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
"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".
The first is the act, the second is the state.
"He died" expresses an action, while "he's dead" expresses a 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)
Thank you for reminding me of this silliness :)
“first he died, now he dead!” love it
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...
"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.
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.
What about "he ded."
Club penguin is kil
No
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.
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
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
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.
“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.”
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 😅
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.
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 die soon.
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.
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.
died is a verb, dead is an adjective
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
Edit: After reading another comment about 50 times, and consulting a dictionary, there might be a slight nuance I missed.
"He's dead" may not mean "he is in the state of dead". In this case, dead is an adjective describing "he". Dead is not used in the noun form.
That is not dead which can eternal lie,
and with strange aeons even death may die.
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"
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!