<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Difference between &#8220;Flammable&#8221; and &#8220;Inflammable&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mbatutes.com/difference-between-flammable-and-inflammable/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mbatutes.com/difference-between-flammable-and-inflammable/</link>
	<description>Become a Manager</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:40:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ash Bandy</title>
		<link>http://www.mbatutes.com/difference-between-flammable-and-inflammable/comment-page-1/#comment-2015</link>
		<dc:creator>Ash Bandy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:48:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mbatutes.com/?p=438#comment-2015</guid>
		<description>Blame it on Latin and its tricky prefixes. In the beginning, there was &quot;inflammable,&quot; a perfectly nice English word based on the Latin &quot;inflammare,&quot; meaning &quot;to kindle,&quot; from &quot;in&quot; (in) plus &quot;flamma&quot; (flame). &quot;Inflammable&quot; became standard English in the 16th century. So far, so good.

Comes the 19th century, and some well-meaning soul dreamt up the word &quot;flammable,&quot; basing it on a slightly different Latin word, &quot;flammare,&quot; meaning &quot;to set on fire.&quot; There was nothing terribly wrong with &quot;flammable,&quot; but it never really caught on. After all, we already had &quot;inflammable,&quot; so &quot;flammable&quot; pretty much died out in the 1800&#039;s.

&quot;But wait,&quot; you say, &quot;I saw &#039;flammable&#039; just the other day.&quot; Indeed you did. &quot;Flammable&quot; came back, one of the few successful instances of social engineering of language.

The Latin prefix &quot;in,&quot; while it sometimes means just &quot;in&quot; (as in &quot;inflammable&quot;), more often turns up in English words meaning &quot;not&quot; (as in &quot;invisible&quot; -- &quot;not visible&quot;). After World War Two, safety officials on both sides of the Atlantic decided that folks were too likely to see &quot;inflammable&quot; and decide that the word meant &quot;fireproof,&quot; so various agencies set about encouraging the revival of &quot;flammable&quot; as a substitute. The campaign seems to have worked, and &quot;inflammable&quot; has all but disappeared.

That left what to call something that was not likely to burst into flames, but here the process of linguistic renovation was easier. &quot;Non-flammable&quot; is a nice, comforting word, and besides, it&#039;s far easier on the tongue than its now thankfully obsolete precursor, &quot;non-inflammable.&quot;

The Oxford English Dictionary adds this usage note: Historically,  flammable and  inflammable mean the same thing. However, the presence of the prefix  in- has misled many people into assuming that  inflammable means &quot;not flammable&quot; or &quot;noncombustible.&quot; The prefix  -in in  inflammable is not, however, the Latin negative prefix  -in, which is related to the English  -un and appears in such words as  indecent and  inglorious. Rather, this  -in is an intensive prefix derived from the Latin preposition  in. This prefix also appears in the word  enflame. But many people are not aware of this derivation, and for clarity&#039;s sake it is advisable to use only flammable to give warnings.

Flammable - Matter catches fire when set it to
Inflammable - Matter catches fire without a source of ignition. for example exxessive presssure, sudden impact, react with surrounding environment.
And Thank God, there is no word called Non-inflammable, it&#039;s just non-flammable</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Blame it on Latin and its tricky prefixes. In the beginning, there was &#8220;inflammable,&#8221; a perfectly nice English word based on the Latin &#8220;inflammare,&#8221; meaning &#8220;to kindle,&#8221; from &#8220;in&#8221; (in) plus &#8220;flamma&#8221; (flame). &#8220;Inflammable&#8221; became standard English in the 16th century. So far, so good.</p>
<p>Comes the 19th century, and some well-meaning soul dreamt up the word &#8220;flammable,&#8221; basing it on a slightly different Latin word, &#8220;flammare,&#8221; meaning &#8220;to set on fire.&#8221; There was nothing terribly wrong with &#8220;flammable,&#8221; but it never really caught on. After all, we already had &#8220;inflammable,&#8221; so &#8220;flammable&#8221; pretty much died out in the 1800&#8217;s.</p>
<p>&#8220;But wait,&#8221; you say, &#8220;I saw &#8216;flammable&#8217; just the other day.&#8221; Indeed you did. &#8220;Flammable&#8221; came back, one of the few successful instances of social engineering of language.</p>
<p>The Latin prefix &#8220;in,&#8221; while it sometimes means just &#8220;in&#8221; (as in &#8220;inflammable&#8221;), more often turns up in English words meaning &#8220;not&#8221; (as in &#8220;invisible&#8221; &#8212; &#8220;not visible&#8221;). After World War Two, safety officials on both sides of the Atlantic decided that folks were too likely to see &#8220;inflammable&#8221; and decide that the word meant &#8220;fireproof,&#8221; so various agencies set about encouraging the revival of &#8220;flammable&#8221; as a substitute. The campaign seems to have worked, and &#8220;inflammable&#8221; has all but disappeared.</p>
<p>That left what to call something that was not likely to burst into flames, but here the process of linguistic renovation was easier. &#8220;Non-flammable&#8221; is a nice, comforting word, and besides, it&#8217;s far easier on the tongue than its now thankfully obsolete precursor, &#8220;non-inflammable.&#8221;</p>
<p>The Oxford English Dictionary adds this usage note: Historically,  flammable and  inflammable mean the same thing. However, the presence of the prefix  in- has misled many people into assuming that  inflammable means &#8220;not flammable&#8221; or &#8220;noncombustible.&#8221; The prefix  -in in  inflammable is not, however, the Latin negative prefix  -in, which is related to the English  -un and appears in such words as  indecent and  inglorious. Rather, this  -in is an intensive prefix derived from the Latin preposition  in. This prefix also appears in the word  enflame. But many people are not aware of this derivation, and for clarity&#8217;s sake it is advisable to use only flammable to give warnings.</p>
<p>Flammable &#8211; Matter catches fire when set it to<br />
Inflammable &#8211; Matter catches fire without a source of ignition. for example exxessive presssure, sudden impact, react with surrounding environment.<br />
And Thank God, there is no word called Non-inflammable, it&#8217;s just non-flammable</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ariti</title>
		<link>http://www.mbatutes.com/difference-between-flammable-and-inflammable/comment-page-1/#comment-176</link>
		<dc:creator>ariti</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:10:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mbatutes.com/?p=438#comment-176</guid>
		<description>OK 1st question ---it is mentioned that people sometimes may misunderstood inflammable as not flammable....i hope its clear now.

2nd question---- figurative context means not in literal sense...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK 1st question &#8212;it is mentioned that people sometimes may misunderstood inflammable as not flammable&#8230;.i hope its clear now.</p>
<p>2nd question&#8212;- figurative context means not in literal sense&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gaurav</title>
		<link>http://www.mbatutes.com/difference-between-flammable-and-inflammable/comment-page-1/#comment-174</link>
		<dc:creator>gaurav</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:14:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mbatutes.com/?p=438#comment-174</guid>
		<description>What is the source of this information when you say that sometimes &#039;Inflammable&#039; is used as &#039;not flammable&#039;. I have a doubt with that. Also what does it mean &quot;in figurative contexts&quot;?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What is the source of this information when you say that sometimes &#8216;Inflammable&#8217; is used as &#8216;not flammable&#8217;. I have a doubt with that. Also what does it mean &#8220;in figurative contexts&#8221;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ariti</title>
		<link>http://www.mbatutes.com/difference-between-flammable-and-inflammable/comment-page-1/#comment-171</link>
		<dc:creator>ariti</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:54:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mbatutes.com/?p=438#comment-171</guid>
		<description>I have ...some usage material for the words ..flammable and inflammable


USAGE Flammable and inflammable are interchangeable when used of the properties of materials. Flammable is, however, often preferred for warning labels as there is less likelihood of misunderstanding (inflammable being sometimes taken to mean not flammable). Inflammable is preferred in figurative contexts: this could prove to be an inflammable situation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have &#8230;some usage material for the words ..flammable and inflammable</p>
<p>USAGE Flammable and inflammable are interchangeable when used of the properties of materials. Flammable is, however, often preferred for warning labels as there is less likelihood of misunderstanding (inflammable being sometimes taken to mean not flammable). Inflammable is preferred in figurative contexts: this could prove to be an inflammable situation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

