Re: Our language

Subject: Re: Our language
From: "Wayne J. Douglass" <wayned -at- VERITY -dot- COM>
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 08:51:17 -0700

At 11:13 PM 5/12/97 -0400, John Glenn 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?''
>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.
Please excuse John. He has just been released from the Massachusetts State
Home for the Bewildered and his meds are low.

--Wayne Douglass

Verity, Inc. mailto: wayned -at- verity -dot- com
894 Ross Drive Telephone: 408-542-2139
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Facsimile: 408-542-2040
Connecting People with Information:

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 or search and
browse the archives at

Previous by Author: Re: on the fly
Next by Author: Re: Quotations from the Web
Previous by Thread: Re: Our language
Next by Thread: Re: Our language

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

Sponsored Ads