Funny isn't it that we can't make 'flammatory' remarks, or get an ointment for 'flammation'.
Spurs from breaking into ring main
- Thread starter 10monty
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Do you not find that the word "inflammable" is sometimes misunderstood BAS? Especially by people whose first language is not English? Are they all illiterate, or hard-of-thinking?
Where there are two words in common use that have the same meaning, but one can also mean the opposite, which one do you think is more precise?
Where there are two words in common use that have the same meaning, but one can also mean the opposite, which one do you think is more precise?
One does not mean the opposite.
That some people do think that does not alter the meaning.
The correct usage cannot be deemed wrong.
You said you thought it funny that we can't make 'flammatory' remarks, or get an ointment for 'flammation'.
It's not really; it is because people do not think inflammatory means reasonable nor inflammation means the redness has disappeared.
Why the difference?
Perhaps it is your - IEC and others' - use of flammable which has caused people to believe inflammable means does not burn.
That some people do think that does not alter the meaning.
The correct usage cannot be deemed wrong.
You said you thought it funny that we can't make 'flammatory' remarks, or get an ointment for 'flammation'.
It's not really; it is because people do not think inflammatory means reasonable nor inflammation means the redness has disappeared.
Why the difference?
Perhaps it is your - IEC and others' - use of flammable which has caused people to believe inflammable means does not burn.
Sponsored Links
Blame the Germans.
That is all true. However, as I have said, the situation is confusing (in a potentially misleading/dangerous), since most 'ordinary people' will not be aware of the etymology, but are aware of the way in which, when there are a 'pair' of words (one with the "in" prefix), the "in" prefix often signifies negation. As you go on to say ....
I wouldn't single out any particular organisation, but the problem I mention above (leading to potential ambiguity) only really exists when both an "XYZ" and "inXYZ" are both being used to a significant extent at the same time....
.... I am still sure that when I was at school/uni, and probably for a good while beyond, we hardly ever heard the word "flammable" (at least, not in 'everyday language') in the UK. We therefore had no reason to think of the initial "in" as being negation of some other word, any more than we had any reason to think that, say, the initial "in" of "insulator", "inferior" or "interesting" was negating the meaning of hypothetical words "sulator", "ferior" or "teresting" (words we'd never heard used) etc. - so I don't think that it even occurred to any of us that "inflammable" might possibly mean 'NOT easily set alight'.
It is only when we started seeing the word "flammable" coming into increasing use that some people started thinking that maybe "inflammable" was the opposite of "flammable" - so, unless my memory is totally deceiving me, I think that you are probably in some senses right, in that it was probably largely the (well-intentioned) introduction of the word "flammable" into UK usage which led to most of the potential ambiguity (at least, in the UK).
Kind Regards, John
They may (to some extent) be the first, in English.
If English is the lingua franca of international standards bodies
I know, shoot me
[/quote]Where there are two words in common use that have the same meaning, but one can also mean the opposite, which one do you think is more precise?[/QUOTE]
Cleave.
They are, if I understand you correctly; e.g., translation into German is done by the Germans, French by the French, etc. That process often reveals ambiguities in the English, which we then try to remove. There are many translations that are not performed with the knowledge of, or contribution from, the Working Group, so if there are remaining ambiguities it is possible that those translations could be technically incorrect.
And the Bible (and every other religious texts) were translated and transcribed by generations of scribes over hundreds of years. They all had their own different view of what the text meant, as well as putting their own 'slant' on things.
"Inflammable" is not an ambiguity.
Which means they are done by professional translators. No such person worthy of the name would not know what words mean or not know how to find out.
It is for some countries.
No it doesn't. It's usually done by someone who knows something about the subject, and nearly always by volunteers.
Involved in a car accident, I was lucky to be injured but all the other occupants sustained multiple juries. 
That's all very well but, as I'm sure you understand, anyone who says that clearly has no understanding of the derivation, hence meaning, of that word. As I said before ("insulator", "inferior" or "interesting", etc.), not all "in-words" are derived in a manner which makes the "in" a negation of what comes after those first two letters.Involved in a car accident, I was lucky to be injured but all the other occupants sustained multiple juries.
Kind Regards, John
It's humour, John.
Therefore 'flammable' is as invalid as 'jury'.
That you have said it before does not disallow anyone saying it or commenting on it again.
Clearly - like those who think inflammable means 'does not burn'.
Therefore 'flammable' is as invalid as 'jury'.
Like 'inflammable'.
That you have said it before does not disallow anyone saying it or commenting on it again.
Lucky you weren't volved!Involved in a car accident, I was lucky to be injured but all the other occupants sustained multiple juries.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
