Re: ┼land

From: Hans Aberg (
Date: Thu Nov 03 2005 - 14:52:27 CST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: ┼land"

    On 3 Nov 2005, at 19:14, Philippe Verdy wrote:

    > From: "Hans Aberg" <>
    >> On 3 Nov 2005, at 07:27, Erkki Kolehmainen wrote:
    >>> ┼land is actually not an island. It is an archipelago.
    >> Or "groups of islands" (and a province): sorry I did not think of
    >> that. My Bonnier's Encyclopedia from 1967 suggests that the word
    >> ┼land comes from Primitive Norse: either Ahwiland, "land of
    >> island", or "Ahvaland", "land of water". So it has never been
    >> considered an island. The situation can perhaps be compared with
    >> that of the Canaries, or Hawaii. So not only is "island" not a
    >> part of the name ┼land, the latter is not even an island! :-)
    > And nothing currently indicates in the standards or in the CLDR
    > database that it is an island. Note the plural which is
    > consistently used "┼land islands" or "╬les ┼land". Note also the
    > ISO 3166-1 standard was changed (after a request by Findland) from
    > "╬les d'┼land" to "╬les ┼land", and not to "┼land" only.
    > The comments in the ISO 3166-1 bulletin are clear and normative.

    I have no comment on this standard. There is no base in local use to
    call ┼land the "┼land Islands".

    > Why continuing to discuss that?

    You tell the others.

    > Removing the term "Island" (or "╬les") would denote that the
    > territory is independant, which is wrong.

    As indicated, ┼land can refer to two things, a group of islands, and
    a province in Finland, which indeed has a special political status.

       Hans Aberg

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 03 2005 - 14:55:20 CST