• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Degradation of language, part 2

#84
I can pass the math and music but would definitely struggle with the Longfellow....

8th grade 1899 CA.jpg

 
#89
Bar Band Bassman said:
Irregardless. Inflammable (saw this on the back of a gasoline tanker truck). Their, there, they're. :banghead:

BBB
Click to expand...
Yes, "Inflammable" means "subject to bursting into flames", derived from the word "inflame".

Unfortunately, it's no longer possible to use this perfectly correct word because so many people don't recognize it and it's usually associated with safety matters. So we've been forced into the neologisms "Flammable" and "Nonflammable".

Which is why, rather than writing things that will set my teeth on edge, I tend to use "combustible" and "non-combustible" instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikewalker
#90
turf3 said:
Yes, "Inflammable" means "subject to bursting into flames", derived from the word "inflame".

Unfortunately, it's no longer possible to use this perfectly correct word because so many people don't recognize it and it's usually associated with safety matters. So we've been forced into the neologisms "Flammable" and "Nonflammable".

Which is why, rather than writing things that will set my teeth on edge, I tend to use "combustible" and "non-combustible" instead.
Click to expand...
The flammable/inflammable thing doesn't bother me. "Inflammable" was itself a neologism at one time (c. 1605 per the OED), so what's the harm in a couple more? Besides, "flammable" isn't even that new; the OED puts the first written attestation at 1813.

In any case, the later neologisms are clearer. The prefix "in-", besides meaning something like "into," as in "inflammable," can also imply negation, as in, say, "impossible." So it would be easy, and not entirely unreasonable, to assume that "inflammable" means what we now commonly call "nonflammable." If this confusion is avoided, I'd call that a win.

Combustible is a synonym, but not a 100% exact one. It sometimes carries the connotation of being consumed completely by fire, rather than just set on fire, and it's more likely to be used figuratively (for example, of a person's temperament) than inflammable/flammable is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikewalker
#91
turf3 said:
Yes, "Inflammable" means "subject to bursting into flames", derived from the word "inflame".

Unfortunately, it's no longer possible to use this perfectly correct word because so many people don't recognize it and it's usually associated with safety matters. So we've been forced into the neologisms "Flammable" and "Nonflammable".

Which is why, rather than writing things that will set my teeth on edge, I tend to use "combustible" and "non-combustible" instead.
Click to expand...
Touche! Thanks! English is so tricky it's really indescribable, inscrutable, and often ineffective. 🤷‍♂️ ;)

BBB
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikewalker
#97
srosenthal13 said:
'Twas in the Age of YouTube that I discovered the war against "to be", for example: "My bass needs repaired."

How did this happen? When? Why wasn't I notified in advance?
Click to expand...
The first time I heard this, it was spoken by someone from Ohio, circa 1988. I think it might be a Midwestern U.S. thing.
In an odd way, it reminds me of the way British people add "done."
U.S.: "I didn't, but I should have."
U.K.: "I didn't, but I should have done."
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikewalker and srosenthal13

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back