If you want to keep things crystal clear, choose flammable when you are referring to something that catches fire and burns easily, and use the relatively recent nonflammable when referring to something that doesn’t catch fire and burn easily. Inflammable is just likely to enflame confusion.
Technically, I think they’re different. Flammable means that it can be lit on fire, like wood or something. Whereas inflammable means it can catch fire on its own, like gas, for example.
saying that “gas” is able to catch fire on its own is stretching it :) A gas mix typically still needs a spark, unlike: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergolic_propellant <- that stuff can “catch fire” on its own. But even there - it needs to be mixed, so technically, one component requires the other to ignite.
That is something I found weird, too. Inflammable and flammable mean the same thing!
It makes more sense if you think of it as enflammable. Indent and indebted at examples of this “in-” prefix. https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/flammable-or-inflammable
The people at Merriam are alright 👌
Technically, I think they’re different. Flammable means that it can be lit on fire, like wood or something. Whereas inflammable means it can catch fire on its own, like gas, for example.
Credit to you for the self-correction though
saying that “gas” is able to catch fire on its own is stretching it :) A gas mix typically still needs a spark, unlike: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergolic_propellant <- that stuff can “catch fire” on its own. But even there - it needs to be mixed, so technically, one component requires the other to ignite.
Yeah, my bad, shit example.
Synonyms, true synonyms. No real difference between them (except don’t use inflammable in safety situations, for above reasons)
United States education system
Flammable isn’t a word.
Just Americans got confused by it so it became a word.
So then it is a word
A word made for stupid people, yes.