And if they dont mean the same thing then what do they mean and what is the difference between them?
2007-02-02 05:02:52 · 9 answers · asked by FarFromPerfect... 2 in Education & Reference ➔ Words & Wordplay
Both words mean "combustible."
Inflammable is about 200 years older, and is usually used in nontechnical and figurative contexts.
Flammable now has certain technical uses, particularly as a warning on vehicles carrying combustible materials, because of a belief that some might interpret the intensive prefix in- of inflammable as a negative prefix.
There are MANY words that mean the same thing, but it's mostly about history, how people used to speak, and how words are used now. Just like how some people use the word "sick" to mean crazy/amazing/etc, and also meaning something disgusting/ill/etc.
2007-02-02 05:12:54 · answer #1 · answered by cko5 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Usage note: Inflammable and flammable both mean “combustible.” Inflammable is the older by about 200 years. Flammable now has certain technical uses, particularly as a warning on vehicles carrying combustible materials, because of a belief that some might interpret the intensive prefix in- of inflammable as a negative prefix and thus think the word means “noncombustible.” Inflammable is the word more usually used in nontechnical and figurative contexts: The speaker ignited the inflammable emotions of the crowd.
2016-03-29 01:38:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, they mean the same thing- they just get used in different contexts. its different than the difference between "destructable" and "indestructable", or "valid" versus "invalid", - those are opposites!
(and i mean invalid as 'not valid' not invalid, the person who has to stay at home, just to clarify, since it's the same spelling!!)
the source I listed has a good explanation of how 'flammable' is used, versus 'inflammable'!
2007-02-02 06:46:01 · answer #3 · answered by cyanideprincess0008 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, a word may be built up or have its meaning changed by an addition at the beginning(prefix, e.g. un-safe) or at the end (suffix, e.g. garden-er). But sometimes it will not.
Prefix : im- ,in- ( are mean by in/into).
So, inflammable may have the meaning 'in/into flammable'.
But somehow, remember that prefix in- have the same meaning as 'not' too. Depends on the word using.
2007-02-02 05:30:58 · answer #4 · answered by ...~*kaRin*~... 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
They have the same meaning and both can be used to mean that something is ignitable and easily capable of burning easily. The first one is used in any technical writing, because inflammable in English it could be mistaken for non-flammable.
They both come from Latin flammare, TO BLAZE, and ultimately from flamma, FLAME. Look it up in any dictionary, not a dinky.
2007-02-02 05:14:06 · answer #5 · answered by Cici 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because people were misunderstanding "inflammable" as meaning non-flammable. "in" often means not, e.g. incorrect means not correct.
2007-02-02 05:06:08 · answer #6 · answered by CanProf 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because there are some many stupid rules in the english language. There 's always an exception to every rule about grammar and diction here
2007-02-02 05:23:53 · answer #7 · answered by firefury1 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Perhaps the same reason acceleration and deceleration mean the same thing.
2007-02-02 05:20:31 · answer #8 · answered by BRUZER 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Kinda like "fat chance" and "slim chance", huh?
2007-02-02 05:10:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋