This is where the definitions start to get tricky.
Taking France and Avignon/Orange, aking to Davids example of S.Afr and a
bisected Lesotho:
Avignon and Orange are both enclaved in France. France has an enclave, a
hole, in its territorial fabric.
The two enclaved states form a single enclave within france.
Neither is an exclave, as they are both integral sovereign units.
but each suffers the same as any enclave. Although technically having two
neighbours, neither can get to the coast or outer boundary of France without
the same hassle as a standard enclave.
Luckily there are no current examples of this.
Howver, Dahagram-Angarpota, the largest Bangladesh enclavei n India was once
bisected, half belonging to each of two British districts. Was it one
enclave or two?
Were they two exclave or one?
It's a halfway case. I call it one enclave (in cooch Behar), which is made
up of an exclave of each of the British districts. But it is not 2 exclaves.
Perhaps we need to allow for fractional enclaves, not just integral numbers?
As there are so few cases of this split personality enclavity, treat each
case on its own merits. Avignon and Orange werre independent within
Independent France.
Dahagram and Angarpota were two district fragments oinside a Princely state.
Culver city is a municipality within LA city, but Baldwein Hills is part of
LA county, a higher level of government than either city in most senses.
It's a part of the terminology that needs work.
Any volunteers?
>From: "m donner" <maxivan82@...>
>Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: What is an enclave
>Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 21:34:04 +0000
>
>thanxx david for this subtle topological delicacy
>as well as for consistently calling our old & super brendon brandon
> yes i will eat your nits too
>for you may well have struck here upon a rich recipe for distinguishing our
>old from our new eponyms as we continue to multiproliferate
>
>& to answer your rhetorical question
>yes once again you are absolutely right
>neither fragment of the prospectively former lesotho would be an enclave in
>anything
>except if it had disintegrated into a bagel shape
>or possibly also into a bunch of baarle or bengal crumbs
>for we know that is always a possibility too
>
>& new peter is also absolutely right here below both about the eternality
>of
>the discussion & about the respectability of all the opinions
>
>& may i say peter that you are not only our new peter for some time but are
>now looking like a newer & finer peter yet again
>
>
>my own opinion is
>the more novelty the better
>& it is well worth the regular review both for our own recapitulations &
>for
>the benefit of new members
>
>but please remember above all
>our clavers are only embedded here
> & we wouldnt have it any other way
> nor would they
>
>even our bounders are but a lunatic fringe
> yet an essential nay quintessential necessity
> for all us other true boundary point believers
>
>& peter if you really dont like booze & cant stop it
>i would be afraid
>but i know you are only teasing us
>exquisitely as usual
>
>& w h a t
>did you just say you stood corrected on
>
>m
>
>
> >From: David Mark <dmark@...>
> >Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> >To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: What is an enclave
> >Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 13:52:00 -0500 (EST)
> >
> >I was surprised by an apparent inconsistency of two of Brandon's recent
> >opinions about enclaves. He stated that to be an enclave a fragment of
> >territory must be surrounded by 'foreign' territory, but earlier claimed
> >that Culver City was an enclave. Since Culver City shares boundaries with
> >two other territories, I thought he was being inconsistent. But if
> >"surrounded" is taken to NOT mean "immediately surrounded" then Culver
> >City could still meet the definition of an enclave. But if we take
>enclave
> >to require "immediately surrounded by a single foreign territory", then
> >Culver City would not be an enclave. To use a more familiar international
> >example-- is Lesotho split into two countries, would they both still be
> >enclaves within South Africa, or would neither be an enclave since now
> >each has two neighboring countries?
> >
> >David
> >
> >On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Peter Smaardijk wrote:
> >
> > > It's a bit of an eternal discussion here. I understand Brendans
> > > arguments completely, and respect them, but I still differ. The
> > > exclave is landlocked for sure, but acc. to my opinion, Nakhichevan
> > > is an exclave to Azerbaijan, because it is detached from the homeland
> > > by foreign territory. Whose territory is irrelevant here.
> > >
> > > According to me!
> > >
> > > Peter S.
> > >
> > > PS: Yes, I agree that the words enclave and exclave are used very
> > > loosely, and too loosely, by "the media". But then again, who is
> > > that? Isn't it just that the meaning of the words are gradually
> > > shifting? (A tip (money for the waiter) is called "pourboire" in
> > > French, and "Trinkgeld" in German. But I wonder whether all waiters
> > > will spend their tips exclusively on booze.;-)) Me too, I don't like
> > > it. But I can't stop it, I'm afraid.
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "Brendan Whyte" <brwhyte@h...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Brendan Whyte wrote:
> > > > > > An exclave is a special type of fragment, one that is surrounded
> > > > > > by one other unit. It must be landlocked too.
> > > > >
> > > > >Well, that definition is not universally accepted:
> > > > >the American Heritage Dictionary illustrates "exclave" with
> > > Cabinda.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The OED has a proper [ ;-) ] definition for both enclave and
> > > exclave.
> > > >
> > > > That plus notable exclave experts confirm 'my' definition above.
> > > >
> > > > This is one problem that 'enclave' and 'excalve' are used far too
> > > liberally
> > > > and slapdashically by the much of the media.
> > > >
> > > > Websters: "a small part of a country lying within the territory of
> > > another
> > > > country'.
> > > > Cabinda does NOT lie 'within' another country!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> > > http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp