Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihu1m.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihu1m!gadfly
From: gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: Semantic Reversals
Message-ID: <327@ihu1m.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Feb-85 23:37:29 EST
Article-I.D.: ihu1m.327
Posted: Tue Feb 26 23:37:29 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Feb-85 20:25:49 EST
References: <108@ISM780.UUCP> <398@hou5h.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 18

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

Strunk and White have a wonderful paragraph on this.  It notes how
"inflammable", a real word, might be mistaken to mean "not combustible"
because the prefix in- sometimes means "not".  So the people who make
tank trucks decided not to take chances, and invented the appellation
"flammable".  Their conclusion: Unless you are illiterate or drive such
a truck, prefer "inflammable".  
-- 
                    *** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI   ***** *****
                 ****** ******  26 Feb 85 [8 Ventose An CXCIII]
ken perlow       *****   *****
(312)979-7188     ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken   *** ***