what's the definition of inflammable as opposed to flammable?

Answer 1

"Inflammable" comes from the verb "inflame", i.e. to set on fire.
But the prefix "in-" means "not" in a lot of other words, and people mistakenly got the impression that by extension, "inflammable" should mean "not flammable"--which, of course, it does not. So to avoid confusion, "inflammable" was changed to "flammable", with "non-flammable" being a clearer opposite.

Interestingly enough, French has sometimes gone the other way. Instead of saying, "Ce n'est pas flammable," they might say, "C'est ininflammable"--i.e. using the "in-" prefix "twice".

Answer 2

there is no difference. back in the day they used to put on clothes "inflammable" to mean that it would be able to catch on fire. but people thought it meant the opposite so more people were buying clothes that said inflammable so now all the clothes say that because they make good money that way. but the mean the same exact thing.

Answer 3

Something that is flammable can easily catch fire; something inflammable (in- is a prefix meaning "the opposite of") will not catch fire easily, or at all.

Answer 4

Both essentially mean the same, though the prefix suggests opposite. It is an example of many flaws in a language, which is primarily based on unconscious traditionalism rather than deliberate traditionalism or sound principles of linguistics.

Answer 5

flammable means it will catch fire, inflammable means it will catch fire very easily

Answer 6

inflammable - quickly and easily set on fire and burned

flammable - readily capable of catching fire

Answer 7

They mean the same thing.

Answer 8

It's the same (I don;t know why) It has to be NONFLAMMABLE.