Ignite

From a recent news report:

"Investigators believe gas fumes in the basement accidentally ignited
the fire."

My first reaction was to wonder why on earth the unfortunate homeowners
had enough gas stored in the basement to produce all these fumes - I
mean, doesn't everyone know that gas produces fumes that catch fire
easily? - I then thought that it's extremely unlikely that gas fumes
actually ignited the fire. I think the writer meant '...accidentally
ignited, causing the fire', leaving the reader to assume only that the
authorities haven't yet discovered if the accidentaly igniting of the
gas vapors was caused by, say, an electrical short, or a careless smoker.

I seem to be seeing a lot of this kind of misattribution of cause and
effect lately.

--
Cheryl

On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 09:53:00 -0330, Cheryl wrote:

From a recent news report:

"Investigators believe gas fumes in the basement accidentally ignited
the fire."

My first reaction was to wonder why on earth the unfortunate homeowners
had enough gas stored in the basement to produce all these fumes - I
mean, doesn't everyone know that gas produces fumes that catch fire
easily?

The report doesn't make me think of stored containers of gasoline
(petrol), but off a leak in a line that brings in natural gas
(propane, I believe) for the stove or furnace. Gas leaks are unusual
but not unheard of, though usually they are detected before they
reach the dangerous level.

I then thought that it's extremely unlikely that gas fumes
actually ignited the fire. I think the writer meant '...accidentally
ignited, causing the fire',

Sorry, I don't get the distinction. A spark, or the pilot light on
furnace or stove, would ignite the gas vapors, which in turn would
set fire to the rest of the structure (probably during an explosion).

I seem to be seeing a lot of this kind of misattribution of cause and
effect lately.

I don't get what you're saying here. The vapors were there, they
caught fire (perhaps explosively so), and they communicated that fire
to the structure.

--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com

On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 09:51:35 -0500, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 09:53:00 -0330, Cheryl wrote:

From a recent news report:

"Investigators believe gas fumes in the basement accidentally ignited
the fire."

My first reaction was to wonder why on earth the unfortunate homeowners
had enough gas stored in the basement to produce all these fumes - I
mean, doesn't everyone know that gas produces fumes that catch fire
easily?

The report doesn't make me think of stored containers of gasoline
(petrol), but off a leak in a line that brings in natural gas
(propane, I believe) for the stove or furnace. Gas leaks are unusual
but not unheard of, though usually they are detected before they
reach the dangerous level.

I then thought that it's extremely unlikely that gas fumes
actually ignited the fire. I think the writer meant '...accidentally
ignited, causing the fire',

Sorry, I don't get the distinction. A spark, or the pilot light on
furnace or stove, would ignite the gas vapors, which in turn would
set fire to the rest of the structure (probably during an explosion).

I seem to be seeing a lot of this kind of misattribution of cause and
effect lately.

I don't get what you're saying here. The vapors were there, they
caught fire (perhaps explosively so), and they communicated that fire
to the structure.

I see Cheryl's point. I would understand "ignite", used this way, to
mean "caused to break out in flame". The fumes could be ignited, but
could not self-ignite. The sentence calls for "the gas fumes were
accidently ignited" or summat like that.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 10:26:33 -0500, tony cooper wrote:

On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 09:51:35 -0500, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 09:53:00 -0330, Cheryl wrote:
>>
>> From a recent news report:
>>
>> "Investigators believe gas fumes in the basement accidentally ignited
>> the fire."
>>
>> My first reaction was to wonder why on earth the unfortunate homeowners
>> had enough gas stored in the basement to produce all these fumes - I
>> mean, doesn't everyone know that gas produces fumes that catch fire
>> easily?
>
>The report doesn't make me think of stored containers of gasoline
>(petrol), but off a leak in a line that brings in natural gas
>(propane, I believe) for the stove or furnace. Gas leaks are unusual
>but not unheard of, though usually they are detected before they
>reach the dangerous level.
>
>> I then thought that it's extremely unlikely that gas fumes
>> actually ignited the fire. I think the writer meant '...accidentally
>> ignited, causing the fire',
>
>Sorry, I don't get the distinction. A spark, or the pilot light on
>furnace or stove, would ignite the gas vapors, which in turn would
>set fire to the rest of the structure (probably during an explosion).
>
>> I seem to be seeing a lot of this kind of misattribution of cause and
>> effect lately.
>
>I don't get what you're saying here. The vapors were there, they
>caught fire (perhaps explosively so), and they communicated that fire
>to the structure.

I see Cheryl's point. I would understand "ignite", used this way, to
mean "caused to break out in flame". The fumes could be ignited, but
could not self-ignite. The sentence calls for "the gas fumes were
accidently ignited" or summat like that.

AHD4 gives "ignite" both transitive and intransitive senses, and the
very first intransitive sense is "to begin to burn".

I guess Cheryl and you were thinking of the transitive sense, but I
still can't see anything wrong the the intransitive use by the
original writer.

--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com

On 01/01/2012 16:49, tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 10:52:51 -0500, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 10:26:33 -0500, tony cooper wrote:

On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 09:51:35 -0500, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 09:53:00 -0330, Cheryl wrote:

From a recent news report:

"Investigators believe gas fumes in the basement accidentally ignited
the fire."

My first reaction was to wonder why on earth the unfortunate homeowners
had enough gas stored in the basement to produce all these fumes - I
mean, doesn't everyone know that gas produces fumes that catch fire
easily?

The report doesn't make me think of stored containers of gasoline
(petrol), but off a leak in a line that brings in natural gas
(propane, I believe) for the stove or furnace. Gas leaks are unusual
but not unheard of, though usually they are detected before they
reach the dangerous level.

I then thought that it's extremely unlikely that gas fumes
actually ignited the fire. I think the writer meant '...accidentally
ignited, causing the fire',

Sorry, I don't get the distinction. A spark, or the pilot light on
furnace or stove, would ignite the gas vapors, which in turn would
set fire to the rest of the structure (probably during an explosion).

I seem to be seeing a lot of this kind of misattribution of cause and
effect lately.

I don't get what you're saying here. The vapors were there, they
caught fire (perhaps explosively so), and they communicated that fire
to the structure.

I see Cheryl's point. I would understand "ignite", used this way, to
mean "caused to break out in flame". The fumes could be ignited, but
could not self-ignite. The sentence calls for "the gas fumes were
accidently ignited" or summat like that.

AHD4 gives "ignite" both transitive and intransitive senses, and the
very first intransitive sense is "to begin to burn".

I guess Cheryl and you were thinking of the transitive sense, but I
still can't see anything wrong the the intransitive use by the
original writer.

It seems dead wrong to me.

Agreed - it's not an intransitive use because it does have an object.
Taking it out of the sentence, it says: "Gas fumes ignited the fire".
That's surely just an editing error.

--
David

On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 10:29:13 -0800, Skitt wrote:

[...]

To me too, as does the "gas fumes", which leads me down the same path
that Cheryl went. Natural gas doesn't have fumes, so it must be
gasoline that is being talked about.

Not necessarily, as that use may also be a hasty, careless error. If,
say, propane lines leak, they leak propane itself, but the AHD5 says
'fumes' are "vapor, gas, or smoke" which would include gaseous fuel.
Some years back, a weekend cottage a couple of miles from us exploded and
killed its owner because there had been a propane leak during his absence
and he walked in the front door smoking a cigarette.

So "gas fumes" may be correct, even though the more ordinary use would
just be bare "gas".

But I agree heartily that the fumes didn't ignite the fire.

--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

Skitt wrote on Sun, 1 Jan 2012
Eric Walker wrote:
Skitt wrote:

[...]

To me too, as does the "gas fumes", which leads me down the same path
that Cheryl went. Natural gas doesn't have fumes, so it must be
gasoline that is being talked about.

Not necessarily, as that use may also be a hasty, careless error. If,
say, propane lines leak, they leak propane itself, but the AHD5 says
'fumes' are "vapor, gas, or smoke" which would include gaseous fuel.

Well, yes, but saying "gas fumes" then is the same as saying "gas gas"
or "vapor gas" or "smoke gas" or "smoke fumes". Sort of silly, except
for gas[oline] fumes.

Would a cylinder of a gas be said to contain fumes? I think not. But
if any of the gas escaped from it, it would be in the "form" of fumes,
perhaps just as when beer leaks from a barrel it may be in the form of a
puddle or a spray.

Aren't fumes always a product of some process, such as burning or
leaking or vaporisation?
--
Iain Archer

Stan Brown wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 10:26:33 -0500, tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 09:51:35 -0500, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 09:53:00 -0330, Cheryl wrote:
From a recent news report:

"Investigators believe gas fumes in the basement accidentally ignited
the fire."

My first reaction was to wonder why on earth the unfortunate homeowners
had enough gas stored in the basement to produce all these fumes - I
mean, doesn't everyone know that gas produces fumes that catch fire
easily?
The report doesn't make me think of stored containers of gasoline
(petrol), but off a leak in a line that brings in natural gas
(propane, I believe) for the stove or furnace. Gas leaks are unusual
but not unheard of, though usually they are detected before they
reach the dangerous level.

I then thought that it's extremely unlikely that gas fumes
actually ignited the fire. I think the writer meant '...accidentally
ignited, causing the fire',
Sorry, I don't get the distinction. A spark, or the pilot light on
furnace or stove, would ignite the gas vapors, which in turn would
set fire to the rest of the structure (probably during an explosion).

I seem to be seeing a lot of this kind of misattribution of cause and
effect lately.
I don't get what you're saying here. The vapors were there, they
caught fire (perhaps explosively so), and they communicated that fire
to the structure.
I see Cheryl's point. I would understand "ignite", used this way, to
mean "caused to break out in flame". The fumes could be ignited, but
could not self-ignite. The sentence calls for "the gas fumes were
accidently ignited" or summat like that.

AHD4 gives "ignite" both transitive and intransitive senses, and the
very first intransitive sense is "to begin to burn".

I guess Cheryl and you were thinking of the transitive sense, but I
still can't see anything wrong the the intransitive use by the
original writer.

Intransitive? Are you suggesting that the original writer intended "...
gas fumes in the basement accidentally ignited, the fire."? It looks to
me as if that leaves two words dangling, with no connection to the rest
of the sentence.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.