# you stained yourself (= I've got ketchup on my shirt)



## Egoexpress

Hi there,

I'm wondering whether there is an expression that describes the fact that you eat something say a sandwich and the filling drops out of it, and stains your shirt, or you simply say that I stained myself while I was eating?

- Look you stained yourself. Let me get you a damp cloth.

Thank you!


----------



## Alxmrphi

"You've got it all over your <item of clothing>" is quite common..
We don't really say "you stained yourself" but rather you spilt/got something over, and then say the item of clothing, at least in my experience anyway.


----------



## HalloweenHJB

I would say: "Look, you've got a stain...." or "Oh no, you've spilled something..."

"You stained yourself" can have more serious connotations related to body fluids.  At least that's how it sound to my American English ear.


----------



## Æsop

Alxmrphi said:


> "You've got it all over your <item of clothing>" is quite common..
> We don't really say "you stained yourself" but rather you spilt/got something over, and then say the item of clothing, at least in my experience anyway.


 
"Got something over" must be limited to BrE, or at least not included in AmE—it's a completely unfamiliar expression to me.  In the U.S. we would spell the past tense of "spill" as "spilled."  (This is a common difference between BrE and AmE:  burnt vs. burned, etc.)  I would voice the final consonant, that is, pronounce it like a "d" in any other position, not like a "t," and I think that is the prevailing pronunciation in most of the U.S.  There might be some regions where the standard pronunciation of "spilled" would be "spillt," but I associate it with substandard usage.


----------



## Egoexpress

Thank you for the inputs!


----------



## zaffy

So with liquids we say spill, right?  For example, I'm drinking coffee and suddenly some of it lands on my shirt and say:
-"Damn, I've spilt my coffee on my shirt" - sounds natural?
Now, what about solid things? Say I'm eating a meal with ketchup. Can I say this?
-"Damn I've stained my shirt with ketchup"


----------



## london calling

zaffy said:


> So with liquids we say spill, right?  For example, I'm drinking coffee and suddenly some of lands on my shirt and say:
> -"Damn, I've spilt my coffee on my shirt" - sounds natural?


"Damn, I've stained my shirt with ketchup".

This isn't very idiomatic. I'd be more likely to say "I've got ketchup on my shirt".


----------



## zaffy

london calling said:


> "Damn, I've stained my shirt with ketchup".
> 
> This isn't very idiomatic. I'd be more likely to say "I've got ketchup on my shirt".


How about AE? The same?


----------



## london calling

zaffy said:


> How about AE? The same?


I'm from London.


----------



## Roxxxannne

I'd say in AE 'You have ketchup on your shirt.'  or 'You got ketchup on your shirt.'   For liquids, 'You spilled some wine on your shirt.'
'Stain' for food or drink spilled on one's clothes means that the color of the spilled stuff is 'embedded' in the clothes:
'Suzy wore a bib when she was little.  Otherwise all her shirts would have been stained with tomato sauce.'


----------



## ewie

london calling said:


> This isn't very idiomatic. I'd be more likely to say "I've got ketchup on my shirt".


 (Of course if we were speaking AmE, we'd say _gotten_ here rather than _got_.)


----------



## kentix

ewie said:


> (Of course if we were speaking AmE, we'd say _gotten_ here rather than _got_.)


Actually, I don't think we would. We (or least me for sure) would say "I got ketchup on my shirt."


----------



## zaffy

I am a bit lost. At first I thought the BE "I've got ketchup on my shirt" was a present state like in "I've got three children", meaning "I have three children" but then, after I read ewie's post -  





ewie said:


> if we were speaking AmE, we'd say _gotten_ here rather than _got_.


 I realised it's worded in the present perfect for of the verb 'get', right?

So looks like I can say:
AE: Damn, I have ketchup on my shirt = BE: Damn, I've got ketchup on my shirt
AE: Damn, I got ketchup on my shirt    = BE: Damn, I've got ketchup on my shirt
AE: Damn, I've gotten ketchup on my shirt = BE: Damn, I've got ketchup on my shirt


----------



## Roxxxannne

kentix said:


> Actually, I don't think we would. We (or least me for sure) would say "I got ketchup on my shirt."


Same here.


----------



## Roxxxannne

AE: Damn, I've gotten ketchup on my shirt = BE: Damn, I've got ketchup on my shirt


----------



## zaffy

Roxxxannne said:


> AE: Damn, I've gotten ketchup on my shirt = BE: Damn, I've got ketchup on my shirt



So is that the present perfect of the verb 'get' like in "I've got three books for my birthday" or the present alternative form of the verb 'have' like in "I've got a big family"?


----------



## Roxxxannne

Good question.  In AmE 'I've got ketchup on my shirt' is the present alternative; it's used in a situation in which the ketchup is currently on the shirt.
The simple past is used 
 a) in a current ketchup-on-shirt situation to emphasize the very recent, completed act of getting the ketchup on the shirt:
'Uhoh, I got ketchup on my shirt.  Hand me that napkin and my glass of water so I can sponge it off before it stains.'
and 
b) in a more distant past:
'I got ketchup all over my shirt at the party and I was SO embarrassed."

The simple present de-emphasizes the act of getting the ketchup on the shirt:
'Look, now I have ketchup on my shirt; that will teach me to pick up a toddler who's just been eating french fries.'

Occasionally someone might use the present perfect for when the action is long since over and done:
'Oh, I've gotten ketchup on me so many times; I used to say my kids used my clothes like a napkin.' With 'the adverbial phrase 'so many times' this is almost the same as 'Oh, I know, I used to get ketchup on me often; it seemed like ... '

'I've gotten ketchup on my shirt' in a current ketchup-on-shirt situation sounds old-fashioned to me.


----------



## kentix

I think that's the difference. When Ewie said, "I've got ketchup on my shirt" he didn't mean that's the current status of his shirt. He meant it as a recently completed action, present perfect. The strict AE equivalent would be, "I've gotten ketchup on my shirt." But we generally wouldn't use that tense. We just say simple past, "Oh crap! I got ketchup on my shirt." (Unless we're planning to spill more ketchup, that action is over.)


----------



## london calling

Yes, that's how I was using 'have got' when I first suggested it. In BE we wouldn't use the past simple 'got' in a situation like this.


----------



## kentix

I got mixed up. I was reading Ewie's comment when responding, but Ewie was commenting on London Calling's sentence. I've updated my comment.


----------



## zaffy

So to sum up, I can use the present tense, i.e., "Oh crap, I have ketchup on my shirt." or I can use the past tense, but AE uses the simple past ( I got ketchup...) whereas BE uses the present perfect (I've got ketchup...), right?


----------



## london calling

zaffy said:


> So to sum up, I can use the present tense, i.e., "Oh crap, I have ketchup on my shirt." or I can use the past tense, but AE uses the simple past ( I got ketchup...) whereas BE uses the present perfect (I've got ketchup...), right?


Not really. I would only use the present tense if I hadn't noticed *immediately* that I had got ketchup on my shirt. I can imagine looking in a mirror and saying it.


----------



## zaffy

london calling said:


> Not really. I would only use the present tense if I hadn't noticed *immediately* that I had got ketchup on my shirt. I can imagine looking in a mirror and saying it.


Roxxanne said it worked in AE,  


Roxxxannne said:


> I'd say in AE 'You have ketchup on your shirt.'  or 'You got ketchup on your shirt.'


----------



## kentix

zaffy said:


> So to sum up, I can use the present tense, i.e., "Oh crap, I have ketchup on my shirt." or I can use the past tense, but AE uses the simple past ( I got ketchup...) whereas BE uses the present perfect (I've got ketchup...), right?


That's how I understand it.

But two notes:
1) I have gotten ketchup on my shirt is not wrong in AE and might be used by some people sometimes. Context will influence the choice. Using simple past is a tendency, not a rule.
2) I have ketchup on my shirt and I've got ketchup on my shirt are equally good in AE for indicating the current state of your shirt. I assume the same is true in BE but I don't know that for a fact.


----------



## kentix

london calling said:


> Not really. I would only use the present tense if I hadn't noticed *immediately* that I had got ketchup on my shirt. I can imagine looking in a mirror and saying it.




Agreed. They wouldn't be used in the exact same circumstances, generally. You would use the "have" (current status) version when you don't know how it got there.


----------



## zaffy

So with solid stains AE uses the simple past and BE uses the present perfect. Does that refer to liquids too?

AE: Damn, I spilled my coffee on my shirt. 
BE: Damn, I've spilt my coffee on my shirt.


----------



## kentix

I would say:

"I spilled coffee on my shirt."


----------



## london calling

zaffy said:


> So with solid stains AE uses the simple past and BE uses the present perfect. Does that refer to liquids too?
> 
> AE: Damn, I spilled my coffee on my shirt.
> BE: Damn, I've spilt my coffee on my shirt.


Yes.


----------



## zaffy

And does double 'my' sound natural in BE? Because Kentix dropped the first 'my'.

"Damn, I've spilt my coffee on my shirt. "


----------



## ewie

ewie said:


> (Of course if we were speaking AmE, we'd say _gotten_ here rather than _got_.)


 I knew I should've put this more legalistically. I meant: _If *we British folk* were speaking AmE_, not _If we were speaking AmE *as it is spoken*._


----------



## london calling

zaffy said:


> And does double 'my' sound natural in BE? Because Kentix dropped the first 'my'.
> 
> "Damn, I've spilt my coffee on my shirt. "


It sounds fine, although it would usually be redundant. I mean, I could take someone *their coffee* and spill it on *my shirt. *The extra 'my' makes it clear whose the coffee was, should it be necessary to specify.


----------



## zaffy

And coming back to "I got/ have got kechtup on my shirt",  how would you say it in everyday, colloquial/slang language? Say you are with very close friends. In Polish there are a few slang phrases for getting something stained.


----------



## ewie

_I've _*slopped*_ tea/marmalade all down my shirt. _(I don't drink coffee or eat ketchup.)


----------



## kentix

To me, "spilled my coffee" means basically the whole thing. If I spilled my coffee on the floor that means I dropped my entire cup or knocked it over, perhaps, and I have nothing left to drink. If I "spilled coffee" on the floor that just means a part of it. There is some amount of coffee on the floor.

The same is true with my shirt. If it's not my whole cup (or most of it) then I "spilled coffee" or "spilled some coffee" on my shirt. I wouldn't use "my coffee".


----------



## Roxxxannne

zaffy said:


> And coming back to "I got/ have got kechtup on my shirt",  how would you say it in everyday, colloquial/slang language? Say you are with very close friends. In Polish there are a few slang phrases for getting something stained.


'Crap! I got ketchup all over my freakin shirt!  What the hell!"


----------



## lingobingo

British mum to kid at lunchtime:

I told you to lean forward and bite it over the plate. Now look at you! You’ve got ketchup all down your white T-shirt.​
Same mum to kid that evening:

Did you tell your dad you got ketchup all down your front at lunchtime?​


----------



## zaffy

I looked through all meanings of 'get' in Longman and other dictionaries and none of them covers this meaning, i.e., make your clothes stained.   Polish-English dictionary says 'get dirty'. So is the 'get' in this thread perhaps a short version of 'get dirty'? Could I say "Damn, I got dirty with ketchup" or "I got my shirt dirty with ketchup" ?


----------



## sound shift

zaffy said:


> Could I say "Damn, I got dirty with ketchup" or "I got my shirt dirty with ketchup" ?


I'm afraid not. No native speaker would say that. "You've got ketchup all down your white T-shirt" (#36) is perfectly idiomatic in BE, no matter what dictionaries may or may not say. It means that there is currently ketchup all down your white T-shirt; it's not an example of the present perfect tense.


----------



## zaffy

sound shift said:


> "You've got ketchup all down your white T-shirt" (#36) is perfectly idiomatic in BE, no matter what dictionaries may or may not say. It means that there is currently ketchup all down your white T-shirt; it's not an example of the present perfect tense.



Hmm, so non-natives will never feel that as for BE.

-"I've got ketchup on my shirt"   - That is the present perfect
-"You've got ketchup all down your white T-shirt" - That isn't the present perfect. 

right?


----------



## sound shift

No. "I've got ketchup on my shirt" - Present tense.


----------



## ewie

For me it depends on the time-frame:
During meal: _You've got ketchup all down your shirt._ [present perfect, i.e. "you've spilled ketchup ..."]
During business meeting (no hotdogs present): _You've got ketchup all down your shirt_. [present, i.e. "there's ketchup ...]


----------



## zaffy

"I'm covered in strawberries and cream" - that is what an EFL course book suggested. But I believe this is not what a native speaker would say, as none of suggested it, right?

Or I may say "Damn, I'm covered in ketchup"?


----------



## lingobingo

Yes, it’s idiomatic to say (as an exaggeration) that you’re “covered in” something if it gets spilt on you or all down the front of you.


----------



## zaffy

kentix said:


> I think that's the difference. When Ewie said, "I've got ketchup on my shirt" he didn't mean that's the current status of his shirt. He meant it as a recently completed action, present perfect. The strict AE equivalent would be, "I've gotten ketchup on my shirt." But we generally wouldn't use that tense. We just say simple past, "Oh crap! I got ketchup on my shirt." (Unless we're planning to spill more ketchup, that action is over.)



So in AE you prefer to use the past tense, i.e. "Oh crap! I got ketchup on my shirt!", whereas BE emphasizes the current state, that is, Oh crap! I've got ketchup on my shirt!". Now is it possible to use the past tense in BE too or would it sound unnatural?


----------



## lingobingo

I’ve got ketchup on my shirt = There is ketchup on my shirt

I got ketchup on my shirt = I spilled ketchup on my shirt


----------



## zaffy

But you would use the Simple Past in BE while having a meal like AE does?

"Gosh!  I got ketchup on my shirt! Give me a napkin! I hope it comes off."


----------



## lingobingo

In that context we Brits would normally use the present perfect, yes. Because we’re looking at the consequences of spilling the stuff (my shirt is stained) rather than explaining what we just did.


----------



## zaffy

lingobingo said:


> In that context we Brits would normally use the present perfect, yes.



Ok, so in the present perfect you would say "I've got ketchup on my shirt" and this is what you actually say, but you said earlier in the posts that that is not the present perfect. You said that was the present tense like in "I've got a big family." I'm lost.


----------



## lingobingo

zaffy said:


> … you said earlier in the posts that that is not the present perfect. You said that was the present tense like in "I've got a big family." I'm lost.


Sorry, but I have no idea what you’re referring to.


----------



## zaffy

lingobingo said:


> Sorry, but I have no idea what you’re referring to.



A native BE speaker said above that "I've got ketchup on my shirt" is not the present perfect. It is the present form of the verb 'have' like in "I've got a big family", not like in "I've got a nice gift for my birthday.", where the present perfect is used.

Now, you said in #47 that you would use the present perfect to describe a result in the present, not the simple past like AE does. So, is  "I've got ketchup on my shirt" an example of the present perfect of the verb 'get' or just the present form of the verb 'have'?


----------



## DonnyB

zaffy said:


> Now, you said in #47 that you would use the present perfect to describe a result in the present, not the simple past like AE does. So, is  "I've got ketchup on my shirt" an example of the present perfect or just the present form of the verb 'have'?


It could  be either, because it results from a potential ambiguity of meaning in the way the verb "got" is used in BE.

So, in BE, "I've got ketchup on my shirt" can equate to either:
I* have* ketchup on my shirt (= present tense)
I*'ve spilled* ketchup on my shirt (= perfect tense)
Since the result or effect is obviously the same (your shirt is stained with ketchup) I wouldn't stress out about which it is.


----------



## lingobingo

I think this is just a terminology issue. If you want to say that *to have got* is a variant of the verb* have* rather than a present perfect form of the verb *get* used in the same sense as have, then fine.


cross-posted (i.e. posted without having seen post #51)


----------



## cubaMania

Egoexpress said:


> ...
> - Look you stained yourself. Let me get you a damp cloth....


We don't stain ourselves, we stain our shirt/tie/pants/dress/blouse, etc.
- Look, you stained your shirt.  Let me get you a damp cloth.


----------



## Fredziu

cubaMania said:


> We don't stain ourselves, we stain our shirt/tie/pants/dress/blouse, etc.
> - Look, you stained your shirt. Let me get you a damp cloth.



What if we stain our body, not a garment? Is it then possible to say that we have stained ourselves? I mean substances that don't come off easily (e.g. ink) and it might take some time to wash them off.


----------



## velisarius

We don't usually stain our whole body. _I've stained myself_ seems too general.

_I've been peeling pomegranates, and I've stained my hands._


----------



## london calling

No. I've got = I have.


----------



## zaffy

Well, that's indeed interesting. So far a few BE speakers have expressed their opinions on whether "I've got" in "Crap! I've got ketchup on my shirt" is the present form of the verb 'have' or the perfect form of the verb 'get'. I asked another one and this is what he replied:

"Crap! I've got ketchup on my shirt. Hand me a napkin" (This is happening while having a meal). Now, does that sentence use the perfect tense of the verb 'get' like in "I've got a few presents for my birthday" or the present form of the verb "have" like in "I've got a big family"? 

_Well I would suggest it depends on whether you are referring to the ketchup that is currently on your shirt, or the ketchup that has been on your shirt previously.

"I've had ketchup on my shirt" works, as does "I've had a few presents for my birthday".

"I've had a big family" does not work, unless you're the parent of many children or you have very odd sexual habits. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





So I guess your sentence uses the perfect tense of "get" in that case. _


----------



## sound shift

zaffy said:


> _"I've had ketchup on my shirt" works._


In what context does it work?

I'm afraid that it doesn't work at all as an idiomatic exclamation uttered the moment that you discover ketchup on your shirt, and it's difficult to think of a context for it that doesn't involve extra words:

_There's some ketchup on your shirt.
Oh no! I've had ketchup on my shirt since lunch, and you've only just told me!_


----------



## kentix

"I've had ketchup on my shirt many times in the past."

That's the type of sentence where "had" would fit in.


----------



## zaffy

We could "get something dirty", couldn't we?
A: Did you get a new sweatshirt?
B: I did. I *got it dirty* already.


But we can't add with what, like we do in Polish, can we?
A: Did you get a new sweatshirt?
B: I did. I *got it dirty* *with ketchup* already.


----------



## lingobingo

That wouldn’t be idiomatic in British English.

I’d expect an expression such as “I’ve already spilt ketchup on it” or “I’ve already got ketchup [all] down the front of it”.


----------



## zaffy

How about using "dirty" as a verb?

A Pol-Eng dictionary gives this example. Does it work with liquids?
_She dirtied her new blouse with wine._

If it does, could I say it with solids?
_She dirtied her new blouse with ketchup._


----------



## lingobingo

Unlikely. Don’t keep trying to use *with* something just because it works in Polish. You could say it that way in English, but mostly we don’t, so why labour the point?

She’s got/made it dirty already.


----------



## zaffy

lingobingo said:


> Don’t keep trying to use *with* something just because it works in Polish


And without 'with'? Does "dirty" work as a verb? 


Tom, be careful, please.  Don't get your new shirt dirty. 
vs. 
Tom, be careful, please. Don't dirty your new shirt.


----------



## lingobingo

It’s correct but not standard, like so many possible uses. To “dirty” (even more so “soil”) something also, arguably, has scatological connotations, which maybe makes it even less likely to be used to mean just make dirty.


----------



## Wordy McWordface

zaffy said:


> How about using "dirty" as a verb?
> 
> A Pol-Eng dictionary gives this example. Does it work with liquids?
> _She dirtied her new blouse with wine._
> 
> If it does, could I say it with solids?
> _She dirtied her new blouse with ketchup._


It makes no difference whether you're talking about liquids, or solids, or something gloopy in between (like ketchup or custard).

The point is that _dirty something with something _is simply not idiomatic. Yes, _She dirtied her new blouse with wine _is grammatically sound, understandable and is theoretically possible as a translation of an equivalent Polish expression. But that doesn't mean that a native speaker would say this. Instead, we'd say any one of the many expressions that have been suggested over the past few years, e.g, _She spilt wine all down her new blouse._

I can't remember ever having used 'dirty' as a verb or even having heard anyone else use it. It really isn't common.
We'd be far more likely to use it as an adjective in combination with a verb, e.g. _She got her new blouse dirty._

Edit_: _But...as others have pointed out, an otherwise pristine blouse with a ketchup stain is not 'dirty' (unless you're sorting laundry, deciding which clothes need washing and which don't).  It's just a blouse with a bit of ketchup on it. _She got her new blouse dirty _is something you might say of a small child who'd been rolling about in the dirt in the garden.


----------



## sinukg

kentix said:


> That's how I understand it.
> 
> But two notes:
> 1) I have gotten ketchup on my shirt is not wrong in AE and might be used by some people sometimes. Context will influence the choice. Using simple past is a tendency, not a rule.
> 2) I have ketchup on my shirt and I've got ketchup on my shirt are equally good in AE for indicating the current state of your shirt. I assume the same is true in BE but I don't know that for a fact.


Can we say "ketchup has fallen on my shirt."?


----------



## lingobingo

No. That’s another use that’s perfectly OK grammatically but not how it would normally, if ever, be said.


----------



## Wordy McWordface

sinukg said:


> Can we say "ketchup has fallen on my shirt."?


It's grammatically correct, but not idiomatic.  Take a look at some of the suggestions earlier in this thread if you want some ideas about how a native speaker would express this idea.


----------



## kentix

Wordy McWordface said:


> I can't remember ever having used 'dirty' as a verb


I would never expect to hear it used like that in the U.S. _Dirt_ is dirty. The only way you are going to get your shirt dirty is to roll around in dirt. (Slight exaggeration.)




This shirt is dirty.

Associating wine with dirt is actually kind of disgusting. You put wine in your mouth, you don't put dirt in your mouth. Wine causes stains, not dirt.

In general, we talk about getting "something" on our shirt.

- How did you get ketchup on your new shirt?
- You managed to spill something on your new shirt.
- What is that stain on your new shirt?

A: Did you get a new sweatshirt?
B: I did. I already *got/spilled *ketchup on it, though.


----------



## Packard

None of the examples sound entirely conversational (or idiomatic).

Packard (looking down at the ketchup on his shirt): _ Well, that's not coming out.

or_

Packard (looking down at the ketchup on his shirt): _ Shit! That's not coming out.  And this is a new shirt._


----------



## Myridon

I would not generally consider ketchup or wine that I had been eating or drinking to be "dirt." Perhaps if you came into contact with a used hamburger wrapper, that ketchup might be dirt.  Wine and ketchup usually leave a stain, though if you let the ketchup dry into a crust rather than wiping it off, those crusty bits might be "dirt."


----------



## zaffy

kentix said:


> Associating wine with dirt is actually kind of disgusting. You put wine in your mouth, you don't put dirt in your mouth. Wine causes stains, not dirt.


Don't you refer to clothes that have been worn as dirty? That's what we do in Polish. In the bathroom there might be a basket for 'dirty clothes' even if they are not literally  dirty. You put them in the basket and they're wating to be washed. 
A: Ashley, where do you keep dirty clothes?
B: We've got a nice basket in the utility room.


----------



## Myridon

zaffy said:


> Don't you refer to clothes that have been worn as dirty?


Yes, we do, but not all of the things that make clothes dirty are "dirt".  Sweat is not dirt.  Wine is not dirt.  A sweaty shirt is dirty (not clean) but it has no dirt on it.


----------



## zaffy

So that's why English is confusing in this respect. Of course sweat is not dirt, yet you have a basket for dirty clothes like we do, where you put a sweatshirt that is smelly or has some wine stain on. So for me personally every garment is dirty if it needs washing for whatever reason.


----------



## Myridon

zaffy said:


> So for me personally every garment is dirty if it needs washing for whatever reason.


That's exactly what I said (Yes, we do (refer to clothes that have been worn as dirty)).  Every garment that needs washing is dirty (not clean) even if it's just wrinkled.  Surely you don't call wrinkles "dirt" in Polish.


----------



## kentix

I would call one use sort of figurative and the other more literal. Dirty clothes are clothes that need washing. They are defined by what they are not - clean. But if you are talking about a substance, then you have to name the substance accurately. Food and wine and even paint is not dirt. You can't dirty your shirt with paint. If I wanted to draw attention to a shirt that has paint on it I wouldn't say "This shirt is dirty." I'd say, "This shirt has paint on it."


----------



## zaffy

kentix said:


> If I wanted to draw attention to a shirt that has paint on it I wouldn't say "This shirt is dirty." I'd say, "This shirt has paint on it."


Great, I now realised why I was confused. We'd say this in Polish. "Am I supposed to put on this shirt? It's all dirty with paint".
Thank you all for straightening things out. I do appreciate it.


----------



## Myridon

"It's all dirty with.." suggests the "having lots of dirt on it" meaning of "dirty" rather than the "not clean" meaning of "dirty." One meaning implies actual "dirt" while the other doesn't.


----------



## zaffy

Say somene keeps wearing dirty clothes, I mean, each time I see them, I can notice some stains, like wine stains, ketchup stains, yolk ones, etc. Without being specific as to what kind of stains I'm talking about, could I use dirty?

A: Have you noticed Tom always comes to work in dirty clothes?
B: Yeah, I noticed a ketchup stain today. That's disgusting. Someone needs to talk to him about it.


----------



## kentix

No, I wouldn't say that. I would say it's stained. If you're talking about a substance, and saying it's dirty, then the substance to me needs to be dirt or to resemble dirt or general grime, not something noticeably specific like ketchup.


----------



## Chasint

zaffy said:


> Say someone keeps wearing dirty clothes, I mean, each time I see them, I can notice some stains, like wine stains, ketchup stains, yolk ones, etc.



If their clothes are as bad as that, I would describe them as filthy clothes! Another possibility is "unwashed clothes"


----------



## zaffy

kentix said:


> If you're talking about a substance, and* saying it's dirty, then the substance to me needs to be dirt* or to resemble dirt or general grime





Chasint said:


> I would describe them as* filthy* clothes!



Do "dirty" clothes give some idea of being covered with "dirt" in BE as well? I guess "dirt" is "earth" in AE, isn't it?

Do "filthy" clothes work in the scenario described in #80 in AE?


----------



## Wordy McWordface

zaffy said:


> Do "dirty" clothes give some idea of being covered with "dirt" in BE as well?


Yes. This is not an AmE/BrE difference - it's basic English. See my edit to #66.

A person who comes to work wearing yesterday's shirt with ketchup on it is not wearing dirty clothes. A ketchup stain does not make a garment dirty - a shirt with a ketchup stain is just a shirt with a ketchup stain: the shirt itself is not 'dirty'.

'Dirty' suggests dirt - for example, if a child has been rolling around in mud, their clothes will be dirty. Likewise if the child has a toilet accident or a baby has a nappy/diaper leak - their clothes will be dirty.

You might describe an adult's clothes as dirty if they're a tramp/hobo who's been wearing the same garments for months on end, sleeping in the street. In that case, their clothes would be visibly dirty - darkened with dust, dirt, and encrusted filth.


----------



## kentix

But like I said, dirty has another use meaning a piece of clothing has been worn. That's, as I said, more figurative. A shirt might look pristine (no obvious spills, stains, or dirt) but if you have worn it, when you take it off, it goes in the "dirty clothes" pile. It needs to be washed before being worn again, even if you can't see anything on it.


----------



## Roxxxannne

kentix said:


> But like I said, dirty has another use meaning a piece of clothing has been worn. That's, as I said, more figurative. A shirt might look pristine (no obvious spills, stains, or dirt) but if you have worn it, when you take it off, it goes in the "dirty clothes" pile. It needs to be washed before being worn again, even if you can't see anything on it.


I would say that this shirt is dirty by virtue of being in the dirty clothes pile.  If it had no obvious spills, stains, or dirt on it before it was put in the dirty clothes pile, it wasn't dirty.


----------

