I hate the word "anathema"

[superboyac]

I just can't stand that word.  From the first time I heard it and all the years since.  Whenever it is used, it always sounds like something wrong just happened in grammer.  It sounds like you are saying "an athema".  And no matter what context you use it in, as soon as it is said, the listeners can only think about this awkward word and it's a complete distraction.  I may remove it from my vocabulary forever.

[Stoic Joker]

Then just delete anathema.exe - This is the software section...  

[superboyac]

Then just delete anathema.exe - This is the software section...  

whoops!  i forgot i was initially going to post about the new ridiculous mascot MS chose (the anime chick,  so lol!)

[mouser]

boo.

I think it's a good word.

[Deozaan]

It sounds like you are saying "an athema".

That would certainly make for an interesting conversation:

athema: (n) A ceremonial knife, specifically a sharpened condor or llama bone. SAI

[40hz]

It's an ok word. But it's overused - and misapplied more often than not.

I personally want the word 'entitled' removed from the American-English language.

[panzer]

Why? It's a good book:
http://www.amazon.com/Anathem-Neal-Stephenson/dp/006147410X

[Renegade]

People, people, people!!!

Superboy is right!

Anathema is anathema!

[Stoic Joker]

People, people, people!!!

Superboy is right!

Anathema is anathema!

Yes, I see...

To superboyac the word anathema is an abomination, an outrage, an abhorrence, a disgrace, an evil, a bane, a bugbear, a bête noire. It is something that he vehemently dislikes.

It is... Aw hell I really don't have to explain where this is going do I?!?

[superboyac]

lol... just had to say it that's all.  it's not the word, it's just the way it sounds.

[superboyac]

People, people, people!!!

Superboy is right!

Anathema is anathema!

Yes, I see...

To superboyac the word anathema is an abomination, an outrage, an abhorrence, a disgrace, an evil, a bane, a bugbear, a bête noire. It is something that he vehemently dislikes.

It is... Aw hell I really don't have to explain where this is going do I?!?

you know...i didn't even realize the pun i was making!

[cmpm]

how about

mastication

I don't like the word,
don't like seeing others do it,
especially on tv shows and commercials.
I don't even like seeing me do it!

[CodeTRUCKER]

I just hope superboyac is not a hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian? 

[TaoPhoenix]

I just can't stand that word.  From the first time I heard it and all the years since.  Whenever it is used, it always sounds like something wrong just happened in grammer.

Well of course it did! Your Gram'ma and Kelsey Grammer are upset! 

Muphry's Law:
When someone complains about spelling or grammar, woe betide them if they make a spelling or grammar error in their rant!

[Edvard]

I like the word; so descriptive and to-the-point when applied properly to the appropriate subject.

Double-up on "properly" and "appropriate".  When was the last time you excommunicated a heretic? 

And double-kudos to your punny bone if it's your dog's name. Hint: look it up 

[J-Mac]

I would like either "flammable" or "inflammable" removed. Both mean the same thing, which is downright silly IMO. So dump one of them, please! Inflammable is too often misused for nonflammable. Stupid, confusing words!

Jim

[superboyac]

I would like either "flammable" or "inflammable" removed. Both mean the same thing, which is downright silly IMO. So dump one of them, please! Inflammable is too often misused for nonflammable. Stupid, confusing words!

Jim

yea, i agree with this one too.  i even remember having at least 3 conversations in my life plus at least two instructors in school going over this.  lol

[Deozaan]

I would like either "flammable" or "inflammable" removed. Both mean the same thing, which is downright silly IMO. So dump one of them, please! Inflammable is too often misused for nonflammable. Stupid, confusing words!

Jim

yea, i agree with this one too.  i even remember having at least 3 conversations in my life plus at least two instructors in school going over this.  lol

I was also confused by these terms for a long time as a child, but it actually makes sense if you consider the words they're based on. One says "This thing is flame-able." The other says "This thing is inflame-able."

Flame: "The visible part of fire; a stream of burning vapour or gas, emitting light and heat."
Inflame: "To set on fire; to kindle; to cause to burn, flame, or glow."

It's also interesting to note that someone can become inflamed (figuratively speaking), and if they are easily inflamed, you could appropriately call them inflammable. That wouldn't work with flammable. Since that word always refers to literal fire/burning.

[J-Mac]

Yeah... but native English speakers have enough difficulty with these two synonyms disguised as antonyms. Imagine trying to learn English and tackling these two words!

Jim

[Edvard]

So, according to the root meanings of "flame" and "inflame", then "flammable" means "if you manage to catch this on fire, it will burn with flames", but "inflammable" means "burnable to varying degrees, but visible flames not explicitly required"

Interesting...

[J-Mac]

Both words mean "capable of burning".  No other real difference. In the US manufacturers are required to use only the word "flammable", but any products already labelled with "inflammable" do not have to be changed. It is really just an instance where the prefix "in" is really out of place. "in" as a prefix has two meanings: 1) 'not' or 'lacking' as in inedible, illegal, implausible, irreverent.  2) 'into, in, on, upon' as with income, intake, implant. Most of the time the difference is fairly clear, but not so with "inflammable".

Thought this was funny:

[attachimg=#1]

Jim

[superboyac]

Both words mean "capable of burning".  No other real difference. In the US manufacturers are required to use only the word "flammable", but any products already labelled with "inflammable" do not have to be changed. It is really just an instance where the prefix "in" is really out of place. "in" as a prefix has two meanings: 1) 'not' or 'lacking' as in inedible, illegal, implausible, irreverent.  2) 'into, in, on, upon' as with income, intake, implant. Most of the time the difference is fairly clear, but not so with "inflammable".

Thought this was funny:
(see attachment in previous post)
Jim

lol!

[Deozaan]

It is really just an instance where the prefix "in" is really out of place. "in" as a prefix has two meanings: 1) 'not' or 'lacking' as in inedible, illegal, implausible, irreverent.

Only one of those examples starts with "in-" as a prefix.

And that image is wrong. Invaluable doesn't mean very valuable. It means you can't place a value on it. It's priceless. ("Priceless" is another word that I often was confused about its meaning as a child. I confused it with worthless.)

How about this one?

a- as a prefix usually means "without" or "not", such as amoral or asexual.

But once again, when referring to fire, it just means there's definitely fire: aflame