TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
> I was confused by these terms until I learned that something that is
> inflammable can go up in flams just as easily as something that is
> flammable. I prefer to conserve characters: flammable.
Once upon a time, inflammable meant easily set on fire (think "inflamed"), while flammable simply meant capable of burning.
But the prefix "in" is so often used to negate something (incomplete, incoherent, indefinite, etc.) that many people assumed inflammable meant not capable of burning.
That confusion could be dangerous. So nowadays, it's best to use flammable in all cases, never inflammable.
Richard G. Combs
Senior Technical Writer
Polycom, Inc.
richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom
303-223-5111
------
rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom
303-903-6372
------
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Create and publish documentation through multiple channels with Doc-To-Help. Choose your authoring formats and get any output you may need.
Try Doc-To-Help, now with MS SharePoint integration, free for 30-days.
