Comment on Aussie Crispmas

Treevan@aussie.zone ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• LemmysMum@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Joke killer:

  Inflame - to burst into fire.
  Inflammable - has the potential to burst into fire. (eg. explode, detonate, erupt)

  Flammable - has the potential to be set on fire. (eg. burn, ember, catch) Non-flammable - cannot be set on fire.

  Thank you for coming to my TED talk. Blame the Ancient Greeks for this wonderful bit of English.

  source

  • Zagorath@aussie.zone ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Inflame - to burst into fire

    Oh, so that’s why the doctors had to remove my appendix!

    But going back to being serious. My understanding is that the use of the term “flammable” basically only arose as an attempt to remove the ambiguity caused by the “in” prefix in “inflammable”. Many organisations now prefer to avoid the term inflammable in favour of flammable for precisely that reason.

    [Source]

    source

    • LemmysMum@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      It’s a 400 year time period, you could make just about any valid excuse for the use of either, both have been used together for 200 years.

      source
• Marsupial@quokk.au ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Inflammable means flammable? What a country!

  source

  • Treevan@aussie.zone ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Thanks, Dr Nick!

    source