In article , DJ Delorie wrote:

Chris writes:
Sorry to gripe here, but the misuse of the word "inflammable" is silly and
can be dangerous.

Because of that, sadly enough, the English language has since defined
flammable and inflammable to mean exactly the same thing - catches
fire easily.

They have *always* meant exactly the same thing. There has been no
redefinition.

The opposite is now "nonflammable".

"Now"?

The opposite of "flammable" has *always* been "nonflammable".

"Inflammable" does not mean, and never has meant, "not flammable". The root
word of "inflammable" is "inflame". The "in" part is not, and never has been,
a prefix.

It is precisely because of this confusion that the term "inflammable" has been
largely abandoned in favor of the clearer and _absolutely_synonymous_ term
"flammable": too many people mistakenly thought that "inflammable" was a
synonym for "nonflammable".

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.