Using term "shot dead"

I'm curious about newscasters using the term "shot dead" in describing the death of a gun shot victim. Is this correct? They would never describe a survivor as "shot live".

Solution 1:

Yes, it is definitely correct, because shot can mean that one has simply been shot, somewhere to their body, and this doesn't necessarily mean they must have died because of it.

Shot dead, on the other hand, implies that one has died after being shot and it also specifically says that the shooting was fatal (they didn't die because of any other reason).

Solution 2:

To RIMMER's answer I would add:

There is also a sense of immediacy -- shot and he died right there on the spot, as opposed to shot and he died the next day in the hospital. He's dead either way, but "shot dead" isn't generally used in the latter case. (You'd say he was fatally shot, or shot and died of his wounds, or something like that.)

Solution 3:

I think this is not as much the question of grammar, but of semantics

From

You shot him dead. > He was shot dead.

as with

You painted it pink. > It was painted pink.

The reason why you can hardly use any other word except "dead" after "shot" is that semantically it does not work i.e. the same reason why you can not say

You painted it loud.

(literary use excluded).

Solution 4:

The questioner asked: why not shot live, for a survivor? That would be because in shot dead, dead is the consequence of shot. In shot live, you are not alive because you are shot, but rather you are alive despite being shot.