A note for English learners (1). Flammable and inflammable
By John Welford
@indexer (4852)
Leicester, England
November 1, 2018 9:14am CST
I intend to present a series of posts that might help learners of English to improve their vocabulary by pointing out some of the oddities of the language that offer traps for the unwary. If you have any suggestions for topics that I could cover, please feel free to suggest them. I should point out that - because I am British - the examples I use will refer to British English.
1. Flammable and inflammable
These two words actually mean the same thing, namely that the item being described is liable to burst into flames under certain conditions. Inflammable really means "very flammable", but the two words tend to be used interchangeably.
However, it might be thought that "in" implies "non", as it does in words like "independent", which is the opposite of "dependent". Clearly it could be dangerous if the word is misunderstood, so it is safer to avoid using "inflammable" and prefer a clearer expression such as "highly flammable". For the negative, "non-flammable" is the clearest word to use.
7 people like this
4 responses
@owlwings (43897)
• Cambridge, England
1 Nov 18
In my youth (and still, to a certain extent today). "Flammable" sounded odd while "inflammable" was the word of choice. I don't think that I was aware then that 'flammable' was first coined in English in 1813 by someone translating a Latin text while 'inflammable' has been around in English for much longer: it was probably because 'inflammable' was (even in the 1950s and 60s) by far the more common word.
The problem is that Latin had both the negative prefix 'in-'/'un-' meaning 'not' and the causative prefix 'in-'. We've actually borrowed a few other words with this second prefix ('impassive' and 'irradiated' are two, meaning 'caused to be passive' and 'caused to be radiated'). Strictly speaking, 'flammable' and 'inflammable' don't mean quite the same thing, though in English today we don't make the fine distinction that the Romans did.
3 people like this
@owlwings (43897)
• Cambridge, England
1 Nov 18
@indexer It is, indeed, a flaming nuisance for native English speakers as well as for learners of English! If I have an inflamed big toe, I'm hardly likely to call the fire brigade, but if my house goes up in flames, I certainly would!
2 people like this
@SophiaMorros (5044)
• Belews Creek, North Carolina
1 Nov 18
@owlwings was that comment I tended to be inflammatory?
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
2 people like this
@SophiaMorros (5044)
• Belews Creek, North Carolina
1 Nov 18
So why does the "in" not mean non in this case?
2 people like this
@owlwings (43897)
• Cambridge, England
1 Nov 18
Languages are odd beasts.Nobody ever sat down and thought out a logical system (a 'grammar'). All the grammars that ever were have been worked out and written down afterwards to try to understand the logic of how a language works - and sometimes there is no 'logic' to it!
I suppose that, once upon a time, there may have been different prefixes to mean 'not- [something]' and 'causing- [something]' but, over time and partly because of borrowing from other languages (such as from Greek to Latin, for example), the two different sounds became alike.
@SophiaMorros (5044)
• Belews Creek, North Carolina
1 Nov 18
@indexer I hadn't read his response. 
1 person likes this
