Submitted 3 weeks ago by s0larfl4re@sh.itjust.works to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
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.
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 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.”
“he’s dead” is usually followed by “Jim”
And preceded by “it’s worse than that”.
🎶 Star Trekkin across the universe 🎶
ah right!
Functionally, in conversation they’re the same. But, that said, if I was talking about somebody the listener was close to, I’d use “had died”, rather than “is dead”.
Why? Because it’s slightly less direct, and I’m British so that’s the path we take.
Pointing out that someone “is dead” directly alludes to them being a corpse right now. Saying that they “had died” merely references something that they did.
Passive speech is the cuck chair in the bedroom of british culture.
Username checks out…
While they both have the same meaning; he died implies knowledge of the death before, he’s dead fits more when you’ve just figured out that the person in question is dead.
“He’s dead, presumably because he died”
People die if they are killed
“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”.
I feel like “he died” is more recent, like the guy died a relatively short time ago, while “I thought he was dead” feels like you thought he has been dead for a good while now.
Same end result, but one refers to the actual and the other the state. The act of dying versus the state of being dead is kinda pedantic, but if you replace it with a state that can (conventionally) be left it’s a little more clear.
“I thought he slept” vs “I thought he was sleeping”.
“he died” describes an action
“he was dead” describes a condition / state / quality
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.
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.
“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
Mostly right, but “dead” is just an adjective. He is big, he is red, he is dead are all the same format.
Adverbs are basically just modifiers for adjectives and verbs. He is very big, he is slighty red, he is almost dead, he will be dead soon.
Russian is!
What about “he ded.”
Club penguin is kil
No
It’s not that they’re truly synonymous but that each also implies the other. If it’s true that he’s dead, then it’s also true that he died and vice versa. So it seems like they mean the same thing because if ypu say one, it can be taken for granted that the other is necessarily also true.
But even that’s not 100% - it’s possible that “he died” is true but “he’s dead” is not, since he might’ve been revived. That illustrates the fact that they actually each communicate something different - “he died” is an experience through which he went at some point, while “he’s dead” is the state he’s in right now.
So again, they broadly communicate the same thing since saying one implies the other as well, but they don’t actually mean the same thing.
I think you are the only one to correctly state that one can be true without the other making them not synonymous and I appreciate it.
The easy example is to think in terms of chatting with a Christian: Jesus died, but Jesus is not dead.
They are functionally the same until someone invents ressurection.
“He died , Jim” dœsn’t roll off tongue as nicely
Regarding the nuance part I feel like people tend to use “died” when it happened recently or when they’re still grieving and “dead” when they just want to state the fact. English is my second language too though so I might be imagining it 😅
“He died” expresses an action, while “he’s dead” expresses a state
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
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.
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.
Native speaker here, the OP you are responding to is incorrect.
“Dead” isn’t a verb and so it does not have past or future tenses. It is an adjective describing a state of existence.
Died and dying are tenses of the verb die.
“He died, I am dying, now, I die.”
“He is dead, I will be dead, I am dead.”
I agree with your interpretation, but it’s not a hard rule - “I thought he was dead” and “I thought he died” are both grammatically correct regardless of how long ago the death happened, but the latter sounds more specific to me.
“I thought he was dead” sounds like “I haven’t heard about him in awhile, I assumed he was not alive anymore”
But “I thought he died” sounds like “I thought he specifically died in that fire three years ago.”
He’s dead -> he is in the state “dead” He died -> In the past, he transitioned from life to death He has died -> Prior to point of reference now, he transitioned from life to death He had died -> Prior to point of reference in the past, he transitioned from life to death
Thank you for reminding me of this silliness :)
“first he died, now he dead!” love it
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.
“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.”
died is a verb, dead is an adjective
The dead don’t care.
That is not dead which can eternal lie,
and with strange aeons even death may die.
JASN_DE@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
The first is the act, the second is the state.