Taylor Kingston uses the word "influent" in a context which evidently
means "not fluent". I didn't think that's what the word meant.

On the other hand, the review saved me the price of the book (unless
it gets remaindered at a blowout price), so I guess it did its job.

Mike Murray wrote:
Taylor Kingston uses the word "influent" in a context which evidently
means "not fluent". I didn't think that's what the word meant.

Mike, I think you may be right -- the term may refer to hydraulics or
some such, rather than language. I have asked that "influent" be
changed to "less than fluent." That's what I get for taking a
spell-checker on faith.

On 31 Aug 2005 07:34:00 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:


Mike Murray wrote:
Taylor Kingston uses the word "influent" in a context which evidently
means "not fluent". I didn't think that's what the word meant.

Mike, I think you may be right -- the term may refer to hydraulics or
some such, rather than language. I have asked that "influent" be
changed to "less than fluent." That's what I get for taking a
spell-checker on faith.

One speaks of a "confluence" of two rivers. I think "fluent", as
applied to one's facility in language, derives from the moving water
metaphor.

Mike Murray wrote:
One speaks of a "confluence" of two rivers. I think "fluent", as
applied to one's facility in language, derives from the moving water
metaphor.

Oddly, my Webster's Dictionary does not list the word "influent."
Checking some online dictionaries (which I should have done earlier),
"influent" appears to mean the opposite of "effluent," i.e. a flow of
liquid into, rather than out of, something. It can be a noun or an
adjective.
Anyway, thanks for the correction.