Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/28/84; site lll-crg.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!muffy
From: muffy@lll-crg.ARPA (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: Flammable posting
Message-ID: <447@lll-crg.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 8-Mar-85 22:10:08 EST
Article-I.D.: lll-crg.447
Posted: Fri Mar  8 22:10:08 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Mar-85 06:49:20 EST
References: <101@cvl.UUCP>
Reply-To: muffy@lll-crg.UUCP (Muffy Barkocy)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Labs, CRG group
Lines: 31
Summary: 

In article <101@cvl.UUCP> rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) writes:
>
>
>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

I had always thought that "inflammable" came from "inflame," meaning
to set on fire.  At any rate, neither of the words is dangerous
of itself, it is the fact that two words of apparently opposite
meanings exist.  If "inflammable" was the *only* word for this
concept, then everyone would understand the meaning of it.  (Don't
tell me that it would still *look* like "not likely to catch on
fire"...unless you can prove that most people insist on using a
word as it would seem to be defined from its structure, rather than
as it is defined in common usage.)


					  Muffy

tell me about the structure of the word, there are several