http://wikisource.org/wiki/August_28_2005_10:11_AM_CDT_NOAA_Bulletin purports to be the text of the NOAA bulletin issued before hurricane Katrina, but the language and tone seem odd to me. It's very sensational, for example: "WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS." What caught my eye, though, was "THE VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED." Shouldn't it be "HARDIEST"?
I wonder if that page is genuine, or some kind of prank.
> http://wikisource.org/wiki/August_28_2005_10:11_AM_CDT_NOAA_Bulletin > purports to be the text of the NOAA bulletin issued before hurricane > Katrina, but the language and tone seem odd to me. It's very sensational, > for example: "WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING > INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS." What caught my eye, though, was "THE > VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY > THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED." Shouldn't > it be "HARDIEST"?
> I wonder if that page is genuine, or some kind of prank.
The latter. Not only is the language wrong, most of the subject matter is outwith their purview.
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:39:04 -0500, John Seal <se...@indy.raytheon.com> wrote: >http://wikisource.org/wiki/August_28_2005_10:11_AM_CDT_NOAA_Bulletin >purports to be the text of the NOAA bulletin issued before hurricane >Katrina, but the language and tone seem odd to me. It's very >sensational, for example: "WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING >INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS." What caught my eye, though, was "THE >VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY >THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED." >Shouldn't it be "HARDIEST"?
>I wonder if that page is genuine, or some kind of prank.
Google for <WWUS74 KLIX 281550> to see same info on many pages - that might help you decide. I think it is genuine. -- Jim "a single species has come to dominate ... reproducing at bacterial levels, almost as an infectious plague envelops its host" http://tinyurl.com/c88xs
> http://wikisource.org/wiki/August_28_2005_10:11_AM_CDT_NOAA_Bulletin > purports to be the text of the NOAA bulletin issued before hurricane > Katrina, but the language and tone seem odd to me. It's very > sensational, for example: "WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING > INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS." What caught my eye, though, was "THE > VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY > THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED." > Shouldn't it be "HARDIEST"?
> I wonder if that page is genuine, or some kind of prank.
NBC News anchor Brian Williams thought it might be a prank too, but according to his blog, he and his staff verified it...
----- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9216831/#050905 I will never forget one particular moment: I was on the phone with my wife while at the checkout area when a weather bulletin arrived on my Blackberry, along with a strong caveat from our New York producers. The wording and contents were so incendiary that our folks were concerned that it wasn't real... either a bogus dispatch or a rogue piece of text. I filed a live report by phone for Nightly News (after an exchange with New York about the contents of the bulletin) and very cautiously couched the information. Later, we learned it was real, every word of it. [...] We talked about the document en route to New Orleans. It turned out to be an advance copy of the script for this storm, predicting in unbelievable detail the level of destruction that was by now less than 24 hours away. To me it conjured up the image of a lone forecaster, known but to his or her co-workers, struggling to merge decades-old boilerplate Weather Service wording with the most vivid language possible in a final attempt to warn an entire region. -----
Later, Williams determined the source of the unusual prose:
----- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9216831/#050909c Today I received a call from Dan Sobien of the National Weather Service Employees Association. It seems that many forecasters were aware of our posting (and had heard me tell the story on the Daily Show last night) and were thankful that their work had been recognized. The most chilling news is that the forecaster who was the author of the bulletin, Robert Ricks, is a New Orleans native... who co-workers believe lost his home in this storm. Mr. Sobien confirmed my hunch: some of the language in the bulletin was cut-and-paste boilerplate, but in other areas the writing was all Mr. Ricks'... who painted such an awful and vivid picture of the storm churning toward New Orleans. It proved to be a dead-on prediction of the destruction and human suffering. I was also reminded today that the NWS issued numerous predictions of levee failure in New Orleans. -----
John Seal wrote: > http://wikisource.org/wiki/August_28_2005_10:11_AM_CDT_NOAA_Bulletin > purports to be the text of the NOAA bulletin issued before hurricane > Katrina, but the language and tone seem odd to me. It's very > sensational, for example: "WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING > INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS." What caught my eye, though, was "THE > VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY > THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED." > Shouldn't it be "HARDIEST"?
> I wonder if that page is genuine, or some kind of prank.
Seems genuine to me. "Heartiest" is rather good implying: "Hearts of Oak". "Hardiest" trees might expect to survive an Ice Age.
> > http://wikisource.org/wiki/August_28_2005_10:11_AM_CDT_NOAA_Bulletin > > purports to be the text of the NOAA bulletin issued before hurricane > > Katrina, but the language and tone seem odd to me. It's very > > sensational, for example: "WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING > > INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS." What caught my eye, though, was > > "THE VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY > > THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED." > > Shouldn't it be "HARDIEST"?
> > I wonder if that page is genuine, or some kind of prank.
> NBC News anchor Brian Williams thought it might be a prank too, but > according to his blog, he and his staff verified it...
Ah, I see from that that it was not issued by the National Hurricane Warning Center but by the (comparatively) small local weather office in Mobile who have very different requirements. Still NOAA, though.
>> > http://wikisource.org/wiki/August_28_2005_10:11_AM_CDT_NOAA_Bu >> > lletin purports to be the text of the NOAA bulletin issued >> > before hurricane Katrina, but the language and tone seem odd >> > to me. It's very sensational, for example: "WATER SHORTAGES >> > WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS." >> > What caught my eye, though, was "THE VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE >> > TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY THE HEARTIEST WILL >> > REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED." Shouldn't it be >> > "HARDIEST"?
>> > I wonder if that page is genuine, or some kind of prank.
>> NBC News anchor Brian Williams thought it might be a prank too, >> but according to his blog, he and his staff verified it...
Is it truly an eggcorn, I wonder? My RHUD shows: heart·y (härÆt"), adj., heart·i·er, heart·i·est, n., pl. heart· ies. –adj.
6. physically vigorous; strong and well: hale and hearty.
... which seems reasonably fitting for the quote. It's not talking about the ability of species to survive climatic changes, but of individual trees -- the healthiest, presumably -- to withstand the buffeting of the wind.
> Is it truly an eggcorn, I wonder? My RHUD shows: > heart·y (härÆt"), adj., heart·i·er, heart·i·est, n., pl. heart· > ies. –adj.
> 6. physically vigorous; strong and well: hale and hearty.
> ... which seems reasonably fitting for the quote. It's not talking > about the ability of species to survive climatic changes, but of > individual trees -- the healthiest, presumably -- to withstand the > buffeting of the wind.
"Hardy" and "hearty" are indeed quite close semantically, allowing for slippage between the two-- compare "party hearty/hardy":
But AFAIK the 'healthy' sense of "hearty" is used chiefly for humans, while "hardy" has a specific sense relating to the durability of plants in rough conditions (not just "climatic changes")...
AHD <http://www.bartleby.com/61/36/H0063600.html>: Capable of surviving unfavorable conditions, such as cold weather or lack of moisture. Used especially of cultivated plants.
> But AFAIK the 'healthy' sense of "hearty" is used chiefly for > humans, while "hardy" has a specific sense relating to the > durability of plants in rough conditions (not just "climatic > changes")...
> AHD <http://www.bartleby.com/61/36/H0063600.html>: > Capable of surviving unfavorable conditions, such as cold > weather or lack of moisture. Used especially of cultivated > plants.
I suppose it makes sense to use "hearty" only in reference to something with a beating heart. But still, though I certainly can be wrong, I think of "hardy" as something referring more to a type or species than to an individual. Pine may be a hardy type of tree, but would one particular pine be more hardy than another? I wouldn't describe them in those terms. Maybe the weather guy wouldn't have, either.
Of course, then he and I would be stuck when it came to describing individual instances in better health, and the "hale and hearty" sense may have come to mind for him more readily than extending "hardy" to individual cases. And it could be that I'm misinterpreting what he wrote -- that he really meant only the hardiest species would survive -- so it would be an eggcorn, as you say.
Ben Zimmer <bgzim...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes: > John Seal wrote:
>> http://wikisource.org/wiki/August_28_2005_10:11_AM_CDT_NOAA_Bulletin >> purports to be the text of the NOAA bulletin issued before hurricane >> Katrina, but the language and tone seem odd to me. It's very >> sensational, for example: "WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING >> INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS." What caught my eye, though, was "THE >> VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY >> THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED." >> Shouldn't it be "HARDIEST"?
>> I wonder if that page is genuine, or some kind of prank.
> NBC News anchor Brian Williams thought it might be a prank too, but > according to his blog, he and his staff verified it...
[snip, but still quoting]
> We talked about the document en route to New Orleans. It turned out to > be an advance copy of the script for this storm, predicting in > unbelievable detail the level of destruction that was by now less than > 24 hours away.
I've heard several people claim this, but I still can't see it. Reading through the release again, I'm still struck by the fact that nowhere does it mention "flooding", "levee breaches", or "water damage". It says that all wood-framed low-rise apartment buildings would be destroyed. In New Orleans, that didn't happen. It said that all high-rise windows would blow out. In New Orleans, that didn't happen. It warned of a storm that would "rival" the intensity of Camille. Many people, whose houses survived Camille, didn't evacuate, citing that expectation as their reason.
All told, it decently predicted what would happen in Mississippi and Alabama. To my mind, it completely missed the mark on what would happen in New Orleans. And, indeed, had the storm described hit and the levees in New Orleans not broken, the actions taken beforehand (by the government and by most individuals) would seem to have been pretty much appropriate.
-- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It does me no injury for my neighbor 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to say there are twenty gods, or no Palo Alto, CA 94304 |God. | Thomas Jefferson kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572
> Ben Zimmer <bgzim...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes:
>> John Seal wrote:
>>> http://wikisource.org/wiki/August_28_2005_10:11_AM_CDT_NOAA_Bulletin >>> purports to be the text of the NOAA bulletin issued before hurricane >>> Katrina, but the language and tone seem odd to me. It's very >>> sensational, for example: "WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING >>> INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS." What caught my eye, though, was "THE >>> VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY >>> THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED." >>> Shouldn't it be "HARDIEST"?
>>> I wonder if that page is genuine, or some kind of prank.
>> NBC News anchor Brian Williams thought it might be a prank too, but >> according to his blog, he and his staff verified it...
> [snip, but still quoting]
>> We talked about the document en route to New Orleans. It turned out to >> be an advance copy of the script for this storm, predicting in >> unbelievable detail the level of destruction that was by now less than >> 24 hours away.
> I've heard several people claim this, but I still can't see it. > Reading through the release again, I'm still struck by the fact that > nowhere does it mention "flooding", "levee breaches", or "water > damage". It says that all wood-framed low-rise apartment buildings > would be destroyed. In New Orleans, that didn't happen. It said that > all high-rise windows would blow out. In New Orleans, that didn't > happen. It warned of a storm that would "rival" the intensity of > Camille. Many people, whose houses survived Camille, didn't evacuate, > citing that expectation as their reason.
> All told, it decently predicted what would happen in Mississippi and > Alabama. To my mind, it completely missed the mark on what would > happen in New Orleans. And, indeed, had the storm described hit and > the levees in New Orleans not broken, the actions taken beforehand (by > the government and by most individuals) would seem to have been pretty > much appropriate.
Because it was issued by the NWS office in Mobile, Alabama ... AFTER landfall.
>> But AFAIK the 'healthy' sense of "hearty" is used chiefly for >> humans, while "hardy" has a specific sense relating to the >> durability of plants in rough conditions (not just "climatic >> changes")...
>> AHD <http://www.bartleby.com/61/36/H0063600.html>: >> Capable of surviving unfavorable conditions, such as cold >> weather or lack of moisture. Used especially of cultivated >> plants.
>I suppose it makes sense to use "hearty" only in reference to >something with a beating heart.
>> The latter. Not only is the language wrong, most of the subject >> matter is outwith their purview.
> 'Outwith'? Is that a British usage?
There was a thread on this last month, I think ... more usually Scottish until recently but it has filtered into mainstream BrE now. It's usually regarded as slightly pompous, as is "purview". I used both for fun.
> I've heard several people claim this, but I still can't see it. > Reading through the release again, I'm still struck by the fact that > nowhere does it mention "flooding", "levee breaches", or "water > damage". It says that all wood-framed low-rise apartment buildings > would be destroyed. In New Orleans, that didn't happen. It said that > all high-rise windows would blow out. In New Orleans, that didn't > happen. It warned of a storm that would "rival" the intensity of > Camille. Many people, whose houses survived Camille, didn't evacuate, > citing that expectation as their reason.
Were their houses hit directly in Camille? The level of complete stupidity of some people is almost unimaginable. New Orleans had a cat 5 hurricane heading right for it but was only hit obliquely with the weak side of a strong cat 3. Had it been the direct hit that was indeed very possible, the loss of life would've been on a scale of the Indian Basin tsunami and with days of warning.
> All told, it decently predicted what would happen in Mississippi and > Alabama. To my mind, it completely missed the mark on what would > happen in New Orleans.
They don't know where exactly land fall will be.
> And, indeed, had the storm described hit and > the levees in New Orleans not broken, the actions taken beforehand (by > the government and by most individuals) would seem to have been pretty > much appropriate.
You mean not evacuating and not providing people who couldn't evacuate with sufficient transport at least to the Superdome? Just because the worst doesn't happen, doesn't mean you were a fool to act cautiously and prepare for the worst. It might even mean that people who didn't act under the mandatory evacuation order who could've acted and then needed rescue cost the lives of those who otherwise might have been saved had those imprudent not so behaved.
-- "How vain and foolish, then, thought I, for timid untravelled man to try to comprehend aright this wondrous whale, by merely pouring over his dead attenuated skeleton, stretched in this peaceful wood. No. Only in the heart of quickest perils; only when within the eddyings of his angry flukes; only on the profound unbounded sea, can the fully invested whale be truly and livingly found out." -+Herman Melville, "Moby Dick"
>>> But AFAIK the 'healthy' sense of "hearty" is used chiefly for >>> humans, while "hardy" has a specific sense relating to the >>> durability of plants in rough conditions (not just "climatic >>> changes")...
>>> AHD <http://www.bartleby.com/61/36/H0063600.html>: >>> Capable of surviving unfavorable conditions, such as cold >>> weather or lack of moisture. Used especially of cultivated >>> plants.
>>I suppose it makes sense to use "hearty" only in reference to >>something with a beating heart.
> There is a beating heart in my soup?
"Any food can cause Bad Breath, even the rectal tissue of cows, or 'bologna', as you know it."
"Philip Eden" <philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom> writes: > "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote >> All told, it decently predicted what would happen in Mississippi and >> Alabama. To my mind, it completely missed the mark on what would >> happen in New Orleans. And, indeed, had the storm described hit and >> the levees in New Orleans not broken, the actions taken beforehand (by >> the government and by most individuals) would seem to have been pretty >> much appropriate.
> Because it was issued by the NWS office in Mobile, Alabama > ... AFTER landfall.
Really? It purports to have been issued by the NWS office in New Orleans, Louisiana on Sunday morning.
-- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Now every hacker knows 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | That the secret to survivin' Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Is knowin' when the time is free | And what's the load and queue kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com |'Cause everyone's a cruncher (650)857-7572 | And everyone's a user |And the best that you can hope for http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Is a crash when you're through
>> "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote >>> All told, it decently predicted what would happen in Mississippi and >>> Alabama. To my mind, it completely missed the mark on what would >>> happen in New Orleans. And, indeed, had the storm described hit and >>> the levees in New Orleans not broken, the actions taken beforehand (by >>> the government and by most individuals) would seem to have been pretty >>> much appropriate.
>> Because it was issued by the NWS office in Mobile, Alabama >> ... AFTER landfall.
> Really? It purports to have been issued by the NWS office in New > Orleans, Louisiana on Sunday morning.
> "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message > news:k6hj47iy.fsf@hpl.hp.com... > > "Philip Eden" <philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom> writes:
> >> "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote > >>> All told, it decently predicted what would happen in Mississippi > >>> and Alabama. To my mind, it completely missed the mark on what > >>> would happen in New Orleans. And, indeed, had the storm described > >>> hit and the levees in New Orleans not broken, the actions taken > >>> beforehand (by the government and by most individuals) would seem > >>> to have been pretty much appropriate.
> >> Because it was issued by the NWS office in Mobile, Alabama > >> ... AFTER landfall.
> > Really? It purports to have been issued by the NWS office in New > > Orleans, Louisiana on Sunday morning.
"Philip Eden" <philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom> writes: > "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message > news:k6hj47iy.fsf@hpl.hp.com... >> "Philip Eden" <philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom> writes:
>>> "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote >>>> All told, it decently predicted what would happen in Mississippi >>>> and Alabama. To my mind, it completely missed the mark on what >>>> would happen in New Orleans. And, indeed, had the storm >>>> described hit and the levees in New Orleans not broken, the >>>> actions taken beforehand (by the government and by most >>>> individuals) would seem to have been pretty much appropriate.
>>> Because it was issued by the NWS office in Mobile, Alabama >>> ... AFTER landfall.
>> Really? It purports to have been issued by the NWS office in New >> Orleans, Louisiana on Sunday morning.
It doesn't mention Mobile, and it does list a whole bunch of Louisiana parishes.
-- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Voting in the House of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Representatives is done by means of a Palo Alto, CA 94304 |little plastic card with a magnetic |strip on the back--like a VISA card, kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com |but with no, that is, absolutely (650)857-7572 |*no*, spending limit. | P.J. O'Rourke http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Ben Zimmer wrote: > As for the "hearty" eggcorn, I've appended the bulletin to the > appropriate entry in the Eggcorn Database:
Re. egghorns: I thought I'd found a real goody yesterday, but to be fair, it was a computer gaming bulletin board and the writer spoiled it by editing a few minutes later. Still, I did like the way she wanted to place an object "flesh against the wall". I thought this could be a metaphor with a future. -- Rob Bannister
>> "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message >> news:k6hj47iy.fsf@hpl.hp.com... >>> "Philip Eden" <philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom> writes:
>>>> "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote >>>>> All told, it decently predicted what would happen in Mississippi >>>>> and Alabama. To my mind, it completely missed the mark on what >>>>> would happen in New Orleans. And, indeed, had the storm >>>>> described hit and the levees in New Orleans not broken, the >>>>> actions taken beforehand (by the government and by most >>>>> individuals) would seem to have been pretty much appropriate.
>>>> Because it was issued by the NWS office in Mobile, Alabama >>>> ... AFTER landfall.
>>> Really? It purports to have been issued by the NWS office in New >>> Orleans, Louisiana on Sunday morning.
> It doesn't mention Mobile, and it does list a whole bunch of Louisiana > parishes.
<quote> URGENT - WEATHER MESSAGE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NEW ORLEANS LA ISSUED BY NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MOBILE AL 1205 PM CDT MON AUG 29 2005 <end quote>
I'm quite happy to admit I'm wrong about the first issuance of this message, but not about this particular point.
For what it's worth, from a professional point of view I would find it hard to justify the content or the language. The amount of real meteorological information is minimal. Severe weather warnings in the UK are factual and to the point. I quite understand that there may be a different culture in respect of these things in the US.
> > As for the "hearty" eggcorn, I've appended the bulletin to the > > appropriate entry in the Eggcorn Database:
> Re. egghorns: I thought I'd found a real goody yesterday, but to be > fair, it was a computer gaming bulletin board and the writer spoiled > it by editing a few minutes later. Still, I did like the way she > wanted to place an object "flesh against the wall". I thought this > could be a metaphor with a future.
|
