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.

"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.

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.

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"

"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?

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
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.

A given high tide goes right round the earth in 24 hours. That makes
its speed at the equator in the unobstructed ocean slightly over 1000
mph.

Franz

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

In article , Lazarus
Cooke writes
Remember, 'pork', 'beef' and 'mutton' were all foreign words
once. But not any more.

The meat has the name of the animal in the language of the conquering
classes who ate it, while the animal retains the language of the
conquered who grew it.

At least it works for boeuf and mouton, but I'm not sure where pork
comes from - the latin? - is it the modern french that has moved away?
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

On 5/1/05 17:41, in article , "Kay"
wrote:

In article , Lazarus
Cooke writes
Remember, 'pork', 'beef' and 'mutton' were all foreign words
once. But not any more.

The meat has the name of the animal in the language of the conquering
classes who ate it, while the animal retains the language of the
conquered who grew it.

At least it works for boeuf and mouton, but I'm not sure where pork
comes from - the latin? - is it the modern french that has moved away?

The Latin is porcus = hog or swine, though cooked pork in Italian is maiale.
Alors, revenons a nos moutons......... (old French proverb) ;-)
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:49:11 +0000, Sacha
wrote:


Alors, revenons a nos moutons......... (old French proverb) ;-)

Seeing the length of this thread, shouldn't that be 'Alors, revenons a
nos jardins.......(old URG proverb). :-)


--
Chris

E-mail: christopher[dot]hogg[at]virgin[dot]net

In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:49:11 +0000, Sacha
wrote:


Alors, revenons a nos moutons......... (old French proverb) ;-)

Seeing the length of this thread, shouldn't that be 'Alors, revenons a
nos jardins.......(old URG proverb). :-)

Or perhaps "il faut cultiver son jardin"?

L

--
Remover the rock from the email address

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:49:11 +0000, Sacha
wrote:


Alors, revenons a nos moutons......... (old French proverb) ;-)

Seeing the length of this thread, shouldn't that be 'Alors, revenons
a
nos jardins.......(old URG proverb). :-)

Not when we're all on full steam along these side waters
{:-))

Franz

In article , Sacha
writes
On 5/1/05 17:41, in article , "Kay"
wrote:

In article , Lazarus
Cooke writes
Remember, 'pork', 'beef' and 'mutton' were all foreign words
once. But not any more.

The meat has the name of the animal in the language of the conquering
classes who ate it, while the animal retains the language of the
conquered who grew it.

At least it works for boeuf and mouton, but I'm not sure where pork
comes from - the latin? - is it the modern french that has moved away?

The Latin is porcus = hog or swine, though cooked pork in Italian is maiale.
Alors, revenons a nos moutons......... (old French proverb) ;-)

So did the Normans use 'porcus' or some close derivative? And the modern
French move on from there? Or did we pick up 'pork' independently?

--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

On 5/1/05 23:27, in article , "Kay"
wrote:

In article , Sacha
writes
snip The Latin is porcus = hog or swine, though cooked pork in Italian
is maiale.
Alors, revenons a nos moutons......... (old French proverb) ;-)

So did the Normans use 'porcus' or some close derivative? And the modern
French move on from there? Or did we pick up 'pork' independently?

My concise dictionary of English Etymology says that 'porc' is Old French.
I imagine we picked up the word pork between both the Latin and the Norman.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)