Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cvl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!rlh From: rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) Newsgroups: net.nlang Subject: Flammable posting Message-ID: <101@cvl.UUCP> Date: Wed, 27-Feb-85 12:21:05 EST Article-I.D.: cvl.101 Posted: Wed Feb 27 12:21:05 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 3-Mar-85 03:25:10 EST Organization: Computer Vision Lab, U. of Maryland, College Park Lines: 27 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