Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!ron From: ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie) Newsgroups: net.nlang Subject: Re: Flammable posting Message-ID: <8746@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Wed, 27-Feb-85 19:50:57 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.8746 Posted: Wed Feb 27 19:50:57 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Mar-85 03:26:53 EST References: <101@cvl.UUCP> Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 32 > > I could see this one comming. > > > 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." > > NEVER use "inflammable"! The word is much too dangerous to exist. > Strunk and White have an unfortunate idea about the purpose of > language. Do they mean we should only use the word "flammable" when we > want to communicate? I can only conclude that they are NOT concerned > with the safety of children and illiterates. The language is confusing > and should be changed. What advice does Strunk and White have for the > families of those killed by the word "inflammable"? > > Yes, they died in great pain, but the language remained pure. > > Ralph Hartley > siesmo!rlgvax!cvl!rlh > rlh@cvl NEWSPEAK! You want to get rid of infamous while you are at it? -Ron You can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor.