--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Brendan Whyte <bwhyte@u...> wrote:

> The original area the corridor was formed in was called Tin Bigha, I
> believe, rather than the corridor being 3 bighas in extent.
>
> At 11:18 AM 29/03/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>
> >Message: 9
> > Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:41:33 -0800 (PST)
> > From: Arif Samad <fHoiberg@y...>
> >Subject: Tin
> >
> >I think I mentioned that oddity already, as this fact
> >always did bother me. Tin does means three and not
> >ten, but Tin Bigha is close to ten or eleven bighas.
> >Possibly the original corridor was smaller but
> >untenable, or it may have been measured wrong.
> >Unfortunately, even though I am a Bangladeshi, Brendan
> >is more likely to know the origin.

all perhaps true
except i dont recall that earlier mention
nor would it have been unfortunate even if he had known then or did know now

my own guess still agrees more with yours here tho
that the original 3 bighas from which tin bigha got its name are somehow included in the
11 bighas of tin bigha as we know it today
rather than
that all 11 of them were somehow once part of an even larger parcel that was nevertheless
also originally comprised of & named for only 3 of its bighas
as he apparently believes

for that would only have exaggerated rather than reconciled the aberration of scale
& would still have left the question of how this larger parcel ever derived its name from an
even smaller fraction of its total territory

clearly more historical data are needed to make any real sense out of this

> >Arif
> >BTW, the word Tin does not sound like the metal. The
> >T is a soft T like the french word tres
>
> Dr Brendan Whyte
> Assistant Map Curator
> ERC Library
> University of Melbourne
> Vic 3010
> AUSTRALIA
> bwhyte@u...