Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] clave census etc
Date: May 01, 2001 @ 00:43
Author: Brendan Whyte ("Brendan Whyte" <brwhyte@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
>From: David Mark <dmark@...>_________________________________________________________________________
>To: Barry Smith <phismith@...>
>CC: Brendan Whyte <brwhyte@...>
>Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] clave census etc
>Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:22:43 -0400 (EDT)
>
>
>I think we could probably agree on a single 'clave ONTOLOGY, but then the
>disagreement is which terms apply to which distinguishable cases.
>
>Then again, I do not think we should distinguish fully territorial waters
>from land (since the whole 'clave thing is part of the world of fiat
>objects), whereas Brendan does pay attention to land/water.
>
>David
>
>On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Barry Smith wrote:
>
> > did you send this also to Brendan?
> > it would nice to see the two alternative clave-ontologies laid out for
> > comparison
> >
> > At 07:11 AM 4/30/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> > >I think we would need to have some sory 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.
> > >
> > >David
> > >
> > >On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, michael donner wrote:
> > >
> > > > brendan
> > > > your recent mention of the sealess coastal enclave on cyprus
> > > > & your reference to offshore dependencies in the followup message
> > > > raise several old & new questions involving claves & territorial
>seas
> > > > which i hope you &or others will also be able to answer
> > > > if not absolutely now then at least somehow sometime
> > > > possibly in the following order of importance or interest
> > > >
> > > > first
> > > > how many world class claves are there really
> > > > & how might they be most sensibly grouped into the subcategories of
> > > > enclaves & exclaves & fragments
> > > > &or any other subcategories
> > > > & can they all be listed by their individual natural names yet
> > > > or by any other generally recognizable names
> > > >
> > > > in other words are we in reach of a first global clave census &
>roster
> > > > as we are for the countries of the world themselves
> > > > & as we have already tried for the tricountry points etc
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > second
> > > > would the above questions be answered any differently if adjacent
> > > > territorial seas were considered integral parts of those coastal
>clave
> > > > territories that have them
> > > > just as much as they are integral to the so called metropolitan
>areas or
> > > > nuclear territories of coastal & archipelagic countries generally
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > third
> > > > do you really mean by the term fragments to invoke the idea of
>fracturing &
> > > > breaking
> > > > & to imply that these entities have actually been broken or have
>broken
> > > > or are broken or are being broken in some sense
> > > >
> > > > or is all that just my own subjective gloss upon this word
> > > >
> > > > for wouldnt some term that is less suggestive of disintegration &
> > > disruption
> > > > while still conveying the idea of partition & separation
> > > > such as outer lands or outlying areas or particles for
>example
> > > > be more faithful to clave reality & more generally helpful &
>ameliorative
> > > >
> > > > or for referring equally to both claves & their metro areas
> > > > some term like compartments or co parts or installments
> > > > or even tho seemingly contrarian contiguities continuities
> > > continua etc
> > > >
> > > > but also
> > > > since i am still unsure what new distinctions you mean to make by
> > > > introducing the term fragments
> > > > & would like to understand this better
> > > > dont the 3 traditional terms enclave & exclave & metropolitan area
>alone
> > > > suffice to cover all eventualities
> > > > if used correctly
> > > >
> > > > m
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >That would seem right.
> > > > >Not counting Nagorno or Palestinian west bank, Tibet, or SMOM:
> > > > >
> > > > >triple-landlocked: 0 countries, 1 enclave, one
>counter-counter-enclave.
> > > > >= 2 fragments
> > > > >
> > > > >double-landlocked
> > > > >2 doubly landlocked countries, Liechtenstein and Uzkebistan. And
>other
> > > > >doubly landlocked enclaves include Campione, Busingen, the 7 dutch
> > > > >counter-enclaves at Baarle, the russian enclave in Belarus, the 5
>enclaves
> > > > >of armenia and Azerbaijan (Nagorno doesn't count as it is not
> > > recognised as
> > > > >Armenian or independent), the counter enclave at Madha in the
>UAE,the 6
> > > > >other Ferghana enclaves and the 21 Pakistani and 3 Indian counter
> > > enclaves.
> > > > >= 2 countries, 14 enclaves & 32 counter-enclaves
> > > > >= 2 countries and 46 fragments.
> > > > >
> > > > >single-landlocked
> > > > >39 countries, 23 enclaves at Baarle, Llivia, 5 at Monschau, 3 at
>Cyprus [1
> > > > >is already on the sea, although it has no territorial sea of its
>own]
> > > > >Nakihichevan, Madha.
> > > > >= 39 countries, 33 enclaves , 1 other fragment (Nakhichevan).
> > > > >= 39 countries, 34 fragments
> > > > >
> > > > >Unlandlocked:
> > > > >approx 200 countries.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>From: granthutchison@...
> > > > >>Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > > > >>To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > > > >>Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Triple land-locking
> > > > >>Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 21:11:43 -0000
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Here's a random thought that has just come to me. I think there
>are
> > > > >>probably only two triple land-locked territories in the world -
>areas
> > > > >>from which you can't reach the sea without crossing three national
> > > > >>boundaries. One is the (pretty obvious) third-order Indian enclave
>in
> > > > >>Bangladesh, and the other is the Tajik enclave in Uzbekistan.
> > > > >>Does anyone else find that at all interesting?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Grant
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> >_________________________________________________________________________
> > > > >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
> > > > ><http://www.hotmail.com> http://www.hotmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > > >
> ><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=190481.1393724.2979175.2/D=egroupmail/S=17001261
> > > 66:N/A=55> >0983/?http://www.newaydirect.com target="_top"> Your
>use
> > > of Yahoo!
> > > > >Groups is subject to the <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Yahoo!
>Terms
> > > > >of Service.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > Department of Philosophy, 130 Park Hall, University at Buffalo, NY 14260
> > Fax 419 781 8794
>http://philosophy.buffalo.edu/faculty/smith
> >
> >
>