SEMANTIC ENIGMAS



Why do both 'flammable' and 'inflammable' mean the same thing? And what is the opposite? James Kelly, Bristol, UK 'Inflammable' has always meant 'tends to catch fire easily'; but, because the prefix 'in-' often means 'not' (as in 'ineffective')and for that reason 'inflammable' might be misinterpreted, 'flammable' has become the preferred alternative on warning labels. 'Nonflammable' is the antonym. Jim Dewar, Gosford, NSW, Australia Proper useage is inflammable (highly combustible), opposite being non-flammable. I looked this one up after a long running argument with a friend in India, where they use the proper form "inflammable" on trucks transporting petrol or other dangerous stuff. I was baffled that they would go to so much trouble to alert the public to a benign cargo. However flammable is now in common useage - I guess to stop people like me getting confused and thinking it's safe to smoke or weld, etc near substances they shouldn't. Libby Box, Sunshine Coast, Australia "Flammable" is used to prevent people from interpreting the prefix "in-" as "not" instead of "into" (and lighting a match). The prevailing usages for the opposite meaning seem to be "nonflammable" and "not flammable". Harold Gotthelf, Fords, NJ, USA All 'inflammable' literally means is 'able to become inflamed' - the 'in-' prefix not having anything to do with opposite meaning (as in 'ineligible' for example). As far as I know, the opposite of flammable/inflammable is 'non-flammable'. Max Wurr, Stanmore, UK It's rather like asking why "big" and "large" mean the same; they are just synonyms, but in this case the structure of the words (from the Latin words "flamma" and "inflammare") makes it appear as if they should be antonyms. The opposite? Um...non-flammable? Bob Ginger, Bourne End, UK Flammable and inflammable do not mean the same thing. If something is flammable it means it can be set fire to, such as a piece of wood. However, inflammable means that a substance is capabble of bursting into flames without the need for any ignition. Unstable liquid chemicals and certain types of fuel fall into this category. The opposite of both words is non-flammable. Chris Bleakley, Prague, Czech Republic Fowler's suggests that the modern usage of flammable was introduced precisely to prevent the "in" prefix implying "not" (which it seems to in just about every other case). It goes on to acknowledge that the opposite, "non-flammable", has met with only "partial success". Perhaps we need a more acceptable opposite... how about "incombustable", which is in the dictionary as a negative and means the same thing. Neil Wellman, Bristol I clearly remember, as a fresh graduate chemical engineer in the late '70s, being told that 'inflammable' was not to be used as it was ambiguous: although it means "easy to burn" it could be mistaken for its opposite because of the in- at the start. Inflammable was to be replaced by the then-incorrect but safe 'flammable'. Phil Cohen, Sydney, Australia



Add your answer













