Phrases/words that set your teeth on edge.

[MrGongGong]

As distasteful metaphors go, UKIP comparing itself to the Black Death would be hard to beat.

Seems fairly accurate to me

[ahinton]

As distasteful metaphors go, UKIP comparing itself to the Black Death would be hard to beat.

Not least on account of its questionable use of the word "black"...

[LMcD]

I don't know whether this has been mentioned before, but I always get irritated when the word 'inflammable' is used when the correct term for what is probably meant is 'non-flammable'. I notice that Mr Brokenshire referred to 'combustible' cladding, whereas the report in question correctly used 'flammable' To the best of my knowledge,
a combustible material will burn while a flammable material will burst into flame.

[oddoneout]

I don't know whether this has been mentioned before, but I always get irritated when the word 'inflammable' is used when the correct term for what is probably meant is 'non-flammable'. I notice that Mr Brokenshire referred to 'combustible' cladding, whereas the report in question correctly used 'flammable' To the best of my knowledge,
a combustible material will burn while a flammable material will burst into flame.

I think this is one of those cases where the original, more precise, meanings have changed over time. Inflammable refers to substances that can ignite without a means of ignition(linseed soaked rags comes to mind), whereas flammable and combustible mean that the substance can be set on fire. It's the 'in'- prefix that causes the confusion which is presumably why 'non-flammable' is used.
'Corrosive' is another word that gets misused in a somewhat similar fashion - cookery instructions may refer to using a 'non-corrosive' pan when cooking acidic items such as fruit, pickles.

[Alain Maréchal]

I think this is one of those cases where the original, more precise, meanings have changed over time. Inflammable refers to substances that can ignite without a means of ignition(linseed soaked rags comes to mind), whereas flammable and combustible mean that the substance can be set on fire. It's the 'in'- prefix that causes the confusion which is presumably why 'non-flammable' is used.
'Corrosive' is another word that gets misused in a somewhat similar fashion - cookery instructions may refer to using a 'non-corrosive' pan when cooking acidic items such as fruit, pickles.

What happened to IMflammable?

[Bryn]

What happened to IMflammable?

It became more widely recognised as a spelling error.

[Alain Maréchal]

So what does one use in the case of IMflammatory which is in Robert-Collins? Not an idle question, I am currently revising/translating a report in which I used it.

and where does ENflame fit in?

jean - are you out there?

[Bryn]

So what does one use in the case of IMflammatory which is in Robert-Collins? Not an idle question, I am currently revising/translating a report in which I used it.

and where does ENflame fit in?

jean - are you out there?

My understanding is that imflammatory[sic] and imflammable[sic] both derive from British colonial days. The "in" of "inflammable" was misheard in India and the far east as "imflammable" (vagaries of phililogy).

[jean]

...It's the 'in'- prefix that causes the confusion...

That's it.

The Latin prefix in has two meanings, outlined here as meanings 2 & 3.

They are easily confused. Inflammable was an example of meaning 2, but was too easily interpreted as an example of meaning 3. So the in has been sensibly dropped, as it is not absolutely necessary to the meaning.

(I presume this change was made by a sort of common consent, as we do not have an Academy to decide these things for us.)

[jean]

My understanding is that imflammatory[sic] and imflammable[sic] both derive from British colonial days. The "in" of "inflammable" was misheard in India and the far east as "imflammable" (vagaries of phililogy).

The respelling of 'in' as 'im' is quite common, though I have never come across imflammable.

I don't think it's a particularly colonial mishearing.

[Alain Maréchal]

(I presume this change was made by a sort of common consent, as we do not have an Academy to decide these things for us.)

Thank you, I shall study these. I think it would be difficult if not Anglophone to hear the difference "in" and "im" at the commencement of words. I happily accept that English is a living language and there is no such thing as "correct" English: what is current, is English.

It is a mistake to assume the Académie "decides" these things in France: it, and the Dictionnaire, have no authority other than the prestige of the members. The recent spelling reforms are more honoured in the breach than in the observance, except by profs, so perhaps it may be at least ten years before they become current. In Belgium things are clearer, there is a Minister who issues changes.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

"Ruth Archer"

[LMcD]

While waiting for the result of the BBC Young Musician Final, we were told that there would be a performance of the 4th movement of Elgar's iconic cello concerto......

[Lat-Literal]

The Government's two alternative options for the Custom Union.

Everywhere on the BBC - but "two" is unnecessary.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The Government's two alternative options for the Custom Union.
Everywhere on the BBC - but "two" is unnecessary.

Yes - but in that example, I'd keep the "two" and drop the "alternative".