3 ms·
Inflammable?
by dr_dshiv 4y ago
Inflammable?
- thaumasiotes 4y agoNot an autoantonym; that word only has one meaning. Its problem is that it appears to mean the opposite of what it means, not that it has two contradictory meanings.
- dr_dshiv 4y ago“The mighty sequoia, protected by thick bark and with its foliage typically high above the flames, was once considered nearly inflammable.” — Brian Melley, Anchorage Daily News, 23 July 2022
- omginternets 4y agoThat’s just misuse of the word.
- nirimda 4y agoSure but by now every rational and reasonable reader must understand that whenever they come across the word "inflammable", the author might have misused it and they need to search for additional signals to identify whether it means "inflammable" or "uninflammable". This is not different than how the rational and reasonable reader treats the use of an autoantonym.
- omginternets 4y agoThere's a difference between misusing a word, and a word that has two accepted meanings.
- toyg 4y agoBrian Melley needs to be acquainted with the word nonflammable, which is the one he really wanted to use.
- thaumasiotes 4y agoThere's no need to use a single word; that sentence is trying to sound impressive, not concise. Try "The mighty sequoia, protected by thick bark and with its foliage typically high above the flames, was once considered nearly impervious to fire."