Common parlance be damned! What words don't mean what you think?

[davmilasav]

The one that drives me nuts is “inflammable.” That word should mean “not flammable” not “incredibly flammable.” :smack:

[Q.E.D]

@davmilasav

The one that drives me nuts is “inflammable.” That word should mean “not flammable” not “incredibly flammable.” :smack:

No. The root word of inflammable is inflame, with the meaning “to set fire to”. In this case, the prefix in- means “in or into” rather than “not”. See [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=in-]in-[sup]2[/sup].

[Ludovic]

@davmilasav

The one that drives me nuts is “inflammable.” That word should mean “not flammable” not “incredibly flammable.” :smack:

What a country!

[Ignatz]

@Scott_plaid

Fair enough.

Question revised: Does anyone know of any archaic word which originally meant something outer than it means today?

“Like” used to mean (among other things) “similar to”. Now it is used to mean “about” (It was like 32 degrees this morning), "said, “thought” (as in “I’m like, wow!” and as an utterly, like, unnecessary introductory interjection (as in this sentence).

[Gorsnak]

@spoke-

Many old-timers in the South still refer to the midday meal as “dinner.”

I’m certainly not from the South, but where I grew up (rural Saskatchewan) dinner was eaten at noon, and supper in the evening. This is still common usage. I’ve come to use “lunch” and “supper” in order to avoid ambiguity, since different people in my life use “dinner” in different ways.

[postcards]

I get crazy with people who refer to something as a ‘moot point’ to signify a topic that no longer merits discussion.

Just the opposite! Ask a law student about ‘Moot Court’.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Is is possible to be ‘chalant’? All I ever hear about it is a lot of negativity.

[PastAllReason]

I find “cleave” interesting, and years ago, had the “huh?” reaction when I paid attention to the words in a wedding ceremony when it talked about the husband and wife cleaving together. Interesting that as an intransitive verb [cleave](http://www.bartleby.com/61/90/C0399000.html) means to cling together, but as a transitive verb cleave means to split apart.

[David_Simmons]

Well, there is the case of inflammable which means flammable despite the negating prefix *in[/].

In this case the prefix in- is an intensifier rather than a negator however that’s a minor technicality in light of the numerous instances were in- is negating - inflexible, inability, injustice, injudicious, inharmonious and on and on.

Some years ago somebody, maybe the ICC or the insurance industry or both, told the flammable materials transportation industry that they would had start marking their carriers “flammable” vice “inflammable.”

[David_Simmons]

I see my point was already covered. That’s what being lazy get you.

[pulykamell]

@postcards

I get crazy with people who refer to something as a ‘moot point’ to signify a topic that no longer merits discussion.

Just the opposite! Ask a law student about ‘Moot Court’.

Ahem…

Usage Note: The adjective moot is originally a legal term going back to the mid-16th century. It derives from the noun moot, in its sense of a hypothetical case argued as an exercise by law students. Consequently, a moot question is one that is arguable or open to debate. But in the mid-19th century people also began to look at the hypothetical side of moot as its essential meaning, and they started to use the word to mean “of no significance or relevance.” Thus, a moot point, however debatable, is one that has no practical value. A number of critics have objected to this use, but 59 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it in the sentence The nominee himself chastised the White House for failing to do more to support him, but his concerns became moot when a number of Republicans announced that they, too, would oppose the nomination. When using moot one should be sure that the context makes clear which sense is meant.

While I know the original meaning, I use moot most often to mean “trivial, unimportant.”

[Princhester]

@Scott_plaid

Fair enough.

Question revised: Does anyone know of any archaic word which originally meant something outer than it means today?

I think the answer would be shorter if you asked for words that have always meant what they mean now.

[Sevastopol]

@Scott_plaid

Fair enough.

Question revised: Does anyone know of any archaic word which originally meant something outer sic than it means today?

‘Egregious’ and ‘Pharmacy’ now signify the opposite of their original meanings.

[Sevastopol]

@RealityChuck

Similarly, no one ever thinks of a bundle of sticks when they hear “faggot.”

Very few people anyway. However they are larger in number than those who think of a bundle of sticks when they hear “fascist.”

[Sage_Rat]

For a time I would have sworn that common usages of these (related) words were as such:

Approximate: Give a rough estimate
Approximately: Precisely

Which always confused the heck out of me, and I could have sworn my dictionary at the time (10 years ago) backed up these discordant definitions. But now checking again, the wiktionary and GuruNet are both telling me that approximately means “roughly” so that they both line up with one-another.

Either that or I am fritzing out.

[Scott_Plaid]

@Sevastopol

Very few people anyway. However they are larger in number than those who think of a bundle of sticks when they hear “fascist.”

Not merely a simple bundle of sticks, no, but a bundle of rods round an axe…
Very phallic

[zagloba]

@Sevastopol

‘Egregious’ and ‘Pharmacy’ now signify the opposite of their original meanings.

What’s the opposite of “pharmacy?”

[Scott_Plaid]

Re: eel, I came across the old, old book I found the claim in, and it said that there is aspecies of eel on the island of Sicily, and that it is a kind oh eel called a flauta, and that the instrument is named after it. Interesting, but hardly proof, so I googled flauta +anguilla, tha is to say, the name of the kind of eel + plus the italian word for eel, and I found some very interesting things, most of them to hard to translate, but:

a kind of lamprey that looks like a flute, or rather…

Petromyzon marinus Linnaeus, 1758
Nombre local: lamprea, flauta
the picture is very easy to find, for it is at the top of the page:
http://www.icman.csic.es/divulg/divgFPECESGUA_sp.htm

but wait, it’s from a Puerto Real-ean webpage, (Realist, Realian?)

So, I don’t know, and I have been putting too much thought into it.

[marky33]

@Sevastopol

‘Egregious’ and ‘Pharmacy’ now signify the opposite of their original meanings.

What’s the opposite of pharmacy?
The art of NOT preparing and dispensing drugs???

[matt]

@PastAllReason

I find “cleave” interesting, and years ago, had the “huh?” reaction when I paid attention to the words in a wedding ceremony when it talked about the husband and wife cleaving together. Interesting that as an intransitive verb [cleave](http://www.bartleby.com/61/90/C0399000.html) means to cling together, but as a transitive verb cleave means to split apart.

Words that are their own opposites are cool. Sanction is another one - sanction can mean forbid or permit depending on context.