Please understand that my calling your points "semantic" was not meant to
disparage them in the least (as some commonly use that word). Semantics and
etymologies are wonderful intellectual pursuits from which much can be learned.
You are right to point out: (1) the functional difference between latitude and
longitude; and (2) the natural basis of the Equator as opposed to the artificial
designation of Greenwich. However, the two poles and the axis through them are
concepts just as natural as the Equator. Suppose, if you will for the sake of
discussion (not argument), that the North Pole had been arbitrarily designated
as latitude zero degrees, the Equator as 90 degrees (to the axis), and the South
Pole as 180 degrees. Under such a scheme, the Equator would be a parallel of
latitude (the 90th), just like all the other east-west rings circling the earth.
It has a special significance, of course, but so too do the two tropics. To
really turn the system on its ear, what if the fathers of coordinates had been
even more attuned to astronomy than they were? We could have ended up with
latitude measured from the Ecliptic!
So, yes, the Equator is "fixed by nature;" but the choice of it (from among
several equally natural possibilities) as the place from which to measure
latitude was as arbitrary as the choice of Greenwich as the place from which to
measure longitude (though Greenwich is, admittedly, as artificial as it is
arbitrary).
Now, since we do arbitrarily measure latitude from the natural Equator, I have
already conceded that it might not be a "parallel"--even though, as you have
conceded, it is parallel to all of the parallels.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 11:27 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Strange section chit border
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > Okay, I can see all your semantic points, but...
>
> well good
> as semantic does after all mean
> pertaining to the actual meaning of things
>
> & semantics are often dismissed as if they ran counter to good
> sense or good taste or were somehow gratuitously picky or
> sophistical or ultimately meaningless pointless worthless vain
> void etc
>
> but to be dismissive of meaning is just anti intellectualism
> & disregard for truth really
>
> so yes indeed lets start with the actual & exact meaning of things
> & hang onto these for dear life at all times
>
> > Since you say that the Equator "has no latitude," does the
> Greenwich Line have
> > no longitude?
>
> well that wouldnt seem to follow either logically or semantically
> from the equator having no latitude
> would it
>
> indeed quite the contrary
> it seems to me
> since all lines of longitude are of equal objective stature
> even if not of precisely uniform length
> with zero longitude having been determined utterly arbitrarily
> rather than absolutely & as a fact of natural geography
> in the very distinctive way the equator is fixed by nature
>
> so the tudes of lat & long are oranges & apples par excellence
>
> by your reasoning of tude equals tude
> you might as well expect exactitude & negritude & quietude to
> behave exactly like latitude too
>
> crabapples pomegranates potatoes
>
> but you are careful to distinguish lat from long otherwise
> because you know full well they behave quite differently
> & that they will trip you up if you dont respect that
>
> so why disregard or deny what you know to be their very real
> distinction just in the moment of greatest truth
>
> the truth is they are not the same thing at all
> & neednt be expected or forced to act as if they were
>
> > What about that point in the Atlantic Ocean "under the hump of
> > Africa" where these two lines cross? Does it have no
> coordinates?
>
> but wait
> you are into pineapples now too
>
> of course it has coordinates
>
> we werent talking about coordinates
>
> coordinates are something else
>
> it has zero longitude for one coord
> which is a distinct meridian of longitude
> & zero or no latitude for the other coord
> which is not & cant be a parallel of latitude
> because it is the equator
>
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> >
> >
> > if you were on the Equator, are you telling me that
>
> yes
>
> & thats all she wrote
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 9:01 PM
> > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Strange section chit border
> >
> >
> > > aw lets compound the technicality anyway
> > > just to make sure we really are correct
> > >
> > > for are you absolutely sure the equator is a parallel of latitude
> > >
> > > my dictionary says a parallel
> > > in geography
> > > is
> > > any of the imaginary lines representing degrees of latitude
> > > encircling the earth parallel to the plane of the equator
> > >
> > > & i dont think it is possible for the equator
> > > which is a line in the plane of the equator
> > > to also be parallel to the plane of the equator
> > > because parallel in this basic & original geometric sense
> refers
> > > to 2 things that are beside one another & thus never meet
> > >
> > > also as previously mentioned
> > > the equator is said to lie at zero degrees of latitude because
> it
> > > has no latitude
> > >
> > > does that make it a parallel of latitude
> > >
> > > i dont think so
> > >
> > > or is it simply parallel to the parallels of latitude that are
> parallel
> > > to it
> > >
> > > my dictionary says latitude
> > > in geography
> > > is
> > > the angular distance north or south of the equator
> > > measured in degrees along a meridian
> > > as on a map or globe
> > >
> > > so from this i also gather the equator has no latitude & is not
> a
> > > parallel of latitude because it lies no distance & no degrees
> > > either north or south of the equator
> > >
> > > the advantage of this view
> > > if it is indeed correct
> > > for your technical formulation
> > > is that it can thus be tightened up as follows
> > >
> > > any parallel of latitude
> > > or any other line of constant bearing that is not a meridian of
> > > longitude or the equator
> > > is not straight
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
> McManus"
> > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > You are correct. The Equator is the only parallel of latitude
> that
> > > is also a
> > > > great circle. I thought of that after writing my message, but
> > > didn't want to
> > > > compound the technicality.
> > > >
> > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Michael Kaufman" <mikekaufman79@y...>
> > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 1:53 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Strange section chit
> border
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Yes, but I think the Equator would be the exception to
> > > > > this rule. Of course this is assuming the earth is a
> > > > > perfect sphere. But we know that it is just an
> > > > > approximation, and its irregular shape varies.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > > > Well, this is a technicality, but...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any parallel of latitude, or any other line of
> > > > > > constant bearing that is not a
> > > > > > meridian of longitude, is not straight. Only an arc
> > > > > > of a great circle is a
> > > > > > "straight" line. Even then, it is straight only in
> > > > > > the horizontal dimension,
> > > > > > since it curves with the surface of the earth and
> > > > > > probably goes up hill and down
> > > > > > as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Michael Kaufman" <mikekaufman79@y...>
> > > > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 4:14 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Strange section
> > > > > > chit border
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which leads to the question of which manmade
> > > > > > segments
> > > > > > > are NOT straight. The only thing that comes to my
> > > > > > > mind is the DE-PA Arc (or Arcs). Are there any
> > > > > > world
> > > > > > > class examples? I can not think of one, but I may
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > forgetting about something.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- m06079 <barbaria_longa@h...> wrote:
> > > > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter
> > > > > > > > Smaardijk"
> > > > > > > > <smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Note also that it is a municipal exclave of
> > > > > > > > Innerferrera.
> > > > > > > > > Cf.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > http://www.innerferrera.ch/innerferrera/geschichte.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (mentions
> > > > > > > > > a territory exchange with Italy in 1962/63 as
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > cause).
> > > > > > > > > Peter S.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "chris
> > > > > > > > schulz"
> > > > > > > > <23568@g...>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Thats right,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > as i know its result of special interests
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > switzerland.
> > > > > > > > > > the shown situation is from val di lei.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > http://www.home.pages.at/maxifant/Frames/val-di-lei.htm
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (german)
> > > > > > > > > > when the wall had been build, switzerland
> > > > > > wanted
> > > > > > > > to save
> > > > > > > > this wall
> > > > > > > > > by itself,
> > > > > > > > > > because in the case the wall would be hit
> > > > > > (by a
> > > > > > > > bomb or
> > > > > > > > whatever)
> > > > > > > > > all the water would come to the val di Avers
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > Switzerland.
> > > > > > > > > > so now switzerland can save the wall with
> > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > guns,...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > regards, chris
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: Artur Kroc
> > > > > > > > > > To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:07 PM
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Strange section
> > > > > > chit
> > > > > > > > border
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This section looks strange - like african
> > > > > > > > borders - like made
> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > ruler...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > straight looking sections of borders are
> > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > fairly common
> > > > > > > > everywhere
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > indeed they occur wherever a border runs
> > > > > > directly
> > > > > > > > between 2
> > > > > > > > markers
> > > > > > > > or in other words
> > > > > > > > just about everywhere there is a manmade rather
> > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > a natural
> > > > > > > > delineation
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > & that means the great majority of the
> > > > > > individual
> > > > > > > > delineations in
> > > > > > > > the world
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > it is just that a much larger scale map is
> > > > > > needed to
> > > > > > > > see most of
> > > > > > > > them
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>