Re: (In)flammable (WAS: Early Conlang Archives)

On Thu, 11 Mar 1999, FFlores wrote:

>
> 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!)
Hm.  I'm not sure the meanings are really the same.  To me, "burn down"
means to destroy (usually a structure) by combustion; while the latter,
"burn up" means to completely destroy anything by combustion.  I can burn
down a house, but not a book; I can burn up a book but not, generally
speaking, a house because the fire dept.  gets to the scene too soon. :)

>
> 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 like that one.  Seems we all have our share of incombustible
politicians.

Padraic.

> 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
>