It's just a parsing error. "in-" is also a prefix to create verbs from a name or another verb like inhume, inflame, induce, incite, inject, infiltrate. Inflammable is (inflame)-able and not in-(flammable)
There are many counter-examples to your examples, such as “direct” and “indirect”, “humane” and “inhumane”.
The words used should be clear in their meaning. “Inflammable” is ambiguous, and it makes a great deal of difference which meaning is intended.
Flammable is unambiguous, as is non-inflammable. I’m forced to use these. Personally, I’m more in favour of flammable (able to catch fire) and inflammable (not able to catch fire).
There's an inconsistency but no ambiguity, only ignorance. Inflammable only ever means one thing regardless of how ridiculous english might be.
The historically correct term would be non-inflammable. The modern variant is non-flammable.
Similarly, inflammable is the historic term and flammable is the modern variant.
The confusion arises when people are exposed to the word flammable and then attempt to apply the usual rules to construct a word they've never actually used before.
This isn't the usual sort of inconsistency introduced by our fusing multiple incompatible languages. It's from the original Latin and I'm unclear what led to it. For example consider inflammable versus inhumane. It seems Latin itself used the prefix to mean different things - here on(fire) versus not(human). But confusingly it's ex to indicate location, despite ex also being the antonym of in. So ex equo means you are on horseback, not off it as I would have guessed.
> There are many counter-examples to your examples, such as “direct” and “indirect”, “humane” and “inhumane”.
They are not counter-example. You use the other "in-" prefix that take an adjective and give the opposite adjective, not the one that create a verb from a noun.
That's not generational. Living in France I can ensure you that in primary school, kids still learn and use cursive as main writing system. I wasn't even aware anyone would use anything else to write by hand in Latin script.
I'm curious to get information about how people write elsewhere and how does it look.
In the US, when I was in grade school we learned both, but almost all the kids chose to write in Latin script when given the option. I think we learned that first and it just stuck.
One day the school principal came into our class, pretty randomly, and tried to emphasize the importance of being proficient at reading and writing in cursive. It gave “old man yells at clouds” vibes at the time. Looking back, it wasn’t all that important.
My grandparents are of French decent and my grandfather’s cursive was very impressive. I may have been more interested in learning it in school if what we were learning was more aspirational, like his writing. We were taught the D'Nealian method[0], which I still find rather ugly for cursive. Their selling point to us was speed, not beauty, but I don’t know anyone who got quick with it.
I still remember a kid in my class who transferred from another school, I’m not sure where. His print handwriting was immaculate and beautiful. The teacher forced him to change to D'Nealian, even for his print writing, because that’s what was in the curriculum. It was so much worse. The kid was super upset about it. Here I am, 30+ years later still upset about it as well… and it wasn’t even me, I just witnessed the injustice. I felt really bad for him.
I'd hedge to say roughly the same, but that's writing print in chicken-scratch handwriting (which is my norm) and under-practiced with cursive. I'd suspect after using cursive a bit I would speed up. Similar to using home-row when typing vs pick-and-peck or whatever they call it
My phone would transcribe even quicker than that, though, which would probably be my go-to instead of hand-writing
It is probably country and language dependent, I think. I don't know anyone under 40 who doesn't write in cursive (in Russian), and for other languages I personally also write in cursive (and learnt that in school). I'm in my 30s.
OP double negated - cursive is the norm for Russians of all ages.
Russian cursive is actually not that bad to read for the most part. Russian “print” is super awkward because all the characters are very angular.
There are some differences between generations (younger generations are more likely to write “т” in handwriting whereas the “correct” form looks more like a Latin “m”, but with obvious examples excluded (like the above), it just takes learning as a separate alphabet.
I know. I always feel utterly embarrassed when Russian-speaking friends write down a movie title for me, and I have to ask them to rewrite it in block capitals.
Conversely I don't know anyone who doesn't write in cursive. It's still taught in schools in the UK, and I still write with it and actively aim to improve.
My daughter simply cannot write without joining the letters, finds it impossible. Time will tell if this remains true. Everyone is different in the best possible way.
My understanding is that they started turning away from it, but have turned back in many states. We were told it was important that we delay teaching our child typing until they had finished learning cursive because it had been discovered that teaching cursive developed something or other that I zoned out on while waiting to ask when that would be. Education has fads that don't seem to line up with peer reviewed articles that well. For instance, current reading instruction is non optimal for dyslexic students, while early 20th century instruction seems to (not entirely intentionally) worked much better.
Edit: Apparently it has to do with dyslexia and executive functioning. California and Texas amongst others have now required it be resumed. So there is a roughly decade long gap in cursive in the us, maybe a little less.
I was in the small phone camp. I’m in a fortunate position where due to my work I have a work phone that has regularly refreshed hardware that I have some input on, so I made the conscious decision to switch to a max-sized handset (iPhone 15 pro max). I gave up being able to ‘one-hand’ the phone, but let’s be honest - all modern mainstream phones can’t really be used with one hand easily, that ship has sailed.
I really liked it. The larger screen is more productive, and the improved cameras on the larger phones are worth it for me. I take more and better photos of my kids.
Sometimes it’s worth trying the thing you don’t think you want - you might be surprised.
phone size has nothing to do with camera quality (in the current market, only in the theory), the best android camera phones are the smallest pixels, every other brand has worse cameras and bigger dimensions
The iPhone pro max cameras offer more physical options that I actually take advantage of, so it’s a true statement for me.
I agree that phone size doesn’t have to correlate to picture quality, but that’s how many of the manufacturers position their cameras - bigger phones get the more capable cameras.
While I’m glad for the author, in that they’ve found something that delights them, this just seems like a really long-winded way to say “matte screens have less glare” - not a new fact.
There are special surfaces (also used in some TVs I believe) which actually reflect somewhat less light. I assume this "nano texture" is something like that. (Of course the screen being matte also helps.)
On windows at least, I almost always use 'alt+space; x' to maximise windows, as well as winkey+left/right/up/down, which is really the only resizing I do. Having to use the mouse is a pain.
The only logical way out of the flammable/inflammable mess is to use 'flammable' and 'non-inflammable', which makes me so mad.
reply