Declan Murphy wrote:

> So what do you want them to do, start giving every earthquake a name.

No. But if it is big like what happened in Shimane and Sendai recently, they will get
names anyway. Not so typhoons in Japan.

> Great Hanshin Earthquake, Not Quite Great Kanto Earthquake, Nearly a
> Great Kanto Earthquake, Storm in a teacup Kanto Earthquake etc? - Fact
> of the matter is that most earthquakes/typhoons etc aren't worthy of a name.

Fact is, the cycle for earthquakes in the Kanto area is about once every 80 years, and
the last big one in Kobe was 400 years ago, so the fact they eventually come again
doesn't make them confusing to most people. Try that with say, 20 typhoons every single
year with a simple number.

And when dealing with say, 20 a year that basically hit the same region, typhoons will
not be as distinguishable merely by "Typhoon Number Four" even if you limit yourself only
to those Typhoons "Number Four" that cause damage.

> >>Similarly did typhoons 1-3 take my roof off?
> >>No. Did #4 in 2003 - Yes. I reckon in that case I'd remember #4 in 2003
> >>for quite some time.
> >
> > And how will other people remember "Typhoon 4" from uh, 2003? Hurricane Andrew (not
> > even necessary to remember date to recall or search) became famous throughout the
> > US, and internationally, despite having nothing to do with those people.
>
> You are missing the point - Hurricane Andrew was not famous because of
> its name -

How strange, then, that we remember the name, not that it was Hurricane number three or
whatever, of the year.

> but its size. And the Japanese have usually been more than
> willing to give names to major natural disasters - after they happen.

Do big typhoons get names?

> Until something major happens, a number is sufficient.
>
> > Also, it is much easier and more effective to stick "Hurricane [insert name here]"
> > instead of a number, particularly if one is unsure of the date or location.
>
> But if you are unsure of the date or location, then it probably isn't
> worth talking about.

Simply untrue.

> >>People don't remember the Great Hanshin Earthquake
> >>or Great Kanto Earthquake for any other reason.
> >
> > So how come many more people in Japan and all around the world know about them, than
> > ever lived in the Hanshin or Kanto regions, despite having nothing at all to do with
> > them?
>
> Because they were DAMN BIG GODDMAMMIT!

Wasn't it so much better than calling them "Earthquake number 1,500" of year [fill in
blank]?

> Only if it is a big
> earthquake/typhoon/flood whatever should it get a name.

What does "big" mean? Taking off your roof? Or does it have to kill a certain number of
people or cause a few trillion yen in damage?

> Until then, a number should suffice.

Sure. Just let the rest of Japan try to tell Typhoons 1-20 of this year, apart from
Typhoons 1-20 of every other year. And let them be more confused when they realize people
in other countries in other languages use actual names. No matter how big they are or how
much damage they cause in Japan, English speakers will only remember they typhoon (if
even then) by its foreign given name, not Typhoon number 20 of 2003.

--
"This is the best book I've ever read! Even though I've only read one, it is by far the
best in the world."

- A 12-year old reader from California, CA USA