4 ms·

"in" denotes the opposite, so "inflammable" has been used to mean not flammable due to expectations of grammatical consistency, and as a result the word is gene

"in" denotes the opposite, so "inflammable" has been used to mean not flammable due to expectations of grammatical consistency, and as a result the word is generally preferred to be avoided entirely nowadays in favor of either "flammable" (or "highly flammable"), or "nonflammable".

jfengel 2y ago
"Flammable" is such a weird word. Folk etymology would derive it from a transitive verb "to flame" that doesn't really exist (i.e. is not used, at least not that way). There is a transitive verb "to inflame", which is common. It derives from the noun "flame" and the prefix "in-", which when applied to nouns makes it a verb meaning "to cause [the noun]". They also ignored the common word "inflammation", which nobody thinks means "to stop your tissues from flaring up". None of that matters. People parsed "inflammable" differently and arrived at a new meaning. But I just find it odd that, while doing that parsing, they never considered that they never use the verb "to flame" in ordinary speech.
- xattt 2y ago
  Inert occurs in the same “domain” of chemistry that suggests as nothing will occur to a given material.
  - smcin 2y ago
    "Inert" goes further, it says the material is chemically unreactive. Whereas wood or fabric could be flammable or nonflammable depending on how it's coated or treated.
- ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
  'Flame' as in 'to catch fire' has some rare usage in English- "The main blaze of it is past, but a small thing would make it flame again" says Shakespeare. The more common usages are metaphorical- 'flame with passion', or more modern 'flamed them online', though I don't really see that usage much anymore either.
- carapace 2y ago
  Ayuh, it's English, it doesn't have to make sense as long as it makes sense.
lostlogin 2y ago
> the word is generally preferred to be avoided entirely nowadays in favor of either "flammable" (or "highly flammable"), or "nonflammable Noninflammable for the maniacs.
- rtkwe 2y ago
  English Trying to make sense for one second challenge. Level: Impossible It's always amusing all the gotchas that exist in English. I'm glad I grew up in it rather than trying to learn it as a second language.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  Uninflammable, please.
  - speleding 2y ago
    +1 By the way, Dutch has "onontvlambaar"
bunderbunder 2y ago
This interpretation is based on incorrect decomposition of the word. In this case, the "in" prefix means "in/on". Think of it as "inflame" + "able". Similar to how "inflammation" doesn't mean "a state of not burning" and "inflamed" doesn't mean "not burning". Also see "ingress", "ingest", "inaugurate". I'm only an armchair etymologist and this is wild speculation, but I think that the meaning of the "in" prefix might depend on whether we get the word directly from Latin, or whether it comes through French.
- kergonath 2y ago
  > I'm only an armchair etymologist and this is wild speculation, but I think that the meaning of the "in" prefix might depend on whether we get the word directly from Latin, or whether it comes through French. French has both meanings: the negation as in interdit (forbidden) or impossible (well, impossible); or “in”, “towards”, “change” as in intérieur (interior), inflexion (inflection), or indeed inflammable (from the Latin inflammabilis). Both meanings also exist in Latin. What I found fascinating learning English is “inhabit”, which also sounds like the opposite of its actual meaning. Is obviously the second meaning, but then the prefix is redundant because it came from the Latin habitare, which is the verb with the same meaning. Anyway, that was today’s minute on etymology.

jfengel 2y ago

"Flammable" is such a weird word. Folk etymology would derive it from a transitive verb "to flame" that doesn't really exist (i.e. is not used, at least not that way). There is a transitive verb "to inflame", which is common. It derives from the noun "flame" and the prefix "in-", which when applied to nouns makes it a verb meaning "to cause [the noun]". They also ignored the common word "inflammation", which nobody thinks means "to stop your tissues from flaring up". None of that matters. People parsed "inflammable" differently and arrived at a new meaning. But I just find it odd that, while doing that parsing, they never considered that they never use the verb "to flame" in ordinary speech.

xattt 2y ago
Inert occurs in the same “domain” of chemistry that suggests as nothing will occur to a given material.
- smcin 2y ago
  "Inert" goes further, it says the material is chemically unreactive. Whereas wood or fabric could be flammable or nonflammable depending on how it's coated or treated.
ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
'Flame' as in 'to catch fire' has some rare usage in English- "The main blaze of it is past, but a small thing would make it flame again" says Shakespeare. The more common usages are metaphorical- 'flame with passion', or more modern 'flamed them online', though I don't really see that usage much anymore either.
carapace 2y ago
Ayuh, it's English, it doesn't have to make sense as long as it makes sense.

lostlogin 2y ago

> the word is generally preferred to be avoided entirely nowadays in favor of either "flammable" (or "highly flammable"), or "nonflammable Noninflammable for the maniacs.

rtkwe 2y ago
English Trying to make sense for one second challenge. Level: Impossible It's always amusing all the gotchas that exist in English. I'm glad I grew up in it rather than trying to learn it as a second language.
PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
Uninflammable, please.
- speleding 2y ago
  +1 By the way, Dutch has "onontvlambaar"

bunderbunder 2y ago

This interpretation is based on incorrect decomposition of the word. In this case, the "in" prefix means "in/on". Think of it as "inflame" + "able". Similar to how "inflammation" doesn't mean "a state of not burning" and "inflamed" doesn't mean "not burning". Also see "ingress", "ingest", "inaugurate". I'm only an armchair etymologist and this is wild speculation, but I think that the meaning of the "in" prefix might depend on whether we get the word directly from Latin, or whether it comes through French.

kergonath 2y ago
> I'm only an armchair etymologist and this is wild speculation, but I think that the meaning of the "in" prefix might depend on whether we get the word directly from Latin, or whether it comes through French. French has both meanings: the negation as in interdit (forbidden) or impossible (well, impossible); or “in”, “towards”, “change” as in intérieur (interior), inflexion (inflection), or indeed inflammable (from the Latin inflammabilis). Both meanings also exist in Latin. What I found fascinating learning English is “inhabit”, which also sounds like the opposite of its actual meaning. Is obviously the second meaning, but then the prefix is redundant because it came from the Latin habitare, which is the verb with the same meaning. Anyway, that was today’s minute on etymology.