daemon@decwrl.UUCP (02/02/84)
From: akov68::boyajian Well, I suppose it's time for a confession: I don't have a copy of Strunk & White, and I've never had the urge to get one. My standard reference for such things is THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY (I got fed up with FUNK & WAGNALL'S and WEBSTER'S when once I failed to find what I was looking for; the AHD had it). Now, as my last posting said, the AHD gives similar definitions for "flammable" and "inflammable". The connotations that I apply to those words are mine and mine alone, solely because I find the distinctions useful. My connotations were arrived by simple reasoning. "Flammable" = ""burnable"" (the double double quotes indicates that the word contained within is not a "real" word). Sounds simple, direct. "Inflammable": well, "in-", as well as meaning "not", indicates "2. Intensive action. 3. Causative function." (AHD), so to me, "inflammable" implies a process by which something goes from not-burning to burning, thus bursting into flame (also recall that the verb "inflame" means "to set on fire"). Then there are the associations in my mind with "incendiary" and "incinerate". I will not compromise what I think is reasonable and correct usage of a word as a sop to those who don't know its true definition. Just because some people are illiterate enough to think that "inflammable" means "not flammable" (does "incendiary" mean "not cendiary"? does "incandescent" mean "not candescent"?, does "inbred" mean "not bred"?), I don't feel that I have to restrict my command of the language. What I got out of the quote from Strunk & White is that "flammable" is not a "real" word and should be avoided at all costs and "inflammable" should always be used. While I can see their point, the fact as I see it is that "flammable" *does* appear in the dictionary without any conditional set upon it (such as "colloquial", "informal", or "slang") and I still find the connotations that I apply to the words to be useful (not that I have much occasion to use either word, but at least I have such distinctions when I need them). ---jayembee (Jerry Boyajian @ DEC Maynard) (decvax!decwrl!rhea!akov68!boyajian) N.B. This posting is not meant as a flame [har har], but merely an explication of my usuage and the reasons for it. This whole subject is really a mite incon- sequential to get riled over. Let's get on to something that's *really* import- ant, like why "pitiful" is used to mean "arousing pity". Going by the standard usuage of the suffix "-ful", "pitiful" should describe the person who feels pity for the pitiable or piteous one. I suppose I should add that the reason I have no urge to get a copy of Strunk & White is that I have little regard for such "manuals of style", mainly because I find that most entries in such are the result of some person's warped view of aesthetics rather than simple reasoning. (I was absolutely thrilled (oh, frabjous day!) when I found out that a few years ago, it was decided that ending a sentence with a preposition was acceptable.) Just out of curiosity, could those of you who use Strunk & White explain why you find it to be a reasonable set of guidelines?