# "Inflammable" **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 23, 2003, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inflammable/177006 "2003-05-23T11:10:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![puggyfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3ab097/32.png) [@puggyfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puggyfish)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inflammable/177006/1 "2003-05-23T11:10:59Z")
Why does this word exist as a synonym of “flammable”? Until I was around 14 or 15 I’d never found the word inflammable used used in that context, and had probably used it myself to mean “not flammable”, in- sounding right as a negative prefix for flammable. The first time I came across it used to mean “flammable” was on a warning label and I remember being initially confused and then quite shocked when I found out what it meant there. It seemed downright dangerous to use a word as ambiguous as that in a warning. So what’s the history behind it? ---
**Author:** ![Ice\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/dfb087/32.png) [@Ice\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ice_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inflammable/177006/2 "2003-05-23T11:15:56Z")
In this case, “in-” is an intensifier, as in the word “inflame”, which is why “inflammable” means “easily inflamed”, as well as “flammable”. From the Latin _inflammare_. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inflammable/177006/3 "2003-05-23T11:17:51Z")
Originally the word was _ **in** flammable_. It was derived from the same Latin verb as _inflame_. (“The situtation is likely to become inflamed…”) In recent years, people like insurance examiners and the folks who manage hazardous materials discovered that the cause of several fires had been yokels who thought the _in-_ prefix was a negative, as though it meant ‘nonflammable’. So they deliberately removed the prefix, creating a new word, _flammable_, as though derived from a hypothetical verb \*_to flame._ Insurance examiners may be influenced in their approach by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in linguistics. Mr. Whorf was an insurance examiner who found a pattern that the cause of fires was often people misunderstanding hazardous materials because they had been misleadingly labeled. So if language contributed toward fires, the language had to be changed. It’s a case of the dumbing-down of America. ---
**Author:** ![Ice\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/dfb087/32.png) [@Ice\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ice_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inflammable/177006/4 "2003-05-23T11:23:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jomo Mojo \* > \*\*Originally the word was _ **in** flammable_. It was derived from the same Latin verb as _inflame_. (“The situtation is likely to become inflamed…”) \*\* Uh, not exactly. There has always been a Latin word _flammare_, meaning to flame, to set on fire, from _flamma_. [Merriam-Webster.](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=flammable) ---
**Author:** ![puggyfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3ab097/32.png) [@puggyfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puggyfish)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inflammable/177006/5 "2003-05-23T11:35:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ice Wolf \* > \*\*In this case, “in-” is an intensifier, as in the word “inflame”, which is why “inflammable” means “easily inflamed”, as well as “flammable”. From the Latin _inflammare_. \*\* I hadn’t come across intensifiers before. Searching for inflammable and intensifier on Google gives: [http://pub122.ezboard.com/fwordoriginsorgfrm4.showMessage?topicID=329.topic](http://pub122.ezboard.com/fwordoriginsorgfrm4.showMessage?topicID=329.topic) which seems to answer the question, and looking for intensifier and etymology gives: [http://www.jaques.demon.co.uk/etym/pfx.htm](http://www.jaques.demon.co.uk/etym/pfx.htm) which suggests that in- and im- are the only two intensifiers in use in English. “Impress” seems to be the most clear-cut explanatory example. Thanks a lot ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inflammable/177006/6 "2003-05-23T12:26:00Z")
> [@](#): > > In recent years, people like insurance examiners and the folks who manage hazardous materials discovered that the cause of several fires had been yokels who thought the in- prefix was a negative, as though it meant ‘nonflammable’. No offense, but this has alwaus annoyed the hell out of me. I think it was the book **Class** that said something like “Many people are unaware that ‘in-’ can act as an intensifier”. Well, many snobs are apparently unaware that “in-” _usually_ acts as a negative: “Insoluble”. “inactive”, “inconceivable” (the word that Means What I Think It Does). “Inflammable” is one of the few commonly-used cases where the prefix does not mean “the opposite of”. I can’t blame people for getting it wrong, when the same use of logic would in other cases give them the correct meaning of the word. Yokels, indeed! Safety officers and Insurabce companies have precisely the right idea – in a life-or-death situation, the correct interpretation of “inflammable” could be critical. There’s no room for language mavens decrying the fact that too few people appreciate the subtle difference between “flammable” and “inflammable”. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inflammable/177006/7 "2003-05-23T13:41:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by puggyfish \* > \*\*… and looking for intensifier and etymology gives: > > [http://www.jaques.demon.co.uk/etym/pfx.htm](http://www.jaques.demon.co.uk/etym/pfx.htm) > > which suggests that in- and im- are the only two intensifiers in use in English.\*\* Don’t forget about _hyper- , super- , extra- ,_ and \*ultra- \*. ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inflammable/177006/8 "2003-05-23T14:13:47Z")
“Flammable” is first cited in 1813. “Inflammable” shows up two centuries earlier. --OED ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inflammable/177006/9 "2003-05-23T14:27:43Z")
**CalMeacham** has it right. The word ‘flammable’ was created so that warning notices and such could be absolutely clear to people in a hurry. The approved opposite is ‘non-flammable’. ---
**Author:** ![nineiron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e56c9b/32.png) [@nineiron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nineiron)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inflammable/177006/10 "2003-05-23T15:32:44Z")
I always think of Woody Boyd from “Cheers” on this topic. The folks at the bar were talking about “famous” vs. “infamous” (maybe, or something along those lines), and Woody said, “Sort of like how ‘inflammable’ means the same as ‘flammable’? Boy, I learned that one the hard way…”