End of ADS-L Digest - 21 Apr 1998 to 22 Apr 1998


From: Automatic digest processor (4/22/98)
To: Recipients of ADS-L digests

ADS-L Digest - 20 Apr 1998 to 21 Apr 1998 98-04-22 00:00:33
This message contains more text than QuickMail can display. The entire message
has been enclosed as a file.

There are 20 messages totalling 582 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

1. (In)flammable (6)
2. flat
3. pron question (8)
4. Tuition
5. Pron. question
6. un- & -ate (2)
7. Sub-additivity


Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 00:49:58 -0600
From: "Donald M. Lance"
Subject: Re: (In)flammable

I intended to send this msg to ads-l, but the header on Chambers' ads-l
msgs causes "Reply to" to send the reply to him rather than to ads-l.

>Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 00:44:58 -0600
>To: maelduin[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]ozemail.com.au
>From: "Donald M. Lance"
>Subject: Re: (In)flammable
>>Not "un" but "in", and related?
>>Somewhere (Australia?) a conscious policy to delete the 'in' from
>>'inflammable' was made.It was felt that those speaking English as a
>>second language would perceive dangerous goods marked in this way as not
>>Is this an example of successful prescription?
>>Regards - Ross Chambers
>There are two _in-_ prefixes, one being a negator and the other referring
>to 'enabling'. So 'inflammable' refers to an object consisting of a
>substance that may be 'inflamed' when subjected to a heat source above a
>certain temperature -- though this is not the most common use of
>'inflame'. Discussions of the inappropriateness of the term 'inflammable'
>are typical of dicta offered by prescriptivists who don't want to bother
>doing homework because they already know everything that anyone could
>possibly learn about language by consulting dictionaries etc.