If inaudible means not audible, inhuman means not human, and insane means not same, shouldn't inflammable mean not flammable?

Asked by: bigdave
  • I think the answer is obvious.

    English is an unusual language which is notorious for following very few rules. However, I agrees that in principle, a prefix should have a consist meaning when applied to any and all root words. That is, because "in" normally means not, it should still mean the same when it is applied to flammable.

    Posted by: JDC
  • No responses have been submitted.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.