concerning flammable and inflammable,What does they make a difference?

Question

concerning flammable and inflammable,
What does they make a difference?
why does they have simillar meanings.
I feel that it is strange.
XXX and in-XXX are usually opposite.
it looks like active and inactive.
many in thanks.

Answer 1

"The American Heritage Book of English Usage" says :

"The trouble with flammable and inflammable is that they mean the same thing. 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."

"§ 126. flammable / inflammable", Word Choice: New Uses, Common Confusion, and Constraints, The American Heritage Book of English Usage : http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0126.html

The BBC World Service says :

"There is no difference in meaning and little or no difference in use.
Chemicals, gases or cloth materials that are flammable / inflammable catch fire and burn easily. Perhaps, in usage, cloth materials are usually described as inflammable. So we might say: 'The material from which these car seats are made is highly inflammable. And conversely, certain gases or chemicals may be thought of as flammable. So we might say: 'Aircraft fuel is highly flammable'. But there are no hard and fast patterns."

" 'Flammable' or 'inflammable'?", Learning English, BBC World Service : http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/youmeus/learnit/learnitv45.shtml

Answer 2

It's worrying how many people aren't aware that the two words mean exactly the same thing. From the dictionary: USAGE NOTE Historically, flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. However, the presence of the prefix in– has misled many people into assuming that inflammable means “not flammable” or “noncombustible.” The prefix –in in inflammable is not, however, the Latin negative prefix –in, which is related to the English –un and appears in such words as indecent and inglorious. Rather, this –in is an intensive prefix derived from the Latin preposition in. This prefix also appears in the word enflame. But many people are not aware of this derivation, and for clarity's sake it is advisable to use only flammable to give warnings.

Answer 3

As far as the classical English language is concerned, "flammable" isn't even a word. However, Americans couldn't understand how the prefix "in-" could mean anything but the opposite of the root word, and so, in American-English dictionaries, it was included as a word. I wonder if Americans understand the word "inflammation" - after all, it follows the same format.

Historically, flammable and inflammable mean the same thing, although inflammable is about 200 years older. However, the presence of the prefix in- has misled many people into assuming that inflammable means "not flammable" or "noncombustible." The prefix -in in inflammable is not, however, the Latin negative prefix -in, which is related to the English -un and appears in such words as indecent and inglorious. Rather, this -in is an intensive prefix derived from the Latin preposition in. This prefix also appears in the word enflame. But many people are not aware of this derivation, and for clarity's sake it is advisable to use only flammable to give warnings.

Answer 4

Confusion between Flammable and Inflammable
Flammable is of relatively recent origin. However, it has in many contexts (especially safety) taken the place of the older Inflammable, which some people may take to mean its exact opposite (wrongly assuming that the Latin prefix in- always means "not", when in this case it is an intensifer). [1]. Because of this confusion, the word "inflammable" (on its own) is avoided in technical usage (warning notices, etc). In, for example, the United States and the United Kingdom, trucks carrying gasoline and other (in)flammable substances are always marked "flammable". In other countries, such as India, the words "highly inflammable" are used.[2].

The Chicago Manual of Style suggests using "flammable" for clarity.[3].

The Elements of Style ("Strunk and White"), on the other hand, says:

Flammable. An oddity, chiefly useful in saving lives. The common word meaning "combustible" is inflammable. But some people are thrown off by the in- and think inflammable means "not combustible." For this reason, trucks carrying gasoline or explosives are now marked FLAMMABLE. Unless you are operating such a truck and hence are concerned with the safety of children and illiterates, use inflammable.

Answer 5

Many people knows this but even though it is not obvious these two have a difference. Take for example the word "putare" which means to compute. Com is a prefix added to putare not to invert the meaning but to intensify. Com intensifies the verb putare which results to computare which means to compute, calculate, think and process intensively. Computare if you are now wondering is where the word computer is derived from. Back to your question, the prefix in- can be used both as an inverter and as an intensifier. So if you say flammable, it means it could be burnt but when you say inflammable, it could be burnt more hazardous than things that are only flammable. Batteries are flammable, but tanks containing gasoline is inflammable.

Answer 6

'Inflammable' is of course the more correct word, since the true verb for the noun 'flame' is not 'flame', but 'e/inflame'. In the same way, we wouldn't say 'liquidable'; we'd say 'liquefiable'. Also, we can't phase out 'inflammable' while we still use 'inflammation' and 'inflammatory' so regularly.

If we're really too dumb for our own language and can never safely make a distinction between 'in-something' and 'not something', then first let's get rid of all the other 'in-' words (indoor, involve, intern, and all the rest), and next let's just start using 'enflammable', with an E.

Answer 7

It is also confusing to us native English speakers, who have grown up with this. It looks to me like inflammable should mean not flammable, but that is not the case.

My experience in America is that people use the word inflammable to emphasize that it is a more volatile substance than most things - catches fire easily and/or could be explosive in the presence of a fire. Paper is flammable, but gasoline or rubbing alcohol might be called inflammable.

Answer 8

They mean exactly the same thing (easily burned), and can be used interchangeably. It is an exception to the usual rule that X and in-X mean the opposite of each other. Inflammable is commonly used to describe fabrics, while flammable is commonly used to describe gases and chemicals. It is recommended that flammable be used on important warning labels, just to avoid confusion.

Answer 9

According to this BBC website, There is no difference in meaning and little or no difference in use.
Chemicals, gases or cloth materials that are flammable / inflammable catch fire and burn easily. Perhaps, in usage, cloth materials are usually described as inflammable. So we might say: 'The material from which these car seats are made is highly inflammable. And conversely, certain gases or chemicals may be thought of as flammable. So we might say: 'Aircraft fuel is highly flammable'. But there are no hard and fast patterns.

Answer 10

The original word was inflammable, capable of being inflamed or set afire. But this caused much confusion, as the prefix in- often is used for negation, such as incompetent. To reduce the confusion, the modern trend has been to use the word flammable, capable of carrying a flame.