Philip Hart wrote: [snip] > It seemed to me Warlord's original input was also > inflammatory (tempted to write "flammatory" for some reason) I was tempted to respond that you should feel free to since they mean the same thing. Then I consulted the American Heritage and found no entry for flammatory. However there is a wonderful usage note w.r.t. flammable. "Historically, *flammable* and *inflammable* mean the same thing. However, the presence of the prefix in- has misled many people into assuming that *inflammable* means 'not flammable' or 'noncombustible.' In the circumstances, it is therfore advisable to use only *flammable* in contexts imparting warnings or on product labels, where a misinterpretation might have more serious consequences for the reader than an etymological mistake would deserve." Then again, it seems to me that the editors of the American Heritage have an awfully low estimation of the consequences that should be expected from an etymological mistake! Casey