Edible and Inedible mean the opposite of each other. So does tolerant and intolerant, efficient and inefficient, and sane and insane. So why do we need the word non-flammable? Shouldn't flammable and inflammable be enough? I guess not.
This document was posted by Sean Burgess on Sunday, August 13th, 2006 at 03:06:00 PM. It was written at Home (Laurel, MD). This document has been assigned to the following categories: Blog . Technorati: BlogPhigSaidWhat View blog reactions
1)
flammable - Lettuce
Created 8/13/2006 9:29:13 PM email |
Don't you have anything better to do with your time like help out your poor wife with all of those boys?
2)
"Flammable" is new - Stan Rogers
Created 8/21/2006 1:22:55 PM email |
website
... and burrowed into the language through misuse. The original was inflammable, and we got it directly from the French sometime between William the Bastard and Chauser. A more modern borrowing might have been "enflamable", with the word "flame" being distinctly discernable. Nonetheless and besides, "flammable" is, properly speaking, in the same class of wrong as "irregardless" (which dictionaries are beginning to recognize). The fact that it became accepted a little further back in history doesn't make it any less so. (Mr. Fowler would have a fit.)
Created 8/13/2006 9:29:13 PM email |
Don't you have anything better to do with your time like help out your poor wife with all of those boys?
Created 8/21/2006 1:22:55 PM email | website
... and burrowed into the language through misuse. The original was inflammable, and we got it directly from the French sometime between William the Bastard and Chauser. A more modern borrowing might have been "enflamable", with the word "flame" being distinctly discernable. Nonetheless and besides, "flammable" is, properly speaking, in the same class of wrong as "irregardless" (which dictionaries are beginning to recognize). The fact that it became accepted a little further back in history doesn't make it any less so. (Mr. Fowler would have a fit.)