I know it is correct to say
He has been dead for three years.
I've learned the present perfect tense, and it's said that non-continuous verbs are allowed. Is this sentence correct as well?
He has died for three years.
3 Answers
Die is an Inchoative verb; that means it refers to a change of state.
The Present Perfect construction can be used with a Stative predicate like be dead or own a house the way you suggest. This is called the Universal sense of the Perfect.
But die is not stative; it's inchoative, and therefore punctual -- it refers only to the instant when the change took place. So, in principle, it could use the Existential sense of the Perfect, which is restricted to punctual, or at least completable, events.
He has died for three years.
which suggests that he has died several times over a time span of three years. However, dying is something that can only be done once, and therefore a sentence like this is apt to raise an eyebrow, at least.
Hint: in situations like this, remember that Stative - Inchoative - Causative predicates come in triples, and there's usually one with the right characteristics available for use in a different construction. In this case, the triple is kill - die - dead (you need a be to carry the tense with dead, but it's a stative predicate, like most but not all adjectives).
That's why He's been dead for three years is what suggests itself to a native speaker.
answered Apr 7, 2012 at 14:04
-
Edit: The links for the two senses of the Perfect in the answer above now point to previous recent answers I posted here on this topic. They didn't before; my apologies for misdirection. Apr 7, 2012 at 16:18
-
How about this sentence: "He has died in the last year/ this year" (Maybe an alternative to "He died ...") ?– ymfoiApr 8, 2012 at 1:26
-
You can do it once, and as long as it's Hot News, the Perfect is OK. He has died in the last century, however, is not OK. Apr 8, 2012 at 2:18
-
Do you mean that it's grammatically right, but depends on the context (maybe wrong)?– ymfoiApr 8, 2012 at 2:34
-
It would work for describing an unsuccessful stand-up comic.
"He has died for three years at the Edinburgh festival "
-
3
-
2Or how about someone in a play, he dies at the end of every performance, and the play runs for a long time. Then we could say: "He has died for several years."– GEdgarApr 7, 2012 at 15:54
-
6Right. And this works precisely because dying in this sense is a repeatable experience, thus allowing the Existential Passive. Apr 7, 2012 at 16:11
Thousands of years ago, Jesus of Nazareth died. On that day, it was His decision to die, remain dead for three days, and then come back to visit the living for a time. So the Romans nailed Him to a cross, and the Holy Grail caught His blood. Presently, the apostle said "The Messiah has died for three days. Let's all come back and see him again afterward. It'll be a grand party, with lots of booze and Holy Spirits!"
-- Written by a native speaker of English.
-
That situation does not present a context where "X has died for (a stretch of time)" is meaningful (or grammatical), mainly because there is no context to do so. You die once at one time, you can't do it over a period of time (you can of course be in the continuous process of dy ing over a period, but once you actually do die, that's it.– MitchApr 8, 2012 at 3:18
-
Know what? You're right. He has been dead ever since He died. He has died for the sins of the world but not for any particular amount of time.– IanMay 10, 2015 at 23:28
-
Now suppose he is one of those rare cases of being only mostly dead. I've heard reference to "he died for two minutes" and he has done that. But it's strained English to say the least.– IanMay 10, 2015 at 23:32
He has painted for three yearsandhe has been painting for three yearswork