Spurs from breaking into ring main

[JohnW2]

It's humour, John.

I realised that and, since it appears that it wasn't obvious that I did, I suppose I should have added a smilie!

That you have said it before does not disallow anyone saying it or commenting on it again.

Indeed, and I didn't suggest that it was 'disallowed'. I was merely pointing out that your (I thought 'obviously') tongue-in-cheek comment reinforced what I had previously written.

However, to be a bit more serious it is clearly worrying that, now that "flammable" has come into quite common use, there will be people who are 'confused' into thinking that "inflammable" is the opposite. One can argue that such is because they are inadequately educated, etymologically-aware, just "plain incorrect" or whatever, but that doesn't alter the fact that their misunderstanding could present dangers to them. It therefore would seem advisable that we should do all we can to minimise/eliminate use of one of the words = and, in view opf the way things have evolved, I suppose it is probably "inflammable" that 'needs to go'!

I would add that I'm not sure that I can blame these 'uneducated' people all that much. I've been trying hard, but I haven't yet thought of any other adjective for which there is a corresponding one with an "in" prefix added for which that "in" does not indicate negation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Lucky you weren't volved!

But I was volved. I was with the occupants who were jured.

There was also a Volvo volved.

 

[stillp]

But I was volved. I was with the occupants who were jured.

That often happens in traffic cidents.

 

[EFLImpudence]

but I haven't yet thought of any other adjective for which there is a corresponding one with an "in" prefix added for which that "in" does not indicate negation.

Do you mean where it is a normal word without the 'in'?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Oh - I have just thought of 'inundate'. What does that mean? What's the opposite?

 

[JohnW2]

Do you mean where it is a normal word without the 'in'?

Yes, except I said it the other way around - an adjective without an "in" for which there is a corresponding adjective with an "in". As I said, I haven't yet thought of an example of that in which the "in" (in the latter) doesn't 'create the opposite'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Oh - I have just thought of 'inundate'. What does that mean? What's the opposite?

It's not an example of what I was talking about - unless you believe that "undate" is a word! In any event, I was talking about adjectives, not verbs.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

No, it was not related to your question. Just interesting.

Re: your question, I don't suppose there will be any, will there?
The opposites have another negative prefix - uninundating.

 

[JohnW2]

Re: your question, I don't suppose there will be any, will there?

I imagine that there might be - although I suspect that there are probably extremely few. We do, of course, know of one, but I still haven't thought of any others.

The opposites have another negative prefix - uninundating.

Not necessary - incombustible, inedible, inefficient, insecure, inoperable, inelegant etc. etc. etc. ... as I said, it's not surprising that some people who now see/hear "flammable" a lot think that "inflammable" must be the opposite. As above, I have yet to think of any adjective which has a 'partner' with an "in" where the two are NOT opposites.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

No, I meant the words that begin with 'in' where they are the positive words; their opposites have another negative prefix - uninteresting.
Therefore I don't see how there can be any.

'Flammable' has been corrupted. Inflammable is the positive word; the opposite is non-inflammable. I don't know why it is not uninflammable.

 

[JohnW2]

No, I meant the words that begin with 'in' where they are the positive words; their opposites have another negative prefix - uninteresting. Therefore I don't see how there can be any.

Nor do I - "inin" would be pretty messy (but maybe there are some????). However, that's not what I was talking about. To repeat yet again, I was talking about a situation in which there is a pair of adjectives, differing only by one having an "in" added at the start. I am saying that I have so far not been able to think of any such pairs, other than flammable/inflammable, in which one of the pair is not the opposite of the other.

'Flammable' has been corrupted. Inflammable is the positive word; the opposite is non-inflammable.

I agree that inflammable was there long before flammable, but the later has been around for about 100 years. As I keep saying, now that both words are around, we really need to 'get rid' of one - and much as I hate to have to say it, I fear it has to be inflammable which needs to go. There will never be any uncertainty about flammable or nonflammable but, given that the 'f-word' is now amongst us, "inflammable" will always cause uncertainty, confusion and misunderstanding for at least some people.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Nor do I - "inin" would be pretty messy (but maybe there are some????).

There are plenty of "unin" words and everyone understands.

However, that's not what I was talking about. To repeat yet again, I was talking about a situation in which there is a pair of adjectives, differing only by one having an "in" added at the start. I am saying that I have so far not been able to think of any such pairs, other than flammable/inflammable, in which one of the pair is not the opposite of the other.

Sorry I misunderstood, but I think it understandable because examples that you were asking for would not make sense.
There is of course only one (I know) because it has been made up - for whatever reason.
Let's hope no one makes up any others.

I agree that inflammable was there long before flammable, but the later has been around for about 100 years. As I keep saying, now that both words are around, we really need to 'get rid' of one - and much as I hate to have to say it, I fear it has to be inflammable which needs to go. There will never be any uncertainty about flammable or nonflammable but, given that the 'f-word' is now amongst us, "inflammable" will always cause uncertainty, confusion and misunderstanding for at least some people.

Even more I hate to agree.
Perhaps it was firemen who started it because they weren't sure.

 

[JohnW2]

Sorry I misunderstood, but I think it understandable because examples that you were asking for would not make sense. There is of course only one (I know) because it has been made up - for whatever reason.

Exactly - and that's my point. There are countless such pairs of words in which the "in=" one is the opposite of the other (there is probably some rule about when one uses "in=" and when one uses "un-", but I don't know it!). No matter what the history of how/why it came into use (I'm still inclined to look across the water for 'blame'!), the fact that "flammable" became increasingly seen/heard/used unfortunately meant that "inflammable", as the one exception to what appeared to be a 'rule' (about such pairs of words), became potentially ('dangerously') misunderstand-able, by at least some people.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No it doesn't. It's usually done by someone who knows something about the subject, and nearly always by volunteers.

That should be as tolerated, or regarded as the right way to go about it, to the same extent that using amateurs who "know something about the subject" to devise regulations would be.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So is now OK again to refer the the work-experience student as "the young bird in marketing" as she is a tern?