# the tornado touched down



## joanvillafane

Hi everybody - I have learned, by speaking with several Italian natives, that tornados are not a familiar occurrence there (fortunately for you!) and I have had to explain several times the difference between a tornado and a hurricane.   I also found "twister" defined in the WR English-Italian dictionary as "tromba marina" which I believe is an error, and so indicated to the Dictionary God. 

Anyway, my question today is about how to talk about the tornado touching down.  We use "touch down" in the same way I guess "atterrare" would be used for an airplane, but I also see "toccare terra" given as a synonym in the dictionary.  Which of these is correct? or are both OK? 

The tornado touched down not far from here. 
La tromba d'aria ha atterrato (ha toccato terra) non lontano da qui.  

Thanks!


----------



## giginho

Hi Joan! (nice to see you!)

An Aircraft can atterrare (land) but a tornado tocca terra (touch the ground (?))

La troba d'aria ha toccato terra non lontano da qui.

If you say: il tornado è atterrato non lontano da qui, an educated listener will understand that the aircraft called Tornado MRCA (Multi Role Combat Aircraft) had landed not far from here!!


----------



## ohbice

A mio parere "ha atterrato" non funziona (e poi: non è che si direbbe "è atterrato"?).
Mi piace assai di più "ha toccato terra".
Ciao

Ps: in rete vedo anche "prendere terra" = Il tornado ha preso terra", o ancora "abbattersi" = Il tornado si è abbattuto (ma qui il significato è un po' diverso).

Ciao Gigi, co-post


----------



## MR1492

This is a tough one since there are not many tornados (other than the fighter jets) which touch down in Italy.

The WR dictionary also recommends _*fare attarrare*_ as a synonym for sets down.  Does that have the nuance that joan is seeking?

Phil


----------



## ohbice

No, "fare atterrare" implica che qualcuno dia la sua autorizzazione affinché un velivolo atterri.
Ciao MR


----------



## giginho

No Phil, I'm sorry!

Far atterrare implies the action of someone that let the tornato to touch down.

Abbattersi, suggested by Bice, seems to be the best translation even if is a bit catastrophic (as the tornado is.....I think!)

P.S. a sto giro sono io che mi sono sovrapposto, Bice.....dobbiamo telefonarci prima di postare!


----------



## joanvillafane

Oh, so interesting!  I did not know about the aircraft called Tornado!  Also, I just looked in the dictionary for "abbattersi" and it says "give up, lose one's drive, fall down."  This doesn't seem right to me, as a tornado can touch down - and keep on going full force. I did a search and found that both terms are used in Italian news reports.  (ha toccato terra/ si è abbattuta).


----------



## MR1492

Thank you ob and giginho.  I knew it was too easy!  As to ob's suggestion, I understand his selection but I don't think it accurately captures how we use "touched down" regarding a tornado.  I'm no expert but I would think that joan's original suggestion of _toccare terra_ is the best.  Tornadoes tend to be delicate and wispy in the air.  As they approach the ground, they almost have what you might call a "light touch" to the earth.  However, as they touch down, the winds created are devastating.  It is the winds surrounding and generated by the tornado which batter (abbattersi) the earth and the man-made structures.

I hope this makes sense .

Phil


----------



## Matrap

Ciao a tutti 

Voto anch'io per "ha toccato terra" oppure "ha toccato/raggiunto il suolo". "Si è abbattuto" ha un significato un po' diverso, come ha detto oh bice, in quanto sigifica che ha colpito/devastato una città ad esempio. Inoltre un tornato (o tromba d'aria e non necessariamente marina come ha fatto notare Joanne) può abbattersi su una città avendo già toccato terra ed essere avanzato sul terreno per chilometri magari.


----------



## ohbice

joanvillafane said:


> Oh, so interesting! I did not know about the aircraft called Tornado! Also, I just looked in the dictionary for "abbattersi" and it says "give up, lose one's drive, fall down." This doesn't seem right to me, as a tornado can touch down - and keep on going full force. I did a search and found that both terms are used in Italian news reports. (ha toccato terra/ si è abbattuta).



Hai colto esattamente il punto, Joan: "abbattersi" è ambiguo (in questo contesto). Può essere che dopo "essersi abbattuto" il tornado prosegua imperterrito, ma spesso accade che il tornado "si abbatta" su una località e sfoghi lì la maggior parte della sua forza.

Ciao Matrap


----------



## giginho

Joan, beware, ha toccat*o* terra, the tornado (both the storm and the Aircraft) are masculine!

Phil, this make a lot of sense. So the tornado tocca terra and then si abbatte on the man-made structure!


----------



## joanvillafane

OK and thanks to all.  Gigi - I wrote "toccato terra" - perhaps you were referring to the feminine in "si è abbattuta" (post #7) but I was talking about la tromba d'aria.


----------



## giginho

Post 9, 10, 11: Mat, Bice ed io siamo tutti concordi, grazie alla spiegazione di Phil: il tornado tocca terra e poi, se è il caso (o se ha voglia) si abbatte da qualche parte!

Scusa Joan, sono estremamente sorry, devo aver letto male!


----------



## ohbice

MR1492 said:


> Thank you ob and giginho. I knew it was too easy! As to ob's suggestion, I understand his selection but I don't think it accurately captures how we use "touched down" regarding a tornado. I'm no expert but I would think that joan's original suggestion of _toccare terra_ is the best. Tornadoes tend to be delicate and wispy in the air. As they approach the ground, they almost have what you might call a "light touch" to the earth. However, as they touch down, the winds created are devastating. It is the winds surrounding and generated by the tornado which batter (abbattersi) the earth and the man-made structures.
> 
> I hope this makes sense .
> 
> Phil



Di nuovo ciao, MR. La mia difficoltà con la frase originale è capire se il movimento del tornado quando "tocca terra" è un movimento verticale, dall'alto in basso, oppure se è un movimento orizzontale, dal mare alla terra. Mi sembrava di aver letto da qualche parte che i tornado si formano in mare, ma forse sbaglio.


----------



## joanvillafane

Hi, ob - when we speak of tornados here, we are not usually referring to waterspouts (formed over water).  A tornado forms over land, forms a funnel cloud, the point of the funnel touches down, and the tornado keeps on going over land, causing a path of destruction.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterspout


----------



## MR1492

ob,

Good question.  A tornado forms in the air from a rotating airmass.  It is usually in a dark, violent stormcloud.  As it rotates, the cloud will form the typical "funnel" shape of a tornado.  As the funnel becomes larger and longer, it may touch the ground becoming a tornado.  Note that the funnel cloud doesn't "drop" but gets bigger and bigger.  If it gets large enough, it will eventually reach the earth.  As it does so, it travels along the ground.  The horizontal speed of a tornado as it moves isn't usually high (about 20 to 30 miles per hour/50 kilometers per hour) but the rotating winds are extremely fast often hitting 200 miles per hour.

Phil


----------



## Blackman

In meteorologia aeronautica usiamo _colpire _un po' per tutti i fenomeni, restando sul generico. I tornado si _formano_, a grandi linee, per via della differenza di temperatura tra terra e mare, quest'ultimo che deve essere almeno di 26 gradi centigradi. Non per nulla colpiscono le zone costiere e perdono intensità quando si addentrano nella terraferma. Certamente NON toccano terra, almeno in italiano. Il nome tornado si usa nell'emisfero boreale, mentre lo stesso fenomeno, al di sotto dell'equatore si chiama uragano e ruota al contrario (per effetto della rotazione terrestre, detta  forza di Coriolis). Le nostre trombe d'aria sono uguali, anche se di intensità ridicola rispetto ai tornado americani.


----------



## joanvillafane

Hi Blackman - it's possible I am not understanding your post 100% but I believe you are using the word "tornado" in a way that we do not use it in English, assuming that it forms over water.  A waterspout is only one type of tornado.  The most familiar kind, the one that generates the most news here, is the one that forms over land. A hurricane is something completely different.


----------



## Holymaloney

Hi !
I'd be inclined to agree that_* 'toccato terra' *_is the best way to render JVF's (hi dear ) original sentence and I was wondering if something like_* '...il punto di contatto con il suolo...'*_ could also work :
_*'...il punto di contatto con il suolo è avvenuto qui vicino/a breve distanza/non lontano...' .*_ Not sure how to fit_ il tornado _here though  _and _I'm not feeling too inspired this afternoon  so maybe others will come up with something better


----------



## giginho

Hi Holy!

Il punto di contatto con il suolo si trova qui vicino

Il contatto con il suolo è avvenuto qui vicino

Ma non:
il punto di contatto è avvenuto!

O sono io che mi sto perdendo in un tornado di opzioni???


----------



## Blackman

Ciao Joan, I can't be as precise as I wish here, but I've been working with meteorology every day in the last 20 years...what I can tell you for sure is that tornadoes, hurricanes and watersprouts are all the same phenomenon at different levels of intensity. Even in the meteorological field we often say tornado when it's a hurricane and vice-versa. 

This is from Wiki ita:

In relazione all'entità e alla zona geografica di formazione di un ciclone tropicale, esso è chiamato in modo diverso: uragano, tifone, tempesta tropicale, tempesta ciclonica, depressione tropicale o semplicemente ciclone.[1]


----------



## Holymaloney

giginho said:


> Hi Holy!
> 
> Il punto di contatto con il suolo si trova qui vicino
> 
> Il contatto con il suolo è avvenuto qui vicino
> 
> Ma non:
> il punto di contatto è avvenuto!
> 
> O sono io che mi sto perdendo in un tornado di opzioni???


Grazie gigi


----------



## ohbice

Blackman said:


> Ciao Joan, I can't be as precise as I wish here, but I've been working with meteorology every day in the last 20 years...what I can tell you for sure is that tornadoes, hurricanes and watersprouts are all the same phenomena at different levels of intensity. Even in the meteorological field we often say tornado when it's a hurricane and vice-versa.
> 
> This is from Wiki ita:
> 
> In relazione all'entità e alla zona geografica di formazione di un ciclone tropicale, esso è chiamato in modo diverso: uragano, tifone, tempesta tropicale, tempesta ciclonica, depressione tropicale o semplicemente ciclone.[1]



Ciao Blackman. A parte il fatto che ho stima dei tuoi pareri, Wiki dice anche che _"La tromba d'aria si presenta come un "imbuto" che si protende dalla base del cumulonembo fino al terreno o alla superficie marina. La tromba d'aria che si verifica sulla terra ferma (la maggior parte), solleva...".

_Se quanto tu affermi è corretto, e se (di conseguenza) la questione terreno/terra ferma è sbagliata, dovresti modificare il pezzo che Wiki dedica ai tornado e alle trombe d'aria.
Ciao 

p


----------



## Blackman

Il discorso è troppo lungo e poche cose in questo mondo sono sfuggenti come la meteorologia ( l'umore di mia moglie, forse...). Ti ringrazio per la stima, ma non ho il tempo di modificare pure Wikipedia ( per quanto anche li, di tanto in tanto, do libero sfogo alla mia innata presunzione...)


----------



## joanvillafane

Of course, I will defer to Blackman's experience in the field.  I do not know the science regarding the taxonomy of cyclones or wind movement.  I am only reacting as a lay person who sees these terms used in everyday contexts.  In the definition from wiki ita (in post #21) the word tornado does not appear - it may be that a tornado is a form of cyclone, but we do not use it as a synonym for hurricane.

Just for additional clarification:  The words "touch down" are only used when talking about tornadoes.  For hurricanes, we say "make landfall."  The hurricane is expected to make landfall in Miami at 6:00 P.M.


----------



## MR1492

joanvillafane said:


> Just for additional clarification:  The words "touch down" are only used when talking about tornadoes.  For hurricanes, we say "make landfall."  The hurricane is expected to make landfall in Miami at 6:00 P.M.



I will also defer to Blackman's weather expertise (besides, I love his signature!)  I would also presume that even hurricanes at sea form much like a tornado; that is they are formed as a result of the temperature gradient between the air at cloud level and the surface (in this case the ocean).  From that point, it is a matter of intensity and size; circulating air due to temperature gradients are basically the same.

I would say that JVF is correct above as it relates to the terms we hear in the USA when discussing tornadoes and hurricanes.  

Thanks.

Phil


----------



## alicip

Concordo con tutti quelli che hanno detto *"il tornado ha toccato terra"* e propongo anche una seconda variante:
*"il tornado ha toccato il suolo"*.

However, I have 3 questions for all those who are native English speakers:
1. Do you also say *"the tornado landed"*?
2. Why do you use the phrasal verb *"to touch down"* in this case (associated with tornadoes)? Isn't this verb used only when speaking about airplanes and american football  as stated in all your dictionaries? 
3. Shouldn't the verb *"to land"* (with its meaning: to come down to the ground or to a surface after moving or falling through the air) be used when talking about tornadoes?
Thank you very much.


----------



## joanvillafane

Hi alicip - I'll try to answer your questions.
1.  I have never heard "the tornado landed."  
2.  The verb "to touch down" is used for airplanes, too.  The plane touched down at O'Hare at 7:17 p.m.   It has nothing to do with football, in which "touchdown" is a noun, not a verb. 
For both #1 and #2, I'll offer a hypothesis - just my opinion - about why "landed" is not correct.  A plane lands and then that's it. It's down and not going anywhere.  But a tornado touches down and keeps moving.
3.  answered!


----------



## alicip

joanvillafane said:


> Hi alicip - I'll try to answer your questions.
> 1.  I have never heard "the tornado landed."
> 2.  The verb "to touch down" is used for airplanes, too.  The plane touched down at O'Hare at 7:17 p.m.   It has nothing to do with football, in which "touchdown" is a noun, not a verb.
> For both #1 and #2, I'll offer a hypothesis - just my opinion - about why "landed" is not correct.  A plane lands and then that's it. It's down and not going anywhere.  But a tornado touches down and keeps moving.
> 3.  answered!



Thank you very much for your kind and exhaustive explanation. I hate to disappoint you but many dictionaries state that "to touch down" is used with the meaning "to score a touchdown" in American football:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/touch down


----------



## joanvillafane

I'm no expert, but the link you posted uses "touch down" in terms of rugby, which is not American football.   In American football, we say "score a touchdown" or "make a touchdown."


----------



## MR1492

JVF,

I think in the very, very very old days of American football (long before our time!), a touchdown (noun) was made by touching down (verb) the ball in the end zone.  The rules have changed over the years and now scoring a touchdown (noun) only requires that the ball break the plane of the goal line (that is, the imaginary plane extending upwards from the goal line to infinity but within the field of play.)

However, the old dictionaries were correct at one time; but in today's rules they are now incorrect.

Phil


----------



## joanvillafane

That may very well be true, Phil. And I understand what you're saying about the touchdown not requiring the manual placement of the ball.   But I wonder if the words "touch down" were ever used as a verb. He touched down the ball?  The ball touched down?  I tend to think it was always a noun, written as one word.


----------



## MR1492

JVF,

I think we're a little off-topic but originally you had *to touch the ball to the ground* to score (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchdown).

Phil


----------



## alicip

joanvillafane said:


> That may very well be true, Phil. And I understand what you're saying about the touchdown not requiring the manual placement of the ball.   But I wonder if the words "touch down" were ever used as a verb. He touched down the ball?  The ball touched down?  I tend to think it was always a noun, written as one word.



Even if this dictionary http://www.omnilexica.com/?q=touch+down says that the verb "to touch down" means "to score a touchdown", I couldn't find it used with this  meaning in the CORPUS OF CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN ENGLISH.
Here are some results from the British National Corpus in which "to touch down" has the meaning "to score a try":
http://bnc.bl.uk/saraWeb.php?qy=touch+down&mysubmit=Go


----------



## cecil

MR1492 said:


> ob,
> 
> Good question.  A tornado forms in the air from a rotating airmass.  It is usually in a dark, violent stormcloud.  As it rotates, the cloud will form the typical "funnel" shape of a tornado.  As the funnel becomes larger and longer, it may touch the ground becoming a tornado.  Note that the funnel cloud doesn't "drop" but gets bigger and bigger.  If it gets large enough, it will eventually reach the earth.  As it does so, it travels along the ground.  The horizontal speed of a tornado as it moves isn't usually high (about 20 to 30 miles per hour/50 kilometers per hour) but the rotating winds are extremely fast often hitting 200 miles per hour.
> 
> Phil



Winds in excess of 300 mi/hr. have been measured in the US.


----------



## giginho

Hi guys!

Although I'm not an expert of what you call football I can try to explane why in the UK rugby "touch down" is a verb and in US football it isn't. This comes from the differences between the rules of the two game. As Phil stated, in US football to mark a score it is sufficient that someone carry the ball across (or catch a flying ball after) the virtual vertical plane passing through the "enemy" scoring line, while in UK rugby it is mandatory to "smash" the ball on the ground in order to score a point.

All the foregoing seem to be in line with Phil's thought.

Now, every time I see an American football match and a touchdown (noun) happens, the player smashes the ball on the ground even if it is unnecessary....maybe just as a mighty sign....so, I'm wondering if we can heard the journalist screaming somenthing like: "He touches down!!!" (verb)


----------

