--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Jan S. Krogh" <jan.krogh@t...>
wrote:
> Arif,
>
> It would be fine if we as a "fellowship" as much as possible could
use the
> same terms and definitions about the different of geographical
areas.
I agree.
>
> Rolf seems during the last months to have made some redefinitions
as I
> unfortunately have not been aware of. He is now concentrating his
efforts
> about what he earlier called type III exclaves/enclaves. His new
definition
> is not e.g. clearly stating if "Kaliningrad/Alaska class" areas are
exclaves
> or not.
I find it useful to think of enclaves/exclaves when the meaning is
linked to the notion of dry land. Sea, when it can be
considered "land" at all, would be "everyones land", so belonging to
all countries at the same time (a giant condominium? :-)). But I
think this all makes the picture more obscure, not clearer.
My ethymological dictionary of the Dutch language says
about "enclave" (I translate): [a terrain enclosed by foreign
territory]. First mentioned 1824. < French "enclave", from "enclaver"
[to close in]; < Vulgar Latin *inclavere, from Latin "in" ["in"]
+"clavis" ["key", "bolt", in medieval Latin also a closed room],
from "claudere" [to close].
So I would say that an enclave is an enclosement, enclosed by foreign
land.
"Exclave" in the same dictionary: [terrain in foreign territory, the
opposite of enclave]. First mentioned 1901-1925. Formed with
Latin "ex" ["out"], by analogy with "enclave".
K'grad and Alaska would then not be exclaves.
>
> You are not mentioning the word "exclave" at all, even if you are
referring
> to Rolf's description, and below I understand your definitions like
you in
> fact do not completely agree with him ;-) ?
>
> Rolf is saying that "An enclave is a geographical territory which is
> completely surrounded by foreign territory". Maybe my English is
not too
> strong, but does this clearly mean that he is talking about one
single
> country's territory or only land territory?
I think he means the latter (this is my opinion as well, but I know
that Brendan disagrees). In fact, this is in my opinion the place
where the complete, one-to-one opposition of enclave and exclave
stops: Naxcivan is an exclave (an Azerbaijani exclave), but no
enclave (because if it were, of which country would it be one?).
>
> Mike wants to use the term "clave". This noun I cannot find in my
Webster.
That doesn't surprise me.
I'm not too keen on "pene-enclave" either, but if you want to use it,
and I think this is the way Jesper uses it, you could think of a
definition like "practical enclave", an area having "enclavic" (not
an English word either, probably) properties in everyday life.
(Etymologically, "pene-enclave" would be "almost-enclave". But almost
means not quite. Either something is an enclave or it isn't. Fancy
discussions about when something is an "almost-enclave"...)
I remember having read somewhere that the governor of the Batken
region in Kyrgyzstan complained that when the Sokh enclave was to be
linked to mainland Uzbekistan, the bigger part of his area was to
become an enclave instead. It wouldn't, it would become a Kl.
Walsertal-like area, which would form a practical problem indeed, but
not an enclave.
This sort of use of the word enclave is extremely common in the media
and among politicians etc. But for BP, it only adds to the confusion.
Which can be seen at the number of times this problem has been
discussed here. But well, what the heck...
Peter S.