Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site voder.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!nsc!voder!gino From: gino@voder.UUCP (Gino Bloch) Newsgroups: net.nlang Subject: Re: Semantic Reversals Message-ID: <692@voder.UUCP> Date: Thu, 28-Feb-85 13:56:44 EST Article-I.D.: voder.692 Posted: Thu Feb 28 13:56:44 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 4-Mar-85 04:22:13 EST References: <108@ISM780.UUCP> <398@hou5h.UUCP> <3003@Cascade.ARPA> Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara Lines: 22 [please don't burn this line] > > Here's a curiosity: why do "flammable" and "inflammable" mean virtually > > The story I heard sounds reasonable but it may just be folk etymology > rearing it's ugly head. At one point certain products had to be > labelled if they were flammable. The word "inflammable" was invented > to describe these things and meant the same thing as flammable; > however, it sounded like it meant non-flammable and so the public was > fooled/uninformed/whatever. Does this shed light on the word "inflame"?* "In" has two sources, one meaning "not" and one meaning "in", which is also used as an intensifier. Both are eventually from Latin. One English "un", from germanic, means "not", and is a cognate of the first "in". The other English "un" relates to "anti", but to me is semantically indistinguishable from "un" #1. It also has an intensification function (unloosen, for instance). My source is the American Heritage Dictionsry (the good old one with the Indo-European glossary). * NOT to be confused withor other nettisms :-) -- Gene E. Bloch (...!nsc!voder!gino) The accidents expressed above are opinions.