AO, the prefix "in-" can be either negating (like un-) or intensifying (like en-). Many words can use either in- or en- e.g. entrust/intrust. Interesting that both uses are Latin in origin even though they are contradictory. Also, the word "flammable" is a much newer word than "inflammable".

I have to disagree again. At least informally, adjectives are used as nouns all the time, and pluralized accordingly:

"What kind of M & M's do you want?"

"Gee, give me three greens, two reds, and five yellows."

Hourishly?

AO, I'm probably missing something, but what do you mean by "Claro"? Um, something to do with light-colored cigars?

Actually, in that Shakespeare example, text is a noun, not a verb:

DON PEDRO.
But when shall we set the savage bull's horns on the sensible Benedick's head?

CLAUDIO.
Yea, and text underneath, 'Here dwells Benedick the married man!'

Clearly "...and text underneath" is a list continuation that grammatically means "...and SET text underneath..."

It's like saying, "When do we put the star on top of the Christmas tree? ...Yes, and presents under it!" Presents is a noun ("...PUT presents..." is implied) not a verb.

What's also interesting is that, at least for the first page of search results, nearly all of the google listings for "all of the sudden" are explaining why it is incorrect. I'm not saying it is or isn't, but that does seem to be many others' take on it.

Sian, If you look up "shall" at dictionary.com, there is a somewhat abstruse usage note about "shall" vs. "will". Perhaps it is a little easier to compare "should" vs. "would". At least in some contexts, "shall" has an implied sense of compulsion. I shall do something that is imperative, that I am supposed to do. I will do something that I am surely going to do.

From the American Heritage Dictionary (for the Anglophiles out there, every other English dictionary will similarly confirm this)

1. Two items of the same kind; a pair.

4. Informal - A few; several: a couple of days.

So it is completely correct to use couple to mean a small indeterminate number, not necessarily two. I guess I wouldn't use it to mean many, per se, but it's ok to use it to mean more than two in an informal way.

Quirin, I truly enjoyed your insightful post, but I hope yo won't mind if I nitpick about something as well. Using your logic, if the word were native to latin, not only should the plural of octopus be octopedes, but the (anglicized?) SINGULAR should be octopede, NOT octope. After all, expanding your own analogy, the singular of centipedes is centipede, not centope. Remember, it is the number of feet that is pluralized, not the actual number of animals (centipede means one aniimal having a hundred feet, not a hundred foot)

I think it's amusing and ironic that that particular Reagan quote has made it into the dictionary. He has been publicly and frequently lambasted for that very quote, as one of many malapropisms for which he was famous. He was constantly ridiculed for his misuse of the English language.