Grammar and dead relatives

When referring to a relationship with a blood relative who has died, would you say, for instance, “John is Sue’s father,” or “John was Sue’s father”? If he has passed, does he cease being her father, and she his daughter? Or would you still say she is his daughter, but he was her father, which seems asymmetric and wrong?

Both the past and present tense can be correct, depending on the context and underlying assumptions (such as philosophical or religious beliefs regarding the soul or nature of existence).

For example:

• My father is dead
• My father was a carpenter
• My father is in Folkvangr

Generally, you would say she is his daughter, and that he [her late father] was her father. This use of the past tense is a common way of indicating that the person being mentioned is deceased without deviating from the main point of the sentence. In effect, it removes the person from the present tense in order to indicate he or she is no longer a part of the current world construct, but rather belongs to a past (physical) world construct or state, as indicated by the placing of his very existence (as a living or physical person) in the past tense.

Consider the implications of or the impressions made by these two sentences:

• My daughter is a gymnast
• My daughter was a gymnast

The obvious exception is when the person's death is otherwise stated or implied (eg: john is dead, mary is in heaven now).

It's exactly as Robusto said in his comment: if it is a recent loss some people may still use present simple. e.g. An explosion kills a young man and nobody is allowed to come near. His wife arrives at the scene and, knowing he is dead, she pleads: "let me see him, please. He is my husband." In all other situations you'd use the past simple.

• "He was my uncle."
• "John was Sue's father."

But note the asymmetry as mentioned by Janus; "I'm his daughter", "She is his wife", for those who are alive.