You said that 'flammable' was introduced "to avoid the confusion", but almost everything you have written subsequently has been about the fact that you do not think 'inflammable' carries any confusion which needs to be 'avoided'!
Kind Regards, John
Inflammable
- Thread starter securespark
- Start date
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
Only in answering your questions where, while you are not confused, you do not want to accept the fact that inflammable quite logically means that which can be inflamed.
There are many similar examples.
English is a complicated language deriving from many others.
There are many similar examples.
English is a complicated language deriving from many others.
I don't deny that, but the only reason why your argument probably prevails is really because of convention/tradition (i.e. the way that this aspect of language has been derived).
I would equally accept the view of someone who asserted that "inflammable quite logically means that which is not flammable (i.e. that which cannot easily be 'flamed')".
The problem clearly is that the language is such that two, opposite, things can more-or-less equally be argued to be "quite logical".
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
