Many of the lakes in Switzerland are fed by streams and also overflow into other streams.
People seem to hold really fast to this kind of misconception - I remember a very similar thread a while back wherein the OP(of that thread) had a sibling who believed that all rivers flowed south.
Shell Lake in Wisconsin does not have a natural outlet, and is yet a freshwater lake. http://www.shelllakeonline.com/the_lake.htm
Brian
As I was taught it, land-locked lakes are technically ponds. No matter how big or small. All lakes are connected to a moving body of water (rivers, streams, etc.). The Great Lakes are connected to the Atlantic by the St. Lawrence River.
People who live in glasshouses shouldn’t throw stones.
V
I had to ask it, because I couldn’t find any proof to convince him. He had the stupid dictionary that said a lake was “surrounded by land”. I used the same dictionary to look up ‘Mississippi River’ and it only said it “rises in Northern Minnesota and flows to the Gulf of Mexico”. Another definition claimed it started in a “lake region”, but that was nowhere near proof enough. It didn’t name a specific lake. The fact that it named a body of water it flowed into, but didn’t mention starting from one, looked bad for me.
Then, I did a google on the mississippi and I could only find that it started way south of the Great Lakes. I didn’t find anything on Itasca. So I did a search on the Great Lakes to find out what river connected them to the ocean. All I found was some stuff about man-made canals. So it was looking pretty bad for me, even though I KNEW I was right. The harder I looked, the more desperate I got.
So, knowing you guys know everything, I did a quick post to shut him up before bed. He’s still pretty pissed.
As far as the ‘where would they get the water from’ issue. I’m pretty sure he thought they were all underground fed.
Thanks again to everyone!!
Or a runway. 
Anything that’s not the Great Lakes are puddles. 
Actually I’ve come to telling my wife they’re seas, since she misses the sea so much. I think I’ve seen them described as seas in certain atlases.
That said, Lake Huron connects to Lake St. Clair via the St. Clair River, and that lake is connected to Lake Erie via the Detroit River. So, my intelligent cousin is often prone to saying that these two rivers aren’t really rivers; they’re channels, since rivers can connect two lakes. Okay, I still call them rivers. In any case, and justification for her possibly being correct???
I.E. We have the Great Salt Lake out here as an example of this. The GSL actually used to be a fresh water lake until the natural dam that held the lake back and provided an outlet to the Pacific ocean broke open.
Where on earth do people get these mad notions about rivers not being able to join lakes? The Nile flows from Lake Victoria, via Lake Albert, and on towards its junction with the Blue Nile, which itself flows from Lake Tana. Is the Nile just a wee channel in these people’s minds?
If you really want to mess with his head, bet him that you can find a river that doesn’t empty into a lake or an ocean or another river. The Okavango River originates in the Angola highlands and empties into the Kalahari Desert, where 96% of it evaporates. The remainder empties into the Salt Pans, where it also evaporates.
Just a minor point to this pretty much completed thread, but there are words for rivers connected to lakes: inlet and outlet.
There wouldn’t be words for them, if they didn’t exist.
Although you’re quite correct in this case, I’m wary of the argument “There wouldn’t be a word for it if it didn’t exist”, as it can be used to demonstrate the existence of dragons, unicorns etc.
Gah! You’re right. Your assertion was ‘correct’.
You don’t have to leave the US to find a river that just ends…
The Colorado River does.
Yes, but that’s only due to human consumption. The Colorado River does not end naturally in the middle of the desert.
Can I have a cite where Asimov said this? I’ve read just about everything the Good Doctor ever wrote on geography, and I can’t remember him ever saying this. As the other poster said, it’s wrong.
What I DO remember him saying is that it’s odd that the longest river in North America has no name – or at least, it’s given the kludgy name of “Mississippi-Missouri”.
Ed
It was in the essay you are referring to; Great Rivers or close to that in which he said that the world’s rivers are divided into two classes, the Amazon and all the rest. I suppose it’s possible that I misremembered but I don’t think so. I looked around for my copy of the book (paperback) and haven’t found it.
Exactly. You end up with the Dead Sea. Ick.
Cousin. And, yes, I’m still bitter.
If Itasca doesn’t sway your brother, Bear_Nenno, show him a Minnesota map. After Lake Itasca the Mississippi flows through lakes Bemidji, Cass, and Winnibigoshish within the first 200 or so miles.
About Shell Lake. The website cited refers to it as a “seepage lake.” My Wisconsin map shows a river, I believe it is the Yellow River, that begins very near to Shell Lake to the northwest. It runs over north of Webster (my birthplace incidently), through Yellow Lake and over to the St. Croix River and on to the Mississippi.
I would guess that there is continual underground flow to that river from Shell Lake in order that it remain fresh water.
The water table in that part of Wisconsin is essentially at ground level. You would stand in the front yard of my uncle’s house in Webster and gradually sink down a little so that when you walked away water stood in your footprints. I think his house was on a raft.
