Re: CHAT: Early Conlang Archives

Edward Heil wrote:

> >especially since derived words often don't mean exactly what their
> >structure would imply, sometimes dramatically so, as in the case of
> >"inflammable".
>
> Actually, "inflammable" means *exactly* what its structure implies: it
> means that the substance can "inflame" or catch fire.  Unfortunately,
> the "in" in "inflame", which I believe vaguely implies the initiation of
> a process, happens to be homophonous to the negative "in" (though the
> two are etymologically unrelated).
I think this must be a feature of some IE languages (in fact, have readthis
somewhere), because you find the same ambiguity in Middle
Welsh:  the prefix _go(r)-_ is both negating and intensifying, as is _an-_:
So gogynfeirdd can mean "not so early bards," but _gorchanu_ is an
extreme song, a vatic song.  Likewise, it's unclear whether the Welsh
word for the Other World--Annwn, Annwfyn--means "not world, unworld,"
or "extreme world," or even "extreme depths."

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

Sally  Caves
scaves@frontiernet.net
http://www.frontiernet.net/~scaves/teonaht.html