Date:    Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:32:08 -0400
<br>From:    Gregory {Greg} Downing <gd2[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]IS2.NYU.EDU>
<br>Subject: Re: (In)flammable
<br>
<br>At 12:49 AM 4/21/98 -0600, you wrote:
<br>>>There are two _in-_ prefixes, one being a negator and the other referring
<br>>>to 'enabling'.  So 'inflammable' refers to an object consisting of a
<br>>>substance that may be 'inflamed' when subjected to a heat source above a
<br>>>certain temperature -- though this is not the most common use of
<br>>>'inflame'.  Discussions of the inappropriateness of the term 'inflammable'
<br>>>are typical of dicta offered by prescriptivists who don't want to bother
<br>>>doing homework because they already know everything that anyone could
<br>>>possibly learn about language by consulting dictionaries etc.
<br>>
<br>>DMLance
<br>>
<br>
<br>Isn't the elimination of the "in-" from "inflammable" actually an example of
<br>linguistic *innovators* (not "tradition"-maintaining prescriptivists) simply
<br>giving in to the descriptivistically observed problem of confusion between
<br>two phonetically identical prefixes of often opposite meanings?
<br>
<br>But since you raise prescriptivism, a larger point to think about is that
<br>linguistically prescriptivist activities (i.e., decisions about what is
<br>"better" and what is "worse" usage -- decisions which are in fact
<br>unavoidable in the production of any utterance) are part of what human
<br>beings in fact do, with a good deal of frequency. So a fully and
<br>consistently descriptivist attitude toward language would need to include
<br>and account for prescriptivist activity as one component of its full
<br>description of language.
<br>
<br>Gregory {Greg} Downing, at greg.downing[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]nyu.edu or downingg[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]is2.nyu.edu
<br>