Now does this make *any* sense?

[Doug Miller]

Warnings on a can of Weldwood brand NONflammable contact cement:

"Contains toluene ... Use in a well ventilated area. Keep away from heat, sparks, or flame. Vapors may cause flash fire. ... Vapors can ignite explosively."

So... exactly how is that different from ordinary contact cement?

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

[Leon]

The label or testing laboratory musta been the same one, ones that Titebond III used. ;~)

[G. Lewin]

You sure it doesn't say INflammable? There's a lesson you don't want to learn the hard way.

G

Doug Miller wrote:

[Chris]

Sorry to gripe here, but the misuse of the word "inflammable" is silly and can be dangerous. The prefix in- is a negation when applied to a root word, examples:

inhospitable = not hospitable insecure = not secure inadmissable = not admissable ... inflammable = not flammable

If something will combust it IS flammable (remember your chemistry classes). Asbestos is (basically) inflammable. A linseed oil soaked rag is quite possibly flammable.

On to the original post; perhaps the nonflammable portion of the name refers to the _cured_ cement product; it clearly states that the vapors are flammable.

Chris

[DJ Delorie]

Because of that, sadly enough, the English language has since defined flammable and inflammable to mean exactly the same thing - catches fire easily.

The opposite is now "nonflammable".

Sigh.

The English language has been well and truly flammed.

[Doug Miller]

Dead positive. I know the difference, hence my emphasis on the NON. The term "inflammable" is only rarely used any more, precisely because of the confusion it often causes.

Here's a link to the manufacturer's page for the product:

MSDS for the product notes the following:

Toluene 1 to 5% by weight Emergency overview: Warning! Combustible liquid and vapor Unusual fire and explosion hazards: Combustible.

From the MSDS, it's evidently a hazard only above 150 deg F, but still, it doesn't sound to me like it should be called non-flammable.

I found out what's going on with that, though: OSHA defines a "flammable" liquid as one having a flash point below 100 deg F, and a "combustible" liquid as one having a flash point between 100 and 200 deg F. So strictly speaking, this stuff is in fact not "flammable" even though it is "combustible".

Sheesh.

Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

[Doug Miller]

Indeed it is, and you unfortunately are contributing to the confusion with your own misuse of the word.

OK so far...

.. but this is _dead_wrong_.

In this case, "in" is NOT a prefix applied to the root word and meaning "not" but rather part of the root word itself, which is "inflame". "Inflammable" = "capable of being inflamed", i.e. synonymous with flammable.

No, it's not. Asbestos is absolutely non-flammable. Gasoline, e.g., is inflammable.

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

[Doug Miller]

They have *always* meant exactly the same thing. There has been no redefinition.

"Now"?

The opposite of "flammable" has *always* been "nonflammable".

"Inflammable" does not mean, and never has meant, "not flammable". The root word of "inflammable" is "inflame". The "in" part is not, and never has been, a prefix.

It is precisely because of this confusion that the term "inflammable" has been largely abandoned in favor of the clearer and _absolutely_synonymous_ term "flammable": too many people mistakenly thought that "inflammable" was a synonym for "nonflammable".

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

[Robert Bonomi]

Unfortunately, you sir, in _this_ case, "know not that of which you speak".

The words 'flammable', and 'inflammable' actually come from *SEPARATE*,

*UNRELATED* roots.

That leading 'in' in 'inflammable' is no more a negation prefix than the leading 'in' in 'innocent', 'inside', 'inflamed', or 'inflammation' is.

Note: the seeming 'contradiction' has been in existence for a *LONG* time. All the way back to Old Latin, in fact.

"Flammable" traces to "flamma', meaning 'flame', while "inflammable" traces back to 'inflammare', meaning 'to inflame'. which is constructed from the 'intensifier' (!!) prefix 'in', and the root _is_ derived from 'flamma'.

In engineering circles, there _is_ a technical distinction drawn between the two terms -- it has to do with how fast/easily/quickly combustion occurs. One of them burns, the other burns *quickly*. Unfortunately, I can never remember which is which.

The flammable/inflammable distinction is fairly s similar to the difference between 'explosive' and 'high explosive'.

[Robert Bonomi]

BZZZT! thank you for playing.

_BOTH_ terms *predate* Modern English.

They are tracable, to separate roots in Old Latin.

"Inflammable" comes from the same root as 'inflame'.

[jo4hn]

I remember tanker trucks in days of yore (picture me as a child), carrying warning signs that said "inflammable" or "non-inflammable". I puzzled about the meanings of these words until my puzzler was sore. I then asked my father who knew all things (and would admit to not knowing as necessary). We agreed that these words were not necessarily intuitive. Some time later the industry/government change to "flammable" and "non-flammable". All better now. mahalo, jo4hn

whose father taught him about dictionaries and encyclopedias...

[patriarch]

[e-mail] (Doug Miller) wrote in news:7O_Yc.9297$ [e-mail]:

But is it _waterproof_?

Patriarch

[Doug Miller]

They claim it is, after it's cured. Not sure how it would fare, though, if immersed for 24 hours...

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

[Bill Rogers]

Rubbish! Webster [or any other]: Inflammable 1. Flammable 2: Easily inflamed ...

OK flame away.

Bill.

[Bill Rogers]

The inference there is that the latter is the more rapid perhaps, but that is not a genereal inference. They are generally synonymous.

Bill.

[Dave Mundt]

Or...as I say..."Ah! a NEWSGROUP!" Regards Dave Mundt

[G. Lewin]

Note to self: the internet is never a good medium for sarcasm (or obscure references to "Cheers" one-liners).

G

Doug Miller wrote:

[J. Clarke]

It is not a "misuse". Both Webster and Oxford define it as being equivalent to "flammable". Oxford dates it back to 1605. It's actually something of an archaism--if the word were being coined today it would probably be "enflameable", but spelling in 1605 was a bit more flexible than it is now.

Not according to standard English usage.

[J. Clarke]

For certain values of "since". If it ever meant "non-flammable" it was before 1605.

[Ridley Scoot]

Chris,

Ever since I was old enough to care what was on a warning label (grade school?), this one has perplexed me.

I could only blame the obtuseness of the "English" language for this inconsistency.

(That, and never use that term in the vernacular!)

x-- 100 Proof News -

3,500+ Binary NewsGroups, and over 90,000 other groups x-- Access to over 1 Terabyte per Day - $8.95/Month x-- UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD