| Author |
Message |
raymond o'hara
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 8:22 am
Post subject: tsunami |
|
|
I was talking with a seismologist at a nearby observatory. He corrected my
use of the term tidal wave saying they preferred tsunami because tidal wave
is inaccurate. This is because waves aren't caused by the tide but by
earthquakes. I pointed out that tsunami is japanese for harbor wave. I then
asked if tidal wave is wrong because they aren't caused by tidal action and
tsunami is better, does this mean that the waves are caused by harbors or is
it that they only take place in harbors? His reply was very technical and
used terms like fuck you and asshole but when he finished I was still
unconvinced by the superiority of tsunami. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
don groves
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:15 pm
Post subject: Re: tsunami |
|
|
In article <NKLAd.304400$HA.135607@attbi_s01>, raymond o'hara at
reoh@comcast.net hath writ:
| Quote: | I was talking with a seismologist at a nearby observatory. He corrected my
use of the term tidal wave saying they preferred tsunami because tidal wave
is inaccurate. This is because waves aren't caused by the tide but by
earthquakes. I pointed out that tsunami is japanese for harbor wave. I then
asked if tidal wave is wrong because they aren't caused by tidal action and
tsunami is better, does this mean that the waves are caused by harbors or is
it that they only take place in harbors? His reply was very technical and
used terms like fuck you and asshole but when he finished I was still
unconvinced by the superiority of tsunami.
|
"Harbor wave" has the virtue of at least indicating that the
heavy damage occurs in shallow water as opposed to out at sea.
Most tsunamis aren't even noticable in deep water. "Tidal wave"
has no redeeming virtue.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Holmes
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:45 pm
Post subject: Re: tsunami |
|
|
"raymond o'hara" <reoh@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NKLAd.304400$HA.135607@attbi_s01...
| Quote: | I was talking with a seismologist at a nearby observatory. He
corrected my
use of the term tidal wave saying they preferred tsunami because tidal
wave
is inaccurate. This is because waves aren't caused by the tide but by
earthquakes. I pointed out that tsunami is japanese for harbor wave.
I then
asked if tidal wave is wrong because they aren't caused by tidal
action and
tsunami is better, does this mean that the waves are caused by harbors
or is
it that they only take place in harbors? His reply was very technical
and
used terms like fuck you and asshole but when he finished I was still
unconvinced by the superiority of tsunami.
|
'Tsunami' does not mean 'harbour wave' in English. It means the kind of
wave generated by an underwater earthquake or landslide.
The logic behind its name in Japanese is that a tsunami is not a very
high wave while it is over deep water, but builds up in height as it
enters shallow water near the shore. Hence to an observer on the shore,
it appears to rise up out of the harbour itself.
--
Regards
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raymond o'hara
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:52 pm
Post subject: Re: tsunami |
|
|
"don groves" <dgroves@domain.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c3d4ae373516a77989e66@news.individual.net...
| Quote: | In article <NKLAd.304400$HA.135607@attbi_s01>, raymond o'hara at
reoh@comcast.net hath writ:
I was talking with a seismologist at a nearby observatory. He corrected
my
use of the term tidal wave saying they preferred tsunami because tidal
wave
is inaccurate. This is because waves aren't caused by the tide but by
earthquakes. I pointed out that tsunami is japanese for harbor wave. I
then
asked if tidal wave is wrong because they aren't caused by tidal action
and
tsunami is better, does this mean that the waves are caused by harbors
or is
it that they only take place in harbors? His reply was very technical
and
used terms like fuck you and asshole but when he finished I was still
unconvinced by the superiority of tsunami.
"Harbor wave" has the virtue of at least indicating that the
heavy damage occurs in shallow water as opposed to out at sea.
Most tsunamis aren't even noticable in deep water. "Tidal wave"
has no redeeming virtue.
|
Sure it does, the wave comes in like an unusually high tide. The tides ae
usually only noticed near the shore,in mid-ocean high or low tide is fairly
irrelevent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 5:13 pm
Post subject: Re: tsunami |
|
|
raymond o'hara wrote:
| Quote: | I was talking with a seismologist at a nearby observatory. He
corrected my use of the term tidal wave saying they preferred tsunami
because tidal wave is inaccurate. This is because waves aren't
caused by the tide but by earthquakes. I pointed out that tsunami is
japanese for harbor wave. I then asked if tidal wave is wrong
because they aren't caused by tidal action and tsunami is better,
does this mean that the waves are caused by harbors or is it that
they only take place in harbors? His reply was very technical and
used terms like fuck you and asshole but when he finished I was still
unconvinced by the superiority of tsunami.
|
The question is whether the term can mislead. "Tsunami" cannot do so in
English, because people learn it with the meaning "a wave caused by
earthquakes." I would think that "tidal wave" *could* mislead people into
thinking it has something to do with tides.
The situation reminds me of that of "galaxy" for "solar system." If the
people using "galaxy" for "solar system" know that they are using "galaxy"
for "solar system," there is no confusion. But if some of those people are,
as a result of this usage, unclear on the concept of the universe, that it
is composed of multitudes of galaxies which are composed of multitudes of
stars, of which many are the central stars of solar systems, then that usage
of "galaxy" is causing problems, in my opinion, which could be rectified--or
at least a start could be made toward rectifying the situation--by sticking
to "solar system" for a solar system.
***
I looked up "tidal wave" in MWCD11 and in *The Century Dictionary* (
www.century-dictionary.com ). The following is from the Century:
From the entry for *tidal*
[quote]
*--Tidal wave.* (_a_) The wave of the tide ;
a great wave of translation in the ocean moving in the
manner in which the wave of the tide moves according to
the canal theory, but commonly produced by an earth-
quake. (_b_) Figuratively, a wide-spread or general mani-
festation of strong feeling or sentiment ; as, a _tidal wave_
of popular indignation.
[end quote]
MWCD11 dates the term to 1851. For some reason, it gives the figurative
reason first, that is, as the historically older definition, which makes no
sense to me.
***
A reporter for CBS News said of the recent Asian tsunami that the waves came
"serendipitously." He appeared to mean by this that the wave struck randomly
or without warning: Of course, under the circumstances "serendipitously" was
a particularly unfortunate solecism.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adrian Bailey
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 6:03 pm
Post subject: Re: tsunami |
|
|
"raymond o'hara" <reoh@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dtOAd.827091$8_6.610176@attbi_s04...
| Quote: | "don groves" <dgroves@domain.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c3d4ae373516a77989e66@news.individual.net...
In article <NKLAd.304400$HA.135607@attbi_s01>, raymond o'hara at
reoh@comcast.net hath writ:
I was talking with a seismologist at a nearby observatory. He
corrected
my
use of the term tidal wave saying they preferred tsunami because tidal
wave
is inaccurate. This is because waves aren't caused by the tide but by
earthquakes. I pointed out that tsunami is japanese for harbor wave.
I
then
asked if tidal wave is wrong because they aren't caused by tidal
action
and
tsunami is better, does this mean that the waves are caused by harbors
or is
it that they only take place in harbors? His reply was very technical
and
used terms like fuck you and asshole but when he finished I was still
unconvinced by the superiority of tsunami.
"Harbor wave" has the virtue of at least indicating that the
heavy damage occurs in shallow water as opposed to out at sea.
Most tsunamis aren't even noticable in deep water. "Tidal wave"
has no redeeming virtue.
Sure it does, the wave comes in like an unusually high tide. The tides ae
usually only noticed near the shore,in mid-ocean high or low tide is
fairly
irrelevent.
|
You and the seismologist are both wrong. The terms "tsunami" and "tidal
wave" are both okay. If we understand what they are, any apparent connection
the terms have to harbours (LOL) and tides is irrelevant. The term "tsunami"
did have the disadvantage that many people (eg. in the UK) had no idea what
one is, though that has probably now changed. And if the seismologist is
worried that he term "tidal wave" misrepresents the cause of the phenomenon,
I think people are now well aware what causes them.
Adrian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. J. Lodder
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 7:53 pm
Post subject: Re: tsunami |
|
|
raymond o'hara <reoh@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "don groves" <dgroves@domain.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c3d4ae373516a77989e66@news.individual.net...
In article <NKLAd.304400$HA.135607@attbi_s01>, raymond o'hara at
reoh@comcast.net hath writ:
I was talking with a seismologist at a nearby observatory. He corrected
my
use of the term tidal wave saying they preferred tsunami because tidal
wave
is inaccurate. This is because waves aren't caused by the tide but by
earthquakes. I pointed out that tsunami is japanese for harbor wave. I
then
asked if tidal wave is wrong because they aren't caused by tidal action
and
tsunami is better, does this mean that the waves are caused by harbors
or is
it that they only take place in harbors? His reply was very technical
and
used terms like fuck you and asshole but when he finished I was still
unconvinced by the superiority of tsunami.
"Harbor wave" has the virtue of at least indicating that the
heavy damage occurs in shallow water as opposed to out at sea.
Most tsunamis aren't even noticable in deep water. "Tidal wave"
has no redeeming virtue.
Sure it does, the wave comes in like an unusually high tide. The tides ae
usually only noticed near the shore,in mid-ocean high or low tide is fairly
irrelevent.
|
Have you ever seen an unusually high tidal wave breaking?
Jan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joe Fineman
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 8:46 pm
Post subject: Re: tsunami |
|
|
"Raymond S. Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> writes:
| Quote: | The question is whether the term can mislead. "Tsunami" cannot do so
in English, because people learn it with the meaning "a wave caused
by earthquakes." I would think that "tidal wave" *could* mislead
people into thinking it has something to do with tides.
|
Also, there is such a thing as a (or rather the) tidal wave in the
literal sense -- the very long, two-crested wave that goes around the
earth not quite once a day. It would be nice if it could have that
name to itself.
--
--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net
||: Suicide: bridging the gap between abortion and euthanasia.  | |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 8:49 pm
Post subject: Re: tsunami |
|
|
J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
| Quote: | raymond o'hara <reoh@comcast.net> wrote:
"don groves" <dgroves@domain.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c3d4ae373516a77989e66@news.individual.net...
In article <NKLAd.304400$HA.135607@attbi_s01>, raymond o'hara at
reoh@comcast.net hath writ:
I was talking with a seismologist at a nearby observatory. He corrected
my
use of the term tidal wave saying they preferred tsunami because tidal
wave
is inaccurate. This is because waves aren't caused by the tide but by
earthquakes. I pointed out that tsunami is japanese for harbor wave. I
then
asked if tidal wave is wrong because they aren't caused by tidal action
and
tsunami is better, does this mean that the waves are caused by harbors
or is
it that they only take place in harbors? His reply was very technical
and
used terms like fuck you and asshole but when he finished I was still
unconvinced by the superiority of tsunami.
"Harbor wave" has the virtue of at least indicating that the
heavy damage occurs in shallow water as opposed to out at sea.
Most tsunamis aren't even noticable in deep water. "Tidal wave"
has no redeeming virtue.
Sure it does, the wave comes in like an unusually high tide. The tides ae
usually only noticed near the shore,in mid-ocean high or low tide is fairly
irrelevent.
Have you ever seen an unusually high tidal wave breaking?
|
I read that there are *two* phenomena here. One is the famous high wave,
the wall of water. The other, and *more common* according to the article
at CNN, is more horizontal than vertical -- the water surges in in the
manner of an extremely high tide. These different shapes are created by
the location of the earthquake and other factors.
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/12/27/quake.facts/index.html
Go to: Related > Animation, How a tsunami forms
Most tsunamis do not create giant breaking waves on
shore. Instead, they generate very fast and strong
tides that make sea level rise quickly.
Someone on CNN or BBC World also pointed out that the waves behave very
differently when they reach inlets and harbors than when they reach
straight beaches.
Now. As the death toll mounts (Indonesia just doubled its own death
count, to 80,000) I feel it is heartless to quibble about incidental
words and grammar that arises from this incomprehensible catastrophe.
I propose that no one is allowed to post a word about it until they have
made a donation, large or small, to the disaster relief organization of
their choice.
I've sent my check in.
--
Troubled -- Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 9:00 pm
Post subject: Re: tsunami |
|
|
Joe Fineman wrote:
| Quote: | "Raymond S. Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> writes:
The question is whether the term can mislead. "Tsunami" cannot do
so
in English, because people learn it with the meaning "a wave caused
by earthquakes." I would think that "tidal wave" *could* mislead
people into thinking it has something to do with tides.
Also, there is such a thing as a (or rather the) tidal wave in the
literal sense -- the very long, two-crested wave that goes around the
earth not quite once a day. It would be nice if it could have that
name to itself.
--
--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net
||: Suicide: bridging the gap between abortion and euthanasia. |
|
Small digression: why are there TWO of those very long waves (i.e. why
are there (usually) two high tides a day? After all, there is only ONE
moon.
/Charles M. Strauss |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 9:32 pm
Post subject: Re: tsunami |
|
|
J. J. Lodder wrote:
| Quote: | Have you ever seen an unusually high tidal wave breaking?
|
I haven't in person, but take a look at
http://www.sharnoffphotos.com/naturalpatterns3.html I'll bet that one
breaks. (I found that image, by the way, by Googling on 'tidal surge'.
I rarely if ever see 'tidal wave' applied to anything other than a
tsunami.)
Richard R. Hershberger |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 9:56 pm
Post subject: Re: tsunami |
|
|
cstrauss@draper.com wrote:
| Quote: | Joe Fineman wrote:
Also, there is such a thing as a (or rather the) tidal wave in the
literal sense -- the very long, two-crested wave that goes around
the
earth not quite once a day. It would be nice if it could have that
name to itself.
|
'Tidal surge' is what I see in actual practice.
| Quote: | Small digression: why are there TWO of those very long waves (i.e.
why
are there (usually) two high tides a day? After all, there is only
ONE
moon.
|
There is a pretty good explanation at
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part3/section-17.html The most
relevant bits are:
"An easy way to think of the Moon's effect on the Earth is the
following. The Moon exerts a gravitational force on the Earth. The
strength of the gravitational force decreases with increasing
distance. So, because the surface of the ocean is closer to the Moon
than the sea floor, the surface water is attracted more strongly to
the Moon. That's the tide that occurs (nearly) under the Moon.
"What's happening on the other side of the Earth? On the other side of
the Earth from the Moon, the sea floor is being pulled more strongly
toward the Moon than the surface water. In essence, the surface water
is being left behind. Voila, another bulge in the surface water and
another tide."
Another way of looking at it is that when two objects orbit around one
another at a given speed, their masses and the speed determines how far
apart they orbit. But that distance is measured between their
respective centers of gravity, i.e. at a single point for each. In the
real universe they have size and are more-or-less rigid. So some parts
are being yanked around outside of where they would orbit if on their
own. Tides result because, in the range of more-or-less rigid, water
tends toward less rigid. So when you yank water around, it partly
moves where it wants. Clear as mud, no?
Richard R. Hershberger |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Philip Eden
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 10:07 pm
Post subject: Re: tsunami |
|
|
"raymond o'hara" <reoh@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NKLAd.304400$HA.135607@attbi_s01...
| Quote: | I was talking with a seismologist at a nearby observatory. He corrected my
use of the term tidal wave saying they preferred tsunami because tidal
wave
is inaccurate. This is because waves aren't caused by the tide but by
earthquakes. I pointed out that tsunami is japanese for harbor wave. I
then
asked if tidal wave is wrong because they aren't caused by tidal action
and
tsunami is better, does this mean that the waves are caused by harbors or
is
it that they only take place in harbors? His reply was very technical and
used terms like fuck you and asshole but when he finished I was still
unconvinced by the superiority of tsunami.
As I mentioned in another thread, I'm told that the experts prefer |
"marine seismic wave(s)" which is arguably less open to
misinterpretation, though one can see why it would also be less
attractive to journalists. I'm surprised your expert didn't suggest it.
Philip Eden |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 10:22 pm
Post subject: Re: tsunami |
|
|
| Quote: | "raymond o'hara" <reoh@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NKLAd.304400$HA.135607@attbi_s01...
I was talking with a seismologist at a nearby observatory. He
corrected my use of the term tidal wave saying they preferred
tsunami because tidal wave is inaccurate. This is because waves
aren't caused by the tide but by earthquakes. I pointed out that
tsunami is japanese for harbor wave. I then asked if tidal wave is
wrong because they aren't caused by tidal action and tsunami is
better, does this mean that the waves are caused by harbors or is it
that they only take place in harbors? His reply was very technical
and used terms like fuck you and asshole but when he finished I was
still unconvinced by the superiority of tsunami.
'Tsunami' does not mean 'harbour wave' in English. It means the kind
of wave generated by an underwater earthquake or landslide.
|
For example OED acknowledges the original meaning in Japanese but has a
more detailed explanation of how it is used in English:
[a. Jap. tsunami, tunami, f. tsu harbour + nami waves.]
A brief series of long, high undulations on the surface of the sea
caused by an earthquake or similar underwater disturbance. These travel
at great speed and often with sufficient force to inundate the land;
freq. misnamed a tidal wave
--
John Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stan Brown
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 10:43 pm
Post subject: Re: tsunami |
|
|
"" wrote in alt.usage.english:
| Quote: | Small digression: why are there TWO of those very long waves (i.e. why
are there (usually) two high tides a day? After all, there is only ONE
moon.
|
The moon pulls hardest on things that are closest. The water directly
under the moon is closest, so it is pulled toward the moon. But the
solid earth itself is closer to the moon than the water 180° away
from the moon, and therefore the solid earth is pulled away from that
water. Folks on the non-moon-facing surface see higher water because
the earth and everything on it has been pulled a bit away from the
ocean surface.
Of course it's vastly more complicated than that, and friction means
that high tides occur after the moon has already passed overhead, but
that's the general idea.
Picture at
http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/teaching/tides.html
which I found by Googling for "two high tides" (with quotes). Here
are two other helpful pages found in the same way:
http://www.scubageek.com/geek/articles/wwwtides.html
http://www.boatsafe.com/kids/tides.htm
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"Don't move, or I'll fill you full of [... pause ...] little
yellow bolts of light." -- Farscape, first episode |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in