John Bass today argues for clarity in our use of language when talking about a water conveyance around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta:

Could I ask that Dan Bacher and those he quotes use the term “canal” when referring to a canal to take water around the Delta, the term “tunnel” for the other option under discussion, and canal/tunnel when referring to both?

I ask because there are important differences in the potential effects of a canal or a tunnel on the Delta’s environmental and social health (to keep it tight), and elisions that blur these distinctions make everyone that much less informed.

Might I humbly suggest that “canal/tunnel” is clumsy, and that a “peripheral thingie” might be just the linguistic solution needed?