meaning - Difference between "inflammable" and "flammable"





Why are not infamous and inflammable the opposite of famous and flammable like incomplete, inactivity, inappropriate and so on?



I'm very confused by the existence of these apparently antonymous words, which actually mean the same thing. Which word should I use? Can both words be used interchangeably?



Answer



Both words mean the same thing, i.e. that something can be set on fire. The reason for the confusion comes from people thinking that the prefix in- of inflammable is the Latin negative prefix in- (which is commonly used in English, e.g. indecent). In actual fact, in this case it is derived from the Latin preposition in. It's easier to think about it with the word inflame. If you can inflame something, it is inflammable (inflame-able).


In most cases, it is better to just use flammable to avoid confusion and accidents.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

verbs - "Baby is creeping" vs. "baby is crawling" in AmE

commas - Does this sentence have too many subjunctives?

grammatical number - Use of lone apostrophe for plural?

etymology - Where does the phrase "doctored" originate?

phrases - Somebody is gonna kiss the donkey

typography - When a dagger is used to indicate a note, must it come after an asterisk?

etymology - Origin of "s--t eating grin"