Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!msb From: msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) Newsgroups: net.nlang Subject: Re: (in)flammable Message-ID: <478@lsuc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 5-Mar-85 02:51:34 EST Article-I.D.: lsuc.478 Posted: Tue Mar 5 02:51:34 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Mar-85 03:35:50 EST References: <366@tymix.UUCP> Reply-To: msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto Lines: 16 Summary: Latin derivation doesn't mean not recently coined > According to The American Heritage Dictionary - > flammable - ... [ from Latin *flammare*, to blaze, from *flamma*, FLAME]. > > Thus, the etymology goes all the way back to Latin, and is NOT > a coinage of the industrial age, according to this source. Non sequitur! As a counterexample I present "insulin", whose etymology is from the Latin *insula*, island. This word is recent enough that it doesn't make the main section of the OED. Isaac Asimov says it was coined in 1916. There are lots of these modern classical-derived words, though most seem to be from Greek rather than Latin. As I said, the OED gives "flammable" in the 18th century, so it appears to actually be an older word that was revived in the 20th century. Mark Brader