"

Conflation of the two ""brook"" homonyms

that crosses between two other bodies of water. This may be US usage but it certainly is not of the UK. (thus ""brooking"" them) The stream brook derives from Anglo-Saxon broc. The acceptance verb derives from AS brucan. There seems to be little connection. Also the Scottish term for a creek. It is not particularly Scottish. And has to do with creek only in the US usage. ( 08:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC))

 RJP was correct that the two brook homonyms were being conflated.  AHD4 says that brook the transitive verb (""To put up with; tolerate"") comes from Middle English brouken, from Old English brūcan, ""to use, enjoy"". (BTW, that's interesting, because today's German verb brauchen can mean ""to use"". Clearly cognate.)

 Meanwhile, brook the noun (""stream"") is a homonymous word coming from a different root, via Middle English, from Old English brōc.

  

Section was missing

is part of the article missing?  the last section is empty.  
thalweg says ""see below"" but there is nothing there. [alex]

Changes to the article
I propose that the ""Types of water streams"" section be changed. I have been unable to corroborate the brook definition given. The definition I found most often is a stream smaller in size than a creek. It is also used when the water source is a spring or seep. When ""stream"" is not used in the generic sense, I've found various definitions. Some have it as being the smallest of all and some have it as just below a river. I guess we can continue only giving the generic definition.   

Better image was wanted

I feel that the first image, of a ""running stream,"" is not very accurate, given we see water still enough for duckweed to accumulate in large amounts.  I don't doubt that it could be a flowing system, but it is hardly what I picture when I close my eyes and think ""running stream.""  Nitpicky, yes.  

Looking at the current version of the article, this appears to have been fixed.  

 Categories suggestions 
Suggestion:  Make a category about Daylighting (streams) for neighborhoods (plese see article also—the list is already getting long), sections # Some neighborhoods with daylighting projects and # Other places.  A child article or something will eventually need be spun off.

Since each daylighted stream exists only as an intimate component of the neighborhoods of the watershed, linking the streams and neighborhoods in a category could be very useful.  Various daylighting projects exist all over the world, though so far we have Seattle, San Francisco, and Berkeley.  There exist similar projects restoring natural areas in urban settings, distinct from parks.  One is Union Bay Natural Area, another is a marsh north of San Francisco or in northern California (Eureka?) that is also providing habitat and tertiary sewage treatment, rather than having been drained.  (The most-recognized level is conventional secondary treatment.)

Suggestion:  Make a category of natural areas in urban settings.  This is tangentially related to the Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiative at Salish Sea.

Comments, discussion?  How to tie into existing, relevant articles?

The Daylighting (streams) article could use more diverse examples

 

Stream is limited to Southern England?
I'm sorry, but the quote 'Stream is limited to Southern England,' in reference to the word 'stream' itself is total nonsense.Only the broadest of Yorkshiremen, for example, use only the word 'beck.' I am not adversed to words like these being mentioned in the stream article, but can people please try to avoid making such sweeping statements about them?  

Beck was one used in London as in Tooting bec near Wandsworth and a few Burns in Scotland are also officaly known as Streems or Brooks.  86.29.241.101  

Actually The Bec in Tooting Bec has nothing to do with the nam0e of a stream  but is named after the Abbey of Bec in France   18:3