2007-05-10 17:31:14 · 8 answers · asked by markdavies28 1 in Education & Reference ➔ Words & Wordplay
nothing really. flammable is a more recent term to get the message across. So they use flammable as the modern warning, as people may think inflammable means the opposite.
2007-05-10 17:35:12 · answer #1 · answered by JuanB 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They both mean easily set a flame, but flammable is the only one used to refer to fire to eliminate confusion, nonflammable would be the opposite and inflammable should only be used figuratively in a non technical sense, like his temper is inflammable.
2007-05-11 00:43:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What is the difference between FLAMMABLE, INFLAMMABLE and NON-FLAMMABLE?
Flammable and inflammable both mean “easily set on fire”.
Inflammable can also be used figuratively to mean “easily excited”.
Non-flammable means “not easily set on fire”.
2007-05-11 00:37:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
If something is flammable it can catch on fire and if it's inflammable it can't.
2007-05-11 00:34:56 · answer #4 · answered by Behaviorist 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Spelling.
2007-05-11 00:46:49 · answer #5 · answered by carmandnee 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The difference is obviously "in".
Or am I interpreting the "wordplay" in this sections title the wrong way?
2007-05-11 00:50:29 · answer #6 · answered by tinkertailorcandlestickmaker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They mean exactly the same thing. Both mean highly volatile.
2007-05-11 00:39:45 · answer #7 · answered by merlin 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
nothing, they are interchangeable and pretty much mean the same thing. kinda annoying and confusion causing.
2007-05-11 00:37:06 · answer #8 · answered by Amanda Lane 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋