> >I think everyone apart from Adrian is completely confused by the > >difference between "Broad" and "Wide".
Well at least two other people have said more or less the same thing on this list. > Interesting concept - "If I can't do it, then it can't be done". > > Translate "everyone apart from Adrian" into "David", perhaps? Not at all, of course it *can* be done. But if the majority of people who read about "broad" and "wide" in this context have not previously been educated in the distinction between the two which you are advancing, (or as in my case, cannot remember which is which), then the exercise becomes very largely pointless. If you insist on communicating using terminology that few other people understand, then your communication is likely to be either ineffective, or if you have to include the explanation every time you mention the subject, cumbersome. > "Broad" is between one and two narrow boats in beam. " Wide" > is wider than that. Hard to see how can that be confusing. It is confusing because it relies on the definition which you advance, but which is unknown to most people. Roget's Thesaurus's definition of "broad" is "wide", and it includes "wide" as a synonym of "broad". So if the words are synonyms, then the meaning of a text using one will not be changed if the word is replaced by its synonym. Thus we could have: "Broad" is between one and two narrow boats in beam. "Broad" is wider than that. Or "Wide" is between one and two narrow boats in beam. "Wide" is wider than that. Or even "Wide" is between one and two narrow boats in beam. "Broad" is wider than that. Seems clear to me there is ample scope for confusion. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Incidentally, by the above definition the majority of > surviving ex working narrow boats are actually broad... > > Only if they have a beam greater than that of a narrow boat. > Tricky, that. While you're being picky about a narrow boat being wider than a narrow boat; you wrote : > BW and EA have committed to building all new broad locks to > accept two breasted narrow boats But by your definition new broad locks are necessarily too narrow for two narrow boats. Perhaps you meant "new wide locks". Confusing isn't it. > However, I do hope (perhaps over-optimistically) that we > might be able to distinguish between the principle and the > pickyness. > > BW and EA have committed to building all new broad locks to > accept two breasted narrow boats (or a maximum-beam broad > vessel). AINA has the vision of achieving a national broad > network (by establishing broad routes among the present > regional broad and wide networks). So, if you buy a broad > vessel you might reasonably expect a large and expanding > cruising range for it, but not if you get a wide one. The principle of building locks wide enough to accommodate two narrow boats side by side, or a single boat up to twice the width of a narrow boat is fine, as is the concept of a network of routes of this width. I just don't see how it helps to dress the idea up with confusing terminology. David Mack
