Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site Cascade.ARPA
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!amdcad!decwrl!Glacier!Cascade!asente
From: asente@Cascade.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: Semantic Reversals
Message-ID: <3003@Cascade.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 26-Feb-85 18:36:21 EST
Article-I.D.: Cascade.3003
Posted: Tue Feb 26 18:36:21 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 11:21:38 EST
References: <108@ISM780.UUCP> <398@hou5h.UUCP>
Organization: Stanford University CIS Apple Orchard
Lines: 16

> Here's a curiosity:  why do "flammable" and "inflammable" mean virtually
> the same thing?
> -- 
> 			Marcus Hand	(hou5h!mgh)

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.

	-paul asente	decwrl!glacier!cascade!asente	asente@Cascade.ARPA

"But I burn, Mr. A!"
"So do I, Mr. J!"