h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The whole problem is due to a confusion of the two Latinate meanings of the prefix 'in-'. One meaning is negative, the other means 'in', but can also act as an intensifier - this is the case in 'inflammable', which means 'capable of being inflamed', and only erroneously 'not flammable'. I'm pretty sure that the only legitimate word for this meaning is 'non-flammable', at least in British English.

Please note they were referring to 'in' as a prefix not 'un' as you stated in the word 'undo'.

Old posting I know but having never replied to anything on this forum before I couldn't resist replying to this one!

In the UK there were only two recognised words to describe the incendiary nature or not of substances:-

1. INFLAMMABLE means likely to burn (AS IN TO INFLAME PASSIONS)

2. UNINFLAMMABLE means not likely to burn

I previously suggested "were" because the English language is forever changing through a multitude of influences (slang derivations, laziness, computers, TV, American culture being absorbed etc)

1a. FLAMMABLE is an Americanism which because of modern communications is being recognised as in 1. (possibly to avoid confusion amongst the semi-literate, a worryingly increasing population)

2a. Non-flammable (likewise an Americanism but actually two linked words)

Inflammable was, I believe, abandoned for "public" use (on vehicles or materials) in favour of "flammable", the latter being less likely to mislead the semi-literate, or foreigners. Better to be safe than purist!

Seven successive ands:
When Messrs Bolland & Anderson's new shop sign arrived, they complained to the sign-painter: 'There should be bigger spaces between Bolland and and and and and Anderson!' Ugh.

I suppose "flame-proof" means something else?

Oh, who cares about inflammable or imflammable or whatever-able, any more?! Forget I ever brought it up!
-Mitch
(j/k)

I can only assume that the majority of the comments on this page were not delivered by teachers which reinforces my view that English teachers tend to be the least pedantic of people. Especially when it comes to the English language.

Sorry to butt in on your conversation, but if
Researcher "GENKI"
would go back to there own page and then click on the "EDIT PAGE" button and then write a little something about your self then a ACE can come and welcome you there properly
Sorry for interrupting your conversation

Manda

Apart from skiing , doesn't "taxiing" also have double I ? I know Latin loan words like "radii" also fall into this category but "the plane now taxiing on the runway" is 100% English as far as I'm concerned .

'Taxiing' is mentioned in the Oxford English Dictionary, so it's good enough for me. Interestingly, they have 'book-keeping' rather than 'bookkeeping', which means that it doesn't have three consecutive pairs of letters...

There are at least six words out of "there", if you count "thee", the informal/dialect "you" that hangs on in Northern England. Would "ert", the opposite of "inert", count as a word in its own right?

and the peculiarity of "vacuum", the only word - literally - with a "double u"!

"Ask your friends if they know a five-letter word that has five other words inside it. The answer is 'there' (the, he, her, here, ere)."


Just spotted "tree". Definitely seven now. And re. the above conundrum... "re" makes eight.... And "ether" (numbing chemical).

What a treat to see this old conv revived.
And I am still as pedantic as I was then too!
Always thrilled for a chance to show off my smarts.

For example, you said:
"...and the peculiarity of "vacuum", the only word - literally
- with a "double u..."

And I just gotta say 'continuum'

But you probably knew that and were just trying to get a rise outa me.


~jwf~

Richard Feyneman famously pointed out that subbookkeeper has four pairs of double letters.