=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 7, no. 63 (27 February 2002) Editorial mailing list (digest version) Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A [2sv] Continents [Offshoot of [2st] 'United States' and 'USA' as ...] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2]-- Q & A -------------------------------------------------- ** [2sv] Continents [Offshoot of [2st] 'United States' or 'USA' as ...] Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 From: John Crane, jcrane8@bellsouth.net Judy Stein wrote: > The United States is not the only country in America There is no continent named "America" for there to be countries in. There is "North America," "South America," and, collectively, "the Americas." (I suppose technically this country should have been named "United States of North America.") > (And not all of the United States are in America, > geographically speaking.) I suppose Hawaii would be considered to be one of the states _of_ the USA, even if it's not physically a part of either American continent. ---------------------- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 From: Judy Stein, jstein@panix.com John Crane wrote: > I suppose Hawaii would be considered to be one of the states > _of_ the USA, even if it's not physically a part of either > American continent. It's very definitely one of the United States, no "considered" about it! ---------------------- Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 From: John Crane, jcrane8@bellsouth.net What I meant was that it's the United States _of_ America, so Hawaii (and maybe Puerto Rico some day) can be a state _of_ the U.S. without actually being on the continent. ---------------------- Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 From: David Ibbetson, isserlis@rogers.com John Crane wrote: > There is no continent named "America" for there to be countries > in. There is "North America," "South America," and, > collectively, "the Americas." It depends where and when you went to school. I was taught that there were five continents: Europe, Asia, Africa, America, Australia. Nowadays it seems to be seven: Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Australasia, Antarctica. ---------------------- Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 From: Michael Stone, mike@wholeearthmag.com For what it's worth, the five rings of the Olympics are said to represent "the five continents": Africa. America, Asia, Europe, and Oceania. Of course, they go back a long way. The Goldman Environmental Awards are presented every year to one person each from Africa, Asia, Europe, Island Nations, North America, and South America. ---------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 From: Anna Beth McCormack, mccormack@goulburn.net.au To get geological about it (which seems the most sensible view, as we're talking about physical units, not political units), there are seven big ones---Africa, 2 Americas, Europe, Asia, Australia, Antarctica---and you can squabble about the smaller bits---India, Greenland and Madagascar. I've always wondered why 6 of them start with 'A'. Just think: If at Federation Australia had been called the United States of Australia instead of the Commonwealth of Australia, we'd be the USA also! Then we'd have another source of confusion as well as the ABC. ---------------------- Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 From: Esther Shchory, odelias@bezeqint.net I think part of the problem differentiating between Canada, the USA and all things connected is a lack of general knowledge. I was taught continents and their names but few teenagers know the difference. And even 15 years ago in France the news talked of someone travelling round the north coast of England!! When of course they meant Scotland or Great Britain. I think we have to decide the rules because nobody else seems to be bothered. ---------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 From: Anna Beth McCormack, mccormack@goulburn.net.au I think the whole problem was created when the USA first officially called itself the USA, thereby setting up a problem of 'Are you talking about the continent or the country?' for everyone else ever after. A wee bit of thought about naming would not have gone amiss. ---------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 From: Jane Lyle, jlyle@indiana.edu Anna Beth McCormack wrote: > I think the whole problem was created when the USA first > officially called itself the USA, thereby setting up a problem > of 'Are you talking about the continent or the country?' for > everyone else ever after. A wee bit of thought about naming > would not have gone amiss. Please set this thought in context, though. It isn't as though the name "United States of America" was chosen in recent years, after the country had grown to its present size and number of states and density of population. Our founding fathers had big dreams and plans for their new country, but it was some years before there were many states to unite. The state I live in, for example, did not become a state until 1816. California became a state in 1850. Had they waited to name this country until all the pieces of it and Canada and Mexico were in place and well delineated, who knows what they might have chosen to call it? It isn't as though they considered their fledgling nation a dominant power back in 1776 and made a conscious decision to usurp the name of the continent as a way to assert their dominance. And don't think that there hasn't been more than "a wee bit of thought" about the name. I'm not sure whether there were ever any serious suggestions at high levels to rename the country, but according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage, the "list of suggested replacements for _American_ . . . contains (in approximate historical order from 1789 to 1939) such terms as _Columbian, Columbard, Fredonian, Frede, Unisian, United Statesian, Colonican, Appalacian, Usian, Washingtonian, Usonian, Uessian, U-S-ian, Uesican. None of these proposed substitutes has caught on." Their earliest printed reference to the term "American" is from the _Gazette of the United States_, Feb 16, 1791: "_American_ is used very generally both by writers and public speakers, when they only intend the territory of the United States. . . . It may have first come into use as being much shorter to say _Americans_, than citizens of the United States." MWDEU also says, "Despite the perceived difficulty with _America_ and _American_ in this use, the terms are fully established. Cotton Mather seems to have been the first writer to use _American_ for a colonist, back before the dawn of the 18th century. It became established during the course of that century. The historian Samuel Eliot Morison cites a naval expedition of 1741 as being the first time the English referred to colonial troops as _Americans_ rather than _provincials_. . . ." So we were being referred to as Americans before there even was a country called the United States of America. Most of us here in the States refer to our country only as the United States, not the United States of America, except in the most formal use or in the shortened form "USA" (and even that is less common than "U.S."). We do use "American" and "American," because, as MWDEU points out, there aren't really any good alternatives. ---------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 From: John Crane, jcrane8@bellsouth.net Anna Beth McCormack: > To get geological about it (which seems the most sensible view, > as we're talking about physical units, not political units), > there are seven big ones ... I would have thought there were geographically six: Africa, North America, South America, Eurasia, Australia, and Antarctia. >I've always wondered why 6 of them start with 'A'. Pure cvoincidence, I think. The Americas were named for a map maker; Antarctica means the opposite of Arctic; Australia is from the Latin meaning southern. I don't know where "Asia" originated. Jane Lyle wrote: > ... the "list of suggested replacements for _American_ ... > contains ... such terms as _Columbian, Columbard, Fredonian, > Frede, Unisian, United Statesian, Colonican, Appalacian, Usian, > Washingtonian, Usonian, Uessian, U-S-ian, Uesican. None of > these proposed substitutes has caught on." Someone seriously suggested "Frede"? I'm glad that one didn't catch on. ---------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 From: David Ibbetson, isserlis@rogers.com There also is or was the Union of South Africa. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 21 Feb 2002 From: Anna Beth McCormack, mccormack@goulburn.net.au The Urals separate the continental shields of Europe and Asia geologically (not geographically). =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= END OF EDline 7.63 Admin page: < http://www.electriceditors.net/edline/admin.htm > ** The views expressed in this mailing list are strictly those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the moderators or of the Electric Editors. ** Articles (c) 2001, 2002, by individual contributors Design (c) 1996--2002 Iain Brown Compilation (c) 2002, Iain Brown / The Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=