[conspire] Happy Lupercalia
daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us
Fri Feb 16 00:03:34 PST 2007
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:43:26 -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Daniel Gimpelevich (daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us):
>> One can argue that, since this was after the Suez Canal was built, you
>> traveled within Asia during that week, and weren't in Africa then at all.
> You have a point, but even those erstwhile colonisers the Brits, as
> indicated by my 1952 _Britannica_, seem schizophrenic on the subject:
> The article on Africa says its northeastern corner is the "Suez isthmus"
> -- which I'll point out in passing exists irrespective of the Canal --
> while the Asia article says the boundary passes "through the eastern
> Mediterranean and down the Red Sea to the southern point of Arabia".
> (The entry on Sinai itself ducks the question, further suggesting the
> encyclopaedists were not very mindful of this bit of trivia.)
> Anyway, I _believe_ I was always taught, in both British and American
> schools, that Africa included all of Egypt. Yes, I know Wikipedia
> claims otherwise, but I trust even leaky memories and my encyclopaedia
> more than I do Wikipedia -- for whatever that matters, which ain't much.
I was not aware of anything Wikipedia claimed or didn't claim relating to
the matter. I was trusting my own leaky memories of all the charts showing
Sinai squarely in Asia. I guess consensus on the matter must tend to
fluctuate. Then again, those same leaky memories suggest to me that Sinai
lies not on the tectonic plate of Asia nor of Africa, but on its own, and
that the year 1952 passed in its entirety before the canal was even there.
More information about the conspire