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)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
"To cause the death of a player character while controlling it." The usex is "I can't go to level four because I always die against the boss of level three." "Die" is clearly not the remarkable part of that sentence; it's "I" which is being used to mean "the thing I am controlling, my character, my avatar", but I'm not sure if even that merits a sense at [[I]]. - -sche (discuss) 19:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't feel that this is a separate sense either, but the way I read that sentence, the "I" who can't go to level four is the player, while the "I" who dies is the in-game character. The in-game character would not know about game levels. Equinox ◑ 21:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Also, compare utterances of (say) a player of Tomb Raider, like "I just fell off a cliff" (new sense at fall off?); "I just picked up some ammo" (new sense at pick up?). die is not unique. Delete. Equinox ◑ 22:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think this is also related to an airplane pilot saying "I keep getting hit by birds." even though it is the airplane that is getting hit by birds. The only difference in the video game sense is that the player is not physically located inside the game character. It's just a more figurative use of pronouns (doesn't have to be "I"). --WikiTiki89 (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Aside from the other problems, there's confusion about the difference between semantics and syntax: "die" is an intransitive verb, and thus can't have a transitive verb like "cause" substitute for it. Although "dying" has the result of the player character dying because of the actions of the player, grammatically there's no object involved. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree with that analysis. An intransitive verb can certainly be swapped with a verb phrase headed by a transitive verb; for example, "to converse" means "to make conversation", even though "converse" is intransitive and "make" is transitive. For that matter, "to kill" can be used intransitively to mean "to kill someone", even though the latter phrase uses it transitively. —RuakhTALK 20:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- True. The definition is still wrong, though, in that when "I die" in a video, it's usually not because I "caused" my character to die (except in a blame-the-victim-for-the-rape interpretation of causality), it's usually because some baddie killed me against my will. - -sche (discuss) 23:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- You still caused it by sucking at playing the game :) Equinox ◑ 23:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- @-sche Thank you for rescuing my point from my attempt to explain it... Chuck Entz (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Ive just restored something similar to what was deleted in 2012. I think it was deleted because it wasn't a different definition of "die". I agree that it isnt; saying "I died" instead of "My player died" is just an example of metonymy and not a separate definition. However I believe what Im talking about still merits inclusion because it's a different usage of the verb even if the syntactical meaning is the same as definition #1.
In normal conversation, one would not normally say "he died to a knife" or even "he died to a knife wound" but in video game commentary from what Ive seen this is a common usage. At least among the games where a player might "die" hundreds or thousands of times in a single playthrough and then go on to win the game. More to the point, it's a transitive usage of a normally intransitive verb. Lollipop (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- To be clear, he died to a knife isn't transitive in the sense of having a direct object; knife isn't the direct object of die, but the object of the preposition to. It is transitive in the sense of having an obligatory argument, though, and it is true that die doesn't usually have an obligatory argument. I think this sense should perhaps be moved to die to. — Eru·tuon 23:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm, but "to" can be replaced with other words, like "died from the boss / turret", "died by the boss / turret". (All these phrases are rare, but all are found online. "Died to" even seems to get just enough Usenet hits to meet the attestation part of CFI.) So maybe "die" is the best place to handle this.
- However, when one uses those other prepositions, it seems more apparent that the sense is indistinct from the non-video-game-related sense/use of "die". For example, the two hits I see for "died due to the turret" are a video game forum and a US government paper on a real-world incident. That makes me wonder if this is best handled as a distinct sense of "die", or as the usual sense of "die" with usage-note-worthy context-based un/acceptability of certain prepositions. I'm not sure.
- Some of the other senses are more tightly bound to "to", btw. Is "died to sin" ever used with another preposition? I don't know. - -sche (discuss) 04:09, 3 June 2017 (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.188.8.131.52 20:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- What the anonymous person wrote above is not completely correct. In the King James Bible, the expression "have died" is only used once, in John 11:37 (where it is an infinitive). Nowhere is there any "hath died" or "hast died". There are quite a few instances of "had died", but I think they are all second subjunctive rather than pluperfect, such as "Would to God we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt" (Numbers 16:3). But there are many instances of "is dead" used instead of "hath died". The best example is Galatians 2:21, where Paul says "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead [ἀπέθανεν] in vain." (The word "come" here is subjunctive, being in an "if" clause.) Obviously Paul did not think that Christ was still dead! The word being translated means "died" (or "would have died", a contrary-to-fact apodosis). So I am putting a note to this effect back into the article. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
a hero('s death)
- How does that relate to "die"? "A hero", "death", and "a hero's death" are all noun phrases. Equinox ◑ 00:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
"facts of the blackest die"
In Tom Jones: "he hath carried his friendship to this man to a blameable length, by too long concealing facts of the blackest die", i.e. bad or scandalous truths. But what kind of "die" is this? Could it be an obsolete form of dye (which makes sense with "black"), or is it the cutting device, in metaphorical reference to the "shape" of the situation? Equinox ◑ 14:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Robert Hunter's old dictionary gives "crime of the blackest dye" as an example of a sense "quality, character, grain" of "dye" (colour/stain). And "of the blackest dye" and "of the worst dye" are more common than "[crimes, knaves, etc] of the blackest die" and "[caitiffs, etc] of the worst die", though as you note either spelling could make sense, referencing colour/stain or cut/shape. But the presence of a third variant "of the deepest dye" (mentioned by the Random House dictionary) / "of a deep dye" suggests it is from "dye" — although even there, "the deepest die" sees a lot of use. - -sche (discuss) 18:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.