How many continents are there?

[Perfection]

My dictionnary definition say it is a vast land mass that can be crossed without crossing the sea.

So by this definition, America is one continent, and Europe-Asia-Africa are one other.

So by your definition would you consider Autralia or Greenland to be vast?

But this is the "physical geographical" definition, then you are a more "cultural", or "historical" definition, and by that the one I have listed are the ones which are commonly used.

Cultural and historical sound interesting, it occurs to me then that America could be divvied up into "English" and "Latin" America.

Although they are wrong : making Oceania a continent is a bit strange, as it is not a land mass.

I doubt many consider Oceania a continent as it is usually used in demographics to fit in the Pacific Islands.

 

[Turner]

Cultural and historical sound interesting, it occurs to me then that America could be divvied up into "English" and "Latin" America.

In that case, the 'Latin American' continent would start with the Mexican/US border.

There's an idea. We can break up continents by language groups.

 

[Perfection]

In that case, the 'Latin American' continent would start with the Mexican/US border.

Precisely, wierd idea, huh?

There's an idea. We can break up continents by language groups.

Well I don't know about linguistically, but perhaps culturally at some level. Though I would contend that it's use as that would be limited. I think it would be best if we stuck with the physical

 

[Turner]

And that was exactly my point.

 

[WickedSmurf]

Hmm I've been looking aroud for an exact and absolute answer to this, but there is none. Some say six, other seven. National Geographic recognizes seven continents while most scientists and geographers say there are six.

I am sticking with my 'answer all'-option though.

 

[Perfection]

And that was exactly my point.

So the question remains what physical features?

Here are the sperators between the "classic continents"
Mountains, Oceans, Seas, Isthmuses, Fault lines, which of these should be a demarkation?

 

[Turner]

Aye, mate, that's the rub, idntit?

I would define it by the landmasses that occupy the continental plates. Of course, there we have the problem of a word being used to define itself...

So by that definition, we would have six: North American Plate (which includes part of Sibera), South American Plate, African Plate, Eurasian plate, Australian Plate, and Antartic Plate.

 

[Perfection]

Well, Turner, I see two issues with your system

1. America and Siberia being on the same continent seemingly defies most other definitions

2. What about Arabia and India, these are major landmasses on thier own tectonic plate, should we consider them continents?

 

[Turner]

I never said it was perfect.

Lump them into Sub-Continents, and attach them to your continent of choice. And re-attach Sibera to the Eurasian plate.

Just as is done now, except for Europe and Asia being one continent.

 

[Steph]

Cultural and historical sound interesting, it occurs to me then that America could be divvied up into "English" and "Latin" America.

Depends on the perspective. For Europeans, when it was first discovered 500 years ago, it was only one new continent the "new world". So the disctintion between English and Latin America really appeared later, and we were already used to one American continent.
However, for American, the distinction is more important, because to their point of view and their history, they are separated.

 

[The Last Conformist]

In Swedish, we (sometimes) distinguish between kontinent and världsdel. The former is the geological continents - Eurasia, Africa, North and South America, Australia, Antarctica. The later is the traditional divisions of the Earth - Europe, Asia, Africa, America, Oceania, Antarctica. The later set is a bit hazy - sometimes the Americas are counted separately, sometimes Antarctica is conveniently forgotten, sometimes Oceania is replaced with Australia.


Greenland's "geological indopendence" was mentioned. Huge as it is, it's simply a shelf island in the style of Great Britain.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Seven continents for me. No need to waste time and try to be fancy.

 

[slothman]

I divide all the world into 11 areas. 4 are mostly water and 7 mostly land. The water regions, the oceans, are easy to separate. The land slightly harder. Europe is connected to the rest of the land by only mountains and some water with Asia. Except for the weird Russia in 2 continents part that is pretty easy. Africa and Asia as well as N with S America are only connected by a small part of land. Antarctica and Australia not by land at all. Going from 1 continent to another usually results in a completely different culture, geography, and climate. The Egypt, Panama, and Russia boundaries are true but fairly close to those countries in one direction is different than the same distance in the opposite. The end result is that it doesn't matter I wouldn't have some international gov't work by continent so the arbitrariness isn't bad. It's like a very local to my area about the 5 Great Lakes. Some people want to add Lake Champlain or Lake St. Clair to the list but it doesn't really matter. The region doesn't get money for them and the changeover would be annoying at best if even accepted by people.
In other words I will say 7 continents and 4 oceans and 9 planets and that will never change in my mind.

 

[EdwardTking]

My dictionnary definition say it is a vast land mass that can be crossed without crossing the sea.

So by this definition, America is one continent, and Europe-Asia-Africa are one other.

But this is the "physical geographical" definition, then you are a more "cultural", or "historical" definition, and by that the one I have listed are the ones which are commonly used. Although they are wrong : making Oceania a continent is a bit strange, as it is not a land mass

An interesting definition. In practice North and South America were separated by jungle and Africa was separated from Asia by desert;
so crossing by sea was the way people actually typically usually travelled.

I aggree with you about Oceania (a strange name for a continent).
New Zealand is quite separate from Australia.

To me the list is:

Africa
Antarctica
Australian
Eurasia
North America
South America

Greenland is just a division of North America, while Arabia,
India, Europe and SE Asia are just sub-continents of Eurasia.

Countries like Britain, England, Iceland, New Zealand and
Japan are neither continents nor parts of continents.

 

[The Last Conformist]

From the geological POV, Great Britain and Japan are parts of the continents - the water that separates them covers continental, not oceanic crust.

 

[Cheetah]

Yup. Six continents:
Eurasia, North America, South America, Africa, Australia and Antarktica.

The British islands, Iceland and Japan are islands connected to the Eurasian contient. Same for New Zealand, it's a (or two?) island connected to Australia.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Um, in what sense is Iceland connected to the Eurasian continent?

Geologically, the border 'tween the Eurasian and North American plates goes thru Iceland.

 

[CruddyLeper]

Does it matter how many continents there are?

We're all one world.

 

[EdwardTking]

Umm = despite studying Geology for degree (Durham 1974 to 1977);
I note that the original term "continent" as in its general usage today
predated our modern understanding of crust types and tectonic plates;
so while agreeing with geological comment, I am not sure it is appropriate
to retro-fit our geologic understanding to re-define the word "continent".

People in britain never considered themselves as continentals
anecdotal radio announcements "fog in channel - continent cut off"

Continents are primarily geographical defined. The division of Europe
from Asia was a temporary confusion arising from trying to separate
out based on racial and religious differences (e,g. white Christian Europe
from non white Asia) that does not survive the geographical test.

By the way, New Zealand has two main island and is I understand
thoroughly separated from Australia by basaltic oceanic crust.

 

[ybbor]

if something went topsy turvey (via perfection's time machine) and the great (and i use that term loosely ) european civilizations settled in the indian sub-continent, and the indians settled in what is now europe, what continetns would there be? i think they would probably consider the 'new europe'/'old india' as it's own continent, and combine 'new india'/'old europe' with asia. a true example of continents divided by culture groups