HikeArizona.COM

As I talk about and write about canyon hiking... it gets old to have to stop and explain about what I mean by a waterfall formation... that rarely ever has water. Of late I've switched to simply calling them Dryfalls. It seems to get the thought across without having to taalk about the lack of water...

... is there any problem with this term that I have not thought of?

imike wrote:As I talk about and write about canyon hiking... it gets old to have to stop and explain about what I mean by a waterfall formation... that rarely ever has water. Of late I've switched to simply calling them Dryfalls. It seems to get the thought across without having to taalk about the lack of water...

... is there any problem with this term that I have not thought of?

Yes, because there is already a term for that. They are called "pourovers" or "pour-overs."

Even when they aren't pouring over? :STP:

Yes, when they are dry is precisely when they are called "pour-overs!" When they are actually pouring over, ironically, THEN they are called waterfalls!

So there! Pffffffft!!

I vote for dryfall. Makes sense. Is mnemonic.

Well, you'd be outvoted. Just go hiking with some canyoneers. Just read all the literature of the Southwest published the last 30 years. I'm not talking about what you "like" or "don't like" or what you "think." I'm talking about a term that has commonly been in use for decades to describe this exact thing. Sort of arrogant to just decide to change it, isn't it?

Never particularly cared if I am out voted. I always do what I think, not what others think.

But that makes no sense. So, you're out hiking with a bunch of people and you use a term you (or Mike) has made up, that no one has ever heard of, how are you communicating? Then you have to explain yourself, instead of just simply using the term that is already in place. So, go ahead and make up a lot of new words and terms. No law against it. You can make up a whole new lexicon if you want to. But no one will know what you are talking about.

Nice that language continues to grow and expand... improve... and move on from what came before...

http://hikearizona.com/photo=41419
http://hikearizona.com/photo=328444
http://hikearizona.com/photo=262041
http://hikearizona.com/photo=214033
http://hikearizona.com/photo=197415
http://hikearizona.com/photo=79635
http://hikearizona.com/photo=914

I'm not an experienced canonyeer but I've far more frequently heard the term dryfall, and almost always use the term myself. But to azbackpacker's point, I've both heard others and read others refer to them as pour-overs. Anybody smart enough to be purposely exploring near one should be able to figure out what either term actually means.

There are a lot of photos on HAZ that have captions for various spellings of pour-over and pour-off as well.

As for me, I'm going to see what it looks like on my Topo ;)

Edit: fixed bad link

I hear pour-off more often than pour-over, but I also hear dryfall quite frequently.

It looks to me like the OP is looking for validation for usage of a word. Judging by pre-existing nomenclature on several images, this is not a new usage or application. As there is another term, there may be several terms for the same concept. I would argue, that this is probably either up there with jargon, or local use. Probably both are acceptable, as there is rarely ever one single word for the same thing in areas such as this. Even in tightly controlled scientific nomenclature, more than one word can be used for something. It seems the only problem, might be from people who prefer another term. I recall the time I used to call graupel, grommet. It worked for me, but who cares? As long as someone doesn't attempt to put words in my mouth, by stating I was talking about something windchill when I never mentioned it in a conversation about absolute temperature readings, I couldn't care what people want to say. If there is a per-exisiting scientific term, I prefer that. If there is an already commonly used local culture, I would stick with that, if there is no precedent, I say let the organic evolution happen.

big_load wrote:I hear pour-off more often than pour-over

+1

If there isn't more snow this year, Yosemite Falls will be a dryfall by late summer.

No biggie. If I needed to express the same idea twice in the same paragraph I'd use both terms.

Mike Coltrin
Department of Redundancy Department

Thanks guys... I think I'll stick with the standard: if I'm climbing the formation... and fall... and there is no splash... it was a DryFall...

imike wrote:I think I'll stick with the standard: if I'm climbing the formation... and fall... and there is no splash... it was a DryFall...

If I was the one to fall and I got wet I'd to argue it was, in fact, a Wetfall... after all I got wet not watered, don't you think? :whistle:

kingsnake wrote:I vote for dryfall. Makes sense. Is mnemonic.

You might just win this discussion with azbackpackr unless of course you misspell it.

SuperstitionGuy wrote:

kingsnake wrote:I vote for dryfall. Makes sense. Is mnemonic.

You might just win this discussion with azbackpackr unless of course you misspell it.

I actually liked that other choice, once it was pointed out it is often used: "Pour off." However, I am no longer as grouchy as I was when writing all that stuff. And people say they have heard all three terms. And Mike C of the Department of Redundancies Department pointed out that if you are writing something it is always nice to have more than one term at your disposal.

However, all bets are off if you misspell anything whatsoever!




Meow!!!