Jump to content

Um... why is my name red?


Daecon

Recommended Posts

Aww! And I thought they'd made me an administrator. BooHoo.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Ha HA HA! Happy April the 1st! I've just noticed that for today I am the 'Chief Pony Wrangler"! LoL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

awww I would give my soul to be a real pony wrangler! ........... >:D
I LIKE my red name :)

But alas' date=' Im the only one that can see my red.

And the pony wrangler thing too...I think...[/quote']

 

 

They build your hopes up with the red and the pony wrangling, making you feel all special - then they dash them on the rocks when you discover it's just you that can see it and everyone's got them.. it's give with one hand and then take away with the other. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why isn't inflammable the opposite of flammable?

 

Did they forget how English works?

 

This looks like an interesting explanation:

 

Blame it on Latin and its tricky prefixes. In the beginning, there was "inflammable," a perfectly nice English word based on the Latin "inflammare," meaning "to kindle," from "in" (in) plus "flamma" (flame). "Inflammable" became standard English in the 16th century. So far, so good.

 

Comes the 19th century, and some well-meaning soul dreamt up the word "flammable," basing it on a slightly different Latin word, "flammare," meaning "to set on fire." There was nothing terribly wrong with "flammable," but it never really caught on. After all, we already had "inflammable," so "flammable" pretty much died out in the 1800's.

 

"But wait," you say, "I saw 'flammable' just the other day." Indeed you did. "Flammable" came back, one of the few successful instances of social engineering of language.

 

The Latin prefix "in," while it sometimes means just "in" (as in "inflammable"), more often turns up in English words meaning "not" (as in "invisible" -- "not visible"). After World War Two, safety officials on both sides of the Atlantic decided that folks were too likely to see "inflammable" and decide that the word meant "fireproof," so various agencies set about encouraging the revival of "flammable" as a substitute. The campaign seems to have worked, and "inflammable" has all but disappeared.

 

That left what to call something that was not likely to burst into flames, but here the process of linguistic renovation was easier. "Non-flammable" is a nice, comforting word, and besides, it's far easier on the tongue than its now thankfully obsolete precursor, "non-inflammable."

 

The Oxford English Dictionary adds this usage note: Historically, flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. However, the presence of the prefix in- has misled many people into assuming that inflammable means "not flammable" or "noncombustible." The prefix -in in inflammable is not, however, the Latin negative prefix -in, which is related to the English -un and appears in such words as indecent and inglorious. Rather, this -in is an intensive prefix derived from the Latin preposition in. This prefix also appears in the word enflame. But many people are not aware of this derivation, and for clarity's sake it is advisable to use only flammable to give warnings.

http://www.write101.com/W.Tips215.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.