Talk:Typhoon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Inconsistent with the article "Tropical cyclone"

This is what the article "Tropical cyclone" says about the origin of the word "typhoon": The word typhoon, used today in the Northwest Pacific, may be derived from Urdu, Persian and Arabic ţūfān (طوفان), which in turn originates from Greek tuphōn (Τυφών), a monster in Greek mythology responsible for hot winds.[94] The related Portuguese word tufão, used in Portuguese for typhoons, is also derived from Greek tuphōn.[95] So: is it from Chinese, Japanese, Greek, all three, or none of them? (Clue: How many Greeks were there in the Northwest Pacific in ancient and medieval times?) It would probably be helpful to many users of Wikipedia if the confusion could be cleared up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.242.160 (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Origin

From the sources I have read throughout my schooling days, "typhoon" originated from the Sino-Korean / Sino-Japanese words 颱風 (태풍 in Hangul) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 11:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent Wording vs Referenced Data

Above the 'contents' block/table a line has "Most storms tend to form between May and November" this seems inconsistent with the table labeled "Storm Frequency" as it has May with 65 and Dec with 75. Torawk (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It is inconsistent, though i think the idea was to have it consistant with the ATL and EPACwhere most of the activity takes place between the end of may and the end of November. though i might make a start on overhauling this article soon.Jason Rees (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Typhoons and hurricanes are the same thing. No information presented here shows otherwise. 216.254.156.208 (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree and have added text and references to clarify this. In my opinion much of the original opening paragraph should be deleted as I find it confusing and inaccurate, but I have left it in place. LookingGlass (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
They may well be the same thing but i dont think we need to merge this article since its meant to be talking about the Western Pacific Basin as a whole. But i do think the article needs improving and will try and crack on with it after Lupit is sorted.Jason Rees (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. No opposition to move, only objections to sloppy nomination. — kwami (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC) ~~~~

Pacific typhoon → Typhoon — Just "Typhoon". Therefore, I'm making this request for this article to officially be moved, since the cover art seems official confirmation. 75.142.152.104 (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose - No valid reason provided.Jason Rees (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Typhoons are the name for the Western Pacific storms (as Hurricanes are for the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific, Cyclones for the Indian), though typhoon is also a synonym for hurricane and cyclone. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose – No valid reason was provided for the movereq. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  04:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Cover art"? Wha? PC78 (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Although the request is made for dubious reasons, 76.66.200.95 makes a very valid point. For one Typhoon is certainly the WP:COMMONNAME. Pacific seems unnecessary given the name already indicates the regional factor.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Typhoon doesn't give the regional factor as of course, a typhoon can be applied to storms and has been in the past applied to storms in the Atlantic and the North Indian Ocean.Jason Rees (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Titles are supposed to be precise, but "only as precise as necessary". Clearly the common name here is "typhoon" (over 15.6 million ghits for "typhoon"; just 88 thousand for "pacific typhoon"), this article is obviously the primary topic for "typhoon" (Typhoon already (correctly) redirects to this article).

    As to this topic being restricted to Pacific storms and that the term "typhoon" has been used for storms in other oceans, how about adding one or two sentences to the intro, or maybe even a hatnote ("This article is about tropical cyclones in the Pacific Ocean; for tropical cyclones in other oceans see Tropical cyclone").

    Whether the nom realized it or not, this is move is a good idea. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Support, per Born2cycle. Rehman(+) 00:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support after failing to find anything on Atlantic, Indian, Arctic, &c. typhoons. — AjaxSmack 00:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
    • They don't exist; they're called hurricanes or cyclones. Currently there is Atlantic hurricane and Pacific hurricane, so the question is whether typhoon needs "Pacific" for consistency. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
      • What consistency? Hurricanes occur in two oceans, typhoons don't. No need for a disambiguator for typhoon. — AjaxSmack 16:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, at some point there is bound to be an article on "North Indian cyclone", "South-West Indian cyclone", "Australian cyclone", and "South Pacific cyclone". While it is true it is the only basin that uses "typhoon", I believe the overall consistency is more important. I believe "typhoon" should redirect to "Pacific typhoon". --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
          • When there is a conflict between a name that stems from being consistent with the general naming conventions that apply to all article titles, including common name and "only as precise as necessary", with a name that stems from being consistent in naming among "like articles", the former should trump the latter. That is, consistency in naming among "like articles" should only apply when the general conventions don't give us a clear and obvious choice (usually a case of needing to disambiguate).

            In this case the fundamental general conventions clearly indicate Typhoon; so need to even consider consistency in naming with other articles. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

            • Consider this, then. Should the season article be "2010 typhoon season", or "2010 Pacific typhoon season"? The former seems broad and generic, since not everyone knows where typhoons exist. The latter is more specific so the reader knows much sooner what the article is about. IMO it could be a case of IAR for the benefit of the reader. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
              • The naming conventions are formed to encourage titles that benefit the reader. One thing that makes titles better for readers is conciseness. Precision is important too, but due to conciseness only "as precise as necessary". The purpose of the title is not to clearly and precisely describe the topic and scope of the article for the reader; the intro does that. The title purpose is to convey the name of the topic, and to differentiate it from other articles. If the purpose of the title was to clearly and specifically describe the article subject to the reader, most titles in Wikipedia would be much longer. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
                • IDK, I disagree. I feel the extra word is very beneficial, and not that much less concise. Either way, I don't think either of us will change our minds. Some more input from others would probably help. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
                  • There are many articles, perhaps most, for which it could be argued that there is some extra word that would be "beneficial" to add to the title (just hit random a few times to test that claim). This article is typical in that respect, and why we put the brakes at "only as precise as necessary". The additional precision facilitated by adding "Pacific" to "typhoon" in this title might be beneficial, but it's not necessary.

                    I agree input from others would be helpful. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it more, and after another discussion, I'll agree it should be at "Typhoon". There really is no need for the "Pacific". Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Typhoon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

  • I normally leave this section until the last, since it is intended to both introduce the article and to summarise the main points.
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC) - It states "A typhoon is a mature tropical cyclone that develops in the northwestern part of the Pacific Ocean .....Identical phenomena in the eastern north Pacific are called hurricanes, with tropical cyclones moving into the western Pacific re-designated as typhoons.", which I assume is a straight definition; but it is unreferenced (not a problem if the reference appears elsewhere in the article). However, it does not state why two different names are used for "Identical phenomena". I looked at Typhoon, which is a redirect to Tropical cyclone (a FA), so that did not answer the question. Since Etymology explains Typhoon, it would be "nice" to know why they are not hurricanes.
  • I think the etymology section does explain it. Typhoon is the local Chinese term. I've added more to the section, which should also address your redesignation comment below. The definition is also added to the etymology section. Surprised it wasn't there already. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC) - The lead should not "tease" by including items that do not appear in the main body of the article: part of the "re-designation" aspect is restated in the Name sources, subsection I'll accept the part in the Lead as a "definition", but I'm not yet convinced that it is WP:Verifiable (I've not reviewed the main body of the article in depth yet, so I might change my view later).
  • Check comment made above. This should be better understood now, with a reference. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Genesis -
  • The ref ended up in the second paragraph after a paragraph split. Fixed. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The first sentence in the final paragraph states: "... all basins" and later "western Pacific basin and the north Atlantic basin" and "..two basins" are used. It would be nice to clarify "basins": they are (obviously) ocean basins, but in the context of this article are they simply the western Pacific basin and The ref the north Atlantic basin?
  • Added line into lead about northwest Pacific basin. See if that makes it clearer. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I wikilinked basin in its first occurrence, in the lead. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I added a wikilink. Pyrotec (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC) - Ref 3, a web site, is only partially cited, it has a personal author(?), title and access date; I'm not been able to verify Christopher Landsea, however, there is a specified corporate publisher.
  • Now reference 4, it is more fully cited. The author's name on the page lies under the image near the top of the web page. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I did not see the author's name, but it is obvious now that you have pointed it out. Pyrotec (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Frequency -
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC) - Ref 8, a journal paper, is only partially cited, it has a personal authors, title and access date; but no details of the journal in which it was published.
  • I'm guessing this is the Padua published paper? If so, I did an extra web search, and it indeed became a refereed article, so it is now fully cited. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Ref 8 is now Ref 10 (a pdf file, authors: James B Elsner, Kam-Biu Liu). Pyrotec (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The ref 10 format should be proper now. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC) - Ref 11 appears to be a broken web link
  • I've checked the refs from 9-13, and can't find a broken link. A couple of them have a pop-up .pdf file, however. Could this be the source of the issue? Thegreatdr (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Its currently Ref 13 (Edward B. Rodgers, Robert F. Adler, and Harold F. Pierce) which leads an 404 error here. Pyrotec (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Th

... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC) - (Current) Ref 12 (Colleen A. Sexton (2006)) is a book, so a page number or numbers should be given in the citation.
  • Paths, Basin monitoring & Records -
  • These three sections look OK.
  • The Lead -
  • This is intended to both introduce the article and to summarise the main points; and it appears to cover both aspects. The Genesis section appears to be absent from the lead, but I'm not too concerned about it; naming of Typhoons is also absent and that is perhaps something that I would have expected to appear in summary for in the Lead.  Not done Pyrotec (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC) -

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That should address all the concerns now (I think). Thegreatdr (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
My concern immediately above, concerning the Lead (naming of Typhons) has not been done. Pyrotec (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I added naming info into the lead. Is the remaining issue addressed now? Thegreatdr (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Overll summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations in acheiving another GA. Pyrotec (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Question

Im confused. Why does Hurricane redirect to Tropical cyclone and typhoon, the EXACT same thing, does not.... Typhoons are already discussed on the Tropical cyclone page.... This page is redundant why is it not merged or deleted?Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 22:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This article focuses on the basin specifics rather than the overall phenomenon just like Atlantic hurricane and Pacific hurricane do, however in this case there is no need for the word Pacific in the title since this is the only basin in the world that has typhoons.Jason Rees (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Then the article name should never have been changed. Even if the term by itself is unambiguous, it doesn't fit into this 'cycle' of articles like the others do. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Typhoon Hairyan had less air speeds Someone got confused with kph and mph. "So at landfall the sustained wind was 235 kmh or 147 mph, with gusts upto 275 kmh or 171 mph." -> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/09/super-typhoon-haiyanyolanda-another-overhyped-storm-that-didnt-match-early-reports/

(84.151.53.225 (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)) Dirk E.

Above number are I assume correct at landfall. But just before landfall the numbers in the article were recorded as per the source given. DLinth (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Question?

If a typhoon crosses to the East Pacific—would it be renamed or maintain its name?(West Pacific typhoons never cross to the Central Pacific). Hurricane Sandy 2012 (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)°

Yes it would maintain its name, however, systems have moved into the Central Pacific from the Western Pacific before now. Tropical examples include TD 17W 1996, TS Omeka and TS Wene of 2000.Jason Rees (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Origin of the Word "Typhoon"

How can "typhoon" come from "tae feng"? Isn't it more likely that the English word comes from the Japanese "tofu" (which is written with the same characters as the Chinese word)? If anyone knows for sure, please adjust the article accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.242.160 (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Agreed. The article previously stated that "tai feng" meant god wind, which sounds suspiciously like "kami kaze" which does, in fact mean "god wind." "Tai" means plateau, or stand. I've never heard the "holy" attributed to it before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.80.16.25 (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Also agreed. I have discussed this with Chinese language teachers and typhoon almost definitely does not come from Chinese but Japanese. If I'm not mistaken, when discussing the weather, the Chinese use the word da, meaning big i.e. da yu (big rain) means heavy rain.

I would change it, but I don't know how, and wouldn't want to mess anything up.58.60.108.141 (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, typhoon comes from several unrelated words. One of them is from the Greek typhon; another is from the Cantonese tai fung, meaning "big wind"; and also from Arabic, Persian, Hindi tufan which may be from the Greek. The Chinese characters are not given; but I believe that the ones on the page currently (the current name for typhoon in Chinese) is not correct, because the first character is pronounced toi in Cantonese and does not mean "big". From Merriam-Webster, it cites the Cantonese as daaih-fùng, which would be more consistent with 大風/大风, literally "big wind". I will add this information to the page. --71.106.183.17 (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The word in Mandarin is 台风 (tái fēng), not 大风 (dà fēng). I am living in tropical Hainan, China, and the word is very common and relevant here, so I've heard it a lot by now. Now, whether or not that's where English got the word from I don't know. It's true that more English words have come from Cantonese, or even Japanese, than standard Mandarin. But for a lot of words in Cantonese (and sometimes even in Japanese), the characters are the same while just the pronunciation is different. So I'm not an expert, but I think 大风 is probably wrong. Jefs (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You're not an expert, so you should cite credible references. The current version of the article doesn't even mention the Greek/Arabic term and that there may be a dual etymology, and cites a not-terribly authoritative reference. This should be corrected. --Kai Carver (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
here are some more references (maybe not perfect, but a bit more credible than "I live in Hainan" :-)):
Asia in the Making of Europe, Volume II: A Century of Wonder. Book 3: The Scholarly Disciplines
French academic dictionary French Wiktionary --Kai Carver (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Those sources are not terribly authoritative either. One is in French and cannot be easily evaluated for use with an English Wiki article. The other source uses ambiguous language, like, "The word 'typhoon,' probably originated..." and then the author goes on to speculate the origin of the word, failing to cite a credible source himself. Please re-evaluate your sources before contending the sources of others. -- 60.34.78.60 (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC) 11:44 AM JST, 29 May 2011

The problem with the etymology section of the article is that the source it cites is not definitive. Even upon reading about the book through Google reviews, you can see that some of its information is disputed. I have posted that in the article accordingly. It makes far more sense that the word would have originated from China for the following reasons understood in common knowledge:

1. China has a far more extensive history than Greece, dating back much farther than Greece. China has been around for nearly 4,000 years, and Ancient Greece only dates back around 3,000 years.
2. The phenomena originates in the Asian Pacific, having been around for longer than the Chinese. When the Chinese formed language, they would have established a word for typhoon, much in the same way as all peoples establish words for local phenomena.
3. The prefix "tai" or "dai", meaning "great" or "big" has been in use in Chinese for ages, and so has the root "fēng", meaning "wind". These are used in separate instances as well. If you do any search about this, you can find it to be true. The Greek word, as listed in the article, is not so easy to find in a search.

These things are common knowledge; China came before Greece, and the phenomena has existed since even before China did. Accept these things or not, we can all agree that the origin of this word is debated, and until the origin is clarified, that section of the article shall be labeled as disputed. -- 60.34.78.60 (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC) 11: AM JST, 29 May 2011

Just because China is an older civilization than Greece does not mean this particular word is from the older civilization. Unless you can provide a reference which states it was originally used in China, your tag should be removed since it is not based on any specific reference, whereas the information currently within the article has a reference. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Via the Wiki article on Disputed statements:
If you come across a statement with an accuracy warning, please do the following:
Don't remove the warning simply because the material looks reasonable: please take the time to verify it properly.

The problem with the greek/arab etymology is that while the word Typhon looks like the word Typhoon in writing, it sounds nothing like it. In every language that I'm aware of, the word for tropical cyclone is pronounced "tie-foon", as it should if it came from Chinese, never "tee-fon" as the greek and arab versions would. How a European/Persian root for smoke and fire would turn into Asian word for big wind, while almost completely changing its pronunciation, is beyond me. All this sounds more like folk etymology to me rather than actual science.

Source: my knowledge of languages, mostly.--213.52.212.129 (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The origin of the word "typhoon" is still in debate. Below are four different sources whose differences indicate such a debate.

typhoon. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/typhoon (accessed: June 29, 2011).
typhoon. Merriam-Webster.com http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/typhoon (accessed: June 29, 2011).
typhoon. Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. HarperCollins Publishers. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/typhoon (accessed: June 29, 2011).
typhoon. Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/typhoon (accessed: June 29, 2011).
Two of these sources indicate that the word came from Chinese and was influenced by Greek, while the other two explain otherwise. Since there is no common agreement on the etymology of this word, it will be tagged as being debated, as is accurate to its reality. It should remain that way until clarified definitively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.222.152.113 (talk) 07:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Half of the above appears to be based on Original Research, something wikipedia shuns. If you find an authoritative reference which discusses this dispute, fine, include it in a later reply within this thread or be bold and make the appropriate edit yourself. Otherwise, it's just speculation, and not to be included. We can soften the wording if need be. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Original research or not, if you go to Hong Kong and listen to the locals, you'll hear the Hakkah name for 大风 (Great Wind) sounds exactly the same as English, and the Cantonese pronunciation is not far off either. Typhoon is a local phenomenon and it is natural that the British would name it as the locals call it. (We are not talking about Mandarin-Chinese -- the Mandarin speakers in North China are not historically affected by Typhoon as much and may not had a special word for it so they had to import a 台风 [Table Wind] word for it.) Perhaps absolute shunning of original research is unwise. The world has too many knowledge that has not been documented by expert/researchers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.131.8 (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Let me also add that the Greek origin of the name Typhoon sounds like speculation. Why would the Greeks have anything to say about something that happens only in Southeast Asia? Greek influence did not extend that far at all. Just because some speculation made it in print doesn't mean it's no longer speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.131.8 (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am a Cantonese/Hakkah/Mandarin/English speaker and was the first person to point out that English "Typhoon" and Hakkah "Great Wind" 大风 sounds exactly the same. Later someone else added Cantonese to the list. Cantonese "Great Wind" 大风 also sounds like English "Typhoon" except with tonal differences. Later still others added Mandarin/Japanese 台风 to the list. While 台风 in Mandarin (as well as Japanese) sounds like Typhoon it's literal meaning is "Table Wind" which is non-sensical and appears to be a foreign loan word. The traditional character 颱 in 颱風 also appears to be a modern invention, for example, you can't find historical information for the character 颱 in Richard Sears's Chinese Etymology (www.chineseetymology.org) page, other than that its a phonetic -- a phonetic character without native meaning is a sign of foreign loan word. I have therefore deleted the allusions to Mandarin/Japanese 台风/颱風 from the etymology for the English word "Typhoon". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.131.8 (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary, edition of 1971, cites several Oriental words from Urdu (Persian and Arabic) and Chinese giving rise to two forms in english: (a) touffon (Persian / Arabic) and (b/g) Tuffoons / Tay-fun (Chinese). The Chinese Tai Fung, is cited as being common dialect forms of ta, meaning big, and fung, meaning wind. In no case is Japanese even mentioned. The wictionary gives a very concise summary of the Oxford English Dictionary etymology:

Probably ultimately of Sinitic origin, Mandarin 大风 (dàfēng, “big wind”), Cantonese 大風 (daai6 fung1, “big wind”), via Arabic طوفان (ṭūfān), Hindi तूफ़ान (tūfān), and Persian توفان (tufân). Given the location of typhoons as a Pacific Ocean phenomenon, it is more likely it began east and moved west. Ancient Greek Τυφῶν (Tuphôn, “Typhon, father of the winds”) is unrelated but has secondarily contaminated the word. 

I am updating the etymology section with this text and am citing the Oxford English Dictionary as an authoritative source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan.A.Mick (talk • contribs) 02:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting discussion guys :) I just came here because I was interested to see if the Japanese word 台風 ("tai-fuu") was the origin of this word (since it does mean a big storm). It's interesting to me because it is written in kanji, and not katakana, like many "borrowed" Chinese words are in Japanese. I do not know Chinese, but are these characters the same ones used to refer to a big storm in Chinese?206.207.225.86 (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

science

what is the typhoon meaning 112.209.33.28 (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Typhoon/Archive_1&oldid=1198251312"