After they were dead

[angelalansburysteapot]

Apologies for the morbidity.

This has been bugging me (because clearly I don't have anything better to concern myself with)

I was watching a true crime documentary and the phrase 'after they were dead' was said repeatedly. Is it me, or does this not make sense?

Dead is an adjective but died is a verb so surely the correct terminology would be 'after they died' ie it happened after the event of dying?

Nothing can happen after you are dead because there is no after. Death is infinite, you don't stop being dead.
Many things can happen whilst you are dead or after you have died however.

Am I overthinking this?

Probably but I am you

Is it one of those American programmes? I would imagine it is for effect as in my mind dead sounds more dramatic than died.

I think it depends on the context. If the narrator is describing the actions of a murderer going through the process of murder in someone before doing something else then ‘after they were dead’ would make sense

I agree that it doesn't sound right, I'd favour 'after they had died/after their death'.

But things happen to dead bodies. Either natural decomposition things, or interventions by medics or weird fucks.

After they had died/after they were dead has no real semantic difference, in a stand alone clause. It's just a choice between adjective/verb clause.

@TroysMammy

Is it one of those American programmes? I would imagine it is for effect as in my mind dead sounds more dramatic than died.

It was a British documentary (Most Evil killers..I needed some light entertainment for my Monday afternoon!)

@PAFMO I suppose.
Once the perpetrator had killed his victim, anything he did after would be 'after they were (eventually) dead'.

Reading it like that it makes slightly more sense, though I still think 'after they had died' or even 'after they'd been murdered' for the dramatic effect would have been better.

Told you I was overthinking this too much.

Overthinking or not, it's an interesting question.

I think it's fine to say 'after they were dead' . After all, we say 'before they were born'.

I had thought there’s an ‘already’ missing, but thinking it over with other examples that might be ongoing (being ill, being homeless, being wealthy, etc.), they all sound better with a verb. ‘After he had become ill’ sounds better than ‘after he was already ill’.

I'm totally with you on this! It just doesn't sound right at all. After they died is fine, after they were dead is odd.
You'd never say "after they were alive" for the same reason.

I disagree.

I suppose it all depends on your defintion of who we are (getting deep here)

so things do still happen to the body of the person after they were dead. The person has died. What happens to the person after they have died is about their personhood. Their soul if you will, and that obviously varies according to your belief.

But your body is still there. As pp said, the murderer wrapped the body in plastic after they were dead, makes sense to me.

After they were dead does make no sense, you're right. Even if something happens to the body after death it's not 'after they were dead' - they still ARE dead! It's 'after death' because that is a finite one-time thing but being dead is a permanent thing so there's no 'after' that.

It would be like saying "after she was alive she learnt to walk" instead of "after she was born" - it makes no sense. That's why you call it "afterlife", after you're alive means you're dead, so after you're dead means you're not dead anymore so what are you???

I think people mean to say "when they were dead" which is fine because that includes the ongoing state of affairs, same as "when they were alive".

@Drivingish

I think people mean to say "when they were dead" which is fine because that includes the ongoing state of affairs, same as "when they were alive".

this is the only alternative that seems to fit to me.

Yes, pedantically you're right OP. I suppose 'after he was dead' would only really make grammatically sense if you were talking about someone who was resurrected.

I guess it's down to interpretation.

I hear it as something occurring after an event.

Try using a different adjective in a similar way.

'The person died after they were old'

The person died because they were old, not after. They weren't going to stop being old, more's the pity.

See, it doesn't make sense!

I really need to let this go..

(For those interested, the murderer used the^ victims bank card for several days after they had died were dead^ )