Are you a native German?
I was born and raised in Germany.
That said, German is my second language (which I started learning at age 4; both of my parents had spoken English to me before that) and I received my primary and secondary education through English.
I didn't become a German citizen until 2016.
I'd still call myself a native speaker of German.
They are indeed homonymes. But in most sentences only one of them makes sense, be it semantically or grammatically. For example "Sie isst einen Apfel" ("She eats an apple") cannot be "Sie ist einen Apfel" because after "isst" you'd expect an accusative and after "ist" a nominative. So the respective (funny) sentence "She is an apple" would be "Sie ist ein Apfel".
"Sie isst eine Banane" and "Sie ist eine Banane" (or isst/ist ein Plätchen) would still be pronounced the same. One would assume that the speaker means "isst" if there wasn't any other hint; but I wonder how one could convey specifically they mean that she is in fact a banana (maybe as a character/token in a game, as a costume, or for whatever other reason one would have to call someone a banana).
Immer noch has a little bit more emphasis than noch https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091021133155AAQmzf9
It is good that it is accepted, because without context this may indeed be what was meant. The two words "ist" and "isst" sound exactly alike. And though "Sie isst immer noch" may definitely be the sentence more frequently used, there could be occasions when you want to say "Sie ist immer noch" in the sense of "She is still existing".
No, it means "she's still eating" but with added emphasis. Like the first time you say it, you say "Sie isst noch," and the second or third time, when you're getting impatient because you want to leave or do something, it's "Sie isst immer noch." She's STILL EATING! Big sigh.
"she is not still eating" is not a proper English sentence. Maybe you mean "she is no more eating / she is eating no more". This is "sie isst nicht mehr" in German. And "she is still not eating" is "sie isst immer noch nicht" (some would say "sie isst noch immer nicht", which is possible as well).
Yes, you're correct in your assessment of fehrerdef's suggestions.
And "she's not eating anymore" works, and is of the most general application.
However, "she's not still eating (is she?)" certainly isn't improper, and "she's not eating still (is she?)" is also fine. (The latter is maybe a tiny bit awkward – or perhaps that's just my personal sense of it – but it's still acceptable.) These two have the same nuance as one another, which is slightly different, to my mind, from that of "she's not eating anymore".
@fehrerdef, thanks for the German.
To pick up on this conversation, I'll add that while I agree in general with mizinamo's comment, I wouldn't call "she is no more eating" wrong in an absolute sense, but I would say that the structure is terribly awkward (and inadvisable), especially with a present participle or gerund. For some reason it seems less awkward with a non-gerund noun, adjective, or adverb phrase, but should probably still be avoided, especially by a non-native speaker.
What you can use instead is "no longer": "she is no longer eating" (though "she's not eating anymore" is probably still more common).
Where "she is no more X" sounds fine is in a statement such as "she is no more X than Y", e.g. "she is no more a chef than my dog is". (Without the verb at the end, there's some ambiguity. She might be mistaken for my dog.)
It sounds odd to me, with the combination of "always" (habit, repeated action, which usually uses present simple) and present continuous "is eating".
In German it would be "Sie isst nicht immer" (nicht negating the immer = not always).
Your sentence "Sie isst immer nicht" is colloquial for "She never eats" (better: Sie isst nie): it says that it is always the case that she does not eat, and not: it is not always the case that she eats/is eating.
"Always" is often used with a continuous aspect. An example of the difference in nuance:
- She always eats. — For example, when we have supper, we expect her to eat with us as she always does, and it would be remarkable if she didn't.
- She's always eating. — I.e. whenever I see her, she's eating. This is different from saying that whenever I see her she eats, which to my mind suggests that somehow my seeing her causes her to eat — an unusual notion.
"She's not always eating" is an assertion that contradicts the second example above. It means sometimes/often when I see her she's not eating.