ciaraldi@rochester.UUCP (Mike Ciaraldi) (02/05/84)
From: Mike Ciaraldi <ciaraldi> This is a followup to several postings. It is long, but I think it is worth it. Strunk and White on flaming: 'Flammable. An oddity, chiefly useful in saving lives. The common word meeanign "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 explosive are now marked FLAMMABLE. Unless you are operating such a truck and hence are concerned with the safety of children and illiterates, use INFLAMMABLE.' >From THE ELEMENTS OF STYLE, Third Edition, 1979. Note: I have rendered the italicized words in CAPITALS. >From Follett: 'Un-, IN-, NON-; -LESS; DIVERGENT NEGATIVES. Bottles containing certain liquids (notably gasoline) for domestic use, like the tanks and trucks that store or carry these materials in bulk, are apt nowadays to display the word FLAMMABLE in a prominent place. This relatively new word came into being when it was found that more and more people took the word INFLAMMABLE to mean NOT CAPABLE OF BURNING. They were reasoning by ananlogy from the many words in IN- in which the prefix means NOT and forgetting the smaller number in which it either means IN or serves as an intensive (or locative) particle--INHERE, INFECT, INSPIRE, INCARCERATE, INCANDESCENT, INSURE, as well as INTENSIVE itself and, of course, INFLAMMABLE in its original meaning. 'The change to FLAMMABLE is justified if it helps to avert accidents due to misjudging the properties of materials that flash, burn, or explode. It should be noted, however, that the shortening of the word has not touched INFLAMMATORY or INFLAMED. Speeches that incite to violence are still called by the former, as living tissues that are red and swollen are called by the latter. .... The use of negative prefixes in general will likewise continue to perplex writers and speakers who do not make a point of attending to the usages that prevail in this realm of mixed anarchy and strict rule. .... The difficulty of threading one's way through this irregular maze tempts the cautious to avoid it altogether and take refuge in NON-. This easy path has recently been made still more attractive by the increasing desire to classify everything into two groups klike a digital computer; e.g. FICTION and NONFICTION, ALCOHOLIC and NONALCOHOLIC, AGE-DETERMINED UNEMPLOYMENT and NON-AGE-DETERMINED UNEMPLOYMENT. This tendency is to be deplored, both because of the ugly, unarticulated compounds it produces, and because the twofold division with NON- is likely to suggest a strictness that it does not always possess.' >From MODERN AMERICAN USAGE by Follett and Barzun, 1966. Also from Follet on the subject of "an": 'A, AN before aspirates. Sme very Anglophile or very bookish Americans, and perhaps others influenced by them, are addicted to AN before HISTORICAL, HOMILETIC, HUMBLE, and other words with a formerly silent H and before words beginning with the consonantal Y sound (EURASIAN, EUPHONIOUS, UNIQUE); also sometimes before W sounds (ONE, ONCE). The practice is traditional: AN HUMBLE AND A CONTRITE HEART/ WHOSO BREAKETH AN HEDGE. But it is no longer current: THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN EUROPEAN FREE-TRADE AREA/ AN ONE-CENT RISE/ HIS OFFICIAL STATUS AS AN UNITED NATIONS EMPLOYEE/ ONCE AN UBIQUITOUS PART OF THE NEW ENGLAND SCENE--all these sound affected. The normal, undoubtedly the prevalent, American feeling is that such words begin with consonants, not vowels, and that it is archaic and unnatural to precede them with AN instead of A. This feeling has the right of way in speech and should have it in writing. That the older form is kept here and there by house rules but no longer corresponds to instinct is shown by the discrepancy found in some newspapers between A 1-TO-0 SCORE in the sports column and AN ONE-HUNDRED-DOLLAR FINE in the editorial.' I will also point out that people who take French learn of the "H-aspire'", which is a "breathed H" at the beginning of a word. It is supposed to be sort-of half-pronounced. The question remains, "Why read books like this?" My reasons are as follows: 1) It is nice to have something to refer to when you can't decide which way a phrase should go. 2) Both books (especially Follett) give examples and rationales which help you to remember in the future. They both lean toward usages that seem natural and pleasing to the ear. When something is arbitrary, they tell you. 3) Both are full (again, especially Follett) of good, solid, easy-to-understand writing that is never stuffy and often amusing. Thus, they provide examples and an object lesson that clear, correct writing is possible. Sometimes I like to browse through them. I am definitely not a pedant, and I think that neither of these books promote pedantry. The point they both make is that spoken and written communication are important, and that following conventional rules of usage promotes clear and unambiguous communication. Sounds good to me. Mike Ciaraldi ciaraldi@rochester
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (02/10/84)
I would also like to reccommend "Modern English Usage" by H. W. Fowler Oxford U. Press, for its wit and wisdom. Written 70 years ago, the rules and ideas remain for today's usage. Strunk & White is a nice little book, but more suited for English 101 or Freshman exposition classes. If you really want to dig it out, Fowler or Follet will provide you with more than enough material, plus Fowler's wit (see split infinitives) will make the digging more enjoyable. T. C. Wheeler
julian@deepthot.UUCP (Julian Davies) (02/14/84)
Don't forget another worthy guide: "Usage and Abusage" by Eric Partridge (available in Penguin Reference Books series). Partridge in his preface claims it as a complement to Fowler, and I have found it invaluable thus.