I had always presumed that people, by which I mean the idea of people that I have in my head contract inflammable to flammable because they are lazy and equate flame with "will burn". While sticking in on the front of a word has evolved in English to be the default prefix for not or non.
Then we bump into irregardless, (or iregardless - both of which are mistakes.)
Here we see the same people so attracted to a prefix that starts with the letter eye that they mistakenly create a word, (or are they just trying to sound cleverer?)
So should we use the clunky non-inflammable to denote something that does not easily combust to encourage people to burn flammable as a word and return to the one true effigy that is inflammable?
I hope that my own mistakes won't spark a row in the comments.
Then we bump into irregardless, (or iregardless - both of which are mistakes.)
Here we see the same people so attracted to a prefix that starts with the letter eye that they mistakenly create a word, (or are they just trying to sound cleverer?)
So should we use the clunky non-inflammable to denote something that does not easily combust to encourage people to burn flammable as a word and return to the one true effigy that is inflammable?
I hope that my own mistakes won't spark a row in the comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment