(I was led here through the link in the v4.0 thread. I posted my question on Friday and then forgot about this thread.)
Well…I hate to nitpick at this late stage, but y’know, gotta fight ignorance and all that…
Fire is actually a material thing, sort of. According to my encyclopedia, it is “composed of glowing particles of the burning material and certain gaseous products that are luminous at the temperature of the burning material.”
See above. It gives off energy, but it is composed of matter.
Well, you can breathe it, but it wouldn’t be a very good idea.
**Ferrous **:
I would submit that the ‘fire’ intended by Yo La Tengo more specifically refers to the actual process of combustion as opposed to the substance of fire. As such, it is not a material thing, and you couldn’t breathe it. The energy question is a thorny one, however. I think that, in the interests of clarity, most people understand fire to be composed of energy. Then the question becomes, of course, whether or not that is a suitable standard to be applied in this context.
Hmm. Yeah, it’s a tricky question. Now that I look at it, the encyclopedia article (and the dictionary I also consulted) makes a distinction between “fire” and “flame”. Flame is material, whereas fire also includes the heat and light produced. Still, it seems to me that the totality of Fire includes the material flame component.
