BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mathare" data-source="post: 3420804" data-attributes="member: 108071">Something that can be set on fire is both "flammable" and "inflammable" in English. The latter was the original term but was changed (or at least use of the former advised) since the "in-" prefix generally reverse the meaning of the rest of the word, like Niels says for "u-" in Danish.Ain't language funny?And just so I'm not wholly off topic - it's usually "bins" or "binoculars" in full when I am out in the field. I know some who use "binos" presumably to avoid any ambiguity with waste receptacles aka trash cans, garbage cans or whatever. Especially when talking about poor quality optics - rubbish bins.As with any form of communication though, context is often key and as long as the message is understood to mean the same by all that need to understand it the actual words used are not that important.Oh, and I have heard "noculars" used but not in a serious context by any means. I suppose it stops anyone using a monocular (or even more than one) feeling left out if someone talks about a group getting "bins" or "binocs" on a bird.Finally, "bins" etc only ever seem to get used as nouns when I hear them. I've never heard of a bird being "binned" or even "glassed". There is talk of getting "eyes on" a bird though. But birds seen through a spotting scoped are often described as having been "scoped".</blockquote>