On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:02:02 -0500, D C wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
There you lay your finger on the problem. The land naming conventions
of the day were subject to a strict protocol. What that meant was that
you could not name a new country for somebody's first name unless he
was a king, in which case you used his regnal name. If you were naming
for a commoner, you had to use his surname,giving - as you say -
Vespucciland. The fact that it is called America tells us that it was
named for a commoner whose surname was Americ. Which is exactly where
we are.
What is your source for this?
Pull your Atlas off the shelf and have a look around.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com