Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Open the newspaper to be confronted by somebody's extreme sadness, which we now must label a ''Tsunami of Grief'' (London Telegraph, November 2012), but this uber-grief must compete with the same tsunami being responsible for so many other modern calamities, including poor development practices in a ''tsunami of concrete''.
Apocalypse means "revelation" in Greek, from Greek καλύπτω (kalupto) "hide" and ἀπό- (apo-) "un-".It was so used in the New Testament: the last book is called Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου in Greek, Revelation of John, in which the Last Judgement is revealed to John, the time when the Christian God will end human existence as we know it.
Interesting question, my perception is that they overlap, but disaster is best suited for one-off events with immediate consequences (e.g. a plane crash), catastrophe for disasters with knock-on effects (e.g. an earthquake that then leaves people stranded and vulnerable to the elements) and calamity for longer periods of danger, disaster and hardship (e.g. a war or civil breakdown).
OED's first definition is Causing terror, terrifying; terrible, frightful; stirring, awe-inspiring; sublime, although they do say that usage is Now rare. These days it's invariably used according to their definition 2a: amazing, impressive; excellent, exceedingly good, splendid.
'A rising tide lifts all boats' is a saying that has become more and more common in recent decades and is often used in economic and political contexts: The aphorism "a rising tide lifts all...
by an approximation of the original sound (e.g. tsunami, tsetse, tsar,blitz). I don't know how close is to the original sound, but certainly there can be differences. For example, the sound might be dental in the original language, and alveolar in English. or "t" is eliminated, so you are left with s (tsunami) or z (tsar).
There is a difference between definition and connotation. "big" by itself can mean gigantic, but it also works in contrast. "There are big waves in Hawaii, but a tsunami is [gigantic/enormous]!" "There are big waves in Hawaii, but a tsunami is [gigantic/enormous]!"
This tsunami is no match for the defenses. will be thought more correct by more people. Note, while "no match for" clearly places the strength of defense above the power of the tsunami, the very-similar "not a match for" is ambiguous and could be taken either way, as above or below. You might consider instead saying, e.g.,
Merriam-Webster gives a more detailed definition of. subsequent [adjective]: following in time, order, or place. Thus a subsequent tsunami may occur many years after the precursor mentioned, but does it have to be the next one in sequence? It's necessary to look at actual usages.
The editor of Webster's, for instance, argues that to end a sentence with a preposition is perfectly alright. It isn't and doesn't even make any sense for it leaves the reader hanging. By definition, something that introduces something else cannot be left as an ending. "Now I'd like to inroduce you to."