4 ms·
I'm surprised that people are confused. Is there a regional difference in the way this would be phrased? In my (US) experience, "engaged with" unambiguously m
by Dove 14y ago
I'm surprised that people are confused. Is there a regional difference in the way this would be phrased? In my (US) experience, "engaged with" unambiguously means working together, while "engaged to" unambiguously means getting married.
- mortenjorck 14y agoIndeed, at least from my American Midwest perspective, I agree it's all in the conjunction, with no ambiguity at all.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y agoThe same here, in the UK.
- duaneb 14y agoI understood what he meant, but it still made me double-take.
- adrusi 14y agoI didn't notice any ambiguity until I read the replies
- biturd 14y agoI immediately thought engaged -> married. I didn't even pay attention to the with/to conjunction. Anything "engaged" means marriage to me unless presented as something that is not a person. I get it now, and it makes sense, but I have a feeling there are a lot of people who would think, programmer finds female programmer that is excellent at what she does and wants to "engage" her.
- ktizo 14y agoPhrases like "I tried to call, but they were engaged." must really confuse you then. There are a lot of things in the world that are engaging, many would say far more engaging, than just the prospect of marriage.