Flammable (was: Early Conlang Archives)

At 12:44 pm -0500 11/3/99, John Cowan wrote:
>Sally Caves scripsit:
>
>> 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?
>
>That isn't the safety issue.  "Flammable" has replaced "inflammable"
>on trucks and such because it warns you to beware; as Quine says,
>semi-literacy is not a capital crime.
Exactly the same has happened this side of the pond  :)

>> Will or won't your
>> kid's pajamas burst into flames?    GGGGG
>
>In such contexts I usually see "non-flammable".  But "inflammable"
>is still used for all the metaphorical uses.
In such cases 'non-flammable' is obligatory over here because of the safety
issue.

'Inflammable' is a word I distinctly remember misunderstanding when I was a
kid; I remember a model plane that was marked 'inflammable' and was rather
disconcerted when the wretched thing burnt!.  And I guess many other kids
(as well as adults) have also misunderstood that word and, I'm sure,
sometimes with far more tagic consequences than a lost model plane.

The word seems to be falling into disuse here even in the metaphorical use
where 'inflammatory' is the usual word.

Ray.