Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-ngp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!thiel
From: thiel@ut-ngp.UUCP (Stephen W. Thiel)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Inflammable vs. Flammable
Message-ID: <1382@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Feb-85 23:33:47 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.1382
Posted: Tue Feb 26 23:33:47 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Mar-85 02:50:41 EST
Organization: Dept. of Chemical Engineering, UT Austin
Lines: 25

[Maybe we should change it to net.inflame...]

> inflammable : one would think this might mean _not_ flammable!

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."

     [William Strunk, Jr. and E. B. White, "The Elements of
      Style", Third Edition, Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc.,
      1979, p. 47.]

-- 
                                        Steve Thiel
                     ...ihnp4!ut-sally!ut-ngp!thiel
 
Bob, where Carol had had "had," had had "had had"; "had had" had had the 
           teacher's approval.