Aci ce Kernow le ouygaint mil; et savuriont y pherque!
.