>
My understanding of -claves runs along the same lines. Just to add to the discussion - and I'm open
for arguments to the contrary:
I think there are three parties here:
1. The clave itself
2. The 'mother' country ('belonging')
3. The 'alien' country ('intrusion')
The adjective used (e.g. 'Spanish') designates the mother country.
The perspective of the situation can be both from the mother country and the alien country.
And the meaning of enclave and exclave is the same as Michael's.
If we take the example of Llivia, it is a Spanish clave and not a French one.
It can be:
1. A Spanish exclave from the Spanish perspective
2. A Spanish enclave from the French perspective
1 because it is totally detached from Spain
2 because it is totally surrounded by France
In this way Voeren is a Flemish exclave (i.e. from the Flemish perspective) and Nakhichevan an Azeri
exclave (from the Azeri perspective). They are no enclaves, though.
When sea comes into it, I tend to see territorial waters as territorial land, and the rest as
juridically not defined territory, so 'every man's land'. This regardless of exploitation, fishing,
and other economical rights that states might have.
Peter S.
> thank you brendan also for this partial concession to my ordinary
> pedestrian usage of the clave words
>
> but neither my dogeared american heritage dictionary nor i can swallow your
> simultaneous concession to davids fine point also given below
> hahaha
>
> that books as well as my own beliefs & models are as follows
>
> enclave
> a country or part of a country lying wholly within the boundaries of another
> so in normal straight talk
> san marino is an enclave in or within italy
> & campione is an italian enclave in or within switzerland
> & no need to even think about an enclave of anything
> for that would technically be a abuse of the word of
>
> btw these correspond to rolfs types 1 & 3 respectively
> tho when he says btw he usually means between
>
> exclave
> a portion of a country which is isolated in alien territory
> but not expressly or necessarily within a single alien territory
> & it even adds a map with the legend
> cabinda is an exclave of angola
> tho it does commit the blunder of verbally placing it in congo kinshasa
> & there is no real need to think about an exclave in anything
> & to do so would technically be an abuse of the word in
>
> this entire exclave word corresponds to rolfs type 2
>
> & thats it
> no distinctly different usages than these basic ones are even suggested
>
> & to me all of this simply says that in normally understandable parlance
> an enclave may be an entire country or a part of a country
> but it must always be surrounded by a single other country
> & an exclave must always be a part of a country
> but it may or may not be surrounded by a single other country
>
> so these words really do have a simple flipflop mutuality
> but it is not the same simple flipflop mutuality sophisticated people like
> us often expect them to have & frankly overburden them with
>
> really i swear there is no finesse or syntactical vagary at work here at all
>
> & indeed i can sometimes hardly figure out what you all & all your
> authorities are talking about
>
> hahaha
> just my 2 bits toward the general food fight
>
> nice smorgasbord jesper
>
> m