What’s wrong with “extremely flammable”? As a rule, “Highly flammable” and “extremely flammable” can be used. Depending on the substance, naturally.

One reason to prefer ‘highly flammable’ to ‘extremely flammable’ petrol is that ‘flammable’ is in itself quite an alarming term, indicating that a substance is quite likely to catch fire or burn under favourable conditions. “Highly flammable” shifts the substance even further on the scale of flammability.

If you get over used to “highly” when compared to “extremely” then “extremely” is a word that may be overused, so if you do this, then there’s no putting it there. /: outermost on the scale ////= ///=?==) ===>=>> +/–/================================================================= If petrol is less flammable than air, is it not highly flammable? ( classification of flammability )

( classification of flammability )

All of the books I have aren’t science fiction novels. As others have remarked, this sentence structure, and in particular this placement of the negation, is ambiguous. Is a question discussed before here?

What isn’t modified in a sentence? If it is intended to modify the complement, and if one can make that apparent, then there is no ambiguity. All of the books I have are non-fiction. If there are a sufficiently clearly determined class of books that are labelled non-fiction, and all of the speaker’s books belong to it, then we are required to make them public. Non-fiction is not quite the same as ‘nonfiction’, of course, because of the omnipresent grey area between fiction and non-fiction. There’s an infinite number of potential uses. Nevertheless, it is often enough to express the intended meaning.)

On the other hand, one might shift the reading slightly in favour of what is referred to as partial negation in your question. All of the books I have aren’t scientific fiction novels.

Can we change a word? Can we change something?

Undulating like a suit. Derived from Latin “undula”, wavelet.

They connotes large surfaces, predominantly the sea.