Print

Print


Kenji Schwarz wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Kristian Jensen wrote:
>
>> The name 'Boreanesia', pseudo-Greek for 'Northern Islands', became
>> problematic when the islands were moved from the Northern Hemisphere
>> to the Southern Hemisphere. But I have grown so attached to the name I
>> simply had to find an excuse to keep it. Then I considered that
>> perhaps it could be geographically a part of Australia, and being the
>> northern islands of Australia, they are 'Boreanesia'. Boreanesia would
>> therefore be geographically a part of Oceania, hence, a possible
>> member of the Pacific Conlang League. What do you guys think?
>
>It sounds fine to me!  Is there any reason why you chose the new western
>location, rather than someplace *near* the Marianas?  (My knowledge of
>geology is not so good...)

The main reason is 'cuz the Marianas already exists in our universe. If
the Boreanesian universe is supposedly our universe plus Boreanesia, I
can't just dump Boreanesia on the Marianas.

Another reason is geological history. The location simply fits the history
I have written up a lot better without having to distort the world as we
know it. Basically, since it broke off from both Australia and Sundaland eons
ago, it makes more sense to place it between the two landmasses. In fact, a
submerged continental shelf with a very similar history to Boreanesia already
exists near Boreanesia in the real world. A location north of New Guinea
would have required so many changes with the world in our universe. I just
couldn't cope with the guilt that entailed (especially, of erasing innocent
Marianas).

-kristian- 8)