English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Possible Duplicate:
Why are not infamous and inflammable the opposite of famous and flammable like incomplete, inactivity, inappropriate and so on?

I'm very confused by the existence of these apparently antonymous words, which actually mean the same thing. Which word should I use? Can both words be used interchangeably?

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by kiamlaluno, waiwai933, Mehper C. Palavuzlar, Marthaª, Uticensis May 2 '11 at 18:59

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

My first thought was this quote simpsons.neoseeker.com/wiki/Dr._Nick_Riviera – jhocking May 2 '11 at 2:08
@jhocking - thanks for the site – mgb May 2 '11 at 16:02
@RegDwight To be honest, ykombinator's answer is even better than Shree's answer on the other one, it's a shame this question had to be closed. – Uticensis May 2 '11 at 19:10
up vote 19 down vote accepted

Both words mean the same thing, i.e. that something can be set on fire. The reason for the confusion comes from people thinking that the prefix in- of inflammable is the Latin negative prefix in- (which is commonly used in English, e.g. indecent). In actual fact, in this case it is derived from the Latin preposition in. It's easier to think about it with the word inflame. If you can inflame something, it is inflammable (inflame-able).

In most cases, it is better to just use flammable to avoid confusion and accidents.

share|improve this answer
+1 for 'and accidents' ... :) – Macke May 2 '11 at 17:47
Definitely use flammable if you're concerned about the safety of illiterates. – David Schwartz Aug 26 '11 at 12:30

The Free Dictionary advises using only flammable to give warnings:

Usage Note: Historically, flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. However, the presence of the prefix in- has misled many people into assuming that inflammable means "not flammable" or "noncombustible." The prefix in- in inflammable is not, however, the Latin negative prefix in-, which is related to the English un- and appears in such words as indecent and inglorious. Rather, this in- is an intensive prefix derived from the Latin preposition in. This prefix also appears in the word enflame. But many people are not aware of this derivation, and for clarity's sake it is advisable to use only flammable to give warnings.

share|improve this answer

Both are correct in all situations.

Same with regardless and irregardless (although the latter is more informal, and often declared incorrect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless)

share|improve this answer
But irregardless isn't really a word by most people's definitions! It's just a bit of historical US "country-bumpkin-speak", whereas flammable and inflammable are both perfectly valid words. In principle they're totally interchangeable, but I don't think I've ever seen a tanker carrying Inflammable Liquid. Personally, I associate Inflammable with stuff that's intended to burn (under appropriate control, of course). Flammable is more for stuff you really want to avoid accidentally setting alight. – FumbleFingers May 2 '11 at 2:31

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.