"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?