I propose the following definition for overseas:
A different country that is not connected by an existing, natural, permanent land bridge. So North America to South America is overseas. Travel to any foreign island - overseas, etc.
When I hear “overseas” I assume it is synonymous with “abroad.” Therefore, I would not quibble with someone about whether a trip from Canada to Argentina is overseas. If you want to be absolutely literal, I would say the trip is definitely overseas as a flight will take you, literally, over a body of seawater at some point, but this is not how I interpret the word normally.
Yeah, one continent to another doesn’t wash. Europe to Asia?
So, to the OP, Colibri gave all the ammunition you need for the argument.
Since you can walk home without getting your feet wet it’s not overseas.
Good points - I grew up in an RAF family and it was common to talk about an “overseas posting” which would cover everywhere from France to Hong Kong but not Ireland :smack:
Upon reflection, asking if someplace is overseas is akin to asking if a flashlight is a machine - using dated terms in today’s world. Travel from Paris to London is not considered overseas to us. But I can well imagine a Roman soldier complaining before the invasion of Britain, “Ze H. Sus, I didn’t join this legion to go overseas.” Back when any distance required travel over seas the term applied. Now going from Paris to London is going underseas.
I would say it depends. You COULD go from Canada to Argentina without flying (or walking, whatever) over the ocean, but you’d have to go through several other countries to do it, which may or may not cause problems, depending on those countries. Also, I don’t quite see an airliner making a long curved path over several other countries when the option of just skipping over the Carribean or the Gulf of Mexico would be an option. So for all practical purposes, yes, Argentina is overseas if your starting point is Canada.
As far as walking home, couldn’t you walk from Chile to South Africa if you went through the Arctic during the winter when it was frozen over? Does it freeze over all the way between North America and Asia during the winter?
Well, here in Australia “overseas” is synonymous with “abroad”, for obvious reasons. “Overseas” is used almost exclusively. To me “abroad” sounds like it should be said with a posh English accent.
England to France would be “overseas” to me. Then again, there’s the Eurostar…
I’d say it’s overseas regardless of whether or not you cross an ocean or sea.
According to New Oxford American Dictionary:
“overseas (Brit. also oversea) adverb in or to a foreign country, esp. one across the sea : he spent quite a lot of time working overseas. adjective [ attrib. ] from, to, or relating to a foreign country, esp. one across the sea : overseas trips.”
Notice the entry says, especially, but not exclusively, related to a country you have to cross a body of water to reach. Synonymous with “abroad” in both that dictionary and my personal lexicon. If you want to avoid the whole issue, alternate wording could be used. Foreign travel, travel abroad, etc.
Well, just to be a smartass, you COULD go ANYWHERE by crossing a sea first, seeing as how the Earth is a sphere, so you could say that you could go overseas and end up in the same country… or even in the same town :eek:
I suppose you could walk through the access tunnels in the Chunnel. 
Here, they use “overseas” as a synonym for “abroad” in English without even thinking about it. I always challenge people to tell me exactly which sea or ocean they have to fly over from Bangkok to get to Laos anyway.
I agree. In New Zealand EVERYWHERE is overseas so “overseas” has become the default setting. I remember as a child my grandmother told me she was going ‘abroad’ that was probably in the 70’s and the last time I heard the term.
In NZ we have a ‘rite of passage’ that is called ‘the BIG O.E’ or the big Overseas Experience. Six months is seen as the barest amount of time to qualify for a big OE. The average OE is measured in years rather then months.
Interestingly Australia does not count as ‘Overseas’ it is just across the ditch.
If we want to get really pedantic about this, from England neither France nor the United States is overseas, since one is accessible via a channel, and one via an ocean. Perversely, however, Ireland and the Netherlands are both overseas (Irish and North respectively).
It’s a mistake to imagine this term has, or can have, a rigid definition that works everywhere. It works pretty well in England (where the term appears to have originated) because the options consist of travelling by land to one of the adjoining countries, or travelling over sea to a more distant location, but it breaks when you try to use it somewhere bigger, where a land journey is possible, but the most direct route by far would take you over open sea.
That’s UNDERSEAS (if by Chunnel), but it’s not found much favor yet.
No, you couldn’t. A human could not carry enough food & water to survive in this harsh climate for the time it would take to walk this distance. Actually, I think it would take longer than a “winter” to walk this (not that much thaws during their "summer).
I propose the following definition:
Before air travel existed, you would have taken a boat to get there.
p.s.: I am assuming, of course, that Raguleader meant Arctic, and not Antarctic, where he wrote “Arctic.” Also, I am assuming that the point is that one can eventually walk from the tip of South America to South Africa, not whether it’s a particularly pleasant or expedient thing to do.
Yes, you could, and yes, it does. Consider Karl Bushby, who is currently walking from Chile to England in “unbroken steps” (i.e. it doesn’t all have to be in one trip, but at after each break he has to start up exactly where he left off). Here’s his route. He has so far done 17,000 miles of the 36,000 mile trip, by walking from Punta Arenas (Chile) to Siberia, including the passage across the Bering Strait. He’s having permit problems with the Russians, who apparently felt that walking across from Alaska is not an acceptable way of entering their country ;).
One of his greatest challenges is going to be getting permission to walk through the Channel Tunnel maintenance passage, but I’d imagine that if he makes it as far as Calais, overwhelming public support is going to solve that problem for him.
If you can walk Chile - Calais, I’d say that you can walk Chile - Cape Town. Of course, you need a support team with supplies.
[On review, pulykamell beat me to a Bushby reference. I knew I shouldn’t have answered that phone call before hitting “Submit”…]