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.
They are functionally the same until someone invents ressurection.
“He died , Jim” dœsn’t roll off tongue as nicely
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…
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”.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.
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”
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.”
