Yes, in this day and age definitions change that fast....PBS just did an
ad-on to the History of the English Language (Moyers) called Do You Speak In
American? and addressed that very issue.

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:
"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
news:4jjEd.47654$F25.38534@okepread07...

It was a tidal wave.


No, it wasn't.

tid•al wave \"tïd-€l-\ n 1 : an unusually high sea wave that sometimes

follows an earthquake 2 : an unusual rise of water alongshore

due to strong winds

© 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary © 1994 by

Merriam-Webster, Incorporated


Chambers says that the use of "tidal wave" to describe is common, but
improper. You should get yourself a proper dictionary.


That's odd, the online Chambers says:

tidal wave noun 1 non-technical a popular name for a tsunami. 2 loosely
an unusually large ocean wave.

I'm very surprised. I've got the 1993 edition of the Chambers
Dictionary.

It clearly states that using Tidal Wave to describe a tsunami is
"improper".

Can dictionary definitions change so quickly???



Bowditch uses similar language, though in "Oceanography and Seamanship"
Van Dorn goes so far as to call the phrase the "more-common misnomer."

Misnomer or not, it is the common usage and thus it is pedantry to
complain.

I'm not a pedant. Furthermore, I didn't "complain" - I "corrected". I
don't believe that it is pedantic to correct a genuine error.

Have you always agreed with Neal's dictionary definitions?




Regards


Donal
--