# Flammable & Imflammable...why? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 18, 2003, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flammable-imflammable-why/208125 "2003-10-18T00:54:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![1000monkeys](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/7cd45c/32.png) [@1000monkeys](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1000monkeys)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2003, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flammable-imflammable-why/208125/1 "2003-10-18T00:54:00Z")
I can’t beleive this isn’t here somewhere but all a search turned up was a Cafe Society thread on the Simpsons, which lead to a half hour tangent, try it yourselves, here: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=217640&highlight=flammable](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=217640&highlight=flammable) back? great. so forgive me if this has been covered before but why do we still have flamable and inflamable? I read the usage note here: [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=flammable](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=flammable) and its partner, here: [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=inflammable](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=inflammable) and I can see why both came into usage, but why did they both remain? surely there are plenty of archaic words that have been phased out because more common words had the same meaning. Why/how has inflammable stuck around? ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2003, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flammable-imflammable-why/208125/2 "2003-10-18T02:37:46Z")
Well now you did it! You went and created a THIRD synonym with that “IMflammable”!!! ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2003, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flammable-imflammable-why/208125/3 "2003-10-18T02:39:33Z")
There’re old coots like me who like to use the traditional forms of words. We say inflammable, eat doughnuts, pronounce “short-lived” with a long “i,” and if we’re going to do something momentarily, it might be a while before we start, but it won’t take us long. ---
**Author:** ![1000monkeys](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/7cd45c/32.png) [@1000monkeys](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1000monkeys)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2003, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flammable-imflammable-why/208125/4 "2003-10-18T03:18:18Z")
doughnuts is an alternate spelling, not an alternate waord (and frankly I agree its the right one); short-lived is a pronunciation issue; and I don’t understand the issue with momentarily. but none of those examples illustrates a nearly identically synonymous word, with an extraodinarly similar spelling remaining in usage. are you saying inflamable is the older form and that flamable has recently (reletively) been adopted? and sorry about the typo, voltaire, I guess I’ll immolate myslef as pentnance. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2003, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flammable-imflammable-why/208125/5 "2003-10-18T03:37:44Z")
From [http://www.word-detective.com/120398.html](http://www.word-detective.com/120398.html) : > [@](#): > > Comes the 19th century, and some well-meaning soul dreamt up the word “flammable,” basing it on a slightly different Latin word, “flammare,” meaning “to set on fire.” There was nothing terribly wrong with “flammable,” but it never really caught on. After all, we already had “inflammable,” so “flammable” pretty much died out in the 1800’s. > > “But wait,” you say, “I saw ‘flammable’ just the other day.” Indeed you did. “Flammable” came back, one of the few successful instances of social engineering of language. > > The Latin prefix “in,” while it sometimes means just “in” (as in “inflammable”), more often turns up in English words meaning “not” (as in “invisible” – “not visible”). After World War Two, safety officials on both sides of the Atlantic decided that folks were too likely to see “inflammable” and decide that the word meant “fireproof,” so various agencies set about encouraging the revival of “flammable” as a substitute. The campaign seems to have worked, and “inflammable” has all but disappeared. ---
**Author:** ![1000monkeys](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/7cd45c/32.png) [@1000monkeys](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1000monkeys)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2003, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flammable-imflammable-why/208125/6 "2003-10-18T15:05:28Z")
thanks Curt. that’s a cool link, so the knock on flammable, from an “old coot’s” perspective is that its a dumbing down? as opposed to a simplification/clarification?