Flammable vs Inflammable

Hi Guys!

This morning, one of my close friends asked me the meaning of 'flammable'. I said 'easy to catch fire'. The answer slipped out coolly from my mouth. Pat came the next doubt of the buddy: 'what does 'inflammable' mean?' 'Man, these two words mean exactly the same', said I in a Mr know-all tone.

But the next question really was an ordeal for me, 'Why does 'inflammable' has a prefix 'in' while its twin brother 'flammable' doesn't have?'

My friend's doubt, however, caught me thinking, and I spent the next few hours thumbing through my collection of dictionaries and authoritative reference books, besides scrolling through various sites on my computer monitor. At last, I my effort bore fruit. And I would like to share the reason of this spelling disparity between 'flammable' and 'inflammable' with you guys:

'In-' normaly shows negative sense, as in indirect, inactive and insufficient. In fact, inflammable is formed using a different Latin prefix 'in-' which has the meaning 'into'. The aim of this addition is said to intensify the meaning! (crazy English, crazier English people!!)

However, to avoid confusion, today, most of the countries prefer to use 'flammable' in the sense of 'easy to catch fire' because many a times people (especially the uneducated working class) misunderstand 'inflammable' as 'fire-proof'!

Now the real dout is, why in India do we mostly see only the board 'inflammable' on fuel tankers, buildings and so on? Answer is simple: in our country (India) the more complex and lengthy the use of English is, the more impression one can generate. Who cares the disasterous consequences??

Good Night from Jack!
(Nova English Campus)