5 ms·
"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 tha
by 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 agoInert 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 agoAyuh, it's English, it doesn't have to make sense as long as it makes sense.