Our language

Subject: Our language
From: John Glenn <sfarmh1 -at- SCFN -dot- THPL -dot- LIB -dot- FL -dot- US>
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 23:13:24 -0400

In a recent post, it was written that something was
While the poster's English is correct (no flame, this), the
ENGLISH rings false - INvaluable? Why not ''valuable?''
Remember (you grey beards -- is there a female = to
grey [gray?] beard?) ''inflammable'' meaning ''will go up in
flames'' -- someone forced the change to ''flammable'' since
the ''in'' was a (Latin?) negative.
INvaluable --in this scrivener's opinion-- ought'a
be relegated to the same scrap heap as inflammable -- along
with some other words I'm certain can be added by other
techwr-l subscribers.
Before I press (but never DEpress) [ctrl]x, I want to repeat
that this is >> !! NOT !! << a flame to/about the person
who used the word. If a flame at all, 'tis a flame on this
language that is so confusing even to some of us who grew up
with it.

John Glenn <sfarmh1 -at- scfn -dot- thpl -dot- lib -dot- fl -dot- us>
...do not make a statement that cannot be easily
understood on the grounds that it will be understood
eventually. [Hillel - Avot 2:5]

TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html

Previous by Author: Re: Bad Employers/Clients List???
Next by Author: Programming and agencies
Previous by Thread: Re: please don't stop!
Next by Thread: Re: Our language

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads