didnt in prefix denote opposite
2006-07-24 06:10:15 · 3 answers · asked by howie 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Languages
totally remember winning my 1 point to get 100% on spelling test with that word making a teacher say they wrong in year 5 (20yrs ago) it was a big thing but sadly no idea now. Thanks jim beam
2006-07-24 06:21:37 · update #1
"ceprn" is totally incorrect - they do mean the same thing. The way I think about it, is "inflammable" means 'the ability to inflame' (i.e. burn), while "flammable" means 'the ability to flame'. Here, the in- prefix is not from the Latin negative "in-" which you find in other words ("uncontrollable"; the un is from the same root), but from the Latin preposition "in" which is used to intensify the "flammare", meaning "to set on fire". It is from this we get the flame/inflame distinction as well.
2006-07-24 06:26:39 · answer #1 · answered by sashmead2001 5 · 9⤊ 0⤋
Both are from the Latin root flamare "to burn". But in Latin, the prefix in- is an intensifier, so that flamare means "to burn" and inflamare means "to burn hot and fast, to REALLY burn". So when we have flammable and inflammable, they both mean combustible, but the latter means it is HIGHLY flammable. The opposite of flammable is non-flammable.
2006-07-24 14:36:25 · answer #2 · answered by Taivo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
inflammable means it won't burn - if you see it somewhere used in a different context, it is incorrect.
2006-07-24 13:17:51 · answer #3 · answered by ceprn 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋