🚀 go-pugleaf

Machiavelli <keelerad@tcd.ie> wrote:
>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.

Oxford dictionary :

effluent : streamflowing from larger stream, sewage tank, industrial process , etc.

Sorry


> It looks like this English word

same dictionary : [L (fluo, flux : flow ) ]

> was derived in France, 

you had one chance out of ten for this ; it's generally the contrary

>but its got the same meaning. Sorry.

looks like you read too fast the *first letter*, sorry

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