Donal wrote:
"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???

There are not enough data points to determine if this change was slow or
fast.



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".

You just did it again!

I don't believe that it is pedantic to correct a genuine error.

Yes it is. Perhaps you should look up pedantry in a dictionary.
Correcting an error can be pedantry; however, incorrectly correcting an
error is sophistry.


Have you always agreed with Neal's dictionary definitions?


Actually, I've often criticized Neil for using a lubberly dictionary for
a nautical or technical term. However, in this case it was appropriate.