to me, they seem the same, but surely there’s a subtle nuance.
like, for example, i’ve heard: “i thought he died.” and “i thought he was dead” and they seem like synonyms.
“he died” reffers to a specific event. You’re telling that someone at some point has died.
“he is dead” is a description of the current status.
practically synonymous. like saying “he grew up” and “he’s a grown up”, “he got his license” and “he’s licensed”.
He died is describing the event of him dying, he’s dead means he is currently dead. However, they may as well be synonyms because I can’t think of any realistic situation where one is true and not the other
To me, “he died” puts an emphasis on what the person actually went through. To die is to experience the process of dying. “He is dead” puts the emphasis on his current state, not on the transition from life to that state. Linguistically, I consider dying to be the process and death to be the result. You die once, but you stay dead forever (medical resuscitation notwithstanding).
I have no clue how many other people think of the phrases like that, but that’s the rhetorical distinction I draw between the two.
“He died” expresses an action, while “he’s dead” expresses a state
What about “he ded.”
Club penguin is kil
No
They are functionally the same until someone invents ressurection.
Thank you for reminding me of this silliness :)
“first he died, now he dead!” love it
“Clearness and vividness in writing often turn on mere specificity. To say that Major André was hanged is clear and definite; to say that he as killed is less definite, because you do not know in what way he was killed; to say that he died is still more indefinite because you do not even know whether his death was due to violence or to natural causes. If we were to use this statement as a varying symbol by which to rank writers for clearness, we might, I think, get something like the following: Swift, Macauley, and Shaw would say that André was hanged. Bradley would say that he was killed. Bosanquet would say that he died. Kant would say that his mortal existence achieved its termination. Hegel would say that a finite determination of infinity had been further determined by its own negation.”
One can come back to life, I suppose; in which case only the former applies.
“Well, he died…” <- Most likely to be heard after asking what happened to someone who died.
“Well… He’s dead.” <- Most likely heard after seeing someone doing something incredibly stupid.
That is not dead which can eternal lie,
and with strange aeons even death may die.The first is the act, the second is the state.
They aren’t direct synonyms. As one refers to an event, while the other refers to a state of being. However the confusion is easy, as either invariably involves the other, they can both safely inferred.
This is also the difference between active and passive voice. Passive voice tends to take a more roundabout way to say the same thing. Active would be something like “the man smashed his cup when his temper flared.” It’s very direct and to the point. “Man>Smash>Cup.” The man is directly acting upon the cup. In contrast, the passive form would be more along the lines of “the cup was smashed during the man’s outburst.” It removes a lot of the action. It’s more like “Cup>was smashed” and everything after that is just additional context; We could even remove the context that the man was the one who smashed it, because it isn’t needed for the sentence to still be complete.
You see it a lot when cops fuck someone up, then have to release a public statement about it. They never say something active and straightforward like “our officers beat the handcuffed man to death.” That puts the blame squarely on the cops who killed the dude. Instead, they always say something more passive, like “the man succumbed to injuries he sustained while resisting arrest.” Notice that the former has “officers” doing the action of beating, while the latter removes officers entirely and has “man” doing all of the action. It is used to shift blame away from officers and onto victims. The former is a direct “the man died because of our officers’ actions” statement. But the latter is more like “the man failed to stay alive, and the failure is entirely on him.”
Linguistically, the difference between “he died” and “he’s dead” is called aspect. As for your specific sentences:
“I thought he died” -> There was some event that ocurred which I witnessed or which I was made aware of in someway which I thought had resulted in him dieing.
“I thought he was dead” -> My understanding was that for some time up to now he was a corpse (or in some other such state). I do not necessarily know about the time or event in which he died.
Thank you for this explanation. I got as far as an example that highlights the difference (“I made sure he died.” vs. “I made sure he was dead.”), but couldn’t nail down why there is a difference between those things.
It’s an action vs a state of being.
I made sure he died is making sure that the action of dying was completed. In that sense it sounds like you contributed to them dying. E.g. a mobster telling his boss he made sure someone died.
I made sure he was dead, is confirming their state of being as dead. E.g. a professional would ensure someone was dead before they’re cremated.
There is a lot of nuance in there though. E.g. a mobster might also make sure someone was dead after e.g. shooting them. (But again it’s checking their state of being rather than ensuring their act of dying was complete. I.e. finishing them off)
“he’s dead” is usually followed by “Jim”
And preceded by “it’s worse than that”.
🎶 Star Trekkin across the universe 🎶
It’s worse than that, it’s physics, Jim!
ah right!
For light entertainment, here’s “He’s dead, Jim”, by Julia Ecklar.
