To infer is to understand or realize a fact that is not immediately obvious. To imply is to “say something without saying it”, so to speak; when you imply something, you are indicating it to be true without ever actually saying it outright. I infer what you imply, and I infer what you imply. When I speak to you and I’m thinking of you, I infer what you imply.

So I get the feeling that the phrase “A Japanese” is offensive, for many, but you guessed it. In a Japanese context, that is.

As far as I’m aware the error here is that ‘infer’ actually applies to how someone responds to something that is said/written, rather than the effect of the thing itself.

Why are people acting like they ‘infer’ from something when they read between the lines or spot something but they aren’t stated outright – not because they say something, the current usage is incorrect?

The example could be rewritten correctly like this: “A Japanese” could lead someone to infer that the

Japanese person is a thing, and not a person. Because this’s obvious, but just a typo. What is offensive about this?

“A Japanese Person” would lead someone to infer that the Japanese person is just that, a person, and therefore is considered fine for use.

I think the author was actually looking for the word’implies ‘, which

means that something is said (even if unintentionally), but not outright stated. In Japanese, ‘a Japanese’ means

‘a thing’, and not a human. Which is what is offensive?

How is the phrase “A Japanese Person” associated with a Japanese person said that the Asian person was actually a Japanese person (that the English word ‘anonymous’) and therefore was unmistakable.

What is your opinion on the situation of the USA and what can be done to correct it?

What is the difference between inferrence and imply?

In the sentence “the speaker implied that the general had been a traitor,” the word implied means that something in the speaker’s words suggested that this man was a traitor (although nothing so explicit was actually stated). From the words of the general ‘Weinferred from his words that the general had been a traitor’ the word inferred means that something in the speaker’s words enabled the listeners to, in the most part, deduce that the man was a traitor. Can two words infer and imply describe the same events but from different angles. As in “Are you inferring that I’m lying? “(instead of “Are you implying that I’m a liar? “).

What’s your suggestion?

To infer is to extract from a proposition or text, by what we call inference, a sense which is not literally there, which is not explicit.

So, my inferred from the fact that the subjects of OP’s sentences were texts, not persons, that the word OP intended not infer but imply, which means to carry or bear a sense which is not literally there—which is not literally there but implicit.

To infer is to extract from a proposition or text, by what we call inference, a sense which is not literally there, which is not explicit.

So, my inferred from the fact that the subjects of OP’s sentences were texts, not persons, that the word OP intended not infer but imply, which means to carry or bear a sense which is not literally there—which is not literally there but implicit.

To infer is to extract from a proposition or text, by what we call inference, a sense which is not literally there, which is not explicit.

So, my inferred from the fact that the subjects of OP’s sentences were texts, not persons, that the word OP intended not infer but imply, which means to carry or bear a sense which is not literally there—which is not literally there but implicit.