# Sticky etemology **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 6, 2000, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sticky-etemology/9834 "2000-04-06T00:27:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![sdimbert](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdimbert/32/20204_2.png) [@sdimbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sdimbert)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2000, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sticky-etemology/9834/1 "2000-04-06T00:27:00Z")
Wdo “flammable” and “inflammable” mean the same thing? Don’t they sound like they should be opposites? (It’s always bugged me.) ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2000, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sticky-etemology/9834/2 "2000-04-06T00:39:00Z")
Strangely enough, they can and do mean the same. [Merriam-Webster® WWWebster Dictionary](http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm) [flammable](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=flammable) Main Entry: **flam·ma·ble** Pronunciation: 'fla-m&-b&l Function: _adjective_ Etymology: Latin _flammare_ to flame, set on fire, from _flamma_ Date: 1813 : capable of being easily ignited and of burning quickly - **flammable** _noun_ [inflammable](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=inflammable) Main Entry: **in·flam·ma·ble** Pronunciation: in-'fla-m&-b&l Function: _adjective_ Etymology: French, from Medieval Latin _inflammabilis_, from Latin _inflammare_ Date: 1605 **1 : [FLAMMABLE](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=flammable) 2 : **easily inflamed, excited, or angered :** [IRASCIBLE](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=irascible)** - **in·flam·ma·bil·i·ty** /-"fla-m&-'bi-l&-tE/ _noun_ - **inflammable** _noun_ - **in·flam·ma·ble·ness** /-'fla-m&-b&l-n&s/ _noun_ - **in·flam·ma·bly** /-blE/ _adverb_ ---
**Author:** ![TheNerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/858c86/32.png) [@TheNerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheNerd)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2000, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sticky-etemology/9834/3 "2000-04-06T03:04:00Z")
Speaking of odd words, I must say that I like your innovative “Wdo” construction. I assume it is derived from “Why do”? Much more elegant than “How come”. I must start using it. ---
**Author:** ![evilbeth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/evilbeth/32/2268_2.png) [@evilbeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/evilbeth)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2000, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sticky-etemology/9834/4 "2000-04-06T04:24:00Z")
Slightly off topic but still along the same lines, why is it that people have started to use the word, “irregardless” instead of “regardless”? I had a _supervisor_ at work use this word in a written memo to me. It is a double negative and yet my dictionary, Webster’s II New College, gives a definition anyway implying that is okay to use. It _does_ say that it is non-standard but still this makes me angry. In other words, in regards to the OP, I have no idea. * * * “You don’t have insurance? Well, just have a seat and someone will be with you after you die.” --Yes, another quality sig custom created by Wally! A Jesusfied sig: Next time I covet thine opinion, I’ll ask for it! ---
**Author:** ![TomH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/90db22/32.png) [@TomH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TomH)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2000, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sticky-etemology/9834/5 "2000-04-06T09:41:00Z")
The _in-_ in _inflammable_ is an intensifier. Look up the prefix, _in-_ in a decent dictionary and it will list the various meanings that it can have. _Inflammable_ and _flammable_ do not mean exactly the same, since _inflammable_ can be used to describe an organ which is capable of becoming inflamed and _flammable_ can not. I am amazed that “irregardless” appears in any dictionary. I had always assumed that it was an illiteracy caused by the confusion of _irrespective_ and _regardless_. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2000, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sticky-etemology/9834/6 "2000-04-06T13:03:00Z")
“Inflammable” come from “inflame.” However, people became confused and thought that the “in” meant negation. So “flammable” was used by safety experts to avoid the confusion. * * * “What we have here is failure to communicate.” – Strother Martin, anticipating the Internet. [www.sff.net/people/rothman](http://www.sff.net/people/rothman) ---
**Author:** ![sdimbert](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdimbert/32/20204_2.png) [@sdimbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sdimbert)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2000, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sticky-etemology/9834/7 "2000-04-06T14:28:00Z")
RealityChuck, “‘Inflammable’ comes from ‘inflame.’ However, people became confused and thought that the “in” meant negation. So “flammable” was used by safety experts to avoid the confusion.” Thank you - excellent answer. Cogent, concise and reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![InutilisVisEst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/d2c977/32.png) [@InutilisVisEst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InutilisVisEst)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2000, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sticky-etemology/9834/8 "2000-04-06T16:30:00Z")
The origin dates on the etymologies suggests safety experts were not to blame for the use of two words for “it’ll burn.” It does, though, sound like a good explanation for the modern preferrence of flammable over inflammable. Of course, laziness also causes syllable dropping. evilbeth - The dictionary folks have lately taken pains to point out that they consider their works to be DEscriptive, not PROscriptive. That is, they won’t tell you a word is wrong, they’ll just report what meaning(s) it is considered to have, and whether most people consider it proper. If enough people start using it the “wrong” way, that will eventually become AN accepted (but maybe not THE accepted) right way. I agree, it sucks a bit. However, I recently picked up a textbook from the 1920’s, and think their stilted language usage has benefitted from a little bit of “casualizing.” When you see that word in a dictionary in 20 years, remember that you saw it here first. My personal pet peeve is “I could care less” in lieu of “I couldn’t care less.” If you **could** care less, you **do** care more, ya morons. * * * I lead a boring life of relative unimportance. Really. ---
**Author:** ![labradorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3ec8ea/32.png) [@labradorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/labradorian)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2000, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sticky-etemology/9834/9 "2000-04-06T18:04:00Z")
> [@](#): > > The dictionary folks have lately taken pains to point out that they consider their works to be DEscriptive, not PROscriptive. Dictionaries do tend to be descriptive. Some people mistakenly think they are PREscriptive (i.e. tell you how words are TO BE USED, rather than simply telling you how they ARE used.) But there aren’t many that are thought to be or claim to be PROscriptive (telling you how words are NOT to be used.) Some style guides do this, though. * * * **Dee da dee da dee dee do do / Dee ba ditty doh / Deedle dooby doo ba dee um bee ooby / Be doodle oodle doodle dee doh** [http://members.xoom.com/labradorian/](http://members.xoom.com/labradorian/) ---
**Author:** ![InutilisVisEst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/d2c977/32.png) [@InutilisVisEst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InutilisVisEst)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2000, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sticky-etemology/9834/10 "2000-04-06T18:13:00Z")
Yeah, I meant PRE- not PRO-, but had some sort of mind fart. Two years of Latin and a Latin username and I still screwed up a Latin prefix. _sigh_