"Bru" <[email protected]> wrote: >It isn't a question of authoritative sources, it's a simple matter of logic >and engineering
Precisely! >The dictionary definition of 'Pound', as related to canals, is that it is >the stretch of water impounded between two locks Not in my dictionary (Oxford Concise) it isn't. The only relevant thing it says is: "pound ~ lock (with two gates to confine water)" >Thus the stretch of water to the side of each of the Foxton locks is, by the >dictionary definition, a pound since it is a stretch of water impounded >between two locks Sorry, but there is nothing "between two locks" in a staircase. In effect, they overlap. You are talking about something *next to* locks. >The side ponds used to save water at a single lock are not pounds since the >water is not impounded between two locks Yup. >However, in everyday use the terms pond and pound are somewhat >interchangeable in that whilst I've never heard a water saving side pond >called a pound, it is quite common for side pounds at lock flights to be >called ponds. It is quite common to refer to an atomic power station as "nucular" (less so of late, due to an election), but that doesn't make it correct to do so. >In any case, it isn't what they are called that is particularly the point at >issue, it's the claim made by Adrian that Foxton's side ponds/pounds are >fundamentally different from those at Caen Hill, Bratch etc. and that the >side lakes ( :-) ) at Foxton are, technically speaking, related to the water >saving side ponds to be found beside some locks on the GU etc. You can navigate one type, but not the other type. On waterways, you navigate pounds; you don't navigate ponds. "Mack, David" <[email protected]> wrote: >So Adrian has decided that two terms which most of us would regard as >more or less interchangeable have distinct and separate meanings. Replace "decided" with "reported", please! >I wonder if he will be any more successful in persuading us of his views >than he has been with his contention that some boats with a beam >materially more than 7 feet are "wide" and some are "broad"? This is a convention invented by (I think) Paul Wagstaffe when he was at BW. It's surprisingly useful. A broad waterway has a gauge beam wider than that of a narrow boat but not wider than that of two breasted narrow boats. A wide watereway has a gauge beam greater than that. Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
