'inflammable' confused with 'not flammable' - an actual example found in print

[Raymond S. Wise]

In the United States, the word "flammable" replaced "inflammable" for the
purposes of labeling substances which easily catch fire. This was ordered by
the federal government on the recommendation of insurance companies and
scientific societies, on the theory that the "in-" of "inflammable" might be
mistaken for a negative prefix with regrettable results.

Some of you may also know that scholars have attempted to find out whether
such an error was ever recorded in print, but the only example that has been
found is a questionable one. See the following for a post I made on the
subject:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=v8qq56881neg75%40corp.supernews.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

or

http://tinyurl.com/fwza

Well, I recently discovered an example, but it was done decades after the
change from "flammable" to "inflammable" was put into place. Still, it shows
that the mistake has indeed been made, and in this case it was made by
scholars.

From *The Penguin French Dictionary,* compiled by Merlin Thomas and Raymond
Escoffey, London: Bloomsbury Books(C) 1985:

From the English-French section:

"*inflammable* _adj_ inflammable; _US_ ignifuge."

From the French-English section:

"*ignifuge* [...] _adj_ fire-proof, non-inflammable."

--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

[Sebastian Hew]

Raymond S. Wise wrote:

> Well, I recently discovered an example, but it was done decades after
> the change from "flammable" to "inflammable" was put into place.
> Still, it shows that the mistake has indeed been made, and in this
> case it was made by scholars.
>
> From *The Penguin French Dictionary,* compiled by Merlin Thomas and
> Raymond Escoffey, London: Bloomsbury Books(C) 1985:
>
> From the English-French section:
>
> "*inflammable* _adj_ inflammable; _US_ ignifuge."
>
> From the French-English section:
>
> "*ignifuge* [...] _adj_ fire-proof, non-inflammable."

I don't know that a mistake has been made here. French 'ignifuge' means
fire-proof, or non-flammable as indicated by the French-English entry,
which is fine. To me, the English-French section says that English
'inflammable' should be translated as 'inflammable' in French (which
means inflammable), but American (US) 'inflammable' should be translated
as 'ignifuge' (which means non-flammable). I don't see a mistake here.

Sebastian.

[Professor Redwine]

I think the mistake is that 'inflammable' does not mean non-flammable in
the US either. It still means flammable, it is just not the recommended
term to use.

--
Redwine, Berlin

We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with
nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke,
and a presumption that once our eyes watered. --Tom Stoppard

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 18:46:26 +1000, "Sebastian Hew" <rada...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>> From the French-English section:
>>
>> "*ignifuge* [...] _adj_ fire-proof, non-inflammable."
>
>I don't know that a mistake has been made here. French 'ignifuge' means
>fire-proof, or non-flammable as indicated by the French-English entry,
>which is fine. To me, the English-French section says that English
>'inflammable' should be translated as 'inflammable' in French (which
>means inflammable), but American (US) 'inflammable' should be translated
>as 'ignifuge' (which means non-flammable). I don't see a mistake here.

No, surely non-inflammable and non-flammable mean the same thing?

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[John Smith]

Steve Hayes wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 18:46:26 +1000, "Sebastian Hew" <rada...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> From the French-English section:
> >>
> >> "*ignifuge* [...] _adj_ fire-proof, non-inflammable."
> >
> >I don't know that a mistake has been made here. French 'ignifuge' means
> >fire-proof, or non-flammable as indicated by the French-English entry,
> >which is fine. To me, the English-French section says that English
> >'inflammable' should be translated as 'inflammable' in French (which
> >means inflammable), but American (US) 'inflammable' should be translated
> >as 'ignifuge' (which means non-flammable). I don't see a mistake here.
>
> No, surely non-inflammable and non-flammable mean the same thing?

I don't think it's "non-inflammable." I think it's "uninflammable." Or,
maybe it's "uninflammable-proof."

\\P. Schultz

[Raymond S. Wise]

"John Smith" <jsm...@company.com> wrote in message
news:3F04D098...@company.com...

[Humor-noticed notice: Yes, I did see the humor in P. Schultz's post, and
yes, I am answering with a serious post (although "ininflammable" (see
below) does strike me as funny).]

As it happens, *The Century Dictionary* ( www.century-dictionary.com ) has
an entry for "uninflammable" and "uninflammability." And Noah Webster, in
his 1828 dictionary, not only has "uninflammable" as an entry, at

http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=uninflammable

or

http://tinyurl.com/g01c

but he himself makes use of the word, in his entry for "earth," at

http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=earth

or

http://tinyurl.com/g01b

*The Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary* translates the English word
"nonflammable" as "ininflammable."