|
|
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:47:10 -0000, BAC wrote:
Perhaps the fact most English speakers are not Japanese speakers and are hence unlikely to be confused by possible quibbles regarding the literal meaning of the term is one reason many of us consider 'tsunami' a more apt term than 'tidal wave'. I'd have thought that as most English speakers speak English, they might be more likely to know what the work tidalwave means that tsunami. -- Tim C. |
wrote in message ... On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 21:35:32 +0000, Martin Brown wrote: Chris Hogg wrote: On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 13:21:24 +0100, wrote: When did everybody start calling a tidal wave a tsunami and why? Why not use the Japanese word for earthquake too? AIUI, the term 'tidal wave' is strictly incorrect, as the wave has nothing to do with tides, unlike some other waves such as the Severn Bore. Tsunami is the 'correct' term (even though we all know what a tidal wave is). It apparently means 'harbour wave', which sounds just as inappropriate. That is correct. "Tidal wave" in English gives entirely the wrong impression. Just before a big tsunami strikes the sea drains away rapidly from the shoreline for a short while. Anyone living in a tsunami prone region should know that this means run for high ground. Tsunami is basically correct. In Japanese. The English term is "tidal wave". They are an artefact of the deep water shockwave running into ever more shallow coastal waters, harbour and beach. Well out to sea in deep water the effect is much less. The word used until ten years ago was tidal wave, everybody understood what that meant. Google and you will find "Tsunamis. "Tsunami" is the Japanese word meaning tidal wave. ... General information, "Tsunami" is the Japanese word meaning tidal wave. ..." The two words are interchangeable. Japanese for earthquake is "jishin". By no means unpronouncable but the English language version is not misleading and so remains in use. I can't see any merit in using Japanese terms, when English terms already exist. In the US they have used the term tsunami for a long time, possibly because the place that suffers a lot from them is hawaii and there are a lot of japanese there? Maybe this is an example of 'americanisation' of the english language? -- Tumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com |
"BAC" wrote in message ... Let us hope no terrorist group discovers a means of triggering the landslide anyone that had a means of triggering such a landslide wouldnt need to cause one, the means itself would do. -- Tumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com |
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 08:58:28 -0000, BAC wrote:
wrote in message ... On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" wrote: "Sacha" wrote in message o.uk... On 3/1/05 11:30, in article , "Cerumen" wrote: wrote in message ... 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.. A recent article I read somewhere said that if the predicted bit of La Palma falls off in one slab the resulting tsunami will lead to the disappearance of the Isles of Scilly (among other damage!) As well as New York We'll miss the Scillies but NY? Let us hope no terrorist group discovers a means of triggering the landslide ... I think you'd need a lot of expensive stuff to move 500,000,000,000 tons of rock in one go. Someone is bound to notice. -- Tim C. |
I think you'd need a lot of expensive stuff to move 500,000,000,000 tons of rock in one go. Someone is bound to notice. -- Tim C. Can you please confirm that the scales you used to weigh this item have been checked and please post proof of the date and the certification certificate here via a link. (No binaries on this newsgroup) :-)) Tons or Tonnes? |
"Tim Challenger" wrote in message news:1104852697.f850d3a23620113db1874d4bdd98b45f@t eranews... On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 08:58:28 -0000, BAC wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" wrote: "Sacha" wrote in message o.uk... On 3/1/05 11:30, in article , "Cerumen" wrote: wrote in message ... 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.. A recent article I read somewhere said that if the predicted bit of La Palma falls off in one slab the resulting tsunami will lead to the disappearance of the Isles of Scilly (among other damage!) As well as New York We'll miss the Scillies but NY? Let us hope no terrorist group discovers a means of triggering the landslide ... I think you'd need a lot of expensive stuff to move 500,000,000,000 tons of rock in one go. Someone is bound to notice. The stuff that provides the motive power is totally free and ubiquitous, i.e. gravity :-) |
I would recommend that they start making plans for evacuating New
York. They wil have around 10 hours warning. Perhaps theyhave already made plans, but can't make them public because of the grand panic which would follow immediately after the announcement. Isn't that just the latest Hollywood blockbuster?? |
"Tim Challenger" wrote in message news:1104840072.98438ddeea2045e62f46ffa1c2f70c96@t eranews... On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:47:10 -0000, BAC wrote: Perhaps the fact most English speakers are not Japanese speakers and are hence unlikely to be confused by possible quibbles regarding the literal meaning of the term is one reason many of us consider 'tsunami' a more apt term than 'tidal wave'. I'd have thought that as most English speakers speak English, they might be more likely to know what the work tidalwave means that tsunami. The point is, a person who doesn't speak Japanese either knows what the term tsunami means, or does not, so no confusion, whereas an English speaker who does not know the accepted definition of 'tidal wave' might be tempted to derive a definition intuitively, hence the possibility of confusion. |
Tim Challenger writes
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:47:10 -0000, BAC wrote: Perhaps the fact most English speakers are not Japanese speakers and are hence unlikely to be confused by possible quibbles regarding the literal meaning of the term is one reason many of us consider 'tsunami' a more apt term than 'tidal wave'. I'd have thought that as most English speakers speak English, they might be more likely to know what the work tidalwave means that tsunami. Well maybe the 100 or so Thai and other nationalities saved by an 11 year old girl shouting 'Tsunami' might disagree with you there. Had she not have just studied it at school and recognised the sudden drop in the shoreline water, they might all be dead. IMHO some of these catastrophes deserve an unusual and unique title recognised around the world. Words do change their meaning - tidal to me implies something predictable, and a tidal wave means maybe a severn bore or a predicted high water being pushed down the North Sea at a slow rate of knots, not an unexpected two or three metre wall of several cubic kilometres travelling at several hundred miles an hour. -- David |
"goldfinch" wrote in message ... "Nick Maclaren" wrote in message ... However, the most likely cause of water-borne carnage is a certainty in the next century or so, but our wonderful government is attempting (and failing) to hide it using terrorism legislation. Probably so that they can say "But we couldn't POSSIBLY have known" and the resulting enquiry will acquit them of all negligence. Could you explain that Nick? Are we back to the Canaries again? Not under our wonderful new legislation. No, it is much closer to home. Regards, Nick Maclaren. --------------- OK. I have been wondering what you meant, Nick, and hoping that someone else would ask ;-) Then today on the news we hear that our insane government had plans to blow up the channel tunnel with a nuclear bomb if the Russians were to try and invade us. The resulting massive waves would devastate most of the S.E. coastal area. We only know this now because of the freedom of information act. No they didnt. Do you write newspaper headlines as well?Or just read the daily mail? (translating 'some officials considered a bomb but it was never implemented' into 'government had plans to swamp SE with massive waves'.) Not that there would have been any 'massive waves' anyway, maybe a small ripple. (raspberry?) -- Tumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com |
|
"goldfinch" wrote in message ... Not under our wonderful new legislation. No, it is much closer to home. Regards, Nick Maclaren. --------------- OK. I have been wondering what you meant, Nick, and hoping that someone else would ask ;-) Then today on the news we hear that our insane government had plans to blow up the channel tunnel with a nuclear bomb if the Russians were to try and invade us. The resulting massive waves would devastate most of the S.E. coastal area. We only know this now because of the freedom of information act. No they didnt. Do you write newspaper headlines as well?Or just read the daily mail? (translating 'some officials considered a bomb but it was never implemented' into 'government had plans to swamp SE with massive waves'.) Not that there would have been any 'massive waves' anyway, maybe a small ripple. (raspberry?) -- Tumbleweed ------------- I heard it on the BBC 1 news at 6 pm today. Obviously it was never implemented ;-) Probably more than a ripple though, being close enough to the shore even if it was in the middle of the channel. Not if it was going to make the tunnel unusable for only 3 years. And the middle of the channel is 10 miles from the shore. They had tests in the nevada desert *much* nearer than that from las vegas in the 50's, not even a tremor felt in LV. -- Tumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com |
A recent article I read somewhere said that if the predicted bit of
La Palma falls off in one slab the resulting tsunami will lead to the disappearance of the Isles of Scilly (among other damage!) Charlie Pridham writes Lots of people have said that, but it seems unlikely. To create a tsunami requires a high energy shock wave, a bit of land falling in would, however large not be moving fast enough for the damage to be transmitted any distance, although there would certainly be a large wave locally much as when large icebergs break off. I think you confuse speed with energy. If you drop a very very large mass (say 5000 million tons) a few hundred feet (and I think in the case of the canaries it drops a long way down to the ocean floor) then the *energy* released is converted into a (relatively) smaller mass of water travelling *very* fast. I don't know what the conversion factor is but say 1% of the mass travelling at say 20 times the speed would still be quite significant. -- David |
|
|
On 5/1/05 5:08, in article , "goldfinch"
wrote: "Nick Maclaren" wrote in message ... However, the most likely cause of water-borne carnage is a certainty in the next century or so, but our wonderful government is attempting (and failing) to hide it using terrorism legislation. Probably so that they can say "But we couldn't POSSIBLY have known" and the resulting enquiry will acquit them of all negligence. Could you explain that Nick? Are we back to the Canaries again? Not under our wonderful new legislation. No, it is much closer to home. Regards, Nick Maclaren. --------------- OK. I have been wondering what you meant, Nick, and hoping that someone else would ask ;-) Then today on the news we hear that our insane government had plans to blow up the channel tunnel with a nuclear bomb if the Russians were to try and invade us. The resulting massive waves would devastate most of the S.E. coastal area. We only know this now because of the freedom of information act. Is that what you meant, or is there something else that "they" are hiding. Best wishes for 2005 to all urglers, Marina E. Sx All they had to do was cancel lunch hours in France. The Russians would never have got through. ;-) -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds to email me) |
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message ... However, the most likely cause of water-borne carnage is a certainty in the next century or so, but our wonderful government is attempting (and failing) to hide it using terrorism legislation. Probably so that they can say "But we couldn't POSSIBLY have known" and the resulting enquiry will acquit them of all negligence. Could you explain that Nick? Are we back to the Canaries again? Not under our wonderful new legislation. No, it is much closer to home. Regards, Nick Maclaren. --------------- OK. I have been wondering what you meant, Nick, and hoping that someone else would ask ;-) Then today on the news we hear that our insane government had plans to blow up the channel tunnel with a nuclear bomb if the Russians were to try and invade us. The resulting massive waves would devastate most of the S.E. coastal area. We only know this now because of the freedom of information act. Is that what you meant, or is there something else that "they" are hiding. Best wishes for 2005 to all urglers, Marina E. Sx |
Not under our wonderful new legislation. No, it is much closer to home. Regards, Nick Maclaren. --------------- OK. I have been wondering what you meant, Nick, and hoping that someone else would ask ;-) Then today on the news we hear that our insane government had plans to blow up the channel tunnel with a nuclear bomb if the Russians were to try and invade us. The resulting massive waves would devastate most of the S.E. coastal area. We only know this now because of the freedom of information act. No they didnt. Do you write newspaper headlines as well?Or just read the daily mail? (translating 'some officials considered a bomb but it was never implemented' into 'government had plans to swamp SE with massive waves'.) Not that there would have been any 'massive waves' anyway, maybe a small ripple. (raspberry?) -- Tumbleweed ------------- I heard it on the BBC 1 news at 6 pm today. Obviously it was never implemented ;-) Probably more than a ripple though, being close enough to the shore even if it was in the middle of the channel. Marina E. Sx |
...
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 00:17:15 +0000, Sacha wrote: All they had to do was cancel lunch hours in France. The Russians would never have got through. ;-) :-) Why were they preparing for a Russian invasion long after the cold war was over? -- Martin This was 1974. -- Tumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com wrote in message |
wrote in message ... On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:11:51 +0000, Dave wrote: Tim Challenger writes On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:47:10 -0000, BAC wrote: Perhaps the fact most English speakers are not Japanese speakers and are hence unlikely to be confused by possible quibbles regarding the literal meaning of the term is one reason many of us consider 'tsunami' a more apt term than 'tidal wave'. I'd have thought that as most English speakers speak English, they might be more likely to know what the work tidalwave means that tsunami. Well maybe the 100 or so Thai and other nationalities saved by an 11 year old girl shouting 'Tsunami' might disagree with you there. Had she not have just studied it at school and recognised the sudden drop in the shoreline water, they might all be dead. IMHO some of these catastrophes deserve an unusual and unique title recognised around the world. Words do change their meaning - tidal to me implies something predictable, and a tidal wave means maybe a severn bore or a predicted high water being pushed down the North Sea at a slow rate of knots, not an unexpected two or three metre wall of several cubic kilometres travelling at several hundred miles an hour. Maybe you should have done O level geography 50 years ago. Do you also get confused when talking about butterflies and slow worms? Whether or not he was one of the few lucky enough to have been selected to take 'O' level geography 50 years ago, I believe he's helped support my speculation that the term 'tidal wave' may be more likely to be misunderstood, these days, than 'tsunami'. |
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:08:45 -0000, BAC wrote:
The point is, a person who doesn't speak Japanese either knows what the term tsunami means, or does not, so no confusion, whereas an English speaker who does not know the accepted definition of 'tidal wave' might be tempted to derive a definition intuitively, hence the possibility of confusion. But they'd be pretty sure to guess it has something to do with a big wave, and let's face, that's what counts. Plus there's more chance that an English peaker would have heard it and actually know what it means. -- Tim C. |
|
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 16:35:14 +0000 (UTC), Mike wrote:
I think you'd need a lot of expensive stuff to move 500,000,000,000 tons of rock in one go. Someone is bound to notice. -- Tim C. Can you please confirm that the scales you used to weigh this item have been checked and please post proof of the date and the certification certificate here via a link. (No binaries on this newsgroup) Er... bugger. :-)) Tons or Tonnes? Estimates from the volume of rock bounded by the cracks. The original article I quoted said "half a billion tonnes" (New Scientist uses American billions). Quite right to point that one out ;-) -- Tim C. |
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 18:29:35 +0100, wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 13:02:06 +0100, Tim Challenger wrote: On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 11:19:52 +0100, wrote: On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:53:42 +0100, Tim Challenger wrote: On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:09:34 -0000, BAC wrote: "Douglas" wrote in message ... Tim Challenger Wrote: On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 14:40:51 +0000 (UTC), Mike wrote: And what would you suggest that "they" do? Get a couple of big sticks and prop it up? You'd need a lot of string and blu-tac to hold back 500 billion tons of rock. Tim C. Don't be so silly! What you need is one giant elastic band, placed round the island to hold it together. Then you can start to superglue it. Or you could build a giant sea wall/dam around the island and pump out all the water so there's no giant splash if/when the chunk falls off :-) I like that idea. Imagine the size of the beaches they'd get! You could fill the hole with lava, if you had a large drill. A new sport, lava-boarding ? It's an old sport in Lanzarote. I meant molten lava-boarding. ;-) -- Tim C. |
|
In article ,
wrote: but there wasn't a channel tunnel in 1974, or was there a secret one we didn't know about? There was one in 1874! It wasn't complete - which doesn't stop the government planning how to blow it up if it were ever completed. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
"Tim Challenger" wrote in message news:1104838745.68a636cbd747e5fb5e2516c27b1790a8@t eranews... On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 11:25:36 +0000, Lazarus Cooke wrote: We have a term for it too Tidal Wave. That's the trouble. It was misleading. A tsunami has nothing at all to do with tides, and that's why they changed it. L At least it indicates that it's a wave, whereas the word "tsunami" tells the uninitiated naff-all. What happened to the term "episodic wave"? I haven't heard that one for a while. I don't know if it's technically different to a tsunami or tidal wave or both, but then I don't suppose it makes a lot of difference if you're 30ft under it all of a sudden. Steve |
SNIP The idea of a nuclear explosion was considered but in the end it was decided that a couple of valves to let in sea water would be cheaper and less damaging to much of Kent..... That was in the Telegraph an the Mail and I think the Times. Take your pick. -- Bob flowerdew would do it by siphoning the water from above with a length of old garden hose into the tunnel entrance. That would be my preferred method also. Steve |
In article 1104917378.33e402cc30bfd22cb86573c2e70ae991@teran ews, Tim
Challenger writes On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:08:45 -0000, BAC wrote: The point is, a person who doesn't speak Japanese either knows what the term tsunami means, or does not, so no confusion, whereas an English speaker who does not know the accepted definition of 'tidal wave' might be tempted to derive a definition intuitively, hence the possibility of confusion. But they'd be pretty sure to guess it has something to do with a big wave, and let's face, that's what counts. Plus there's more chance that an English peaker would have heard it and actually know what it means. That's an interesting point. Perhaps in these days of international travel, it would be helpful if we all agreed on some internationally understood words for certain key concepts, eg 'fire' 'help' 'ambulance' (in the same way that most of Europe and I think some other countries have agreed on 112 as the phone no for emergency services). In which case, tsunami vs tidal wave comes down to which one is most readily understood by the international community -- Kay "Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river" |
Of course. ;-) I'm still on Siam anyway, where is this Thailand place? I noticed that the BBC correspondent, who had just returned from Miramwhere, referred to it as Burma. Good! -- Tim C. |
|
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 12:44:31 +0100, wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 10:34:59 +0100, Tim Challenger wrote: On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:58:56 +0100, wrote: On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 17:55:32 -0000, "BAC" wrote: The stuff that provides the motive power is totally free and ubiquitous, i.e. gravity :-) Bisto powered? That's gravy powered, martin. I blame a dirty mark on my flat screen monitor. What do you use to clean them? Coffee and my sleeve at the moment! -- Tim C. |
In article ,
wrote: On 5 Jan 2005 11:51:10 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote: In article , wrote: but there wasn't a channel tunnel in 1974, or was there a secret one we didn't know about? There was one in 1874! It wasn't complete - which doesn't stop the government planning how to blow it up if it were ever completed. It would need a bit of foresight to anticipate a tunnel and the invention of the atom bomb :-) No foresight needed for the first - look up the history of the tunnel - it was first proposed in the 18th century and preliminary work started in the 19th. The atom bomb was also speculated in the 19th century, but I now forget the reference. Anyway, you don't need one to blow up a small construction like the tunnel, nor even modern explosives; ordinary gunpowder will do. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
In article ,
wrote: what about Nyasaland and Tanganyika? Still there, the last time I visited them. I haven't heard that they have been stolen or demolished. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:37:20 +0100, wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:33:42 +0100, Tim Challenger wrote: On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 12:44:31 +0100, wrote: On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 10:34:59 +0100, Tim Challenger wrote: On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:58:56 +0100, wrote: On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 17:55:32 -0000, "BAC" wrote: The stuff that provides the motive power is totally free and ubiquitous, i.e. gravity :-) Bisto powered? That's gravy powered, martin. I blame a dirty mark on my flat screen monitor. What do you use to clean them? Coffee and my sleeve at the moment! I take it that you don't own them? Not th escreen anyway... It was a coffee-nose-screen interface situation. :-) -- Tim C. |
On 5/1/05 1:34 pm, in article ,
" wrote: On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:18:12 -0000, "shazzbat" wrote: SNIP The idea of a nuclear explosion was considered but in the end it was decided that a couple of valves to let in sea water would be cheaper and less damaging to much of Kent..... That was in the Telegraph an the Mail and I think the Times. Take your pick. -- Bob flowerdew would do it by siphoning the water from above with a length of old garden hose into the tunnel entrance. That would be my preferred method also. Charlie Dimmock would do it by buying some rubber membrane and a load of water feature stuff from a garden centre. Poor Charlie's mother is one of those lost in the tsunami. ;-( -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds to email me) |
"Tim Challenger" wrote in message news:1104917378.33e402cc30bfd22cb86573c2e70ae991@t eranews... On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:08:45 -0000, BAC wrote: The point is, a person who doesn't speak Japanese either knows what the term tsunami means, or does not, so no confusion, whereas an English speaker who does not know the accepted definition of 'tidal wave' might be tempted to derive a definition intuitively, hence the possibility of confusion. But they'd be pretty sure to guess it has something to do with a big wave, and let's face, that's what counts. Plus there's more chance that an English peaker would have heard it and actually know what it means. Maybe. Personally, I doubt there are many English speakers who have not heard the term 'tsunami' and learned to associate it with images of destruction caused by 'freak' waves crashing ashore in the Pacific area. Perhaps we should say that 'tsunami' is the common term used for earthquake induced waves in the pacific area, and 'tidal wave' would be the preferred term if/when they occur in English speaking parts of the Atlantic area. After all, cyclones can have different names like hurricane and typhoon depending on where they are encountered, so why not waves? |
In article 1104840072.98438ddeea2045e62f46ffa1c2f70c96@teran ews, Tim
Challenger wrote: I'd have thought that as most English speakers speak English, they might be more likely to know what the work tidalwave means that tsunami. 'Tsunami' now *is* the English word for it, just as 'gong' is the English word for the thing you bang when dinner's ready (from Malay), a 'tycoon' is a big businessman (Japanese), and a tattoo is what your daughter gets against your wishes (Tahitian), and which you may well think is 'taboo' (Tongan). Try asking people under the age of 15 what they'd call a tsunami, and they'll use the new word, not the old. Languages change all the time, and one of the nice things about English is that people are happy to adapt. Remember, 'pork', 'beef' and 'mutton' were all foreign words once. But not any more. I still talk about 'motoring' up to London, listening to the 'wireless', and 'taking luncheon', but I only do it to amuse myself and irritate my children. Lazarus -- Remover the rock from the email address |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter