Why are not infamous and inflammable the opposite of famous and flammable, like incomplete, inactivity, inappropriate and so on?
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
The New Oxford American Dictionary reports the following definitions for in-:
Looking at the origin of infamous, and inflammable, I read the following:
In both the cases, the words are not built adding the prefix in- to existing words.
(Just to be contrarian.)
In my opinion, the word flammable was unnecessary: there's not much confusion possible in seeing, on a gas/petrol tanker, the words "Warning: Highly inflammable". It seems to me there's more confusion about the meaning of inflammable when the word "flammable" exists, than when it doesn't. But where "flammable" is already common enough, it's safe—and recommended—to use it.
The folklore with the term "flammable" was that it had to be invented precisely because people read "inflammable" as "won't burst into flame" (and granted, "inflame" really isn't a word you get to hear everyday). The blame should be apportioned to the safety people I suppose. :)