From: Hans Aberg (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Nov 03 2005 - 14:52:27 CST
On 3 Nov 2005, at 19:14, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> From: "Hans Aberg" <email@example.com>
>> 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 03 2005 - 14:55:20 CST