<B>The British Council?s language clinic with ?Dr Danny?</B>

Hello and a very ?warm? welcome to the English Language Clinic. This week I have been asked to differentiate (establish a difference) between ?flammable? and ?inflammable?. The simple answer is that there is no difference, both words mean ?capable of burning?. Now, compare these words to other seemingly similar pairs.

If something is ?visible?, it can be seen, but if you add the prefix ?in-? the resulting word, ?invisible?, means that something cannot be seen. Similarly, something, which is ?expensive?, costs a lot of money, whereas something, which is ?inexpensive?, does not. So why do ?flammable? and ?inflammable? mean the same?

The word ?inflammable? comes from the same Latin root as ?inflame?. In these cases, the prefix ?in-? means the same as the word ?in? in English; the sense conveyed is therefore similar to ?in flames?. Over time, many people mistakenly assumed that the prefix ?in-? meant ?not?, as in ?incomplete?, which led to obvious safety risks.

After the Second World War, it was decided by many safety organisations that the word ?flammable? should be introduced to avoid confusion. Once ?flammable? started to become widely recognised, it was necessary to change its ?antonym? (a word with the opposite meaning to another word). Therefore, something, which is ?not capable of burning?, is described as ?non-flammable?. Just to confuse things a little more, a synonym of ?inflammable? and ?flammable? is ?combustible?, the antonym of which is ?incombustible?. In other words, if something is ?combustible?, it will burn and if it is ?incombustible?, it will not.

Please send your comments, queries and questions to "Dr Danny" by emailing the address [email protected]

If you are interested in registering for an English or IELTS Preparation course starting in the week of 14th January, please attend a short placement test at the British Council between 9th and 12th January.