Robert Bonomi wrote:

snip my earlier gaffe

Unfortunately, you sir, in _this_ case, "know not that of which you speak".

The words 'flammable', and 'inflammable' actually come from *SEPARATE*,
*UNRELATED* roots.

That leading 'in' in 'inflammable' is no more a negation prefix than the
leading 'in' in 'innocent', 'inside', 'inflamed', or 'inflammation' is.

Note: the seeming 'contradiction' has been in existence for a *LONG* time.
All the way back to Old Latin, in fact.

"Flammable" traces to "flamma', meaning 'flame', while "inflammable" traces
back to 'inflammare', meaning 'to inflame'. which is constructed from the
'intensifier' (!!) prefix 'in', and the root _is_ derived from 'flamma'.


In engineering circles, there _is_ a technical distinction drawn between
the two terms -- it has to do with how fast/easily/quickly combustion occurs.
One of them burns, the other burns *quickly*. Unfortunately, I can never
remember which is which.

The flammable/inflammable distinction is fairly s similar to the difference
between 'explosive' and 'high explosive'.

Replies such as this should enshrined somehwere as a shining example of
good posting and a friendly attitude. Robert, I have enjoyed learning
from you. This also highlights that it has been entirely too long since
my Latin classes.

Yes, the English language is silly at times, but we can only do our best
to work with it and not "blow ourselves up" with cement and such.

Chris