>Jungholz meets one part of the definition ("100% surrounded by another
>unit") but not the other ("separated from that unit").

In this case 100% surrounded by another unit does NOT equate to separated.
Singularity! The 100% surrounded part means not more than one neighbour (ie
rules out Nakhichevan) AND not coastal (Rules out Goa pre 1961).

>I do not at all like the above definition of an exclave precisely because
>it is exactly complementary to the definition of enclave. By these
>definitions, all exclaves must be enclaves and all enclaves must be
>exclaves. So, in this case, as Brandon says, why have two terms?
>
>BUT
>If an exclave is defined as a disconnected piece of a unit that one cannot
>reach except by going through one or more other units of the same 'level'.

So still landlocked? Rules out Kalinigrad?

>and
>an enclave is defined as the territory filling a hole or void within a
>unit, completely surrounded by that unit, then:
>
>classics such as Llivia and the Baarle fragments are both enclaves and
> exclaves
>Lesthoto is an enclave of South Africa but not an exclave
>the disconneced piece of Kentucky (western Fulton county) is an exclave of
>Kentucky but not an enclave of anything
>Andorra is neither.
>

And Jungholz is neither also? So remains a pene-enclave and a
pene-exclave??

B
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com