ASithLord7 posted...

Combustible and incombustible are opposites, but flammable and inflammable are synonyms. How can that be? The in- of incombustible is a common prefix meaning "not," but the in- of inflammable is a different prefix. Inflammable, which dates back to 1605, descends from Latin inflammare ("to inflame"), itself from in- (here meaning "in" or "into") plus flammare ("to flame"). Flammable also comes from flammare but didn't enter English until 1813. In the early 20th century, firefighters worried that people might think inflammable meant "not able to catch fire," so they adopted flammable and nonflammable as official safety labels and encouraged their use to prevent confusion. In general use, flammable is now the preferred term for describing things that can catch fire, but inflammable is still occasionally used with that meaning as well.

That doesn't explain why it's kept the same meaning for the past 200 years.

If this can happen, I'm sure the prefix on flammable could have its meaning adjusted...



---
I'm so powerful, Leeroy Jenkins shouts my name when running into battle.

The word "unnerving" makes no sense.

[none]

[none]

---