🚀 go-pugleaf

l6@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <4fviu8$gpi@chleuasme.francenet.fr>
 Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

: Marc Bonnaud (mbonnaud@francenet.fr) wrote:
: borton@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu (borton scott andrew) wrote:
: >Marc Bonnaud (mbonnaud@francenet.fr) wrote:
: >: colin@colina.demon.co.uk (Colin Paul Adams) wrote:
: >: >>>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Swanson <kurt@dna.lth.se> writes:
: >: >
: >: >    >> - where I, as a french speaker, make the difference between a
: >: >    >> "fleuve " and a "rivi�re", the english-speaking person will
: >: >    >> only see a "river"
: >: >
: >: >    Kurt> English has many words for moving bodies of water: stream,
: >: >    Kurt> brook, creek, rivulet, ...
: >
: >: Of course we too have "torrent", "ruisseau", etc...
: >: but you failed ( by ignorance ) to get my point there
: >: there is a significant difference between rivi�re and fleuve, since
: >: the latter pours into the sea while the former pours into a rivi�re
: >: or a fleuve. A difference which does not exist in english. 
: >
: >You're forgetting about "tributary," which pours into a larger river. The
: >difference does indeed exist in English.
: >
: >--scott
: >

: No, this is "affluent" in French ; English has definitely no word to
: designate only rivers that pour into the sea.
Umm so what's your point? That France is such a small country that the 
population has more than enough time to make up words for such things? I 
mean you are making such a deal of it.. why?
 : -- 
: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
: Marc Bonnaud
: page TAM-TAM : http://PersoWeb.francenet.fr/~mbonnaud
: courrier : mbonnaud@francenet.fr
: TAM : Toile d'Araign�e Mondiale
: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


-- 
  People just don't seem to gavotte and mazurka with the spirit and grace 
that they used to.
                                          Richard Belcher
                                          williamb@netcom.com