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 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
Thank you for reminding me of this silliness :)
“first he died, now he dead!” love it
“He died” expresses an action, while “he’s dead” expresses a state
That is not dead which can eternal lie,
and with strange aeons even death may die.What about “he ded.”
Club penguin is kil
No
One can come back to life, I suppose; in which case only the former applies.
“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”.
“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.”
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 are functionally the same until someone invents ressurection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni5J_yXuWLk&t=9
“At first he died. Now he dead.”
“He died , Jim” dœsn’t roll off tongue as nicely
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.
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…
