> Den 14. jan. 2016 21:10, Arne Johannessen skreiv: >> This question is in my view fundamentally about whether the >> characteristics of a fjord are distinct in a way that precludes >> calling it a bay. The definition of a bay however is so general that >> I'd say *every* fjord is a bay. Therefore natural=bay + bay=fjord >> would seem logical to me.
Gnothgol svart: > Eg ser også problemet med å finne ein god definisjon mellom fjord og bukt. A bay may be (almost) arbitrarily broad [0]: a long stretch of coast just barely curved with the middle inland relative to the ends may be called a bay. Anglic's borrowing of "fjord" has it be a glacial feature, definitely hemmed in on the sides by the land (usually "between high cliffs" as Oxford suggests, but not necessarily) - c.f. Slartibartfast's remarks on his work in HHGTTG. This does not appear entirely unfaithful to the Norse usage. Any fjord is a bay; not all bays are fjords. [0] https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/54.4265/-0.5122&layers=Q It's called "Robin Hood's Bay" (as is a village on it). It is not a fjord. I'm sure one could find more extreme examples. Thus fjord is a sub-type of bay, for all that it may be tricky to pin down just exactly how to delineate what counts as a fjord. >> Beklager svar på engelsk. I like måte. Jeg er ikke sikker om jeg kan erklarer akkurat hva jeg mener på norsk ... Eddy. _______________________________________________ kart mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nuug.no/mailman/listinfo/kart
