"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
--

He's smart. He knows when somebody is correct most
of the time and he knows that to agree with that person
makes him right most of the time.

CN


"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
--

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
--

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.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:
I'm not a pedant. Furthermore, I didn't "complain" - I "corrected".

You just did it again!

[sigh] ....


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.

Congratulations, Jeff. That was pedantry at its best!!

I'm good, huh?



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.

I don't like to sound pedantic, BUT *I* used the real dictionary. *You*
used the cheap on-line version. Let;s face it, Jeff.... you're wrong.



Regards


Donal
--

wrote in message
...

Not all tides are lunar.

So what?


Regards


Donal
--

Donal wrote:
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Donal wrote:

I'm not a pedant. Furthermore, I didn't "complain" - I "corrected".

You just did it again!


[sigh] ....


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.


Congratulations, Jeff. That was pedantry at its best!!

I thought you would appreciate the subtle, ironic wit here. At least it
wasn't sophistry!




I'm good, huh?


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.


I don't like to sound pedantic, BUT *I* used the real dictionary. *You*
used the cheap on-line version. Let;s face it, Jeff.... you're wrong.

Now you're arguing that your dictionary is better than mine! Even when I
used the online version of yours! You're cracking me up, Donal! I
think it merely proves that your source is wish-washy and unreliable.

Jeff Morris wrote:


I thought you would appreciate the subtle, ironic wit here. At least it
wasn't sophistry!

Ironic?

Cheers
Marty

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:49:46 -0000, "Donal" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .

Not all tides are lunar.

So what?


That fact would mean something to a thinking person.

Well then ... perhaps you can tell us what that fact means to you? ... or
perhaps you cannot!


Any cockpuppet with half a brain would be able to give me an intelligent
answer ...

You can't, can you?



Regards


Donal
--

"katysails" wrote in message
...
Whaddaya mean? I iron all the time...hate all those wrinkles...

Doesn't it burn your skin?

Scotty?