TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Our language From:Debbie Molinaro <debbiem -at- UCS -dot- NET> Date:Tue, 13 May 1997 09:42:39 -0400
Kinda like what infamous does to famous (but different). Ya gotta love our
> From: John Fulton <jfulton -at- LSI-DSP -dot- CO -dot- UK>
> sfarmh1 -at- SCFN -dot- THPL -dot- LIB -dot- FL -dot- US wrote:
> >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?''
> >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.
> "Valuable" and "invaluable" have subtly different meanings.
> "Valuable" means "having intrinsic value".
> "Invaluable" means "valuable to a high degree" - like "priceless", it has
> the sense that it is of so much worth you can't put a value on it.