Flammable. Inflammable. Famous. Infamous. So many dumb prefixes that make no sense.
There really needs to be more language revisions every couple decades to get rid of stupid shit or revise letters, words, and spellings to be more in tune with their phonetic pronunciations.
They aren’t dumb, peoples’ usage is just poorly informed and incorrect.
Famous/infamous are not synonyms, so you shouldn’t be using them interchangeably. Infamous specifically means “Famous for the wrong [read negative] reasons”. Like a serial killer. Or somebody who is famous for knocking over and breaking a priceless work of art.
If something is flammable, it can be set on fire. Like wood, or paper. If something is inflammable, that’s still true, but it has the additional property of being able to spontaneously combust, without being actively set alight. Like oils, or unstable chemicals, or some explosive material.
These are levels of nuance which are actually really useful, if handled correctly. The fundamental rule appears to be that in an “in…” word, the prefix gives specific detail about how the object holds the properties of the suffix.
C / K / S. Remove X. Change letter names to match their sounds.
A / ugh / Ayyy.
B = Buh
C = Removed? It’s just K or S in reality.
D - Dih
E - same?
Etc. etc. there’s better linguists than an old school Grammar Nazi turned Language Darwinist.
I like the idea of removing upper and lower case letters too and changing their denotation with a new symbol, but I’d have to think longer about case studies or could be easily persuaded.
Flammable. Inflammable. Famous. Infamous. So many dumb prefixes that make no sense.
There really needs to be more language revisions every couple decades to get rid of stupid shit or revise letters, words, and spellings to be more in tune with their phonetic pronunciations.
They aren’t dumb, peoples’ usage is just poorly informed and incorrect.
Famous/infamous are not synonyms, so you shouldn’t be using them interchangeably. Infamous specifically means “Famous for the wrong [read negative] reasons”. Like a serial killer. Or somebody who is famous for knocking over and breaking a priceless work of art.
If something is flammable, it can be set on fire. Like wood, or paper. If something is inflammable, that’s still true, but it has the additional property of being able to spontaneously combust, without being actively set alight. Like oils, or unstable chemicals, or some explosive material.
These are levels of nuance which are actually really useful, if handled correctly. The fundamental rule appears to be that in an “in…” word, the prefix gives specific detail about how the object holds the properties of the suffix.
Sounds like you just used the guardian’s op ed which is just some random dudes opinion on how they should be used.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/flammable-or-inflammable
I was well aware of the famous infamous thing though.
Regardless, infamous should be ‘not famous’. As in nobody has ever heard of this person. Not famous for evil lmfao.
C / K / S. Remove X. Change letter names to match their sounds.
A / ugh / Ayyy.
B = Buh
C = Removed? It’s just K or S in reality.
D - Dih
E - same?
Etc. etc. there’s better linguists than an old school Grammar Nazi turned Language Darwinist.
I like the idea of removing upper and lower case letters too and changing their denotation with a new symbol, but I’d have to think longer about case studies or could be easily persuaded.
C has some uses other than K/S. The usage in "ch"ess, for instance. We’ll have to shoehorn some other letter here if C is eliminated.
Or we may just reassign “c” to always sound “ch” since it’s freed from other sounds, and save some ink, too 😉
Mmmm yeah that’s that good shit.