How can that be? Look at the definition of each word. They are 2 different words with 2 different meanings
How can that be? Look at the definition of each word. They are 2 different words with 2 different meanings
Kwakerman
Well-Known Member
Nope, they both mean the same thing (they can burn) - English is our language so we should know how it works - we also put a 'u' in colour because we can!
Nope, they both mean the same thing (they can burn) - English is our language so we should know how it works - we also put a 'u' in colour because we can!
You bunch are a rather strange
The words inflammable and flammable both have the same meaning, easily set on fire. This might seem surprising, given that the prefix in- normally has a negative meaning (as in indirect and insufficient), and so it might be expected that inflammable would mean the opposite of flammable, i.e., not easily set on fire. In fact, inflammable is formed using a different Latin prefix in-, which has the meaning into and here has the effect of intensifying the meaning of the word in English. Flammable is a far commoner word than inflammable and carries less risk of confusion.
is that like bred and inbred
The English are bred, whilst the merkins are inbred!
Simple really!
:scratching_chin: Keel hauled comes to mind
:tea:
