Quote:
Originally Posted by pdurrant
inflammable's in- isn't the same as the in- of , say, invisible, but like the in- of indoctrinate.
flammable is the recently (1920s) introduced word to mean the same thing, as it's hard to misinterpret flammable, which it's possible to be mistaken about inflammable.
|
1. Agreed (there are, I believe, four meanings for the prefix
in and only one is antonymic).
2. It sounds as if you might be responding to this bit, though I'm not certain I communicated the fact that I was joking:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by prestidigitweeze
BTW: Why is the word inflammable not inflamable (or, more precisely, enflamable)?
|