🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <312093B8.167EB0E7@durham.ac.uk>, Matthew Cunliffe <Ancient.ucs@durham.ac.uk> writes:
> Marc Bonnaud 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, ...
> > >
> > >burn, beck, ghyll ...
> > >
> > >carry on somebody.
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> Does too.  All of the above flow into a river.  A river flows into the
> sea.  I have yet to find a river that doesn't (go on someone, correct
> me).
> 
  Well, there's the Ohio, which flows into the Mississippi, and the
Tippicanoe, which flows into the Wabash, which flows into ...

  Back to the main point: I read somewhere that somewhere in the Eastern
U.S., probably along the Chesepeake Bay, one of the words "creek", "branch",
or "run" refers exclusively to something that enters into the sea.  But
it's not my dialect, so I'm really as ignorant of that English as is our
friend from the Cafe Berf.

 - billf