In Elizabethan English, "to die" meant to have an orgasm. If you want, put it in here. Bibliomaniac15 04:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence or quotations? --Dvortygirl 04:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think it was that way in French, too "a little death" Rklawton 02:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
died also means a sound that fades away:
Dutch usage note
The Dutch usage note is correct, but I think the example sentence could be chosen better. Anyone? henne 09:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thought up a better one, but it can still be optimised. henne 14:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
"die for lack of"
We have this quotation:
- Less than three days later, Johnson lapsed into a coma in his jail cell and died for lack of insulin.
as an example of "die" followed by "for", but I think it's a misleading example. Technically, yes, the word "die" is followed by the word "for", but I think the choice of "for" is conditioned here by the use of "lack", rather than the use of "die". I think "for" here simply means "because of" or "due to"; that's not a common use of it any more, but you still see "for lack of", "for want of", and so on. Am I right?
—RuakhTALK 20:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely; it has nothing to do with the verb per se. – Krun 20:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
According to Batchelor's 1926 An Ainu-English-Japanese Dictionary, English die translates as ライ (rai). Batchelor also gives this example sentence at イサム (isam "not to be", "it is not"): Rai wa isam, "he has died." (page 193). The particle ワ (wa) with verbs marks something like present participle, or as Batchelor puts it, "The particle itself indicates the English 'ing' and may well be rendered by 'and.'")
If my analysis is correct, イサム is not literally die, though I wouldn't be surprised to hear it used figuratively, rather like "He's not with us anymore." Even disregarding my analysis, though, ライ is Ainu for die according to Batchelor. Cnilep (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
English Usage Note
The usage note is misleading and potentially irrelevant. It seems to indicate that "am/are/is/was/were dead" previously formed a part of the regular paradigm for the verb "die" in place of "have/has/had died". This isn't true. As long as "die" can be considered to have been a verb in English, it has always been possible to use it's past participle with a form of "have" to express a perfect aspect. In fact, contrary to what the note says, the perfect aspect in the past tense was routinely expressed this way in the KJV bible i.e. "had died". Furthermore, "am/are/is/was/were dead" is still a very common figure of speech, much more so than equivalent phrases with "died" (increased use of "has/have died" probably owes most to news reports and headlines). However, this parallel construction is irrelevant to the usage of "die" because the adjective "dead" has been in common use since Old English, even before the Norse loan "die" became the usual verb for this meaning. So, the fact that "dead" has been and remains a very common adjective to describe something that has died does not mean that "have/has/had died" was or is an unusual way to express the perfect aspect of "die", only that, when it comes to being dead, the perfect aspect is usually implicit.22.214.171.124 20:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)