this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2026
669 points (98.3% liked)

memes

22417 readers
2514 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TabbsTheBat@pawb.social 33 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Ahh, I've been speaking english for over a decade, and I still sometimes get caught up with these and say the opposite thing of what I want

Like the whole thing of flammable and inflammable meaning the same thing.. just why?

[–] folekaule@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"flammable" actually has an interesting story:

Since 1980s use of the word, especially in safety warnings, has been sometimes discouraged lest it be misunderstood as "non-flammable" through confusion of the two prefixes in-.

Ref: inflammable on Etymonline

[–] slothrop@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] folekaule@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Merriam-Webster says this:

"When cooking over a gas stove, avoid wearing loose, (flammable/inflammable) clothing that could catch fire easily." Which word is correct: flammable or inflammable?

It's a trick question. Both flammable and inflammable are correct, as they both mean "capable of being easily ignited and of burning quickly." This makes no sense to the Modern English speaker. In English, we think of in- as a prefix that means "not": inactive means "not active," inconclusive means "not conclusive," inconsiderate means "not considerate." Therefore, inflammable should mean "not flammable."

[...]

What do you do? 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.

Personally I use "inflammable", but if I were writing warning posters I would have to reconsider that.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago

Personally I use "inflammable"

I also like to reduce the likelihood of being understood.

[–] bort@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 week ago

Inflammable is just likely to enflame confusion

:-)

[–] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

English-speakers are really unlucky to have one of the most ambiguous word for situations where the need for clarity is of such great importance, especially as it concerns safety, even saving lives.

[–] valar@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Cuz the prefix "in-" can mean both "not" (as in invalid) and "to cause to be" (as in indebted)

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 week ago (4 children)
[–] capt_wolf@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Romantic words were incorporated differently into other languages as the Roman Empire's influence spread. Words like inflammable have more direct Latin roots than words like indebt. So where Inflammable comes directy from the latin inflammo, indebt came from old French and middle English, going from something like endetter and endetten, using the root word dete and dette, but stemming from the root Latin word, debitum. Then en became in at some point.

That's how I understood it anyway through a very short amount of google searching. Anyone feel free to correct me.

[–] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

As a French-speaker, it has always been my instinctual understanding from seeing the word and knowing how English has taken words from Latin and French.

[–] capt_wolf@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I just wish they'd taught it as a skill when I took languages in school. Reading became sooooo much easier once I understood.

[–] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Because modern English is a combination of ancient Celtic languages with the various languages of the British Isles's numerous populators and conquering forces across history, including but not limited to: Latin, German, Norse, and French. And spelling wasn't really standardized until the printing press was invented, due in part to class stratification. But that's another story lol. Suffice it to say, it's more than a bit of a hodgepodge and you just gotta take it for what it is.

[–] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

What words come from Celtic languages? I thought it was all Germanic with Latin and French words being borrowed later.

[–] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

You won't be too surprised by some of them actually: bog, bourbon, druid, shamrock, corgi, whiskey, crumpet. Others you'll find here have more circuitous routes where maybe just one phoneme stems from old Gaelic or something, into Latin, into Germanic or Old French, then into Old English, like "ambassador." I'm guessing most of the really Celtic words are used in the British Isles more than elsewhere in the English-speaking world.

[–] LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago

Where the words come from. Remember: English is many languages in a trench coat, not really its own set of hard rules.

Hell, even languages with hard rules like Japanese have some exceptions even without the modern trend of borrowing words from other languages!

[–] ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

In French you can say ininflammable

[–] Scrollone@feddit.it 1 points 1 week ago

Also in Italian: infiammabile

[–] Equinox1289@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago

Cause the verb is inflame and means to place a flame in on on something, as opposed to not flame. The problem being in both inflammable and the issue the OP of the image is the notion of re-bracketing. Rather than think of it as [inflame]able it gets converted into in[flammable] in the minds of new readers/listeners which flips the in- prefix meaning to not rather than in/on like it is supposed to be.

[–] Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Also "off" meaning both off and on

The alarm went off (the alarm started) The light went off (the light suddenly stopped producing light)

[–] TabbsTheBat@pawb.social 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Went off really just means everything :3. "Wow you really went off on that guy" = yelled at someone, "the milk went off" = spoiled, "we went off on an adventure" = left to travel and so on

[–] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

As a non-native English speaker I sometimes struggle with those words added after verbs: off, on, up, down, etc.

[–] TabbsTheBat@pawb.social 1 points 1 week ago

One that used to confuse me when I started english was "on a bus", "on a plane", but "in a car", so I can see where all those words can get confusing :3

[–] Cliff@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I went off my head reading this

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] TabbsTheBat@pawb.social 3 points 1 week ago

Bah! Latin. Always making everything more difficult than it needs to be

[–] ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Should have been enflammable