Wolfgang schreef:
"Herman Nijland" wrote in message
. ..

To answer both your and rw's question in one post - yes, it is archaic,
I've never heard of it being used in modern language. Being Dutch, I hope
that means something :-). May be it means the Dave is very very much older
than me g.
I had a quick google, and it does turn out that Dave was more or less
right - it is a very old word for stream. However - I can't imagine a
modern Dutch publication using the word 'kill' or 'kil' for stream,
because it wouldn't be understood in its right meaning. For modern read
anything younger than, say, at least fifty years.

No surprises there. Thanks, Herman. One more question though, or rather a
repetition to be more precise (and with a short preface), if you don't mind.
It's well known among people who study languages that names in general, and
place names in particular, are a valuable repository of archaic forms. Even
if "kil" (however spelled) is no longer in common use as a synonym for
"stream" (as is clearly the case here), one expect to see signs of its
former use dotted about the landscape (as it is here in areas settled by the
Dutch). Anything come to mind?

Wolfgang

Not so much as you would expect from a water-rich environment
I know of a place called 'Sluiskil', which is water-related, but that's about
the only one that pops up. Dave gave a better example with the Battenkill (which
is even on-topic :-)).

Herman