Flammable and inflammable

[nq:1]My dictionary says they are the same but I thought they were different? That is, flesh is inflammable but flesh ... So something which is inflammable is not necessarily something that is flammable.In the case of flesh that may be so.[/nq]
But I would say that paper is both flammable and inflammable.

[nq:1]Flammable isn't really the correct word, but the "popular usage" pollsters will assure us that, by sheer weight of numbers, inflammable has been consigned to yester-year.[/nq]
Who are these " "popular usage" pollsters"? Where can I drink deep of their wisdom?

John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply

[nq:1]My dictionary says they are the same but I thought they were different?[/nq]
They have exactly the same meaning, but many people, including many native speakers of English, are confused by them.
[nq:1]That is, flesh is inflammable but flesh is not flammable So something which is inflammable is not necessarily something that is flammable.[/nq]
No, what you say is wrong. The adject

[nq:1]Who are these " "popular usage" pollsters"? Where can I drink deep of their wisdom?[/nq]
It's me and me mates, mate.

[nq:2]Flammable isn't really the correct word, but the "popular usage" ... sheer weight of numbers, inflammable has been consigned to yester-year.[/nq]
[nq:1]Who are these " "popular usage" pollsters"? Where can I drink deep oftheir wisdom?[/nq]
As far as American English is concerned, "flammable" has legal consequences: The word "inflammable" is still used when speaking of emotions, "flam

[nq:2]Flammable isn't really the correct word, but the "popular usage" ... sheer weight of numbers, inflammable has been consigned to yester-year.[/nq]
[nq:1]Who are these "popular usage" pollsters? Where can I drink deep of their wisdom?[/nq]
I was, as you would well understand, preempting in a slightly tongue-in-cheek way the pundits of perspicuity, the aficionados of aphorism, that post

[nq:1]I was, as you would well understand, preempting in a slightly tongue-in-cheek way the pundits of perspicuity, the aficionados of aphorism, that post here all the time[/nq]
All the time? **** them! There should be a posting limit applied to such people.
[nq:1]with the final word on "common usage" that thus (so we are to believe) renders any foregoing discussion of the ... "ther

[nq:1] The adjective "inflammable" comes from the same root as the verb "inflame." It means "capable of burning," just like "flammable." [/nq]
I disagree about this, as my previous post might have indicated. To inflame is to "set alight", not to "be capable of burning".

And if you say NBD again I'll use my boudoir for its original purpose.

Matti

[nq:2]Who are these "popular usage" pollsters? Where can I drink deep of their wisdom?[/nq]
[nq:1]I was, as you would well understand, preempting in a slightly tongue-in-cheek way the pundits of perspicuity, the aficionados of ... "there is no right or wrong, just go with the masses" argument. An argument that I reject as being absurd.[/nq]
The is, even in the world of language freaks, a g

[nq:2] The adjective "inflammable" comes from the same root as the verb "inflame." It means "capable of burning," just like "flammable." [/nq]
[nq:1]I disagree about this, as my previous post might have indicated. To inflame is to "set alight", not to "be capable of burning". And if you say NBD again I'll use my boudoir for its original purpose. Matti[/nq]
I've seen the "inflame" used as i