Re: OT: Renaming the continents

Nik Taylor writes:
 > Andreas Johansson wrote:
 > > If some sort of "neutrality" is to be sought for here, N/S Hourglassland is
 > > better that North-/Southwestland, since the later kind of implies an
 > > Atlantic (or perhaps Greenwich Meridian) perspective.
 >
 > Well, the Atlantic is a lot narrower than the Pacific.  You can see the
 > Americas and a good deal of the Afro-Eurasian landmass if you're
 > floating over the Atlantic, but if you're floating over the Pacific you
 > can't see much of either.  So, if one were to use directional terms, an
 > Atlantic perspective would, IMO, be better than a Pacific perspective.
 > If I were to name continents on a new planet, and there were two of
 > them, I'd probably call them the Eastern and Western Continents, naming
 > it from the perspective of the narrower distance between the two.
 >

In general, I'd tend to agree (if they were relatively close, at
least).  On Earth... if I _had_ to use directional terms, I'd probably
agree with you.  But still, while the Pacific is wider in general, it
also has the narrowest gap between Eurasia and North America (well,
depending on where exactly you decide the Pacific stops, but you see
my point).

Incidentally, have you ever seen a world map made in, say, Japan?  Old
world on the left, Americas on the right.  It's struck me that East
Asia and Western Europe (and other countries at similar longitudes)
are privileged in that they can put themselves more or less in the
middle of a world map without either cutting continents or
reduplicating them at the edges.