home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!fsrg!solar
- From: solar@fsrg.fsrg.bear.com (William del Solar)
- Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
- Subject: Re: Latin America
- Summary: Latin's grandchildren
- Message-ID: <29825@ursa.bear.com>
- Date: 31 Dec 92 23:12:46 GMT
- References: <1992Dec31.175208.12658@samba.oit.unc.edu>
- Sender: news@bear.com
- Distribution: usa
- Organization: Bear Stearns & Company, New York, NY
- Lines: 37
-
- In article <1992Dec31.175208.12658@samba.oit.unc.edu> rck@med.unc.edu (Ronald C. Knight) writes:
- > .
- > .
- > .
- >I checked two dictionaries and found three definitions of
- >"Latin America", in order of increasing inclusion:
- >
- >(1) "Spanish America & Brazil"
- >
- >(2) Those countries of the Americas and the Caribbean where
- > a language descended from Latin is spoken, including
- > Spanish, Portuguese, & French.
- >
- >(3) "All of the Americas south of the U.S."
- > .
- > .
- > .
- >prescriptive, I consider definition (3) definitely wrong and
- >definition (2) suspect.
-
- Suspect, but not wrong.
-
- Under definition (2) include both the USA and Canada as well as
- the English speaking countries in South America and the Caribbean
- because of Latin's influence on English through the Norman invasion
- and the Renaissance.
-
- Note that that includes some non English speaking areas, e.g.
- Puerto Rico, Quebec, and New York City. :)
-
- Clearly, both the USA and Canada are not in Latin America; thus,
- we should stop using the term "Latin America" when we really
- mean "South America."
-
- Wm. del Solar
- _________________________________________________
- My opinions are not my employer's and vice versa.
-