When referring to the Tsunamis in the Indian Sea, reporters are saying
"the Asian Tsunamis".
Is this gramatically correct?

---

Request for Question Clarification by tutuzdad-ga on 17 Jan 2005 15:19 PST

Are you asking if this is "geographically correct" or if the plurality
of the statement is correct?

tutuzdad-ga

---

Clarification of Question by adrienep-ga on 17 Jan 2005 18:33 PST

I didn't think a Tsunami could be Asian, much like I have never heard
of a Californian earthquake, or a Canadian snowstorm. Does that help?

---

Clarification of Question by adrienep-ga on 18 Jan 2005 09:11 PST

Thanks for the explanation. It has been bugging me for a few days.

Dear adrienep-ga;

Since you are agreeable to my explanation I am reposting it here in
order to officially close your question:

The term ?Asian? in the phrase ?Asian tsunami? is used as an
adjective, meaning ?of, or pertaining to Asia?. "Asian tsunami" only
means "tsunami of Asia" and nothing more. The term has nothing at all
to do with the tsunami?s race or citizenship (that would be silly,
wouldn?t it?) rather it is indicative of its geographical affiliation.
Since southern Asia (the Indian Sub-continent) marks the northern
boundary of the Indian Ocean, and this is where the tsunami made
landfall, the term "Asian tsunami" is indeed correct.

Having said that, both ?California earthquake? and ?Californian
earthquake? would also be correct, though the latter is not often used
since, in our language culture at least, ?Californian? has typically
become synonymous with a California citizen as opposed to a California
event. Along these same lines for example, one never hears the phrase,
"Wisconsonian cheese", though it would be grammatically correct if you
could withstand the laughter it would generate should a Wisconsonian
hear you say it.

All things Canadian however are much more commonly heard and spoken.
It is correct to say (and quite common in my neck of the woods, I
might add, to hear a weatherman say it), ?Canadian cold front? or
?Canadian storm? for example as this adjective merely describes the
affiliation (in this case the origin) of the weather anomaly rather
than it?s nationality in the same manner that one might say ?northern
lights?, ?outer space?, ?French wine? or ?Irish setter?.

Regards;
tutuzdad-ga

Dear adrienep-ga;

The term ?Asian? in the phrase ?Asian tsunami? is used as an
adjective, meaning ?of, or pertaining to Asia?. "Asian tsunami" only
means "tsunami of Asia" and nothing more. The term has nothing at all
to do with the tsunami?s race or citizenship (that would be silly,
wouldn?t it?) rather it is indicative of its geographical affiliation.
Since southern Asia (the Indian Sub-continent) marks the northern
boundary of the Indian Ocean, and this is where the tsunami made
landfall, the term "Asian tsunami" is indeed correct.

Having said that, both ?California earthquake? and ?Californian
earthquake? would also be correct, though the latter is not often used
since, in our language culture at least, ?Californian? has typically
become synonymous with a California citizen as opposed to a California
event. Along these same lines for example, one never hears the phrase,
"Wisconsonian cheese", though it would be grammatically correct if you
could withstand the laughter it would generate should a Wisconsonian
hear you say it.

All things Canadian however are much more commonly heard and spoken.
It is correct to say (and quite common in my neck of the woods, I
might add, to hear a weatherman say it), ?Canadian cold front? or
?Canadian storm? for example as this adjective merely describes the
affiliation (in this case the origin) of the weather anomaly rather
than it?s nationality in the same manner that one might say ?northern
lights?, ?outer space?, ?French wine? or ?Irish setter?.

Does this answer your question?

Regards;
tutuzdad-ga

Tutuzdad, just a little correction on your comment: 
Yes, a person from Wisconsin would laugh at the phrase "Wisconsonian
cheese," but not just because he'd be expecting the more conventional
"Wisconsin cheese." The only adjectival form of "Wisconsin" I've ever
heard to describe a person or thing of the Barger State is
"Wisconsinite." Though "Cheesehead" is also perfectly acceptable,
particularly if said Wisconsinite is at Lambeau Field. :)

-roger, from Madison

Oops. 'Badger State,' not 'Barger.' Correcting someone else's grammer
while making mistakes of your own is very embarrassing. Sorry.

Thank you for helping me make my point. A "Wisconsonite" is a PPERSON
whose citizenship is from Wisconsin, but AN EVENT associated with
Wisconsin is - like it or not - Wisconsinan in nature, as in the
popularly studied issue of Wisconsinan deglaciation, seen here:

://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=Wisconsinan+deglaciation+

tutuzdad-ga

...and don't feel bad, even I misspoke. The word isn't "Wisconsonian",
it's "Wisconsinan", but who's keeping score?

tutuzdad