Why?
Dec 7th 2009, 5:29 am
#62
Go on.. Pull my finger..
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 5,726
Re: Why?
Either take a couple of sharpened sticks and poke your eyes out, or you could always close the page you are looking at...
Both options would thus remove the embarassing and cringing feeling you currently suffer from....
That'll be 450dhs please....
Next patient, please...
Dec 7th 2009, 5:32 am
#65
Forum Regular
Joined: May 2009
Location: Riyadh
Posts: 185
Re: Why?
Well, you have two choices...
Either take a couple of sharpened sticks and poke your eyes out, or you could always close the page you are looking at...
Both options would thus remove the embarassing and cringing feeling you currently suffer from....
That'll be 450dhs please....
Next patient, please...
Either take a couple of sharpened sticks and poke your eyes out, or you could always close the page you are looking at...
Both options would thus remove the embarassing and cringing feeling you currently suffer from....
That'll be 450dhs please....
Next patient, please...
Dec 7th 2009, 5:33 am
#66
Go on.. Pull my finger..
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 5,726
Re: Why?
Now, this gonna cost more than 450dhs, since we now have some psychological rehabilitation to do....
What is the first thing you think of when I use the word 'Paki'..?
Dec 7th 2009, 5:43 am
#69
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 2,082
Re: Why?
If something is "flammable" it means it will burn readily ... right? So ... if it's "inflammable" that should mean it doesn't burn ... right?
Wrong. Both words mean the same.
Visitors to the Apostrophe Forum have been addressing this problem of flammable and inflammable materials. Richard Tinsley did some investigating and found the following satisfactory explanation at the Word Detective site here
Blame it on Latin and its tricky prefixes. In the beginning, there was "inflammable," a perfectly nice English word based on the Latin "inflammare," meaning "to kindle," from "in" (in) plus "flamma" (flame). "Inflammable" became standard English in the 16th century. So far, so good.
Comes the 19th century, and some well-meaning soul dreamt up the word "flammable," basing it on a slightly different Latin word, "flammare," meaning "to set on fire." There was nothing terribly wrong with "flammable," but it never really caught on. After all, we already had "inflammable," so "flammable" pretty much died out in the 1800's.
"But wait," you say, "I saw 'flammable' just the other day." Indeed you did. "Flammable" came back, one of the few successful instances of social engineering of language.
The Latin prefix "in," while it sometimes means just "in" (as in "inflammable"), more often turns up in English words meaning "not" (as in "invisible" -- "not visible"). After World War Two, safety officials on both sides of the Atlantic decided that folks were too likely to see "inflammable" and decide that the word meant "fireproof," so various agencies set about encouraging the revival of "flammable" as a substitute. The campaign seems to have worked, and "inflammable" has all but disappeared.
That left what to call something that was not likely to burst into flames, but here the process of linguistic renovation was easier. "Non-flammable" is a nice, comforting word, and besides, it's far easier on the tongue than its now thankfully obsolete precursor, "non-inflammable."
The Oxford English Dictionary adds this usage note: Historically, flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. However, the presence of the prefix in- has misled many people into assuming that inflammable means "not flammable" or "noncombustible." The prefix -in in inflammable is not, however, the Latin negative prefix -in, which is related to the English -un and appears in such words as indecent and inglorious. Rather, this -in is an intensive prefix derived from the Latin preposition in. This prefix also appears in the word enflame. But many people are not aware of this derivation, and for clarity's sake it is advisable to use only flammable to give warnings.
Copied (because i knew no one would bother looking at the site) from http://www.write101.com/W.Tips215.htm
Wrong. Both words mean the same.
Visitors to the Apostrophe Forum have been addressing this problem of flammable and inflammable materials. Richard Tinsley did some investigating and found the following satisfactory explanation at the Word Detective site here
Blame it on Latin and its tricky prefixes. In the beginning, there was "inflammable," a perfectly nice English word based on the Latin "inflammare," meaning "to kindle," from "in" (in) plus "flamma" (flame). "Inflammable" became standard English in the 16th century. So far, so good.
Comes the 19th century, and some well-meaning soul dreamt up the word "flammable," basing it on a slightly different Latin word, "flammare," meaning "to set on fire." There was nothing terribly wrong with "flammable," but it never really caught on. After all, we already had "inflammable," so "flammable" pretty much died out in the 1800's.
"But wait," you say, "I saw 'flammable' just the other day." Indeed you did. "Flammable" came back, one of the few successful instances of social engineering of language.
The Latin prefix "in," while it sometimes means just "in" (as in "inflammable"), more often turns up in English words meaning "not" (as in "invisible" -- "not visible"). After World War Two, safety officials on both sides of the Atlantic decided that folks were too likely to see "inflammable" and decide that the word meant "fireproof," so various agencies set about encouraging the revival of "flammable" as a substitute. The campaign seems to have worked, and "inflammable" has all but disappeared.
That left what to call something that was not likely to burst into flames, but here the process of linguistic renovation was easier. "Non-flammable" is a nice, comforting word, and besides, it's far easier on the tongue than its now thankfully obsolete precursor, "non-inflammable."
The Oxford English Dictionary adds this usage note: Historically, flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. However, the presence of the prefix in- has misled many people into assuming that inflammable means "not flammable" or "noncombustible." The prefix -in in inflammable is not, however, the Latin negative prefix -in, which is related to the English -un and appears in such words as indecent and inglorious. Rather, this -in is an intensive prefix derived from the Latin preposition in. This prefix also appears in the word enflame. But many people are not aware of this derivation, and for clarity's sake it is advisable to use only flammable to give warnings.
Copied (because i knew no one would bother looking at the site) from http://www.write101.com/W.Tips215.htm
Dec 7th 2009, 5:48 am
#70
Go on.. Pull my finger..
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 5,726
Re: Why?
Am still trying to decipher the Brucie reference.. I have a team of south-east asian researchers working through my library.. Hoping they find it before reaching the Junge section..
Patrick Bonner.. This ones a bit easier.. Either 'yon Tim ******' or 'Paddy', depending how much you want to piss off any Irish....
Patrick Bonner.. This ones a bit easier.. Either 'yon Tim ******' or 'Paddy', depending how much you want to piss off any Irish....
Dec 7th 2009, 6:05 am
#73
**** it we'll do it live
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 7,892
Re: Why?
it wasnt a dodge, i pointed you to a thread where i gave two specific examples of why the pc bus needs to slow donw and kick everyone out. If you choose to ignore the answer then fine.