rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) (02/27/85)
I could see this one comming. > According to Strunk and White: > > Flammable. An oddity, chiefly useful in saving lives. > The common word meaning "combustible" is inflammable. > But some people are thrown off by the "in-" and think > "inflammable" means "not combustible." For this reason, > trucks carrying gasoline or explosives are now marked > FLAMMABLE. Unless you are operating such a truck and > hence are concerned with the safety of children and > illiterates, use "inflammable." NEVER use "inflammable"! The word is much too dangerous to exist. Strunk and White have an unfortunate idea about the purpose of language. Do they mean we should only use the word "flammable" when we want to communicate? I can only conclude that they are NOT concerned with the safety of children and illiterates. The language is confusing and should be changed. What advice does Strunk and White have for the families of those killed by the word "inflammable"? Yes, they died in great pain, but the language remained pure. Ralph Hartley siesmo!rlgvax!cvl!rlh rlh@cvl
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (02/28/85)
> > I could see this one comming. > > > According to Strunk and White: > > > > Flammable. An oddity, chiefly useful in saving lives. > > The common word meaning "combustible" is inflammable. > > But some people are thrown off by the "in-" and think > > "inflammable" means "not combustible." For this reason, > > trucks carrying gasoline or explosives are now marked > > FLAMMABLE. Unless you are operating such a truck and > > hence are concerned with the safety of children and > > illiterates, use "inflammable." > > NEVER use "inflammable"! The word is much too dangerous to exist. > Strunk and White have an unfortunate idea about the purpose of > language. Do they mean we should only use the word "flammable" when we > want to communicate? I can only conclude that they are NOT concerned > with the safety of children and illiterates. The language is confusing > and should be changed. What advice does Strunk and White have for the > families of those killed by the word "inflammable"? > > Yes, they died in great pain, but the language remained pure. > > Ralph Hartley > siesmo!rlgvax!cvl!rlh > rlh@cvl NEWSPEAK! You want to get rid of infamous while you are at it? -Ron You can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor.
mgh@hou5h.UUCP (Marcus Hand) (03/07/85)
Ralph Hartley wants us to stop using "inflammable" because it is "much too dangerous". Do I know have to say that my tonsils are "flamed"? -- Marcus Hand (hou5h!mgh)
muffy@lll-crg.ARPA (Muffy Barkocy) (03/09/85)
In article <101@cvl.UUCP> rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) writes: > > >NEVER use "inflammable"! The word is much too dangerous to exist. >Strunk and White have an unfortunate idea about the purpose of >language. Do they mean we should only use the word "flammable" when we >want to communicate? I can only conclude that they are NOT concerned >with the safety of children and illiterates. The language is confusing >and should be changed. What advice does Strunk and White have for the >families of those killed by the word "inflammable"? > > Yes, they died in great pain, but the language remained pure. > > Ralph Hartley > siesmo!rlgvax!cvl!rlh > rlh@cvl I had always thought that "inflammable" came from "inflame," meaning to set on fire. At any rate, neither of the words is dangerous of itself, it is the fact that two words of apparently opposite meanings exist. If "inflammable" was the *only* word for this concept, then everyone would understand the meaning of it. (Don't tell me that it would still *look* like "not likely to catch on fire"...unless you can prove that most people insist on using a word as it would seem to be defined from its structure, rather than as it is defined in common usage.) Muffy tell me about the structure of the word, there are several