|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Oct 20, 2005 15:06:51 GMT -5
But you could argue that the Urals and the Caucasus are natural boundaries. It's all very convenient, I know, but it still checks out. The people who say America is just one continent due to Panama would also have to concede that Africa and Eurasia are also one continent due to Sinai. I've never heard of anyone saying the Americas is one continent. As for mountain chains making Europe a continent, I figure the Himalayas, the Hindu Kush, the Tianshan, the Urals also make eastern Asia a separate continent from South Asia and the Middle east. I'd like that. Our continental system for the Eastern Hemisphere is inspired by that of the Greeks, who divided the known world into Europe, Asia (which included Egypt, bizarrely enough), and Libya (Africa). We just never got around to inventing words for East Asia yet, I guess. We can blame that on laziness. Obviously, the Greeks didn't know about East Asia so when that part of the world was discovered by Europeans thousands of years later, it was just tacked on as being part of the Greater Orient for lack of a better word. Before that Asia was previously only used to describe the Middle East and Turkestan/West Siberia (as the Indus was the furthest eastern place the Greeks knew about). It's kind of funny that when used by ordinary American folk nowadays, Asian refers almost exclusively to Mongoloid peoples when the ancient Greeks would have had a much different idea (Persians or later, Turks, would probably be the first peoples to come to mind). How the world changes.
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Oct 20, 2005 15:07:32 GMT -5
So north america and south america are two distinct continenents, I see. you still have no definition for continent. My last post in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by human2 on Oct 20, 2005 15:08:00 GMT -5
I've never heard of a geographical accident significan enough to separate two areas that obviously belong to the same plaque P.s not european but argentinian What are you trying to say? That N. and S. America are on the same plate? Not what I remember... It depends on how you define a continent then... Some continents are just oceans I guess if yu count by plates... Also, India, for example, is on it's own plate. So, is it a continent? I swear there is so much bull that is the foundations... The funniest thing is when people try to argue with you that the bullshit perfectly reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by human2 on Oct 20, 2005 15:09:52 GMT -5
So north america and south america are two distinct continenents, I see. you still have no definition for continent. My last post in this thread. Well, then Africa-Eurasia is one contient then. Happy now? I don't care, as long as there is a standard. This is my last post in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Batrus on Oct 20, 2005 15:12:27 GMT -5
Yes, plate and plaque have only one tranlation in spanish that is "placa", so i confused the words.
Obviously the stablishment of continents is arbitrary. But if we were to meisure all the geographical parameters used to define one, i would hardly consider north american and south american two different continent.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Oct 20, 2005 15:15:06 GMT -5
The current continental nomenclature is based more on European tradition than anything. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, though. Saying "Europe" is a helluva lot easier than having to say "Western Eurasia," but I digress...
|
|
|
Post by human2 on Oct 20, 2005 15:24:21 GMT -5
The current continental nomenclature is based more on European tradition than anything. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, though. Saying "Europe" is a helluva lot easier than having to say "Western Eurasia," but I digress... I'm gonna break my promise to say something important... Your statement would have to include the Middle East and North Africa as part of Europe in order for the word Europe to be easier to say than West Eurasia.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Oct 20, 2005 15:27:50 GMT -5
Good point, and that just makes the word "Europe" even more useful because it refers to a specific part of Western Eurasia.
|
|
|
Post by human2 on Oct 20, 2005 15:33:18 GMT -5
Good point, and that just makes the word "Europe" even more useful because it refers to a specific part of Western Eurasia. Well, I don't think anyone questioned the usefulness of the term "Europe"... It's as useful as the term "Middle East"... or "East Asia"...
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Oct 20, 2005 16:04:59 GMT -5
Latin Americans consider themselves Americans.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Oct 20, 2005 16:06:06 GMT -5
In fact, the word we use for people who live in the United States is "Estadounidenses", Americanos means anybody from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego.
|
|
|
Post by Batrus on Oct 20, 2005 16:21:51 GMT -5
The problem with this is analogue to the problem to define races, as the boundaries are not very clearly stablished (specially as the parameter varies according to subject), the definition of the nomeclanture is strictly arbitrary.
So the topic is not really very arguable. For instance, I don't consider myself either an argentinian or an american, but the theocratic dicator of the 20mt2 batrus republic.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Oct 20, 2005 16:51:24 GMT -5
Talk about a tongue twister. I'm sure you guys would rather just say "gringos."
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Oct 20, 2005 16:55:57 GMT -5
It is not that hard We dont say gringo in Argentina (it means something different here), the short word we have for "estadounidenses" is Yankees.
|
|
|
Post by Batrus on Oct 20, 2005 17:08:04 GMT -5
"Gringo" sounds like a mexican word to me.
Most greek names are very long too. I guess you get used to when it's your own language.
|
|