[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "cumulated" or "accumulated"
From: |
Bob Proulx |
Subject: |
Re: "cumulated" or "accumulated" |
Date: |
Mon, 7 Feb 2011 18:23:20 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
John Cowan wrote:
> Bob Proulx scripsit:
> > Like "kempt" and "couth" I only assume exist because "unkempt" and
> > "uncouth" exist. But I never hear them used. :-)
>
> "Kempt" now appears in the more regular form of "combed".
Of course I was thinking of Jack Winter's famous story published
25 July 1994 in the New Yorker. For any that haven't read it this
will be a treat, if a somewhat pain one. I highly recommend the
reading of it.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=How+I+met+my+wife+Jack+Winter+New+Yorker
The links a little down from the top have several archives of it.
> > Flammable, inflammable.
>
> "Inflammable" is the original word, meaning "capable of bursting into
> flames." It was changed to "flammable" on the sides of fuel trucks
> because, as Quine says, semi-literacy should not be a capital offense.
Yes. As in "inflame". But because of "indestructible" there can be
confusion. And that is not something to risk on a fuel truck and so
lowering the risk wins over language correctness.
In order to understand why a word is what it is you must understand
how the word arrived into the language. If it has origin roots in
Latin or German or other makes a critical difference. But having
arrived here the result of two very similar words may be quite
different. I won't argue that is a good thing.
Bob