On the continent (and eslewhere, I'm sure) this same material is called "flamable" Is this a paradox?
2007-11-12 04:35:39 · 9 answers · asked by captbullshot 5 in Education & Reference ➔ Words & Wordplay
Yes. It is a paradox.
An intended one?
I can not be certain, for sure.
"In"-flammable...
The history of your culture to use the word/term "in" as a prefix to describe an action... I am not certain of its origin.
I do know that English comes from Latin originally.
In the U.S.A. "flammable" means exactly that. There is no "in" about something being flammable. "Un" means "undone" "Unavailable" or, to "not" do something.
"In" means: In, into, towards, within.
Unless your culture has somehow interpreted "In" to mean:
"toward flammable" or "within flammable" or "into flammable" which would certainly make sense as to why the term "inflammable" would have been created.
"Un" on the other hand, means: Not. There is no other interpretation for "Un."
It is a paradox. Yes. Especially when Britain and the U.S.A. are really one-in-the-same. We would not be here had it not been for England and Christopher Columbus to begin with.
2007-11-12 04:57:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It can be flammable or inflammable but if it doesn't ignite then it's non flammable. It's not a paradox it's just typical English contrariness!
2007-11-12 04:43:59 · answer #2 · answered by CW 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There sure is a word Inflammable which is equivalent to Flammable or able to catch fire or can be ignited!!!!!!!!!
So there needn't be a confusion whether to use Flammable or Inflammable......
2007-11-12 04:51:24 · answer #3 · answered by Sanjeev 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both words mean exactly the same but it was thought that people would think that "inflammable" meant "would not burn" and so "flammable" is the more common usage.
2007-11-12 04:52:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
'Flammable' and 'Inflammable' both mean exactly the same thing in Britian - that something catches fire easily.
'Non-Flammable' and 'Non-Inflammable' both mean "does not catch fire easily".
Not a paradox just the way we use the words.
2007-11-12 04:51:31 · answer #5 · answered by CTRL Freak 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but it's dangerous. The 'in' prefix can mean 'able to' or it can be a negative. Flammable is relatively new, but probably the safer bet.
2007-11-12 19:58:28 · answer #6 · answered by cymry3jones 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Inflammable- explosive
Flammable- burns
Not sure which way round they go, actually, but you can betcha it'd be back to front in foreign languages!
2007-11-12 04:39:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think there is such a word as inflamable. You can say flamable or to inflame as in anger. But not inflamable.
2007-11-12 04:43:01 · answer #8 · answered by Spiny Norman 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
u is confused.
2007-11-12 04:39:31 · answer #9 · answered by Daniel R 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋