In response to last week's question, “Why does flammable and inflammable mean the same thing? ”, my neighbor Al knows that it is “Because we stole everyone else’s language, as in “bow in bow tie and bow of a ship” etc. It gives lawyers something to argue about.”
Instead of stealing, my engineering and rafting friend Steve thought “Because someone was ‘burning one’ when they made up the words.”
My friend Richard recalled the late, great George Carlin asking, "Why do we have 'flammable,' 'inflammable,' and 'noninflammable'? Either it flamms or it doesn't!"
Richard added that both words are adjectives that mean the same thing. In common use, however, when something is "flammable," this means it can be easily set on fire. When something is "inflammable," this is taken to mean that it is self-combustible (i.e., can catch fire without an external heat source). A good example of inflammable is any vehicle manufactured by Ford, which invented the spontaneous (as opposed to "internal") combustion engine. (NOTE: Of the 7 or 8 vehicles I know of that caught fire, all but one were Fords.)”
My friend Tracey, touting her degree in English, explained “Because flammable means able to set on fire. Inflammable means able to inflame. In this instance, 'in' does not mean not.” My sailing buddy Scott added, “for clarity's sake it is advisable to use only flammable to give warnings.” (see post-script for more info) Yet my dad’s beach buddy Bob writes, “Not really. One burns from the outside and the other from the inside.”
My sailing and writing buddy Rich wrote, “These two words are perfect example of things being made more difficult than need be. In these cases I choose to blame the French.
My college roomie John summed this up by saying, “Either way, if you have to think about it, you might bet burned.”
Please share your thoughts about "things that make you go 'Hmmm' ":
Are there any prefixes for prefix? from my son Zak
Live well...laugh often..be happy and have a good week…
No comments:
Post a Comment