Does France deserve its name?

<<However Central America is not a continent, and is grouped with North America. Although it is often grouped separately from the North America.>>
<<I wonder why it gets lumped in with Canada and the US, and cut out of Central America?>>

Central Americans don't consider themselves as North Americans, absolutely never, in the moment we divide America geographically. The thin portion of land or istmus is different enough to make such separation.

"Very true. Gallo-ROMANS, not simply Gauls. The Romans vastly improved every facet of Gallic life. If it weren't for the Romans, the Gauls would have been conquered by the Germans sooner or later. The Franks came along much later. The Franks defeated an already weakened Gallo-Roman state by the late 5th century. The Franks prevailed. "

The Gallo-Romans were still GAULS! Their country was called "Gaul". They were Romans, but they were still GAULS. The people were Gallic. The name of the land and of the state was "Gaul". The people of Gaul weren't suddenly not Gauls anymore, as if the rapture took place, and were replaced with Romans. They became Romans, in the sense that they adopted that culture and civilization. But they were still Gauls. There was no spontaneous combustion, and they all went "poof!" into thin air. A Gaul was a Gaul, no matter what time period they were in. They were Gauls in the time of Julius Caesar, and they were no less Gauls in the time of Charlegmagne. And yes, the Franks prevailed. Does that mean we should award them with a little pat on the back? The Romans prevailed over the pre-Roman Celts of Gaul. Does that mean we should change the name of Gaul to "Rome"? If you apply your same logic to other countries, you can see for yourself how silly it is. You know what, the English eventually prevailed over Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. Therefore, we have to change the name of these fiercely nationalistic and distinct peoples to "English". The names of their land will be replaced with "England". We have to do this because the English "prevailed". The Visigoths prevailed over Spain. Let's change the name of that country to suit the victors. We should call Spain, "Visigothia".

The term "French", basically means "one of France", and France basically means, "land of, or kingdom of the Franks". So the term "French" essentially means "Frank". So, if 90% of the country was not of Frankish origin, would it make sense to still call them Franks? They were still Gallic in every sense of the word, so why should we call them, "Franks", when they were not Franks? They didn't speak the language of the Franks, they didn't adopt the culture of the Franks, and by and large, genetically, they were not of Frankish stock.

You seem to think that we should name countries after accomplishments. If that were the case, we should call the U.S., "Henry Ford land", or "Thomas Edison land". Or we should call Britain, "the United Kingdom of Winston Churchill and Lord Nelson". Or, since the Romans made the greatest achievements of all in Europe, and bequeathed their culture to most of southern western Europe, we should call all of Spain, Italy, Portugal, and France, "Roman world", or "Roman land". Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

England is named after the Angles. China is named after the Chinese. Japan is named after the Japanese. Turkey is named after the Turks. They all essentially mean, "land of _____". The people fill that blank. Not the accomplishments of one group of society, or one person, or even of a small ruling minority.

How would you like it if the PRC conquered the U.S.A and sent a small number of government offiicials and soldiers to execute colonial rule over the U.S., who, relative to the American population, were extremely few in number. Then, despite the vast majority of the American people not being of Chinese origin or culture, it was decided that from that day forth, all Americans were to be called, "Chinese". How would you like that? Oh, but the Chinese accomplished an incredible feat! They toppled the most mighty superpower the world had ever known in ages! What an amazing historical accomplishment!

Doesnt' make much sense does it?.....

A curse upon France and French nations!

Italy was named by the ancient Greeks. Loosely translated it means "grazing land". By the time that the Greeks gave ancient Italy its name, there were numerous and differing people occupying it. Countries get their names for different reasons and from different sources. The naming of a country is not as simplistic as you think. You simply cannot apply a cookie cutter solution as to why some nations have the names that they do. It's much more complex than that. Just like history. History is very complex. The relationships between countries is very complex, just as inter-personal relations are. Most people are very complex. You may think that it is unfair that France was named after a people whose ethnic component is less significant than its original inhabitants but that's life. That's history. Not all countries are named after its indiginous inhabitants. The original inhabitants of the USA are of Asiatic mongoloid extraction. Maybe we should have named the USA after them huh? The United States was named after an Italian explorer by the name of Amerigo Vespucci. Should the official language of the United States be Italian for crying' out loud!!!

After a week of vacations along the mediterreanean and before coming back to Portugal I just have a quick look to the forum.

I didn't read all the posts since most of them are very long and consists of a sort of historic endless controversy.
My opinion is that the names of countries, are not necessary a meaning or a descrotion of the people but a legacy of the history. The history of our country made that our name is derived from the Franks - that's all. It doesn't mean nothing more about this. OUr culture is a latin one and are people is made of mixing of dozens of different peoples since ever. Franks were one of these, history made that they gave us their name.I would like to precise that for French people, the name "France" has completly lost any conection with the Frankish people or with Frankish origin. the huge majority of ourselves have nothing to see with Frankish people, in culture and in genetic herency.

In some germanic languages it may be more confusing because the country continue to be called "Franckreich" (the frank realm) - wich is not the case in Romance languages were a strong difference is made beetween the name of the Frankish kingdom (Royaume des Francs) and the modern romance country born from the western part of the division of the Frankish kingdom after Charlemagne (Francia occidentalis - Francia - France).

If Romance speaking regions should be called only with latin names we should rename most of them. Not only the regions with names derived from germanic peoples like Andalucia, Catalunia, Lombardia, etc. but also a lot of latin-American countries whose names are native indian (Mexico, Guatemala, Paraguay, Uruguay, Quebec, etc.)

The same for the USA, a lot of states have native Indian names. Should they be renamed with english names to respect the fact that most people are of an english-speaking culture ?

<<Hi Uriel,
>(although you might have included Chile in South American, Sergio! Poor Chileans -- red-headed stepchildren, I guess....)
Well I meant ALL the countries between Colombia (which shares border with the southernst Central American land, Panama, and Argentina, the southernst South American land). I haven't excluded Chile nor any other country!! >>

Hi, Sergio -- I was just teasing you because Chile extends further south than Argentina.


<<>However Central America is not a continent, and is grouped with North America. Although it is often grouped separately from the North America.
I have never stated that Central America is a continent. I wrote how the whole American continent was GEOGRAPHICALLY divided, and in Spanish the word Centroamérica is a valid term for the zone comprised between Guatemala and Panama. >>

Well, sure -- we use "Central America" as well.

But now that I read your answer very carefully, I think I see our divide here -- in your statement, "the whole American continent" I get the feeling that you conceptualize the Western Hemisphere as ONE major landmass, geopolitically divided into three parts.

I, on the other hand, think of it as TWO separate landmasses, one of which is strangely (and arbitrarily) divided into two entities -- North and Central. (I could never say "the American Continent" to another English-speaker-- they would immediately ask me, "Which one? There are two -- a North and a South, and you can't just lump them together.")

These might seem like minor semantic differences on paper (or on the screen), but they seem to underpin a lot of the differences in the thought processes between the English-speaking part of the hemisphere and the Spanish-speaking part!

<<I, on the other hand, think of it as TWO separate landmasses, one of which is strangely (and arbitrarily) divided into two entities -- North and Central. (I could never say "the American Continent" to another English-speaker-- they would immediately ask me, "Which one? There are two -- a North and a South, and you can't just lump them together.")

These might seem like minor semantic differences on paper (or on the screen), but they seem to underpin a lot of the differences in the thought processes between the English-speaking part of the hemisphere and the Spanish-speaking part! >>

AMEN TO THAT! In English, we never say the, "American Continent", because there are two of them. We would either say the "North American" continent, or the "South American", geographically. If we want to refer to a certain people or culture which transcends geographic boundaries, we use other terms. If we want to refer to the native, pre-columbian peoples and their land, we say the "Americas", and always with that plural "s". If we want to talk about the Iberian-speaking nations, south of the the U.S. in both North (where North also includes Central) and South America, we refer to it as "Latin America", but never as "America". English speakers do not do this.

>Hi, Sergio -- I was just teasing you because Chile extends further south than Argentina.

Nope, Argentina extends further south than Chile.

>I get the feeling that you conceptualize the Western Hemisphere as ONE major landmass, geopolitically divided into three parts.

Exactly!! "Continente Americano" is the term which reflects this concept in Spanish. If you speak of North or South, then you use the word sub-continent. But I didn't know that this was not the case in English!!!... interesting..

>they seem to underpin a lot of the differences in the thought processes between the English-speaking part of the hemisphere and the Spanish-speaking part!

Wouldn't you rather say, that this is the political difference in the point of view, between En and Sp speakers? I say that because, it is a matter of fact that there is only ONE landmass. Hence, there is one continent, without the ambiguities which can exist in Europe-Asia or in Oceania, or in the board Africa-Asia.... anyway, today I learnt that in English one have two continents within America.

Hi Sergio,

There are two continents, connected by the narrow isthmus of Panama. Although they are technically connected, they are still two continents. Just as Europe and Asia are connected, and Asia and Africa are connected, by a narrow strip of land, but are still considered seperate continents.

There are two continents in Spanish as well. Look at a Spanish map, and you will see, "America del sul" and "America del norte".

In french "Amerique" describes the whole new world, wich is divided in "Amerique du Nord", "Amerique du sud" and sometimes "Amerique centrale" and "Antilles".

In Italian, the Americas are "Le Americhe" - which is plural, like it is in English. "Le Americhe" is divided into two continents which are "Nord America" and "Sud America"

Nord America is also called "America settentrionale" and "America del Nord"
Sud America is also called "America meridionale" and "America del Sud"

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americhe

It's definitely TWO continents in Italian, Sergio. The fact that we believe there are two continents is not just a political difference in point of view as the Italians believe as we do and have no stake in the politics of either the English or Spanish.

Uriel,
You were right about Chile. *lapsus brutus spontaneus*.

LAA,
No. There is just one continent in this geological era. There WERE two continents millions of years ago, such as India was an Island (and according to many geologist, a continent by itself). So there is a continuum of land.

That in English America is perceived as two continents is a fact that I don't want to argue. I respect this.

>There are two continents in Spanish as well. Look at a Spanish map, and you will see, "America del sul" and "America del norte".
No my friend, they aren't. We never say in Spanish "el continente norteamericano" and "el continente sudamericano". You look in every serious book, in Spanish, and you will find out that there are five continents. "América del Sur" and "América del Norte" are not terms designating a continent, but a part of a continent, just exactly as Northern Europe, Central Europe, Eastern Europe, etc....

>The fact that we believe there are two continents is not just a political difference in point of view as the Italians believe as we do and have no stake in the politics of either the English or Spanish.
Yes I agree with you. That's why I am talking about the geological meaning. There is one massland and thus one continent, from its conquest by the Europeans on, named as a whole "America". Not "Americas".

No, there are two. Each major landmass (continent) are connected by the narrow isthmus of Panama. Sure, they are connected. Does that mean that because Egypt is connected to Israel that Africa and Asia are one continent? Or what about the European-Asian border. They are completely connected, and only divided by the Ural mountains in Russia, and one half of Turkey. Does this mean that there is no European continent, or Asian continent? No. Dividing the world geographically can be a tricky business, but it is a worldwide profession. Cartographers use the same maps, with the same geo-political and geographical divisions the world over. They must use a common language, just as scientists the world over, follow standard mathematics, and use the same numerical system.

There are two continents. And I've seen "America del Norte" and "American del sur" countless times on Spanish maps. Just as I see Baja California, and Alta California.

Sergio,
Then you'd agree that Europe and Asia (and perhaps Africa!) are one contitnent too, right?

Here are some interesting discussions on just this subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continents
http://journals.aol.com/bowermanb/GWBlog/entries/2005/02/25/how-many-continents-are-there/262
http://www.mikepope.com/blog/DisplayBlog.aspx?permalink=1179
http://www.englishforums.com/English/Continents/cdxmd/Post.htm
http://nomadlife.org/2006/07/new-question-how-many-continents-are.aspx

I found this answer interesting:
"It depends on the purpose :

Geographically, there are 4 continents ; Eurasiafrica, America, Australia, Antartica.

Sociopolitically, there are 6 continents ; Afrika, Asia, Australia, Europe, South America, and North America.

Sportly, There are 5 continents ; Europe, America, Asia, Australia, Africa.

Historically, there was only one continent ; The Gondwana Land.

Geologically, there are 7 continents ; Eurasia, Africa, South America, Australia, Antartica, North America, and India.

Frankly, I have no Idea how many continents there should be.....Smile [:)]"

Hi LAA,
Before it becomes an endless discussion:
>And I've seen "America del Norte" and "American del sur" countless times on Spanish maps. Just as I see Baja California, and Alta California.
Yes, that is precisely what I wrote. But then I wrote that these name don't mean TWO continents in Spanish, they mean two parts of the SAME continent.

>Does that mean that because Egypt is connected to Israel that Africa and Asia are one continent?
No, it doesn't. But the Asia-Africa case doesn't imply either that it applies for America.

>Or what about the European-Asian border. They are completely connected
Even worse. If they, with such a huge connection are politically regarded as two continents (which I don't mean discuss) tells you how arbitrarily the continents are grouped and ungrouped. BUT geologically, not geographically speaking, they still form the "Eurasian Continent". That is what I am trying to say for America, regardless of the language.

>but it is a worldwide profession
Yes. You can put your complains to Amerigo Vespuci.

Summarize:
1) I respect the fact that in English you speak of two continents.
2) you respect as well the fact that in Spanish we speak of one.
This does not affect anyone...
3) Politically speaking some countries can regard America as two continents whereas some others as one. BUT geologically, rigth now, it happens to be a single continent, as Eurasia is.