Inflamable or flammable?, which one do you normally use?

[classical_hero]

Talk about a combination of words that causes great confusion. Normally words with 'in' before mean the exact opposite, but not in this case. So which one do you use?

Link to video.

I normally use inflammable rather than flammable. It just sound better to talk about when talking about things that can catch fire.

I just wish I could find the video of Doctor Nick Rivera, but I cannot find it.

 

[Disgustipated]

I use flammable. I used to see inflammable as a kid on things, but you never see it anymore in the U.S. It was an easy habit to grow out of.

But I have to say. Very rarely does the word come up in regular conversation. I'm not a pyro.

 

[classical_hero]

Well with my work, lots of things can catch on fire, so they use that to warn people about them.

 

[Skwink]

I genrally say: "It can burn".

 

[warpus]

Having two very similar words for the same concept, one of which has a prefix that is usually used to indicate the opposite of something, is just stupid. If you're going to have prefixes in your language, use them right!

 

[azzaman333]

Flammable. Not that I use it all that frequently.

 

[Truronian]

I use burny.

 

[Kennigit]

I can't believe youtube doesn't have the dr nick clip (that I can find). I also express the same dismay as Dr. Nick.

Anywhos I use a variation of "flammable", "it can burn", or "pyro's delight".

 

[Perfection]

burnable

 

[classical_hero]

I can't believe youtube doesn't have the dr nick clip (that I can find). I also express the same dismay as Dr. Nick.

I'm disappointed too.

 

[Joecoolyo]

unflammable

Seriously though, I use flammable. Makes more sense.

 

[holy king]

Link to video.

 

[Quintillus]

Having two very similar words for the same concept, one of which has a prefix that is usually used to indicate the opposite of something, is just stupid. If you're going to have prefixes in your language, use them right!

I used to think inflammable did mean not flammable. Fortunately that never resulted in disaster, probably because I wasn't a pyromaniac. But it could have, all because I used prefixes the way they are usually used.

Nowadays I use flammable. That way I won't be confused later and think that something is non-combustible when it actually is.

 

[Bill3000]

Flammable! Or inflammable. Forget which, doesn't matter.

 

[emzie]

Wait, inflammable means burnable? I did not know this. How am I still alive?

 

[Disgustipated]

I think we can blame the Romans for this. Stop basing words off latin dammit!

 

[Formaldehyde]

Good point. Why did they ever feel the need to inflame the situation:

Flammable and inflammable are synonyms and mean capable of burning. The word “inflammable” came from Latin “'inflammāre” = “to set fire to,” where the prefix “'in-”' means “in” as in “inside”, rather than “not” as in “invisible” and “ineligible”. Nonetheless, “inflammable” is often erroneously thought to mean “non-flammable”. In the United States, this safety hazard is typically avoided by use of flammable, despite its not being the proper Latin-derived term, on warning labels referring to physical combustibility.

The antonym of flammable/inflammable is non-inflammable, incombustible or non-combustible.[1]

Nobody needs such incendiary double-talk.

 

[Hygro]

well, it means you can inflame something, so forget the latin, it's still reasonable. I use flammable though.

 

[emzie]

Good point. Why did they ever feel the need to inflame the situation:

Oh you're right, I don't think of inflame as putting out a fire at all. Neeto!

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I cant pronounce either of them real well so I say: "Don't light a match around it"