h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Whenever you hear about earthquakes, they're always described as measuring "7.8 (or whatever) on the Richter scale". Is there a competing scale that we might otherwise confuse the measurement with? (Not competing very well, as I've never heard of it.) Also, as everyone in the English-speaking world seems to know that earthquakes are measured on the Richter scale, what value is added by using these words? It's like saying "the distance was 3.7 kilometers, using the metric system."

It's not quite the same, because "3.7" doesn't contain any units of measurement, whereas "3.7 kilometres" does. Basically it's good science to always state your units or scale of measurement, thus avoiding any confusion (on the other hand we mathematicians are quite happy to call a distance "1" without it being 1 anything-in-particular). "On the Richter scale" is unusually long-winded. I guess no-one bothered to come up with a shorter version.

Right. From now on I'm measuring earthquakes on the "Freddy" scale. The units will be known as "Reddies". The Bam earthquake measured 65 Reddies.

They could just call them "Richters". With wind speeds they don't say Force 3 on the Beaufort scale, do they - Force 3 is enough information for anyone who needs to know, without being reminded about Beaufort and co.

Good point Freddy !

There *are* competing scales for measuring earthquakes, but the Richter scale is possibly the easiest one to use for general media reporting.

As well as "an earthquake measuring x.y on the Richter scale", people *do* talk about "a magnitude x.y earthquake", so there *is* a kind of short-form. I suspect that people who talk about eartquakes more frequently (Japanese? Californians?) may well shorten even more and talk about "an x.y quake", "that x.y we had last night", orsimilar when they expect whoever they're talking to isn't going to be confused.

Ah ha! So there is a competing system.

When I looked up the Bam earthquake, one site suggested that it measured Ms=6.5. What are Ms?

Essentially, Ms is an extension to the Richter (ML) scale to cope with events outside the range of the original instruments, (which topped out at about 6.8) but Ms magnitudes are worked out to be comparable to Richter ones, so for layman purposes they could be seen as equivalent.

(See: http://eqinfo.ucsd.edu/glossary/glossary.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_scale )

Well, 1 Ms=10 Reddies on my new scale.

Somehow I feel pretty lost how we made the turn to earthquakes...

ARGH!!!! Some how... and the was supposed to pop up at the end... GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

fatKelli,

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040202/325/ekyny.html

Hi, ,

I'm "an historic" person. I find it easier with the stress on the second syllable, but it doesn't work with "hospital" with a stressed first syllable; "an hotel" seems natural to me. Must find some more "h" words to check on accented syllables.

"changing every use of 'different than' to 'different from' just because I could "
Does my heart good to read that. You didn't find any "different to"s then?

Thanks for the better picture plaguesville.
It's always nice to have the details.



~jwf~

>> Who is to judge if it is historic or not? <<

Oh good, one of the broader unresolved questions I've been asking about 'historic' versus 'historical' still seems to be under discussion. Perhaps tangentally to the ongoing issue of aspirants but I live in hope.

I am currently compiling a list of 'IC's and 'ICAL's and the exercise has finally made me conscious of a distinction between nouns ending in 'ic' (that must have an 'al' to become adjectives) and adjectives that are created by adding 'ic' to a noun (historic, ironic) which often then get an 'al' stuck onto them. Sometimes this provides clarity (the distinction between historic and historical alluded to above) and sometimes not (ironical).

I had expected to complete my research in time for the anticipation of lilacs (aka: spring) which is such a unique combination of the basic letters in 'ICAL's. But I'll give you a sneak preview of my list so far:

1. septic
2. toxic
3. chronic
4. spastic
5. colonic

Bit of theme going there wot!

BTW: the last time I looked (a few decades ago) the official CBC Announcer's Handbook demanded 'an' before all 'potentially' aspirant haitches. So I have been trained to generally say 'an historic' but with a Canadian aspiration that would sound English to an American and vice versa.


jwf

According to Gower, the civil servant commissioned to simplify the speech of the British Civil Service back in the 1950s:

historical means occurring in history
historic means noted in history

I don't know how that can be generalised.

Mathematicians say "symmetric" when everybody else says "symmetrical". Clinic is a noun while clinical is a related adjective. Statistic is a noun, while statistical is an adjective.

The mine closures in the 80s argued over whether or not pits were "economic".

Which they were.

Just not "econimcal"

and in just the same one one can be a comic without necessarily being comical?

One can be a comic without being comical.
I'm not sure if you can be comic and not comical though.

You could have both:

"I find the English comic Bernard Manning not at all comical"

"The dog was acting in a comical fashion. Shame he can't be a professional comic"

Hmm, just being doing a bit of my own research on this and am thoroughly confused. How come we can have 'ironic' and 'ironical' both adjectives and listed as variants. But 'sarcastic' does not have a variant 'sarcastical'?

Actually, just checked comical and its definition as "of or relating to comedy" is listed as obsolete? Not in my book!

I have now also come across the horrible word 'ironicalness' as the noun. Eugh!