Pretty much what it says on the tin, there are 2 m’s in “flammable”.
Inflammable means flammable? What a country!
I noticed this a while back but didn’t bother to report. I did think it was quite amusing, however, and I liked to pronounce the misspelled “flamable” like this: (Flah-MAH-Blay)
[quote=“Cinghiale, post:2, topic:2652”]Inflammable means flammable? What a country![/quote]Country? That actually comes from the Latin inflammare and inflammable was first used about two centuries before flammable. The more you know…
THE MORE BLOODY CONFUSED YOU ARE ON WHY THEY DECIDED TO SPIT OUT ANOTHER WORD THAT MEANT THE SAME DAMN THING AND STILL DECIDED TO KEEP THE OLD ONE ABOUT. No way to run a universe, I swear.
I would guess because the latin “inflammable” actually meant able to be set on fire, but in English the prefix of “in” means the opposite, so we added our own “flammable”. However, “inflammable” still works.
Just a guess.
Which is why “non-flammable” is the way to go nowadays.
English is an irreparably bastardized trainwreck of a language anyway. Hardly surprising we end up with stuff like this.
But it would appear that I’ve derailed my own thread. Oops.
[quote=“Morrigi, post:8, topic:2652”]English is an irreparably bastardized trainwreck of a language anyway. Hardly surprising we end up with stuff like this.
But it would appear that I’ve derailed my own thread. Oops.[/quote]
It’s your own thread. You decided that another topic was worth including!
Indeed, and now that it’s served its purpose I’m going to lock it.