Bruce is absolutely correct. Inflammable means a substance so labelled will burn. Safety organizations changed their labelling voluntarily since so many people thought that the prefix "in" was negative that it was becoming hazardous to leave the labels that way even though to do so was correct. The "in" is not really even a prefix. It is simply part of the word, "inflame."

Jim Pickett


________________________________
From: Bruce F. Smith <smithbf@...>
To: "<STMFC@...>" <STMFC@...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: tank car placards for models



 

Tom,

Wrong! (Gosh, I miss the Gong Show) First "inflammable" is absolutely correct English. Check your dictionary. Second, the derivation is from Latin inflammare. The "in" is not the negative equivalent of "un" but rather the preposition "in".

You doctor doesn't say you have an "flamed knee", they say you have an "inflamed knee"... same root <G>

Regards

Bruce

Bruce F. Smith

Auburn, AL

https://www5.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."

__

/ &#92;

__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________

|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |

| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||

|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|

| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0

On Mar 21, 2012, at 1:52 PM, Tom Houle wrote:

For many years at least through the fifties, the term "Inflammable" was used
to indicate combustionable material. It was and still is incorrect
English. Inflammable literally means non-flammable. The "in"prefix
comes from the Latin prefix for not. Today we correctly use the term
"Flammable". Preferred use would be Flammable, but it really depends on
the era you are modeling. Pre- 1960, I'd use the incorrect term
Inflammable.
Tom Houle

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]