Subject: Re: St Maarten
Date: Jun 05, 2003 @ 19:56
Author: acroorca2002 ("acroorca2002" <orc@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> Re: your text below. In the case of this peninsula, it isn'tthe
> connected to the motherland (at least not by dry land border).
> Without that, does it qualify as "pene..."? I equate it to the
> situation with the US state of Michigan - the "upper part" is an
> peninsular appendage of Minnesota that can't be reached from
> eastern section of Michigan except over water. Like St. Martin'sask
> western peninsula, Michigan isn't detached territorially, and I
> you if you would classify Upper Michigan as a pene-exclave ofthe
> boddy of land. The only difference I see between the two is theis a
> relative sizes of the detached parts to the main parts - Michigan
> 40-60 kind deal and the little western thumb of St. Martin,vis-a-vis
> the big part must be more like a 5-95 relationship.at one
>
> Pene- was defined for me by Brendan as an exclave connected
> point to the motherland, and we don't have that here. If youclassify
> or define pene-enclave as one being a detached and notaccessible
> except through a third country, that would apply to any exclave,too
> and not to this piece. This tongue of land can be accessedoverland
> from France only via the Netherlands (so far so good forexclave
> status) but (not so good for maintaining exclave status) it canalso
> be reached by boat, AND without even leaving France.just
>
> With that, it seems to me, enclave status, both pene- and pure,
> "died in the water", so to speak).<dtimothy@a...>
>
> LN
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Dallen Timothy
> wrote:is only
> > Right, no pure enclaves, but if the tip of the small peninsula
> > connected to the 'motherland' then it forms a pene-enclave.