Re:What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
by wongarsu on Monday April 29, 2024 @09:09AM
(#40197862)
That one's fun, because they don't really mean the same. It's just that there usually is no functional difference between the meanings.
"to inflame" is to set something on fire. "to flame" is to be on fire. So something that's inflammable can be set on fire, something that's flammable can burn.
Re:What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
by Y_Y on Monday April 29, 2024 @09:24AM
(#40198042)
I would have said the same thing as you, but it now occurs to me that something that is already on fire must be flammable but it is hardly inflammable since you couldn't set it on fire again (without first putting it out at least).
Re:What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
by wongarsu on Monday April 29, 2024 @09:42AM
(#40198230)
You could also argue that some things, like most metal powders, are barely inflammable (very hard to light) but are very flammable (once they do burn they burn really well and are hard to put out)
Re:What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
by Izkata on Monday April 29, 2024 @09:57AM
(#40198414)
The way it's used on warning labels, "inflammable" means it can combust without an obvious ignition. "Flammable" needs to be set on fire from an external source.
"to inflame" is to set something on fire. "to flame" is to be on fire. So something that's inflammable can be set on fire, something that's flammable can burn.