View previous topic | View next topic

Islands - Isles - Islets

Page 5 of 10
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

'yorz
733635.  Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:14 am Reply with quote

Liberty Island

The island that came out of nowhere (L'Île mystérieuse)

 
Woodsman
733760.  Sat Aug 14, 2010 10:00 pm Reply with quote

No, no, no and no.

Because Okeechobee is so shallow, Observation Shoal is much of the time part of the mainland and therefore not an upstanding island, The lake varies several feet in depth depending on drought or storm, which may seem insignificant but it is at most 12 feet deep in places. If there were a sustained multi-year drought, it might substantially dry up. And even at full lake, the mainland / shoal separation appears to be a man made slough. So, I'm sorry I can't accept that answer. The other tries are good for klaxons.

It's a trick question, really. While Okeechobee is much bigger in surface area but does not have a 'real' island, I think the answer is Sugar Island in Moosehead Lake, Maine. At least that lake is 230 feet deep.

 
thedrew
734576.  Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:15 pm Reply with quote

Woodsman wrote:
Because Okeechobee is so shallow, Observation Shoal is much of the time part of the mainland and therefore not an upstanding island


... it is an island of ill repute.

Actually, I think Ritta Island in Lake Okeechobee (perhaps not an island by some definitions) is quite interesting. Though stories like it exist all over the world, sadly.

 
CB27
734606.  Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:09 pm Reply with quote

Here's something for someone interested in etymology (perhaps suze) to look into:

I was reading something about water today and the origin of words relating to it, and of course the Latin "Aqua" is a well known early form, from which several languages have similar words, often replacing the "q" for a "g".

I then found that several old languages had words for water that shared their root with Aqua, but already used a "g", including the Old English word for water "Ig". To describe a land surrounded by water, they called it "Igland", and this eventually became "Island".

When I found this I had a flash of inspiration. Everyone accepts that "England" came from "Engla Land" which meant land of the Angles, though no one knows why one of the least significant tribes to invade England lent it the name.

Looking back to earliest uses it seems this came from the practice of calling the settling invaders "Angli Saxones" which we now call Anglo Saxons. I wonder whether this was a case of people mishearing the original term and adopting the name they thought they heard? The invaders knew Britain was an Island, they knew they came from mainland Europe, and in the 5th century Hengist and Horsa were even given the island of Thanet for their men to settle on. Could it be that they distinguished themselves from their mainland relatives by calling themselves the "Island Saxons" which would have been written as "Igland Saxones"?

 
Efros
734663.  Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:23 am Reply with quote

Nice theory, the generally accepted one is that the anglo bit came from a Gemanic tribe originating from Angeln in Schleswig-Holstein. From Wiki
wikipedia says wrote:

The province of Schleswig has proved rich in prehistoric antiquities that date apparently from the 4th and 5th centuries A.D. A broad cremation cemetery has been found at Borgstedterfeld, between Rendsburg and Eckernförde, and it has yielded many urns and brooches closely resembling those found in heathen graves in England. Of still greater importance are the great deposits at Thorsberg moor (in Angeln) and Nydam, which contained large quantities of arms, ornaments, articles of clothing, agricultural implements, etc., and in Nydam even ships. By the help of these discoveries, Angle civilization in the age preceding the invasion of Great Britain can be fitted together.

 
Hans Mof
734694.  Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:44 am Reply with quote

Etymology and meaning of "England" here.

To be taken with a pinch of salt.

 
CB27
734755.  Thu Aug 19, 2010 6:21 am Reply with quote

As I said, I know the accepted etymology of "England", but I also know this has always carried a small question mark as to why the name came from the Angles and not another more influential tribe.

 
thedrew
734821.  Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:54 am Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
As I said, I know the accepted etymology of "England", but I also know this has always carried a small question mark as to why the name came from the Angles and not another more influential tribe.


Because, perhaps, invading foreigners can't be bothered with details. An entire continent of native peoples thousands of miles away from India can attest to this.

 
Hans Mof
734826.  Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:13 am Reply with quote

Quote:
... why the name came from the Angles and not another more influential tribe.


Well, how much more influential than getting the whole England business started do you want it? While Cerdic (founder of the Wessex dynasty) might have been a Briton the Heptarchy was a collection of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms which eventually unified into the Kingdom of England.

 
CB27
734829.  Thu Aug 19, 2010 12:02 pm Reply with quote

You're mixing Angles and Anglo saxons.

The Angles came from a much smaller territory than the other tribes, and were only given their name around 90-100AD, they were probably known by other names before, or may have been been part of other tribes.

The early settlements in South East England were very much Saxon, hence the names of old kingdoms and current counties (Wessex, Essex, Middlesex, Sussex), Kent also fell under the Saxons. They also stretched along the south coast and inland, up to the southern border of Wales.

The Angles came a little later and ended up colonising further up the Eastern coast (hence Anglia), up to Northumbria.

My theory is that there already existed a name for Island Saxons and this was possibly changed so that Island was replaced with Angles, whether by error or in purpose. It's worth noting that early sources are very much influenced by the work of Bede, and he was based in Northumbria, which was part of the Angle territory, so it would have been easy for him to use the form that includes the name of the people he knew. Bede himself relied on Gildas, who also came from the North of England.

 
Hans Mof
734837.  Thu Aug 19, 2010 12:47 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
The Angles came from a much smaller territory than the other tribes ...


It seems to me you're mixing up modern day Angeln and the historic territory of the Anglii here. Angeln today really is nothing more than an insignificant, but beautiful, region in Schleswig-Holstein. The Anglii people however populated most of the Jutlandic peninsular.

Quote:
You're mixing Angles and Anglo saxons.


No, not really. Anglo-Saxons are nothing more than Angles and Saxons (and Frisians and Jutes).

 
Hans Mof
734843.  Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:25 pm Reply with quote

Oh, and then of course there's the possibility that "Anglo" is misapplied to the Ingaevones, the Angrivarii or any possible combination between these two and the Angles.

 
'yorz
734844.  Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:30 pm Reply with quote

O dear - did you give up, Hans? Last posting arrived unsigned :P

(luctor et submergo)

 
Hans Mof
734846.  Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:39 pm Reply with quote

Just for you then, yorz.

:P

 
busk31
734848.  Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm Reply with quote

The history of Jutland has it: Jutes lived in the northern part and Angelsk were in the southern part in the 0-300 A.D Range, they are mentioned as 2 different cultures. The Angelsk then moved to ..Angland and the Danes took over Jutland.

 

Page 5 of 10
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group