On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 12:23:20 +0100, wrote:

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 12:00:27 +0100, Tim Challenger
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 13:21:24 +0100, wrote:

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 11:57:00 +0000, June Hughes
wrote:

In message , Cerumen
writes

wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 16:09:33 -0000, "Bob Hobden"
wrote:

The main risk is the big piece of rock which is expected to fall off
an island in the Canaries, generate a tidal wave that will wipe out
the East Coats of the USA and not do a lot of good to the low
countries.

Apparently a tsunami hit the west coast of Ireland in 1775 ? after a
seismic event near the Azores and Canaries causing some considerable
damage..

I believe that was the earthquake and tsunami that wiped out Lisbon.

When did everybody start calling a tidal wave a tsunami and why?

Why not use the Japanese word for earthquake too?

I *think* there's a technical difference. A tsunami is caused by an
undersea earthquake, or seaquake I suppose. Whereas a tidal wave can be
caused by a "landbased" earthquake. A tidal wave can also be caused by
storms or be one of those "megawaves" that swamp ships occasionally.

It's not true the two terms are interchangeable.

Correct. They are different, but in this case they are more-or-less
interchangeable. Not in all cases.

I stick to tidal wave, but then I still say Peking, Madras and Bombay.

--
Tim C.