Why is flammable and inflammable the same thing?
Edible and Inedible mean the opposite of each other.  So does tolerant and intolerant, efficient and inefficient, and sane and insane.  So why do we need the word non-flammable?  Shouldn't flammable and inflammable be enough?  I guess not.
<< Previous Document / Next Document >>
  • 1) flammable - Lettuce
    Created 8/13/2006 9:29:13 PM email |

    Don't you have anything better to do with your time like help out your poor wife with all of those boys?

  • 2) "Flammable" is new - Stan Rogers
    Created 8/21/2006 1:22:55 PM email | website

    ... and burrowed into the language through misuse. The original was inflammable, and we got it directly from the French sometime between William the Bastard and Chauser. A more modern borrowing might have been "enflamable", with the word "flame" being distinctly discernable. Nonetheless and besides, "flammable" is, properly speaking, in the same class of wrong as "irregardless" (which dictionaries are beginning to recognize). The fact that it became accepted a little further back in history doesn't make it any less so. (Mr. Fowler would have a fit.)

Post A Comment
Subject: (required)
Name: (required)
Email: (required)
Web Site:
Comment:(No HTML - Links will be converted if prefixed http://)

Remember Me?