[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "cumulated" or "accumulated"
From: |
Chris Jones |
Subject: |
Re: "cumulated" or "accumulated" |
Date: |
Mon, 07 Feb 2011 21:49:59 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 08:03:22PM EST, John Cowan wrote:
> Bob Proulx scripsit:
>
> > Like "kempt" and "couth" I only assume exist because "unkempt" and
> > "uncouth" exist. But I never hear them used. :-)
>
> "Kempt" now appears in the more regular form of "combed".
>
> > Flammable, inflammable.
>
> "Inflammable" is the original word, meaning "capable of bursting into
> flames." It was changed to "flammable" on the sides of fuel trucks
> because, as Quine says, semi-literacy should not be a capital offense.
>
> > The very fact that you and I are on completely opposite sides of this
> > observation tells me that the use is problematic and should be avoided
> > regardless of whether either is correct or incorrect.
>
> Quite so. I would change it to "combined", since that
> is the clearly relevant meaning of those listed at
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cumulate .
+1
cj