> I think we would need to have some sort of poll or vote on the
issues of
> terminology, since I seem to disagree with Brendan on a lot of this
and I
> feel that my opinion is equal to his, not greater but not less.
>
> Maybe a first step would be a complete enumeration of the KINDS of
> international 'claves and fragments based on ontological and mereo-
> topological grounds. Then we could 'debate' how to group them and
what to
> call them.
OK. Here's a fool (ie someone who is only guessing the meaning
of "mereotopological") who is prepared to rush in where you angels
fear to tread.
Surely there are (1) enclaves that are not exclaves (eg Lesotho)
which we could reasonably call "national enclaves" or "state
enclaves" or "[adjective] enclaves" at whatever level we're
considering. And there are (2) enclaves that *are* exclaves, which I
think of as "true enclaves" or "true [adjective] enclaves" if we want
to be level-specific. And then there are (3) exclaves that are not
enclaves, and I really am not worried about whether they are bounded
by the sea and one country, or the sea and two countries, or two
countries, or three countries. I guess a name like "fragment" works
for me, while accepting Michael's frets about the message that sends.
The accurate/pedantic could then prefix an appropriate adjective
like "2-country" or "1-country marine" to whichever descriptive noun
comes out of the melting pot.
Setting aside my own mental nomenclature, is that not the initial
logical division?
(He says, aware of flying straight and level for so long that "down
in flames" must surely follow ...)
Grant