If you could burn something, do you call it "flammable" or "inflammable" ??
At first, I though it should be flammable since "in-" prefix has negative meaning but lately, I see both form used liberally to denote the same thing (that you could burn). What does the"in-" actually means ?
And how do we call something that won't burn ? Non-flammable ? Is it right gramatically ?
Thank you
Best regards,
-septerra-
2007-06-08 23:21:32 · 8 answers · asked by septerra 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Languages
1. Believe it or not, they are synonyms, not antonyms.
2. The prefix "in", in this case, is an intensive, and not an expression of negation.
3. Because of the confusion with the prefix "in" with a negative meaning, flammable should be the preferred option.
4. Non-flammable is the antonym.
2007-06-08 23:28:32 · answer #1 · answered by ♫ Rum Rhythms ♫ 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The correct word for something that will burn is "inflammable". I think of it as being derived from "inflame" (become burning) -> "inflame"+able = can become burning.
Flammable was invented for people who misunderstood the "in-" part to be a prefix meaning "not". Since this misunderstanding could be dangerous (even fatal), correctness was sacrificed to safety. Strictly speaking, "flammable" would mean "go ahead, burn this because you can"!
Something that will not burn is therefore "non-inflammable", if you could spare the ink. :-) Hey, just avoid the problem altogether and call it "fire-retardent"!
2007-06-09 10:11:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
flammable and inflammable, both have the same meaning, can catch fire and burn easily.
Inflammable is British English.
The opposite for these two words is Non- flammable (you're right).
Prefix in- (also il-/im-/ir- ) usually means "not" or "the opposite of". But there is other meaning for prefix "in" like in this case, for inflammable, "in-" means "to put into the condition mentioned". (like "in" in "inflame" and "imperil").
2007-06-09 06:32:57 · answer #3 · answered by beejin 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is why one example of why English is so difficult for people to learn as a second language. There are hundreds of examples like this, where seeming opposites have the identical meanings. There are also jokes like: Why do we park in a driveway and drive on a parkway?
Getting to your question, if it doesn't burn it's nonflammable. If it DOES burn, take your choice. And as far as the meaning of the prefix "-in," it's the same as "-un," usually, but not always as you see here. Carry on and good luck!
2007-06-09 08:07:02 · answer #4 · answered by Elaine P...is for Poetry 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
According to Merriam - Webster's Collegiate Dictionary and Thesaurus:
Main Entry: in-flam-ma-ble
Function: adjective
Etymology: French, from Medieval Latin inflammabilis, from Latin inflammare
Date: 1605
1 : flammable
2 : easily inflamed, excited, or angered : irascible
Synonyms COMBUSTIBLE 1, burnable, flammable, ignitable
Antonyms nonflammable, noninflammable
Main Entry: flam-ma-ble
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin flammare to flame, set on fire, from flamma
Date: 1813
: capable of being easily ignited and of burning quickly
Synonyms COMBUSTIBLE 1, burnable, ignitable, inflammable
Antonyms incombustible, nonflammable
Ta
2007-06-09 07:29:23 · answer #5 · answered by waterlily 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Flammable means the object could be burned with fire.
Inflammable means the object is easy to be burned with fire.
2007-06-10 06:07:38 · answer #6 · answered by angie 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They are the same thing - stupid, yes. And non-flammable is correct.
2007-06-09 08:59:04 · answer #7 · answered by Lydia 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just another one of those annoying "exceptions to the rules" that everybody learning English loves to hate.
.
2007-06-09 09:48:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋