(In)flammable (WAS: Early Conlang Archives)

Sally Caves <scaves@...> wrote:
> In- in Latin is just a such a prefix, both intensifying and negating.
> Inflammable
> means "likely to inflame."  (the propensatory? <G>).  But inedible...
> definitely
> not "likely to eat"!  Confusion about this word has caused many Americans
to
>
> resort to "flammable," which I think is bad news, because if they now
write
> that something is "inflammable," what do they mean?  Will or won't your
> kid's pajamas burst into flames?    GGGGG
The inflammable=fammable issue is one of those curious
"contradictions" of the English language that I've heard of.
The other one is "burn down" = (more or less) "burn up" (I
know they have different connotations, but the meaning is
actually the same!)

As for the "flammable" thing, in Spanish we say "inflamable";
I've never heard "ininflamable". Probably "no inflamable" would
do, but in some cases you hear "incombustible" or even "igni'fugo".
But "incombustible" has other connotations: it means "that won't
burn" in a figurative sense; in Spanish "quemarse" [(get) burn(ed)]
means "to get caught in a dishonest practice", so you might
hear "un poli'tico incombustible" (an incombustible politician)
for some recurring characters in local politics who keep winning
elections or getting offices even after several scandals...
I don't think you can say pajamas are "incombustibles" or
"igni'fugos" in Spanish -- you make it sound as if you were talking
about paint or wallpaper.


--Pablo Flores

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
 A study of economics usually reveals that the
 best time to buy anything is last year.
                                         Marty Allen