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.
It has to do with Verb Tense.
In your example, “I thought he died,” that would mean you thought he had died in the past.
“I thought he was dead” would mean that you thought he had died recently or in this situation, in the present time.
Interesting, as an ESL speaker of US English (for several decades nonetheless) the timing sounds the reverse for me:
“I thought he died” seems to imply the death was recent, and “I thought he was dead” implies the death happened some time ago.
deleted by creator
They are functionally the same until someone invents ressurection.
Is English a second language for you? (Serious question, not being snarky). Would help with how to frame an answer.
With “He died” - the word “died” is a verb (it’s what he did), it’s the action that takes place. It’s functionally (though not literally) equivalent to saying “He fell”.
With “He’s dead”, the verb is “is” - “He is (dead)”, describing a state of being/existence. “Dead” functions as an adverb (I think, English class was a long time ago), modifying “is”, with the information that he exists, just no longer as a living being.
“He is”, while not obvious, is a functionally correct/complete sentence (just ask Descartes).
Hope that helps and I request corrections/clarifications from grammarians and language boffins.
Russian is!
“Dead” is an adjective, modifying the antecedent of “he”, not an adverb modifying “is”.
Contrast “he is well”, where “well” modifies “is” as an adverb vs. “he is good” where “good” is an adjective modifying “he”. There’s no grammatic signifier which is which beyond the modifying word itself, so you need to see whether it’s in adverb form or adjective form.
As a native speaker and someone who was once fond of langauge, I hate you.
I read your comment a million times and disagreed. I consulted a dictionary for the definition of the noun form of “good”, and relectantly agreed. “Dead”, “Well”, and “Good” are descriptors and not states of being. They are therefore adjectives not nouns.
In the out of context and incomplete quote of Tigger, “Double Guh R”. GRRRRRR GRRRRRRR
deleted by creator
“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”.
Is English a second language for you? (Serious question, not being snarky). Would help with how to frame an answer.
With “He died” - the word “died” is a verb (it’s what he did), it’s the action that takes place. It’s functionally (though not literally) equivalent to saying “He fell”.
With “He’s dead”, the verb is “is” - “He is (dead)”, describing a state of being/existence. “Dead” functions as an adverb (I think, English class was a long time ago), modifying “is”, with the information that he exists, just no longer as a living being.
“He is”, while not obvious, is a functionally correct/complete sentence (just ask Descartes).
Hope that helps and I request corrections/clarifications from grammarians and language boffins.
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)
That is not dead which can eternal lie,
and with strange aeons even death may die.“he’s dead” is usually followed by “Jim”
For light entertainment, here’s “He’s dead, Jim”, by Julia Ecklar.
And preceded by “it’s worse than that”.
🎶 Star Trekkin across the universe 🎶
It’s worse than that, it’s physics, Jim!
ah right!
deleted by creator
The first is the act, the second is the state.
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.
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.”
I think it’s possible that someone could have “died” but still be alive today (after being revived). Someone could truthfully say, “He died, but he’s not dead”. “Briton Audrey Schoeman revived after six-hour cardiac arrest”
“He died , Jim” dœsn’t roll off tongue as nicely
Thank you for reminding me of this silliness :)
“first he died, now he dead!” love it
