Indeed.
Inflammable
- Thread starter securespark
- Start date
Sponsored Links
That's what the dictionaries say - that the potential confusion arises because the "in" prefix derives from a Latin/Greek word which is different from the much more familiar one which results in the "negating 'in' prefix". However, given that few people using the word will know about the derivation, that does not remove the potential confusion.
I remember discussing this 50+ years ago with our English teacher. He agreed that the word 'inflammable' appeared to be anomalous, but explained how it had arisen, and pointed out that "everyone knew what the word meant", since (true at the time in UK, but no longer so) "no-one would dream of talking about 'flammable' ".
Kind Regards, John
That may be so but when is it going to arise?
If a warning notice says "Danger - Inflammable Substance", are people going to just think "Oh, nothing to worry about there then" and light a camp fire.
Well, for a start, it has arisen in this thread (and I suspect that the implication of the OP is that secure may only have recently realised this) ....
Sure, if it's obviously a 'warning notice' (and particularly if it contains the word "Danger") then there is little scope for confusion/misinterpretation. However, a bland statement such as "This substance is inflammable" could, presumably, have potentially been misinterpreted by eveares (and probably others) until recently?
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
Yes but SS's point was just semantic, surely. He's not blaming it for setting fire to his house.
A can of WD40 and air freshener have a 'Danger' box with a picture of a flame and quite a lot of text stating what should not be done.
I'm sure it would say - Warning or Danger or Caution.
A can of WD40 and air freshener have a 'Danger' box with a picture of a flame and quite a lot of text stating what should not be done.
That may be true of secure, but it seemed clear that, until last year, eveares, for one, believed that 'inflammable' meant non-flammable.
Indeed, and that will usually be the case - but it would be the 'Warning' and/or 'Danger' words, the picture of a flame and the other text that would non-ambiguously convey the message, not the word "inflammable" (which would not necessarily have to appear at all). Indeed, if it was felt certain that the word "inflammable" alone would be adequate/clear, then there would not really be a need for all the other words, text or visual devices. At least until relatively recently, it was considered adequate to just write 'Poison' on something, where appropriate.
Kind Regards, John
What did he think income tax or indian meant?
Yes, but nowadays mollycoddling and removing any individual decisions is the requirement.
What did they used to do about people who did not know what poison meant - picture of skull and crossbones - or French people who thought it was fish?
I'm not sure what you are arguing about.
They seem to be allowing for the confusion by not mentioning 'inflammable' so...
Plus, of course, pictures are international.
I'm not arguing, and it is the umpteenth time I've been involved in this discussion - elsewhere if not also here. It always arises when someone (like SS) suddenly 'realises' that the established English word is not particularly intuitive, and that it could theoretically even be confused with the converse. The fact that there is potential 'confusion' is witnessed by the existence of this thread and by what eveares wrote.
However, if you want some further confusion, we have not yet discussed "incombustible". If one used the same reasoning (hence assumption about derivation) as applied to the 'in' of 'inflammable', one would presumably conclude (if not only for consistency) that 'incombustible' meant the same as 'combustible'. However, dictionaries all seem agreed that it means non-combustible!
Kind Regards, John
We cannot go through all the English words which happen to begin with 'in' and all the ones which use 'in' as a prefix for the opposite.
Not to mention all the words which don't mean what they mean any more because of definition by democracy.
We are all surprised occasionally by things we did not know or realise but it doesn't alter the facts.
That this one example could lead to danger is not really here nor there. Perhaps it should be specifically taught - do they have English lessons any more?
Inflammable means able to be inflamed.
Does anyone think incendiary devices are harmless?
If you go to the Doctor and he tells you your throat is inflamed, what do you think? Nothing wrong?
Not to mention all the words which don't mean what they mean any more because of definition by democracy.
We are all surprised occasionally by things we did not know or realise but it doesn't alter the facts.
That this one example could lead to danger is not really here nor there. Perhaps it should be specifically taught - do they have English lessons any more?
Inflammable means able to be inflamed.
Does anyone think incendiary devices are harmless?
If you go to the Doctor and he tells you your throat is inflamed, what do you think? Nothing wrong?
You do like these semantic discussions, don't you
For what it's worth, I think there is a big difference between words which 'happen to' start with "in" and those in which there is a corresponding word, of related meaning, without the "in". In the great majority of cases of the latter, "inX" has the meaning of "not-X". One (at least I) has/have to think quite hard to come up with exceptions to that.
... to take your examples, I'm not aware of "cendiary" being a word (certainly not one I recognise!), so "incendiary" is not an issue, and I think that your medical example is also rather different, since one does not talk of a throat being "flamed" or "non-flamed", so there is not even any theoretically possible confusion.
Kind Regards, John
I rarely conduct them on my own.You do like these semantic discussions, don't you
Usually they are with someone who won't accept the facts.
I did not, until you pointed it out recently, realise that kilohm was the word. I think it is silly and pointless but I didn't go on about it.
Well, of course there is a big difference. Some just happen to begin with 'in' and some are the opposite of the rest of the word.
As I said - 'indeed' but you cannot change the facts.
If someone is inbred, where did they come from?
There is only a word 'flammable' because some (the Americans?) agree with you and are removing the confusion.
I don't know how long they think it has been the case, but the Oxford dictionary says:
. As for how long that's been the case, and whether we should 'blame' the Americans for flammable, the Meriam-Webster dictionary suggests ...Oxford Dictionary said:
... so the 'confusion' has been around for over 200 years.Meriam-Webster Dictionary said:
Kind Regards, John
Ok. Longer than I would have thought but the reasoning is the same.
Isn't Merriam Webster American?
What do you want me to do. Banish the word inflammable from existence?
Or - do you think altering its definition to 'not flammable' now would remove any confusion?
Isn't Merriam Webster American?
What do you want me to do. Banish the word inflammable from existence?
Or - do you think altering its definition to 'not flammable' now would remove any confusion?
I don't want you to do anything. I didn't start this!
If one is to believe the (both UK and US) dictionaries, 'flammable' and 'nonflammable' (or 'non-flammable') are becoming increasingly more common (and 'inflammable' progressively less common), so maybe the change is effectively happening without any need to 'alter definitions'.
Kind Regards, John
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
