Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!msb
From: msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: Semantic Reversals
Message-ID: <452@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-Feb-85 16:40:05 EST
Article-I.D.: lsuc.452
Posted: Wed Feb 27 16:40:05 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 17:01:46 EST
References: <108@ISM780.UUCP> <398@hou5h.UUCP> <3003@Cascade.ARPA>
Reply-To: msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 25
Summary: in- = in/into, and "inflammable" is the older form

> > Here's a curiosity:  why do "flammable" and "inflammable" mean virtually
> > the same thing?

> 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.

This story is itself a case of reversal!

The original form is "inflammable", where "in-" means "in/into":
the thing will go up IN flames.  Then certain products had to be labelled
if they were inflammable.  But some people interpreted "in-" as "not",
and assumed things so marked were safe.

So the clearly understandable form "flammable" was coined.

I think it was Fowler who said:

	Flammable: a non-word, chiefly useful in saving lives.

Mark Brader
Please don't post minor corrections to the quote.  Mail me, if you must.