> > I've assumed in the past that "inflammable" came to be understood to mean "capable of burning" not
> > because of a reversal of meaning or a confusion with "flammable", but because both words have
> > somewhat synonymous roots. I think that Sam and many other conscientious writers in English break
> > "inflammable" into "in-" and "flammable", which indeed makes it seem that people are erroneously
> > attaching a negative prefix to a word without changing the meaning of the word to its opposite.
> >
> > My (unresearched) guess has always been that "inflammable" is, instead, to be broken into
> > "inflame" and "-able", in which case it is given the perfectly natural meaning of "able to be
> > inflamed". In that case, "inflammable" (able to be inflamed) and "flammable" (flame-capable) are
> > indeed synonyms, although "in-" has the appearance of the negative prefix, making it seem
> > that they should be antonyms. Let me emphasize that this is a guess that I've never researched,
> > and if I'm woefully mistaken, please do let me know. :-)
>
> Guess what, Iss?
>
> You're right.
> "Inflammable" comes from "inflame", not from "flammable".
>


Wow...I guessed it right? Yay!

--insert theme from "Rocky" here--

Thanks for looking that up; my curiosity about the word is now satisfied, and that's always a good feeling. :-)

Iss