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.