South - A geographic problem

[Yiuel Raumbesrairc]

Well, this is a question that grew within me over the years, it is simple yet questions the essence of the words for "North" and "South".

It is said that Erelae and Arcel are both in the southern hemisphere of Almea. What determines South? East and West are well defined, East being where the sun rises, West being where the sun sets. Yet, North and South can have two relative meanings. You can either base yourself on East and West, and say that South is on the right, North on the left, or you can base yourself on the pole, stating that the pole closest to where you live is North (as having no sun) and South is the opposite direction (or the other way around).

Is it reflected in the languages of Almea? Are there cultures that have based themselves on the poles, and other on the Sun, the later switching according to their main cardinal.

(If we compare with our own solar system, if we use the E-W system, you end up having a reverted South for Venus

[Miekko]

Some Arabic carthograpers had South "up" on their maps, interestingly enough.

[Aszev]

I've seen an Australian map where south is up and Australia is in centre top

[So Haleza Grise]

Well, this is a question that grew within me over the years, it is simple yet questions the essence of the words for "North" and "South".

It is said that Erelae and Arcel are both in the southern hemisphere of Almea. What determines South? East and West are well defined, East being where the sun rises, West being where the sun sets. Yet, North and South can have two relative meanings. You can either base yourself on East and West, and say that South is on the right, North on the left, or you can base yourself on the pole, stating that the pole closest to where you live is North (as having no sun) and South is the opposite direction (or the other way around).

If that's the case, you'd want to describe/translate that "North" as "South". Distinguish "North" from "primary map orientation".

[Yiuel Raumbesrairc]

Well, this is a question that grew within me over the years, it is simple yet questions the essence of the words for "North" and "South".

It is said that Erelae and Arcel are both in the southern hemisphere of Almea. What determines South? East and West are well defined, East being where the sun rises, West being where the sun sets. Yet, North and South can have two relative meanings. You can either base yourself on East and West, and say that South is on the right, North on the left, or you can base yourself on the pole, stating that the pole closest to where you live is North (as having no sun) and South is the opposite direction (or the other way around).

If that's the case, you'd want to describe/translate that "North" as "South". Distinguish "North" from "primary map orientation".

In French, the old word for south (midi, still in use in the set name : midi de la France) is based on the sun : where the sun is when it is at its zenith (? la mi di, that is, mid-day). Yet, in a land placed in the southern hemisphere, such defined south would become north.

[tatapyranga]

From an astronomical, external point of view, "north" can be easily defined: if you point your thumb to north, and close your hand, the other fingers' tips will rotate as the Earth does, west to east (which causes the apparent movement of the Sun from east to west).

[zompist]

Well, this is a question that grew within me over the years, it is simple yet questions the essence of the words for "North" and "South".

It is said that Erelae and Arcel are both in the southern hemisphere of Almea. What determines South? East and West are well defined, East being where the sun rises, West being where the sun sets. Yet, North and South can have two relative meanings. You can either base yourself on East and West, and say that South is on the right, North on the left, or you can base yourself on the pole, stating that the pole closest to where you live is North (as having no sun) and South is the opposite direction (or the other way around).

The first of these-- south is to the right of the direction the sun rises-- is, if I'm not messing up, equivalent to the idea that the northern hemisphere is the one that's rotating counter-clockwise. That's the sense in which Erel?e is in the southern hemisphere of Almea.

You could also define it based on the direction water spirals down the drain. The Coriolis effect is also due to the planet's direction of rotation, however.

There's one other method: define north using a magnet. This need not correspond to the planet's rotation; as it happens, on Almea it does.

[Yiuel Raumbesrairc]

The first of these-- south is to the right of the direction the sun rises-- is, if I'm not messing up, equivalent to the idea that the northern hemisphere is the one that's rotating counter-clockwise. That's the sense in which Erel?e is in the southern hemisphere of Almea.

Ok. Yet, does the words for south and north have develloped from a north tothe sun, and south to the stars (as for French Meridional (of the Mid Day)/ Septentrional (of the Seven Stars))?

Of the available Almean languages,

- Wedei seems to have unanalysable roots.
- Axunashin uses "Seawards" and "Seafore" for South and North (quite interesting, especially since one of my conpeople uses the same tactic, yet on the first stage informally, but for West (Almarira) and East (Elmarira))
- Cadhinorian seems to have unanalysable roots. (Goes on for Verdurian as well)
- Kebreni seems to have unanalysable roots.
- Elkaril uses its famous directional, centering on the west as the front. - Is there a reason why they face the western side?
- Cuezi seems to have unanalysable roots.
- Flaidish seems to have unanalysable roots.

You could also define it based on the direction water spirals down the drain. The Coriolis effect is also due to the planet's direction of rotation, however.

It is, as far as I remember well my meteology, the combined effect of a rotating planet and the sun's heating of atmosphere. The wind will have the same direction on each side of the equator, at grosso modo same latitude. Thus it doesn't help much.

There's one other method: define north using a magnet. This need not correspond to the planet's rotation; as it happens, on Almea it does.

What happens is that a magnet aligns on a line from both magnetic poles. The pointer will follow the side you magnetised your magnet. So, basically, it doesn't help much, yet what can help is the study of electromagnetism, that shows the actual flow of the force (south is then believed to be the source of the current we see on surface).

[Rodlox]

Some Arabic carthograpers had South "up" on their maps, interestingly enough.

interesting.

Ancient Egypt also did the same..."I sail south to the mouth of the Nile".

[Soap]

I've seen an Australian map where south is up and Australia is in centre top

One of those is hanging up in a room at my college. It's McArthur's Universal Corrective Projection.

[butsuri]

I don't really understand the point of these questions. If Almea were, for instance, in a retrograde orbit, then there might be some ambiguity in which pole was north and which direction was east - but since AFAIK it isn't, no such ambiguity exists. Even if it was, this isn't something that different Almean cultures could do differently - once we'd chosen what to call each direction, we'd use the same mapping in translating words from each language.

You could also define it based on the direction water spirals down the drain. :) The Coriolis effect is also due to the planet's direction of rotation, however.

It is, as far as I remember well my meteology, the combined effect of a rotating planet and the sun's heating of atmosphere. The wind will have the same direction on each side of the equator, at grosso modo same latitude. Thus it doesn't help much.

Mark isn't talking about the winds, but of the Coriolis effect in general (which applies to any rotating frame of reference).

But actually, the thing about water spiralling down the drain in different directions in each hemisphere is almost a myth. Coriolis forces are too weak at that scale to have more than a slight statistical effect.

What happens is that a magnet aligns on a line from both magnetic poles. The pointer will follow the side you magnetised your magnet. So, basically, it doesn't help much, yet what can help is the study of electromagnetism, that shows the actual flow of the force (south is then believed to be the source of the current we see on surface).

? There's no "flow of force" in a magnetic field - field lines are drawn as pointing from north to south, but this is merely a convention.

[linguofreak]

Mark created Almea. He can do whatever he wants with it. Therefore, what he says is North is North.

[Neek]

I think there's a problem with the question. North is North, no matter how the map is oriented. The Japanese used to hang their maps with the top part being the cardinal direction where the sun rises, that's east. We don't say that the Japanese have East for their North. That's downright silly, ain't it?

The Almeans may already know their in the southern hemisphere. Or they might not. They might hang their maps upside down to what Mark has. It's a good question though--but most of the material published thus far is for our benefit, no use confusing further with this In 3480 z.e. on the continent Erel?e, South is the new North bullox.

[zompist]

I'm not sure if there's real confusion here, and if so who suffers from it; but I think there's just three reasonable methods for defining north:

1. Towards the equator. The problem, of course, is that you'd have north pointing different directions in each hemisphere; or you'd have to choose a "real hemisphere", in which case you have to use another method anyway.

2. By the compass. This has a nice absolute feel to it, but the Earth reverses its magnetic field an average of every 200,000 years.

3. To the left of the direction the planet is rotating. This is arbitary in a sense, but at least planets tend to pick one direction of rotation and stick to it.

As noted, for Almea #2 and #3 coincide, and put Erel?e in the southern hemisphere.

Where the map points is an entirely different question. Medieval European maps put east at the top; ours put north at the top. For what it's worth Verdurians normally put west at the top. (This goes back to ancient maps showing the Svetla as a straight line flowing left to right. It also puts Munkh?sh/Dhekhnam at the bottom and the iliu to the north, which fits in with Cadhinorian values.)

[krinnen]

From an astronomical, external point of view, "north" can be easily defined: if you point your thumb to north, and close your hand, the other fingers' tips will rotate as the Earth does, west to east (which causes the apparent movement of the Sun from east to west).

If you're using your right hand...

[Mornche Geddick]

But actually, the thing about water spiralling down the drain in different directions in each hemisphere is almost a myth. Coriolis forces are too weak at that scale to have more than a slight statistical effect.

Yeah. I read about the Coriolis Effect Drain Myth in Bad Astronomy by Philip K. Plait, which is a great book I recommend everybody to read.

[zompist]

But actually, the thing about water spiralling down the drain in different directions in each hemisphere is almost a myth. Coriolis forces are too weak at that scale to have more than a slight statistical effect.

Yeah. I read about the Coriolis Effect Drain Myth in Bad Astronomy by Philip K. Plait, which is a great book I recommend everybody to read.

Hey, there's a reason I used a smiley. However, it's not exactly a myth, just not applicable to the situation one might first visualize (i.e. filling and then quickly draining a basin):

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_161.html

[butsuri]

I'm not sure if there's real confusion here, and if so who suffers from it; but I think there's just three reasonable methods for defining north:

1. Towards the equator. The problem, of course, is that you'd have north pointing different directions in each hemisphere; or you'd have to choose a "real hemisphere", in which case you have to use another method anyway.

2. By the compass. This has a nice absolute feel to it, but the Earth reverses its magnetic field an average of every 200,000 years.

3. To the left of the direction the planet is rotating. This is arbitary in a sense, but at least planets tend to pick one direction of rotation and stick to it. :)

To a culture developing in a particular location on a particular planet, towards/away from the equator is probably the most salient characteristic. But of course "north" doesn't enter into their deliberations - they're just going to end up with words for four cardinal directions, pointing to each of the two poles of the planet and the two perpendicular directions around it. The definition of north in universal terms only matters to us when we want to apply the cardinal directions from one planet to another.

Now, I agree that the only real basis on which the terms north, east, south and west can be mapped to a planet orbiting another star is rotational. (Magnetism is even less useful than you suggest above; some planets don't have magnetic poles at all (Mars), while others have them near the equator(Uranus).)

However, I don't know that the rotation of the planet is necessarily the only relevant factor. We might also consider its revolution around its primary. If the planet's rotation around its polar axis and its orbit around the star agree, as with Earth, then there is no problem. But if its rotation is retrograde, either could be used to define north. (I would, indeed, be rather inclined to use the planet myself, but that is not what is done with the planets of our own solar system. All poles above the ecliptic are defined to be north poles by the IAU.) See Wikipedia articles Prograde and retrograde motion, North Pole.

However, since I assume Almea's rotation is prograde with respect to its orbit, and its orbit is prograde with respect to that of the other major satellites of ?nomai, no ambiguity arises in this case.

[zompist]

All poles above the ecliptic are defined to be north poles by the IAU.)

I think that was a mistake, as will become evident as soon as we arrive in another solar system. The rotational test, by contrast, can be applied anywhere in the universe.

[Yiuel Raumbesrairc]

I think there's a problem with the question. North is North, no matter how the map is oriented. The Japanese used to hang their maps with the top part being the cardinal direction where the sun rises, that's east. We don't say that the Japanese have East for their North. That's downright silly, ain't it?

Now, their (Japanese) common direction is north-west. (???) It's because that this way, they can show all Islands in a long line, with Okinawa shown in an upper-left bor, over Korea, and the small islands south of Tokyo in the lower-right. More useful than using some direction. I usually point my map northwards, but in some case I might change for eastwards for some of my maps. (The common map of western Taasao is pointed north-west, for the same reason Japanese, usefulness)

I was fully aware that pointing a map eastwards doesn't make East North, I only wondered why they thought that North was on the other side of the equator, and zompist fully answered the question.

[valinta]

I've seen an Australian map where south is up and Australia is in centre top

One of those is hanging up in a room at my college. It's McArthur's Universal Corrective Projection.

My local Outback Steakhouse has one too, for obvious reasons.

[Glenn]

Where the map points is an entirely different question. Medieval European maps put east at the top; ours put north at the top. For what it's worth Verdurians normally put west at the top. (This goes back to ancient maps showing the Svetla as a straight line flowing left to right. It also puts Munkh?sh/Dhekhnam at the bottom and the iliu to the north, which fits in with Cadhinorian values.)

This was an interesting little tidbit indeed ; I tried looking sideways at the maps of Verduria, the Plain, and Erelae, to get an idea of what a west-on-top version would look like.

Incidentally, I wonder what orientations some of the other cultures of Erelae use?

[digression]

On a distressingly personal note, I'd previously decided that my focal con-nation, Kiarlon, frequently puts west at the top of its maps as well*; as with Verduria, this turns the two major river systems (both running north-south) into horizontal lines, with the western ocean at the top, and the inland steppes, from which the Kiarlonis' ancestors migrated into Korhano ("Home of the Sunset") at the bottom. This is also reflected in the Kiarloni words for the cardinal directions, which are west-oriented, with "north" and "south" derived from "right" and "left" respectively (an inverted ripoff of the east-oriented cardinal directions in Kazakh.)

*Mind you, my sense of "north at the top" is so ingrained that nearly all of my maps of Korhano have been drawn from a north-at-the-top perspective (including those in which I was still trying to decide which hemisphere it was in ), even if I tried tilting them afterwards.

[/digression]

p@,
Glenn

[butsuri]

All poles above the ecliptic are defined to be north poles by the IAU.)

I think that was a mistake, as will become evident as soon as we arrive in another solar system. :) The rotational test, by contrast, can be applied anywhere in the universe.

If you take "above the ecliptic" to be defined in terms of the orbits of the planets, rather than of which way Earth's rotational north is pointing, then the IAU version can be universalised to any planetary system. Well, any system where all or most of the planets are going round the same way - if they aren't, you could probably estimate the angular momentum of the system as a whole and use that for a direction.

Anyway, I don't particularly prefer that way over the other, but there's a genuine choice to be made between them.