🚀 go-pugleaf

Marc Bonnaud <mbonnaud@francenet.fr> wrote:
>borton@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu (borton scott andrew) wrote:
>>Marc Bonnaud (mbonnaud@francenet.fr) wrote
 >> - 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.

Erm, hate to throw a spanner in the works, but effluent is a description of a river that flows into the sea. It looks like this Engl=
ish word was derived in France, but its got the same meaning. Sorry.

Machiavelli
>
>-- 
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Marc Bonnaud
>page TAM-TAM : http://PersoWeb.francenet.fr/~mbonnaud
>courrier : mbonnaud@francenet.fr
>TAM : Toile d'Araign�e Mondiale
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>