[Spellyans] off-topic - Drok yu genef!

Eddie Climo eddie_climo at yahoo.co.uk
Fri Jul 25 15:38:52 IST 2008

On 25 Jul 2008, at 14:56, A. J. Trim wrote:
> . . . Actually, there is a smidgen of confusion in English. The  
> term “inflammable” has had to be re-spelt “flammable” for safety  
> reasons!
To be precise, it was for *alleged* safety reasons. 'Inflammable' was  
on reagents bottles in Chemistry labs when I was at school, and I  
don't recall ever hearing of even the dimmest students barbecuing  
themselves by mis-parsing the word. The opposite then was 'non- 
inflammable', which is pretty unambiguous as well.

But what have we moved to now, I wonder? Logically, if we believe the  
horror stories of those who advocated the change, it should have become:
> flammable/inflammable.

But according to my recent OED, it's actually:
> flammable/non-flammable.

Furthermore, the medical profession didn't feel the need to start  
talking about "flammation of a wound", did they? And have you ever  
heard reference to a 'flammatory remark'? Hah!

No, it was just the fledgling Health & Safety Industry trying to find  
solutions to non-existent problems, to give themselves something to do.

'in lel'? 'yn lel'? 'idn lel'?


Eddie Foirbeis Climo
- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -
Dres ethom akennow byner re bons lyeshes
Accenti non multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20080725/147e2556/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list