I don’t agree. The term “tidal wave” may have originated in a misapprehension about the tidal origin of such waves, and/or be used to describe actual tidal bores such as that in the Bay of Fundy, but it is also simply descriptive: such waves tend to resemble tides.
Just as “harbour waves” are not limited to harbours, “tidal waves” do not necessarily imply that such waves are caused by tides. Both are essentially descriptive - the English-speakers noted in the mid-19th century that such waves resembled tides comming in very quickly, and the Japanese noted that such waves tended to destroy harbours.
The only term that is literally tied to a descriptive limitation is “seismic wave” - and as such, it is the only one that is, if used as a generality, “incorrect”.
The scientific community may, by fiat, simply declare one name “approved” for scientific publications, but English does not work that way. There is no organization that declares English words right or wrong for general use. Dictionaries retain the following meaning for “tidal wave”:
This isn’t “wrong”. The choice of one term over the other is arbitrary.
Hey, even I use the term “tsunami” now. If you read my posts, I acknowledge that this term, to quote myself, “… appears to be winning in the vocabulary battle …”.
My point was about why it is winning or has won - namely, that it had little to do with any inherent virtues of one term over another.
Both terms are basically descriptive, and both terms are, arguably, correct or incorrect (depending on how you look at it).
Those claiming that “tidal wave” is incorrect do so on the premise that those using the term “tidal wave” believe that such waves are caused by tides. But that is not necessarily true, any more than those using the term “tsunami” believe such waves are either caused by, or only occur in, harbours.
When one arbitrary term “wins out” over another, the natural question to ask is: why?
To which my suspicion is that “tidal wave” lost out exactly for the reason stated above - that English speakers know what the two words mean, and will assume that it implies that tides cause the wave (which we all know isn’t right). In contrast, English speakers commonly don’t know that “tsunami” literally means, and so, in English, it sounds more “correct”.
The term Tidal Wave is not a misnomer. Using the two words together do not mean one is causing the other. They are called “tidal waves” as they occur in tidal areas. Once I hear that “'Tidal Wave” is incorrect as the tides dont cause the giant wave" I know that person is just plain ignorant.
Your argument that “Harbor Wave” is correct when “Tidal Wave” is wrong as the damage would be seen in harbors is disingenuous, as indeed Tidal Waves occur in tidal areas. So, the two terms are equally valid taking the two halves meaning.
I agree that “tsunami is the term adopted by the scientific community” but they did it for unscientific and thus bad reasons.
I agree with all your post except the last- I think one very large reason is that American English speakers like to use foreign words to sound more educated or cultured.
Americans don’t ask Indian doctors that (possibly because it’s rude), but Indians often do. There’s a whole debate about whether it’s moral to take your doctor brain (or whatever) over to another country instead of helping your own people, and a rather preachy movie (which I love). I presume that Nigerians might ask Nigerian doctors in the US the same thing.
I kind of have a thing for India–movies, literature, culture in general. And you could call me an Anglophile too.
Also, compound words and phrases often take on a life of their own that is independent of the underlying components of the word. For example, we refer to Guinea pigs even though they are neither porcine nor from Guinea. It’s just the term we use. Likewise, a mongoose is not a type of goose (singular or otherwise), nor is a titmouse a kind of mouse. Ladybugs are not all female. Shooting stars are not stars, and are not fired from a gun. The Sea of Tranquility is bone-dry, thought it’s pretty tranquil. Usually. French fries were not invented in France. Peanuts are not nuts, they are legumes. It’s human language. It’s not fully logical.
Clarification needed. Actually, English does work that way. Partly. When scientists decide on proper nomenclature that has a pronounced effect on the subsequent vocabulary battle. Languages have an aspect of propriety to them, something that should be taken into account by a good descriptivist. (American English also has an aspect of populism in it, which I detect in DrDeth’s complaint. That also needs to be considered by a good linguist.)
Sorry, but :rolleyes: . Oceanographers had solid reasons to distinguish between processes affected by undersea earthquakes and processes affected by the moon.
I agree, but if US scientists called it a seismic water wave, I think that would have been adopted just as quickly or even quicker.
The term ‘weeaboo’ was originally a nonsense word, coined by the webcomic, Perry Bible Fellowship, until it was reappropriated by 4-chan.
Considering that it robs the source of its whimsy, and that 4-chan if fucking horrible, I’d rather not acknowledge the latter and use it as a pejorative.
But that leaves out both terms. For the Nth time, it’s not called a Tidal Wave as it is caused by tides. It’s called a Tidal Wave as it occurs in tidal areas. It never meant “processes affected by the moon”.
And the term* tsunami* does not refer to undersea earthquakes, it refers to harbors.
It’s like those moron that want to change the name of the Starfish to Seastar, based on the fact “it’s not a Fish”. Yes, it is a “Fish”. It is a animal that lives in the ocean, which is what “fish” meant centuries before Linnaeus came up with him nomenclature. The word Starfish was coined in about 1530, two centuries before he was born. In any case, “Pisces/Fish” is no longer a Class.
Scientists have a legitimate interest in nomenclature that draws bright lines between different phenomenon. Whether the words originate in Latin, English or Japanese is a secondary consideration. As is etymology. What mattered is that the phrase “Tidal wave” muddied the waters, as it were. “Tsunami”, in contrast, was pretty clear.
Scientists do recognize “Tide waves”, but those are different: they are unrelated to seismic activity. “Tidal wave” is a term best discarded by professionals as it sounds too much like “Tide wave”. Or at least that’s what oceanographers concluded in 1963 and afterwards.
Reporters rely on scientists for their expertise, so it’s unsurprising that they adopted their vocabulary.
Getting back to the OP’s question, I came here to post something like this. I know that “data” is not the plural of “anecdote”, but for what it’s worth, from my mid-teens to mid-twenties I had a weeaboo-esque obsession with the Scottish Highlands. The romantic Highlands, of course; Flora Macdonald and the Gentle Lochiel, not the Crofting Commission or the Disruption. I could tell you more than you would ever want to know about tanistry or the derbh-fine or the plant-badge of the Mackenzies. I knew the difference between the Siol Tormod and the Siol Torquil, and which clan was the hereditary Keepers of the Records of the Lord of the Isles. Not to even get into the pipe music, slogan, and septs of what would be my clan, if such things were other than a romantic fiction anymore. Fortunately, my obsession led me to John Prebble, then T.C. Smout and Tom Devine, and I started reading about, and getting interested in, genuine Scottish history. (I still own a kilt and a balmoral bonnet, and attend the occasional Highland Games, though…)
So I fit the “weeaboo” stereotype, at first - obsessed with a distorted and simplified view of another culture. I didn’t know any real Scots at the time, but I’m sure I would have been just as annoying to them as American otakus are to the Japanese.
tl;dr version: Yep. Folks can get weird about all kind of things.
