Re: Flammable (was: Early Conlang Archives)
|From:||Raymond A. Brown <raybrown@...>|
|Date:||Friday, March 12, 1999, 21:39|
At 10:24 am -0500 12/3/99, John Cowan wrote:
>Raymond A. Brown wrote:
>> The word seems to be falling into disuse here even in the metaphorical use
>> where 'inflammatory' is the usual word.
>So "inflammatory" now covers both parts of the correlation of
>"inflammatory rhetoric", that which inflames, vs. "inflammable multitude",
>that which is inflamed?
Umm - now you mention it, no. But 'inflammable multitude' I don't think
would be used.
If the multitude had already been inflamed we would, of course, simply say
'inflamed multitude'; but if it were just excitable, ready to get out of
control - I dunno - the obsolete 'inflamable' might, I guess, occasionally
be used. I think we'd use some other expression. 'inflammable multitide'
seem to suggest a gruesome picture of the whole lot about to go up in
flames (literally) or, depending how you understand 'inflammable', wearing
asbestos suits :-)