Talk:tsunami

Umm, why is definition #2 in German? — Hippietrail 01:46, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I dunno but I moved it here: Flutwelle, die durch Unterseebeben (vorrangig im Pazifik) entsteht und sich im flachen Wasser bis zu 35 Meter hoch auftürmen kann. I can read 'Pazifik' and '35 meter', so it looks like its just the same definition.

It reads: "Tidal wave generated by an undersea earthquake (usually in the Pacific), and which may rise up as high as 35 meters in shallow water."

— Stephen 12:02, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

moved discussion of the correctness/incorrectness of tidal wave to the Talk:tidal wave page

Note: later moved to Category talk:English words affected by prescriptivism

Hmm actually I was discussing the history and usage of both terms but that's okay. — Hippietrail 00:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 00:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)>That's true, but as a whole, the conversation seemed more appropriate in the tidal wave talk page. Or should it be in both places?</Jun-Dai>

No that would only fragment the discussion which belongs in one place. I did post the link to this page on another forum requesting comments before it was moved though - but oh well (-: — Hippietrail 00:42, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 18:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)>I did feel weird about including "natural disaster" as a phrase, and I suppose it is being inconsistent to suggest that awe-inspiring does not deserve an entry. In any case, they belong in the same realm: two-word phrases in common use that are simply the sum of their parts, and carry little to no extra meaning.

Upon reflection, I would argue that natural disaster has actually developed its own meaning through exclusive use: it would be odd to use natural disaster to refer to any disaster that is natural; it is only generally used for disasters of the sort that kill people and damage tremendous amounts of property or wilderness, whereas other types of disasters can include spilling ink on your khaki pants, and you won't hear the phrase natural disaster to refer to a tree falling on your house, even though as a non-idiom that would qualify.

None of this is to say that having a natural disaster category would be a bad idea, just that natural disaster as a phrase makes sense.</Jun-Dai>

Yep I'm with you 100% here, I might have been a bit muddled last night. natural disaster is an idiom deserving its own article, and it would also make a good category. — Hippietrail 04:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm . . . there seems to be some disagreement on the technical meaning of tsunami. From a NOAA web site: Tsunami is a Japanese word meaning "harbor wave." It is a water wave or a series of waves generated by an impulsive vertical displacement of the surface of the ocean or other body of water. -dmh 18:06, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 18:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)>Where's the disagreement? That seems to be in accordance with what we've written and discussed.</Jun-Dai>

Use of html big tags

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#Use_of_html_big_tags

I'm moving this topic to where it can be read and commented on by more people:

Verb citation

January 2008, Spectrum (IEEE magazine), page 9, first sentence:

"Over the past 20 years technology as tsunamied publishing. E-mail, the Internet, and desktop publishing, to name a few, have engulfed the industry."

Italian translation

What does invariable mean at the italian word? –dMoberg 21:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It means that the singular and plural are identical. —Stephen 21:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)