Nitpick: Inflammable doesn't mean fire resistant.

[Chief Cook and Bottlewasher]

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

How awesomely awful, and terribly terrific that this word choice has caused every tongue clucking grammarian out of the woodwork.

Plus people who think it a really bad idea to confuse inflammable and non flammable, because that's in fact dangerous

[TwilightKnight]

Unless you reference the commentary from an actual Paizo staffer who just might have some insight into the intent and explained it rather well above. Or tl;dr they are not using inflammable to mean non-flammable.

[Corwin Icewolf]

Hm... well the way being on fire works is that if you're on fire that means that it's burning you. Usually something that won't provide fuel to a fire also won't burn. But I guess since one of the goblin gods is a fire deity it could be a blessing of some sort. That's sorta cool I guess.

[DM_Blake]

Hmmmm...

I'm getting an inflammation from this inflammatory thread...
.

1. Inflammation: "A localized physical condition in which part of the body becomes reddened, swollen, hot, and often painful, especially as a reaction to injury or infection."

2. Inflammatory: "Causing an inflammation or provoking an angry reaction; colloquial getting people fired up."

3. Inflammable: "Easily set on fire."

Nobody ever questions the first two words. I never hear anybody saying we need to change them to "Flammation" or "flammatory". When doctors tell their patients they have an "inflammation" the patients don't ask "Wait, does that mean it's swollen and hot or NOT swollen and hot?" Likewise, when journalists report that a politician used "inflammatory" language, none of us ask "Wait, does that mean the politician was getting us fired up or NOT getting us fired up?"

So, if we ALL clearly understand the first two words, why do we have so much trouble with the third one? The first two use exactly the same root word ("flmmare" - "to flame") and exactly the same prefix ("in" - "into" *). The only difference is the suffix which, really changes nothing about how the root and prefix are used.

All three words seem crystal clear to me.

* Note: the prefix "in" has two common meanings. One, used here, means "into" (e.g. "interior". The other means "not" (e.g. "inappropriate"). In the case of "inflammable", we're using the former definition ("into") but clearly some people mistakenly assume it's the latter ("not).

[Ssalarn]

DM_Blake wrote:

Hmmmm...

1. Inflammation: "A localized physical condition in which part of the body becomes reddened, swollen, hot, and often painful, especially as a reaction to injury or infection."

I'm given to understand goblins are frequently covered with these.

Quote:

2. Inflammatory: "Causing an inflammation or provoking an angry reaction; colloquial getting people fired up."

*Checks forum threads after goblins being included as a core race was announced*

Definitely also applicable to goblins.

Quote:

3. Inflammable: "Easily set on fire."

Also seems accurate.

Not sure why anyone would think inflammable was a bad name for a goblin heritage, it seems to line up perfectly :P

[Megistone]

Inflammare is a Latin verb that of course has the best translation in "to inflame", so it's about putting something/someone on fire. Thus:

DM_Blake wrote:

3. Inflammable: "Easily set on fire."

Many Latin verbs (and some English ones, consequently) have this "in" prefix that means something like "changing to become what the suffix means", in a transitive or intransitive way:

Inluminare: to light up (to make luminous);
Inminuere: to diminish (to make minor);
Inaccrescere: to grow (to become bigger).

It's not that easy, because in other cases that "in" prefix means "inside something". And even worse, sometimes it works as a negation, though usually only in adjectives.
Anyway, the correct meaning is clear. I believe that the developers know what the word means, and indeed used it like a joke to say that those goblins easily set themselves ablaze because they don't suffer much from that.

[Ed Reppert]

DM_Blake wrote:

* Note: the prefix "in" has two common meanings. One, used here, means "into" (e.g. "interior". The other means "not" (e.g. "inappropriate"). In the case of "inflammable", we're using the former definition ("into") but clearly some people mistakenly assume it's the latter ("not).

The first syllable of "interior" is not a prefix.

[Shisumo]

Ed Reppert wrote:

DM_Blake wrote:

* Note: the prefix "in" has two common meanings. One, used here, means "into" (e.g. "interior". The other means "not" (e.g. "inappropriate"). In the case of "inflammable", we're using the former definition ("into") but clearly some people mistakenly assume it's the latter ("not).

The first syllable of "interior" is not a prefix.

Indeed! It's the first two syllables. (The first syllable is more accurately described as a "root.")

[RazarTuk]

Ediwir wrote:

Can confirm, that's the wrong word.

English is a weird language, and sometimes that means derivations or borrowed roots don't fit in.

There's another few cases around, mostly nitpicking (evocation comes to mind*), but this one is blatant, and should get fixed. It's not just about latin or language specialists, it's something that about pretty much anyone with a good/detailed vocabulary (or someone who works in kitchens I guess?) would find confusing.

Similarly, -mancy signifies a divination method, not the ability to control something. That would be -urgy, -kinesis, or, if your name is either Michael Dante DiMartino or Bryan Konietzko, -bending.

Necro-mancy should be divination (-mancy) by contacting the dead (necroi). A more general Greek-derived term for controlling life force, which includes healing (thank you, by the way, Paizo, for moving healing back to "necromancy") is pneumaturgy. Pneuma- as in that usual ancient concept of having a single word for breath, air, spirit, and life force (cf. qi/ki), and -(t)urgy as above.

[Corwin Icewolf]

RazarTuk wrote:

Ediwir wrote:

Can confirm, that's the wrong word.

English is a weird language, and sometimes that means derivations or borrowed roots don't fit in.

There's another few cases around, mostly nitpicking (evocation comes to mind*), but this one is blatant, and should get fixed. It's not just about latin or language specialists, it's something that about pretty much anyone with a good/detailed vocabulary (or someone who works in kitchens I guess?) would find confusing.

Similarly, -mancy signifies a divination method, not the ability to control something.That would be -urgy, -kinesis, or, if your name is either Michael Dante DiMartino or Bryan Konietzko, -bending.

Necro-mancy should be divination (-mancy) by contacting the dead (necroi). A more general Greek-derived term for controlling life force, which includes healing (thank you, by the way, Paizo, for moving healing back to "necromancy") is pneumaturgy. Pneuma- as in that usual ancient concept of having a single word for breath, air, spirit, and life force (cf. qi/ki), and -(t)urgy as above.

True, but that particular nit dug itself in and latched on with a vicegrip back in medieval times. One may as well talk about how romance doesn't actually refer to love stories.

[Freder1ck]

1. Let’s lock up the inflammable goblin with the gunpowder.
Any chemist would agree this is not a good idea.
Goblins must be clearly labeled as dangerous!

2. I’ll leave this here...

Begging the Question at xkcd

[Ed Reppert]

Shisumo wrote:

Ed Reppert wrote:

DM_Blake wrote:

* Note: the prefix "in" has two common meanings. One, used here, means "into" (e.g. "interior". The other means "not" (e.g. "inappropriate"). In the case of "inflammable", we're using the former definition ("into") but clearly some people mistakenly assume it's the latter ("not).

The first syllable of "interior" is not a prefix.

Indeed! It's the first two syllables. (The first syllable is more accurately described as a "root.")

I don't think so. My Oxford dictionary says of "interior"

ORIGIN
late 15th century: from Latin, ‘inner’, comparative adjective from inter ‘within’.

[Ed Reppert]

Corwin Icewolf wrote:

True, but that particular nit dug itself in and latched on with a vicegrip back in medieval times. One may as well talk about how romance doesn't actually refer to love stories.

Again, from my dictionary: the sense ‘genre centered on romantic love’ dates from the mid 17th century.

[Corwin Icewolf]

Ed Reppert wrote:

Corwin Icewolf wrote:

True, but that particular nit dug itself in and latched on with a vicegrip back in medieval times. One may as well talk about how romance doesn't actually refer to love stories.

Again, from my dictionary: the sense ‘genre centered on romantic love’ dates from the mid 17th century.

iirc that's still considerably later than the middle ages, which I think are 500-1500?

My point was necromancy's been used among most people to just mean magic associated with death for centuries. That's different from a word still commonly used correctly, even if some use it to mean its opposite.

[Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller]

Because it's never inappropriate to quote Terry Pratchett, and this time it's even vaguely on topic...

Lords and Ladies, on Discworld elves wrote:

Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder.

Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels.
Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies.
Elves are glamorous. They project glamour.
Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment.
Elves are terrific. They beget terror.
The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.
No one ever said elves are nice.
Elves are bad.

[Fumarole]

LordVanya wrote:

On a side note, if you ever see me write the word 'weird' as 'wierd' instead, that is because I like it better and tickles my brain when I think that I write wierd in a weird way.

"It is a damn poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word."

[LordVanya]

Corwin Icewolf wrote:

Ed Reppert wrote:

Corwin Icewolf wrote:

True, but that particular nit dug itself in and latched on with a vicegrip back in medieval times. One may as well talk about how romance doesn't actually refer to love stories.

Again, from my dictionary: the sense ‘genre centered on romantic love’ dates from the mid 17th century.

iirc that's still considerably later than the middle ages, which I think are 500-1500?

My point was necromancy's been used among most people to just mean magic associated with death for centuries. That's different from a word still commonly used correctly, even if some use it to mean its opposite.

What's funny, though... the old definition of romance is from Middle English so it originated during the middle ages and was changed later on.

[LordVanya]

Fumarole wrote:

LordVanya wrote:

On a side note, if you ever see me write the word 'weird' as 'wierd' instead, that is because I like it better and tickles my brain when I think that I write wierd in a weird way.

"It is a damn poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word."

Groovy.

[Fangtasmagoria]

lol, I was traveling when this update came out and only now read the playtest book and noticed this gaff.

As someone who spent 13 years in the Fire Protection industry before becoming a full-time historian who loved stuff like this. I wanted to share this article about how flammable and inflammable were used side by sade for a very long time.

In the 1920s "...the eagle-eyed language guardians of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) realized that many people were viewing the in– in inflammable as a negative prefix, and were at risk of consequently incinerating themselves at a much higher rate than was desirable."

https://www.dictionary.com/e/inflammable/

The NFPA, which is the organization that makes the national standards for gas cans, and warning signs for reactivity, flammability, etc. began advocating that things be only marked as flammable to reduce confusion, thus increasing the use of the word and dropping inflammable from the colloquial lexicon. The reduced usage of inflammable only adds to the confusion of the word for modern readers.

This should be especially funny for old time D&D players like me as the 1st edition Flame Tounge noted it had extra benefits vs. inflammable creatures. Meaning the knowledge of inflammable's proper meaning existed way back in the early days of the game that started it all.

[Ediwir]

Yeah, but thing is, inflammability is the capability to be inflamed (=to be made to begin burning). Flammability would be the capability to be flamed (=to be yelled at online).
To flame in the fire-relaed sense means to produce a flame, and you cannot be produced a flame because that’s not how the verb works (anyone know what an intransitive verb is?).
It just isn’t English.

A match can flame. If it does, it is flaming.
Tinder can be inflamed. It’s inflammable.
Paladin alignment posts are at risk of flame. They’re flammable.

Three words, three very different meanings. Not interchangeable.

[Tim Statler]

It should be changed, and not just because the word may, or may not, be used incorrectly.

Almost everyone on this board has horror stories about rules lawyers twisting words to their benefit.

So, we have to focus on proper dictionary definitions or things will easily get out of hand.

[Chetna Wavari]

I learned about flammable and inflammable meaning similar things from the Simpsons as a kid.

Hey, Dr Nick!