Capt Popeye
Well-known member
Well just to clarify my understanding, that is 'we are talking' English and British ere not Forun countries where their understanding maybe different to ours.Of course I am aware of the conventional use of the terms, regularly use them myself, and don't have a problem with them. I am not arguing against them!
I am, however, arguing against your suggestion that we have different words for them because they are different things. It is the other way around. We find it useful (or pleasing) to distinguish between them, so we give them different names, so we consider them different things.
I am merely highlighting the nature of the difference between these 'things': that the distinctions between them are matters of language and social convention, not anything inherent in the things themselves. There are plenty of variations between languages in their divisions of 'things' to demonstrate this. In some languages what we in English call a river that drains into the sea has a different name (i.e. is considered something different) to a 'river' that flows into another river. Again, some languages, such as English, consider sheep and goats to be different things, in others they are the same thing.
You say a river runs towards the sea, but about half the time a tidal river is running away from the sea. As you note, it is sometimes difficult to tell where a river ends and a sea begins. In English we tend to use the words estuary and delta, but these things don't label or distinguish themselves. Is the Baltic a sea or a river estuary? What about the Med? What about 'rivers' that only run seasonally or even more sporadically, and are dry most of the time? Is the 'North Sea' the North Sea, or the 'German Sea' as it used to be called in English (I have a vague recollection was also at one time called the West Sea in Dutch), or is it not a sea but an ocean, as it used to also be labelled the 'German Ocean' on English maps. (For heavens sake don't get me started on maps vs. charts! )
So when Captain Popeye rails against the Ordnance Survey's definition of coast (which may well have been garbled by the article he refers to, just to complicate matters!), he won't ever be able to resolve the matter by studying ever more closely the water itself, the land itself, or their intersection itself. He will only be able to do so by recognising that what is and what is not coast is a matter of language and convention, and either using a definition that someone else gives, or using his own.
Can I ask you to explain your statement above ..... about half the time a river is running away from the Sea ........ surely the River always supports the sea, plus Vicky Verky, its its birth mother after all, no Sea not much River, so a River is being supported by its Sea 6hrs expanded + 6 hrs retreating back and so it goes on everlastingly, neither getting away from each other at any time, bonded for eternity, surely ?