Real-world examples (links give maps): Afghanistan and Namibia each have a long slim "arm" projecting east from the north part of the country’s main body. The far end of Afghani strip touches China on a very short border, under 50 miles long. Similarly, the far end of the Namibia arm (called the Caprivi Strip) has a like short border with Zambia. With those shapes and proportions, I'd say that the countries "touch", but I wouldn't say that that Afghanistan "abuts" China or that Namibia "abuts" Zambia. Would you?

The extreme case is at the very east tip of Caprivi strip, where four countries almost meet near the town of Kasane. You’d need a very detailed map to be able to see that Botswana and Zambia touch and border each other in a very small area; that area separates Namibia's Caprivi strip (the far east end of it) from Zimabawe. The Botswana/Zambia border at Kasane is tiny, well under a quarter-kilometer, just enough to allow a ferry crossing of the river at the border. Would you say that Botswana and Zambia "abut"?

Other "short touchings" are Armenia/Iran, Togo/Bukina Fasso, Peru/Chile, and Laos touching China, Myanmar, and Cambodia; the Russia/China border just west of Mongolia (they have a longer border elsewhere), and the short borders of the U.S state of Missouri with Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Tennessee (abbreviated NE, OK, KY and TN).

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wordnerd,

Quote "...Richard defined 'abut' with "But if countries abut / It mean different but / Touching ..." I’d agree..."

In my defence I would point out that I was working within the confines of a Limerick!

The full definition is "Of countries, estates, etc., adjoining another".

I infer from this that the areas need to touch for some significant part of their length properly to abut

This question is too high-level for me, I think! I guess I'd say if they touch at all, they abut. But, as my dad used to say, "I could be wrong you know!" (You need to hear the intonation! )