Subject:
|
Re: Another one for Maggie:
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:20:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1084 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Allan Bedford writes:
>
> While I'm sure that the importance of "tuna fish" will soon be made clear to
> Dave, I'm just worried about how he'll react when he finds out that
> flammable and inflammable actually mean the same thing! ;)
Indeed! Here's some info found at dictionary.com:
"Historically, flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. However, the
presence of the prefix in- has misled many people into assuming that
inflammable means “not flammable” or “noncombustible.” The prefix -in in
inflammable is not, however, the Latin negative prefix -in, which is related
to the English -un and appears in such words as indecent and inglorious.
Rather, this -in is an intensive prefix derived from the Latin preposition
in. This prefix also appears in the word enflame. But many people are not
aware of this derivation, and for clarity's sake it is advisable to use only
flammable to give warnings."
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Another one for Maggie:
|
| (...) I'm not an expert in language issues, but it seems to me there is a very slight differnce in the two, like the dictionary says. If I were to read "flammable", I'd think it pointed to the possibility of spontaneous ignition (like phosphorus (...) (23 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Another one for Maggie:
|
| (...) While I'm sure that the importance of "tuna fish" will soon be made clear to Dave, I'm just worried about how he'll react when he finds out that flammable and inflammable actually mean the same thing! ;) All the best, Allan B. (23 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
20 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
