Real Mountains!

Graham Seed said:

One of my group on a '98 Greenland exped sent me a link to his photo
album which contained this shot
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2399/1561262674_754c5e14eb_o.jpg
These mountains (The Stauning Alps) are only slightly higher than
those in the UK

Thanks Graham. Proves my point exactly. When are people going to start
realising that height is not the main factor?

Quoted message said:

- I'd say the reason some people say there are no
'real' mountains in the UK is down to character not height. I don't
agree with that argument, but there are certainly a lot of wannabe
mountains!

I think the problem is that in the UK, "mountains" are determined by height,
yet many UK "mountains" are obviously not mountains, they're just hills. So
it's probably mountain lists that are to blame, the idea that everything
over 2000ft is a mountain.

As you say, it's down to character, which means that we do have some real
mountains in the UK, but many are just hills. As I've said before, if you go
by actual names, the highest hill in Wales is higher than the highest
mountain.

Summit lists are just that, lists of summits that fit particular numerical
criterion, but they don't define what is or isn't a mountain.

I think a true "mountain" list would by definition have to be an arbitrary
one, based on whether it possesses true mountain characteristics or not. I
suppose this could be determined mathematically, for example by measuring
the steepness of slopes, the nature of the ground and so on, but even then,
the parameters would be arbitrary.

Clearly the Cuillins are mountains, and others are just hills, but where do
you draw the dividing line, and how?

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/

In message <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Graham Seed said:

One of my group on a '98 Greenland exped sent me a link to his photo
album which contained this shot
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2399/1561262674_754c5e14eb_o.jpg
These mountains (The Stauning Alps) are only slightly higher than
those in the UK

Thanks Graham. Proves my point exactly. When are people going to start
realising that height is not the main factor?

Quoted message said:

- I'd say the reason some people say there are no
'real' mountains in the UK is down to character not height. I don't
agree with that argument, but there are certainly a lot of wannabe
mountains!

I think the problem is that in the UK, "mountains" are determined by height,
yet many UK "mountains" are obviously not mountains, they're just hills. So
it's probably mountain lists that are to blame, the idea that everything
over 2000ft is a mountain.

As you say, it's down to character, which means that we do have some real
mountains in the UK, but many are just hills. As I've said before, if you go
by actual names, the highest hill in Wales is higher than the highest
mountain.

If you define mountains by character, then going by actual names, the
highest hill in Wales is not higher than the highest mountain, because
then mountain is a Welsh English dialect word for hill.

(It seems obvious that mynedd and monadh (and mynd) are rough cognates
of mountain - I'd guess that they're cognates of mons, but mountain
comes from the adjectival montanus, via the French montaigne - but they
refer to rounded elevations, not jagged ones. While Mynedd is
conventionally translation as Mountain is place names, mynedd and
mountain are not really synonyms.

Note that the Mounth is the flattest of the Highland ranges, with the
Monadhliath also relatively flat. Even the Monadhruadh aren't as point
as hills further west.)

Quoted message said:

Summit lists are just that, lists of summits that fit particular numerical
criterion, but they don't define what is or isn't a mountain.

I think a true "mountain" list would by definition have to be an arbitrary
one, based on whether it possesses true mountain characteristics or not. I
suppose this could be determined mathematically, for example by measuring
the steepness of slopes, the nature of the ground and so on, but even then,
the parameters would be arbitrary.

Clearly the Cuillins are mountains, and others are just hills, but where do
you draw the dividing line, and how?

I wonder on what grounds you decide that An Teallach and Liathach are
not mountains, while including the Cuillins (particulary if you are
including Glamaig and the rest of the Red Cuillin). (And what about the
Cuillins of Rhum?)

Quoted message said:

Paul

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Stewart Robert Hinsley said:

Quoted message said:

As you say, it's down to character, which means that we do have some
real mountains in the UK, but many are just hills. As I've said
before, if you go by actual names, the highest hill in Wales is
higher than the highest mountain.

If you define mountains by character, then going by actual names, the
highest hill in Wales is not higher than the highest mountain, because
then mountain is a Welsh English dialect word for hill.

I don't quite follow what you wrote there. I wasn't suggesting that the
names are necessarily representative of the character (many mynydds are
small hills), I was simply translating the names literally.

IIRC, the highest summit in Wales with a name that translates as hill is
Foel Grach 976m. The highest summit with a name that translates as mountain
is Mynydd Moel 863m. Hence the highest hill is higher than the highest
mountain.

As it happens, Foel Grach is indeed quite rounded and "hilly", at least at
the summit, whereas Mynydd Moel has precipitous cliffs on two of three
sides, so that seems to qualify as a mountain. This isn't true of all
mynydds though.

It's perhaps interesting the very highest Welsh summits aren't called
mountains or hills. Two are cribs, two are glyders and there's a few carns,
carnedds and variations on that theme. The highest summit with a relevant
name is Pen yr Ole Wen, pen translating as "top". But what kind of top? Oh,
and there's Tryfan of course, fan meaning peak (three peaks).

Quoted message said:

(It seems obvious that mynedd and monadh (and mynd) are rough cognates
of mountain - I'd guess that they're cognates of mons, but mountain
comes from the adjectival montanus, via the French montaigne - but
they refer to rounded elevations, not jagged ones. While Mynedd is
conventionally translation as Mountain is place names, mynedd and
mountain are not really synonyms.

Not sure I follow that either. If mountain comes from a French word which
means a rounded elevation, then surely mynedd is appropriate? But don't they
all come from the same source? Perhaps mountain really just means "the
highest bit of land around here"?

Quoted message said:

Note that the Mounth is the flattest of the Highland ranges, with the
Monadhliath also relatively flat. Even the Monadhruadh aren't as point
as hills further west.)

So if all these variations of the word mountain mean flat things, what about
the mountains that aren't flat? You seem to be suggesting that all these
word variations don't mean mountain, but surely they must all have been
derived from the same word?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Clearly the Cuillins are mountains, and others are just hills, but
where do you draw the dividing line, and how?

I wonder on what grounds you decide that An Teallach and Liathach are
not mountains, while including the Cuillins (particulary if you are
including Glamaig and the rest of the Red Cuillin). (And what about
the Cuillins of Rhum?)

No, I didn't mean "all others", I just meant "some others".

I wasn't attempting to make a clear distinction, just saying that we have
extremes, some are obviously mountains, some are obviously hills, but where
do you draw the line between them? When does a hill become a mountain?

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/

kimilseung said:

Quoted message said:

It did end up being a duplicate post, but that's by the way.
The last couple of hundred miles south of Zhongdian (on the road from
Lijiang) is a huge plain.

Thanks Paul,
you are making me dead jealous
I spend a fair bit of my time just day dreaming about Tibet.

Do any of the locals actually call Zhongdian by its "new" name of
Shangri-la
I'm seeing some maps using it now
I already say Sri Lanka and Beijing
one day I may say Mumbai
but I can not ever imagine adopting such a ridiculous name as Shangri-
la
so I hope the answer is no

No. Only tourists call it Shangri La.
Beijing/Peking - same name, different transliteration. It never
changed its name. They just adopted a more accurate way of putting the
word into 'western' (pinyin, actually) script.

Paul Saunders said:

Graham Seed said:

One of my group on a '98 Greenland exped sent me a link to his photo
album which contained this shot
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2399/1561262674_754c5e14eb_o.jpg
These mountains (The Stauning Alps) are only slightly higher than
those in the UK

Thanks Graham. Proves my point exactly. When are people going to start
realising that height is not the main factor?

Quoted message said:

- I'd say the reason some people say there are no
'real' mountains in the UK is down to character not height. I don't
agree with that argument, but there are certainly a lot of wannabe
mountains!

I think the problem is that in the UK, "mountains" are determined by height,
yet many UK "mountains" are obviously not mountains, they're just hills. So
it's probably mountain lists that are to blame, the idea that everything
over 2000ft is a mountain.

As you say, it's down to character, which means that we do have some real
mountains in the UK, but many are just hills. As I've said before, if you go
by actual names, the highest hill in Wales is higher than the highest
mountain.

Summit lists are just that, lists of summits that fit particular numerical
criterion, but they don't define what is or isn't a mountain.

I think a true "mountain" list would by definition have to be an arbitrary
one, based on whether it possesses true mountain characteristics or not. I
suppose this could be determined mathematically, for example by measuring
the steepness of slopes, the nature of the ground and so on, but even then,
the parameters would be arbitrary.

Clearly the Cuillins are mountains, and others are just hills, but where do
you draw the dividing line, and how?

Paul
--http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/

It's all somewhat arbitrary. No need to define precisely what the
criteria are, surely!
Some things look like mountains - a combination of separateness,
height, maybe gradient sometimes. These terms are artistic, not
scientific; emotional, not logical.

"Paul Rooney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 18 Oct, 01:09, kimilseung <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do any of the locals actually call Zhongdian by its "new" name of
Shangri-la
I'm seeing some maps using it now
I already say Sri Lanka and Beijing
one day I may say Mumbai
but I can not ever imagine adopting such a ridiculous name as Shangri-
la
so I hope the answer is no

No. Only tourists call it Shangri La.
Beijing/Peking - same name, different transliteration. It never
changed its name. They just adopted a more accurate way of putting the
word into 'western' (pinyin, actually) script.

I have a little red book (are little red books a Chinese tradition?) which
was bought in the Zhongdian area. It's a guide book cum photo album in
chinese script and bad english. I presume it's published for tourists, it
certainly pushes the name Shangri-La for the area.

Looking at the photo's in the book, this is an absolutely stunning area!

Duncan Gray said:

"Paul Rooney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 18 Oct, 01:09, kimilseung <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do any of the locals actually call Zhongdian by its "new" name of
Shangri-la
I'm seeing some maps using it now
I already say Sri Lanka and Beijing
one day I may say Mumbai
but I can not ever imagine adopting such a ridiculous name as Shangri-
la
so I hope the answer is no

Quoted message said:

No. Only tourists call it Shangri La.
Beijing/Peking - same name, different transliteration. It never
changed its name. They just adopted a more accurate way of putting the
word into 'western' (pinyin, actually) script.

I have a little red book (are little red books a Chinese tradition?) which
was bought in the Zhongdian area. It's a guide book cum photo album in
chinese script and bad english. I presume it's published for tourists, it
certainly pushes the name Shangri-La for the area.

Looking at the photo's in the book, this is an absolutely stunning area!

It is stunning, but the journey from the south crosses a very flat,
very high, bit of land!
Shangri La - the name - is a recent innovation by the government to
boost tourism. Actually there are several other places that claim the
title. There are even tour guides who will take you to the site of the
plane crash in Hilton's (completely ficitious) book!

Off the plain the mountains are unbelievably beautiful/high/rugged -
another world.