"was not maimed" vs "Was not maim"

Question

"was not maimed" vs "Was not maim"

The correct phrase is "was not maimed." The word "maimed" is the past participle form of the verb "maim," which means to injure someone so severely that a body part is permanently damaged or disabled.

Last Updated: March 17, 2024

This phrase is used to indicate that someone was not injured severely enough to cause permanent damage or disability.

Alternatives:

was not injured
was not harmed
was not disabled
was not incapacitated
was not wounded

The correct phrase is "was not maimed," which indicates that someone was not injured severely enough to cause permanent damage or disability.

Alternatives:

was not injured
was not harmed
was not disabled
was not incapacitated
was not wounded

Answer 1

was not maimed

This phrase is correct in English. The word "maimed" is the past participle form of the verb "maim," which means to injure someone severely enough to cause permanent damage or disability.

Answer 2

Was not maim

This phrase is not correct in English. The word "maim" is a verb, and in this context, the past participle form "maimed" should be used.

"was not maimed" vs "Was not maim"

was not maimed

Was not maim

Related Comparisons