2006-08-07 02:50:41 · 12 answers · asked by smac1 2 in Education & Reference ➔ Words & Wordplay
The prefix in- is not the Latin negative prefix in-, which is related to the English un- and appears in such words as indecent and inglorious. The in- in inflammable is an intensive prefix that is derived from the Latin preposition in. This prefix also appears in the word enflame. But many people are ignorant of all this and conclude that, since flammable means “combustible,” inflammable must mean “not flammable” or “incombustible.” Therefore, for clarity’s sake, you should use only flammable to give warnings.
Opposites: nonflammable, noncombustible
2006-08-07 03:28:34 · answer #1 · answered by Twigless 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This self same question has been asked before. Do a search for questions.
You will find answers there. It was posed TWO months ago.
2006-08-11 01:33:49 · answer #2 · answered by CurlyQ 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
mmmmm!!!!! they not hav same meanin!!!! flammable means it can burn, inflammable means it cant!!!!! and the opposites are - flammable - inflammable and inflammable - flammable!!!!! :-)
2006-08-09 11:30:45 · answer #3 · answered by little_hen_uk 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Uninflammable?
2006-08-07 02:55:48 · answer #4 · answered by BackMan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sloppy use of our language in the past
No antonyms are given in my Thesaurus - how unusual
How about incombustible?
2006-08-07 02:59:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
maybe im thick but i thought they had the opposite meanings
2006-08-07 02:55:49 · answer #6 · answered by dick19532003 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can't answer this i'm burnt out
2006-08-09 21:05:50 · answer #7 · answered by ttopcat2005 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because someone said so!
2006-08-07 02:55:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe.... not flammable...!
2006-08-07 02:55:50 · answer #9 · answered by Shadowfyre 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they do not, they are the opposites
2006-08-07 21:25:06 · answer #10 · answered by lefang 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋