# surround the enemy



## Alan Evangelista

I see *many *German verbs for "to surround": umgeben, umzingeln, umringen,  umstellen, umschließen, einschließen, einkreisen, einkesseln, umstehen, belagern, umfassen, einfassen.

My findings so far:

- einfassen: surround sth. with a tight border

- belagern: surround sth (an enemy building) with the purpose of conquering. Military term.

- umstehen: surround sth/sb. Subject is a group of standing people.

- umzingeln: surround with hostile intent

- umringen: surround with large number of people

- umgeben: surround with sth/sb. Although this is not explicitly mentioned in its definition, the intention apparently is always non hostile.

I can not identify any specific characteristic in the other verbs, based on their Duden definition.

Are there any other differences among these verbs?

Which of these verbs could I use in the sentence below?

They surround the enemy (city/army/group).

"umstehen" will only fit if the people surrounding the enemy are standing. Apart from "einfassen" and "umgeben" (maybe), all other verbs seem to fit.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Uncle BBB

You could use these words: umzingeln, umringen, umstellen, (maybe) umschließen, einschließen, einkreisen, einkesseln, belagern.


----------



## Alan Evangelista

Uncle BBB said:


> You could use these words: umzingeln, umringen, umstellen, (maybe) umschließen, einschließen, einkreisen, einkesseln, belagern.



Is there any meaning difference among them, besides the one I have already mentioned?

Why cannot "umfassen" be used? According to Duden, one of the verb meanings is "von allen Seiten einkreisen, einschließen" and the corresponding example is "die feindlichen Truppenverbände umfassen".


----------



## Hutschi

Hi, den Feind umfassen has other context and meaning than the others you mentioned.

Example:

suppose: Frank is my enemy.
Ich umfasse Frank mit meinen Armen und drücke ihn zu Boden.

(The enemy is a person here, so you can use "umfassen" Duden | umfassen | Rechtschreibung, Bedeutung, Definition, Synonyme meaning 1 

mit Händen oder Armen umschließen
But your context was meaning 2b in Duden.



a) einfassen, umgeben
b) (Militär) von allen Seiten einkreisen, einschließen
Meaning 3) does not make sense in this context:

...
...
a) haben, bestehen aus 
b) einschließen, enthalten, zum Inhalt haben


(To consist of/to include)

Example: Das Belagern des Feindes schließt ein, dass wir alle Wege nach außen und innen absperren.
I will try to answer your other questions, but in an extra posting to separate the answers.


----------



## Hutschi

...
Almost all words have multiple meanings. I will consider only meanings to context "surround the enemy"

- einfassen: surround sth. with a tight border _(seldom, I did not hear this in this context. But it might be possible)._

- belagern: surround sth (an enemy building) with the purpose of conquering. Military term._ --- basic meaning: avoid that the enemy may leave or that enemies may come in to bring new food or devices. So they become weak and you can conquer them. It may be some days, some weeks or even some years. )_

- umstehen: surround sth/sb. Subject is a group of standing people._ --- also to surround a single person. (The enemy may be a single person here.) standing._

- umzingeln: surround with hostile intent._ --- Includes movement, often fast movement. Often invisible for the enemy by hiding behind things, trees, buildings etc._

- umringen: surround with large number of people_ - similar to umzingeln, but mostly slower and open visible. Includes movement and result of the movement. It can also be after the fight. You can "umringen" prisoners. But not "umzingeln"_

- umgeben: surround with sth/sb. Although this is not explicitly mentioned in its definition, the intention apparently is always non hostile. _(a very general word. It is used for example, if you move into a hostile contry and all people there are enemies. So you are surrounded by enemies. _


"Einkesseln" is for large groups or even armies.
"Einfassen" does not fit, you are right. (At least I do not find examples where it fits to the context.) -- But the Duden uses it to explain "umfassen".  (See my former posting). So the meaning fits. But I did not find examples.



Does this help? Or do you have additional questions?


----------



## Alan Evangelista

Hutschi said:


> den Feind umfassen has other context and meaning than the others you mentioned.



I have already checked the other meanings in Duden, so I suggest we focus in the meanings which may be applicable in the proposed example.



Hutschi said:


> - umstehen: surround sth/sb. Subject is a group of standing people._ --- also to surround a single person. (The enem_



Making clear what I originally meant, the subject *who surrounds* is standing. It does not matter how many people are surrounded, nor if they are standing.



Hutschi said:


> - umgeben: surround with sth/sb. Although this is not explicitly mentioned in its definition, the intention apparently is always non hostile. _(a very general word. It is used for example, if you move into a hostile contry and all people there are enemies. So you are surrounded by enemies. _



Would "umgeben" ever be used in a hostile explicit surrounding (eg an army surrounding another army or the police surrounding criminals)?



Hutschi said:


> You can "umringen" prisoners. But not "umzingeln"



I have not understood the context. If a group of people is imprisoned (in jail, cages or chains), you could surround them stealthly ( but why would you?) .

Maybe you meant a defeated army in a battlefield? The enemy could then *surround* the defeated army and make them choose between death and surrender. That is impossible to do stealthly and "umzingeln" would not fit.


----------



## Hutschi

Alan Evangelista said:


> Making clear what I originally meant, the subject *who surrounds* is standing. It does not matter how many people are surrounded, nor if they are standing.



This is true in the sentence you ask about:  umstehen: surround sth/sb. Subject is a group of standing people._ --- also to surround a single person_*. - in the sense standing around the person.   

----*
Generally some of the verbs include (e.g. umkreisen) or exclude (e.g. umstehen) movement of the subject, some allow or require both (e.g. einschließen, einkesseln).


----------



## Hutschi

Alan Evangelista said:


> Making clear what I originally meant, the subject *who surrounds* is standing. It does not matter how many people are surrounded, nor if they are standing.
> 
> I have not understood the context. If a group of people is imprisoned (in jail, cages or chains), you could surround them stealthly ( but why would you?) .
> 
> Maybe you meant a defeated army in a battlefield? The enemy could then *surround* the defeated army and make them choose between death and surrender. That is impossible to do stealthly and "umzingeln" would not fit.



Jemanden umringen basically means to build a circle or stand oin a circle  around one or mor persons, whether they are ennemies or not.

Examples without fight:

Sie umringten den Schauspieler.

Sie umringten neugierig den Gefangenen.  (They moved around the prisoner and stood around him in a circle.)

(I avoided "to surround" here, to make it clear.)

Many of your original sentences in German include movements of the subjects.

Umzingeln, umkreisen, einkesseln - they all include movement.

Umringen starts with a movement and includes standing around someone or around a group.

PS:

In the active sentences the persons who surround are the grammatical subjects and the persons who are surrounded are the grammatical objects.


----------



## Alan Evangelista

Hutschi said:


> Generally some of the verbs include (e.g. umkreisen) or exclude (e.g. umstehen) movement of the subject



I don't follow you. AFAIK all these "surround" verbs express movement of the subject while surrounding. You cannot surround if you are standing still. My understanding is that "umstehen" does not exclude the movement nor during neither after the surrounding action, it only requires that the subject keeps a specific body posture (standing) after surrounding. In most practical contexts (eg a crowd around people hurt in an accident), it may be the subject is standing still, but it is not required


----------



## Hutschi

You asked for the German verbs.

Umstehen is static. The part to go there is not included in German. But it is included in "to surround".
"Jemanden umstehen" means "to stand around somebody."
"Jemanden umstellen" means to go there. It does not include the result - but as goal.


So you should consider that the German words overlap with the meaning of "to surround".
They are not the same. Does this clarify it?

Additionally, English is my second language. So it might be that I use some phrases not exactly idiomatically.


----------



## Alan Evangelista

Hutschi said:


> Umstehen is static. The part to go there is not included in German. (...)
> "Jemanden umstehen" means "to stand around somebody."



I understood now. As it has already happened before with other verbs, I got confused because these German verbs makes a distinction between state and action and the corresponding English verb means both. Thanks for clarifying!


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Hutschi said:


> You can "umringen" prisoners. But not "umzingeln"





Alan Evangelista said:


> Maybe you meant a defeated army in a battlefield?


Hutschi means _*prisoners of war*_ Prisoner of war - Wikipedia



Alan Evangelista said:


> They surround the enemy (city/army/group).


Sie umzingeln den Feind.
Sie umzingeln die Stadt.

Sie belagern die Stadt = They besiege the city / They lay siege to the city.


Vergiss ›umstehen‹, es passt in diesem Kontext nicht.
They surround a group of people = Sie umzingeln eine Gruppe von Leuten.
›umstellen‹ ist ebenfalls möglich.


----------



## Alan Evangelista

Hutschi said:


> You can "umringen" prisoners. But not "umzingeln"





Schlabberlatz said:


> Hutschi means _*prisoners of war*_ Prisoner of war - Wikipedia



Why you cannot "umzingeln" prisioners of war (for instance, if they are trying to escape in the woods and you surround them stealthly ) ?



Schlabberlatz said:


> Sie umzingeln den Feind.
> Sie umzingeln die Stadt.
> 
> Sie belagern die Stadt = They besiege the city / They lay siege to the city.



Why not umringen, umstellen, umschließen, einschließen, einkreisen, einkesseln and umfassen?


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Alan Evangelista said:


> Why you cannot "umzingeln" prisioners of war (for instance, if they are trying to escape in the woods and you surround them stealthly ) ?


Man kann immer irgendwelche Sonderfälle konstruieren …



Alan Evangelista said:


> Why not umringen, umstellen, umschließen, einschließen, einkreiesen and umfassen?


Es reicht, wenn du dir die üblichen Begriffe merkst. Die anderen, selteneren sind nicht so wichtig.


----------



## Alan Evangelista

Schlabberlatz said:


> Es reicht, wenn du dir die üblichen Begriffe merkst. Die anderen, selteneren sind nicht so wichtig



I agree, but I may hear/read the other verbs somewhere and I would like to be sure they are synonyms as they look like from the dictionaries definitions. For now, I'll assume all those verbs could fit in my example sentences, except umgeben, einfassen and umstehen (due to reasons presented previously ).


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Mit den selteneren Verben kannst du dich noch befassen, wenn du ihnen tatsächlich einmal begegnen solltest. Für deinen aktiven Sprachgebrauch reichen die üblichen Begriffe.

Was man vielleicht trotzdem noch erwähnen könnte: Manche Verben funktionieren nicht so gut im Aktiv; sie werden eher im Passiv gebraucht.


> die Wiese war von Bäumen umstanden the meadow was surrounded by trees
> umstehen - Wörterbuch Deutsch-Englisch - WordReference.com




Bäume umstehen die Wiese 


Wir schließen die Stadt ein  (Sounds like: We’re locking up the city.)
Die Stadt wurde (von feindlichen Truppen) umschlossen 
Wir umzingeln die Stadt 

Edit: "We’re locking the city in" passt wahrscheinlich noch besser als "locking up":
einschließen - Wörterbuch Deutsch-Englisch - WordReference.com

Edit 2: Die Stadt wurde (von feindlichen Truppen) eingeschlossen


----------



## Hutschi

Alan Evangelista said:


> Why you cannot "umzingeln" prisioners of war (for instance, if they are trying to escape in the woods and you surround them stealthly ) ?
> 
> 
> 
> Why not umringen, umstellen, umschließen, einschließen, einkreisen, einkesseln and umfassen?



This is true, All of these are possible.
If you fly, you might be a prisoner, but you are not anymore in prison.

In case of prisoners or prisoners of war: There are two definitions.
1. They are in a prison or in a prison like environment. -
2. It is the status name, and they flew.

In the first place "umzingeln" usually does not work.
"Umzingeln works as part of a fight.
in the second case it is possible, but this was out of context as far as I understood your question.

Almost all words have very many meanings depending of context.

I cannot explain here, because I should stay on context.

Just a hint: Einkreisen basically means to form a circle around something or someone.  This is possible directly and figuratively.
Duden | einkreisen | Rechtschreibung, Bedeutung, Definition, Synonyme




> einen Kreis, eine kreisförmige Linie um etwas ziehen und es dadurch markieren
> von allen Seiten umstellen, einschließen, kreisförmig umgeben, umzingeln
> dem Kernpunkt einer Sache (abwägend) immer näher kommen
> (Amtssprache) eine bisher kreisfreie Stadt in einen Landkreis eingliedern



For example: A general can draw a line around a place on a map (meaning 1). Der General kreiste den Platz auf der Karte ein, wo sich die Hauptgruppe des Feindes befand. (This is not possible with "umzingeln.)
Umzingeln beasically works if the object are persons (mostly soldiers).

Einkesseln works only in very special context in a war.  It is a massive form of "einkreisen" of large groups or armies.
A good example is Einkesseln vor Stalingrad, Admiral Paulus.

It is not used for e.g. 10 persons.


----------



## Alan Evangelista

Schlabberlatz said:


> Bäume umstehen die Wiese



Thanks for the info! I have seen this restriction of verb usage in the participle past form in another verb recently and I am getting to the conclusion it is quite common in German.

From the examples I see in Duden and DWDS, this only applies when the subject is a thing, right?



Schlabberlatz said:


> Wir schließen die Stadt ein  (Sounds like: We’re locking up the city.)
> Die Stadt wurde (von feindlichen Truppen) umschlossen



And from that I can infer that "einschließen" and "umschließen" do not fit in my example  either. Thanks!


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Alan Evangelista said:


> From the examples I see in Duden and DWDS, this only applies when the subject is a thing, right?


Ich weiß es nicht.


----------



## Hutschi

Schlabberlatz said:


> ...
> 
> Bäume umstehen die Wiese  ...
> Wir schließen die Stadt ein  (Sounds like: We’re locking up the city.) ...
> Die Stadt wurde (von feindlichen Truppen) umschlossen  ...
> Wir umzingeln die Stadt  ...
> 
> ...



Beim ersten Satz hätte ich keinerlei Probleme. Beim zweiten würde es Kontext klar machen. "We’re locking up the city." - hier würde ich sagen: "Wir verschließen die Stadt."

Der dritte und der vierte Satz sind idiomatisch, allerdings haben "umzingeln" und "umschließen" leicht unterschiedliche Bedeutung. "Umschließen" erscheint mir massiver als "umzingeln".


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Alan Evangelista said:


> And from that I can infer that "einschließen" and "umschließen" do not fit in my example either. Thanks!


Ich hatte mich ein wenig vertan:


Schlabberlatz said:


> Wir schließen die Stadt ein  (Sounds like: We’re locking up the city.)
> Die Stadt wurde (von feindlichen Truppen) umschlossen
> Wir umzingeln die Stadt
> 
> Edit: "We’re locking the city in" passt wahrscheinlich noch besser als "locking up":
> einschließen - Wörterbuch Deutsch-Englisch - WordReference.com
> 
> Edit 2: Die Stadt wurde (von feindlichen Truppen) eingeschlossen


Ich hätte sofort „eingeschlossen“ schreiben sollen.

Wir umschließen die Stadt 
Ich glaube, der Satz ist OK. Jedenfalls besser als „Wir schließen die Stadt ein“.

Was Aktiv vs. Passiv bei bestimmten Verben betrifft: Es geht nur um eine Tendenz, deshalb  ( = schlecht bzw. unüblich) statt  ( = falsch).


----------



## Hutschi

Correction:



Hutschi said:


> In case of prisoners or prisoners of war: There are two definitions.
> 1. They are in a prison or in a prison like environment. -
> 2. It is the status name, and they fle*d*.


----------



## berndf

Alan Evangelista said:


> I see *many *German verbs for "to surround": umgeben, umzingeln, umringen, umstellen, umschließen, einschließen, einkreisen, einkesseln, umstehen, belagern, umfassen, einfassen.


Finally, just a short word of caution:
The only verb that translates _surround _in a strict sense of the word is _umgeben_. All the other verbs describe more specific actions that are performed around something ore someone. Although they all have valid contexts where you might use _surround _in English, treating them all as translations of _surround _could be misleading. It is generally better to approach compound verbs from the meaning of the core verb and then consider how a prefix modifies this core meaning rather then the other way round as it has been done in this question.


----------



## Alan Evangelista

berndf said:


> The only verb that translates _surround _in a strict sense of the word is _umgeben_. All the other verbs describe more specific actions that are performed around something ore someone. Although they all have valid contexts where you might use _surround _in English, treating them all as translations of _surround _could be misleading.



Thanks for sharing this. The purpose of this thread was precisely to identify these differences, since I was unable to do it (for most of the verbs) just reading the dictionaries entries and looking at verbs prefixes.



berndf said:


> It is generally better to approach compound verbs from the meaning of the core verb and then consider how a prefix modifies this core meaning rather then the other way round as it has been done in this question.



I always look at the prefixes and try to infer the exact meaning, even if I don't mention it explicitly in my questions about synonyms. However, some prefixed verbs meanings are hard to guess (eg I have no idea why umgeben - "to give around" - ended up meaning "to surround"). On the other hand, I should have understood faster the meaning of "umstehen" looking at the prefix and the root verb, I'm sorry for that.


----------

