Do those sentences depend of the context?

Even worse: my father did a lot to me

Without additional context, the listener/reader assumes the father has died. Additional context can change this assumption. “My father did a lot for me.” [when he was alive] “My father did a lot for me after my accident meant I couldn’t work.” “My father did a lot for me when I was younger.”

I think the meme gets the difference across correctly, in terms of how I’d interpret them without pictures or more context. “Did” means that he no longer does a lot for him, either he has died, abandoned them, some major life event/separation occurred. Edit: I’m not sure how accurate this is, but I’d assume that if someone uses past tense about a close relative and that relative is still alive.. there’s a story there.

You would need more context.  Think logically. Would this be enough information in your language? No? Ok. Also the title is wrong: "Does the *meaning* of this sentence depend on the context." Or "Does this sentence need more context." Or "Do these sentences inherently imply that the father is dead?"

Has done…. He might still do more. Did… He’s done doing. —— The father does not have to die to use the second sentence. But whatever could have been done or whatever he might have wanted to do is done and he will do no more. Or the opportunity for him to do more is over - so even if he wanted to do more he can’t.

I don’t think “my father did a lot for me” intrinsically implies the father is dead.

I'm a native English speaker but have dabbled in a lot of languages. It's difficult to explain the difference between "what have you done" and "what did you do"

No, I would not automatically assume the father has died with the second sentence, just that (for whatever reason), the father is no longer doing a lot for his child. I would assume the father is still alive with the first one though.

OP, I really can’t find any creepy or ominous way to interpret this. I think it’s just a poorly devised meme. Another commenter suggested it might be that it’s technically past tense, suggesting he’s dead. If it referred to the man himself in past tense, yes, that’s likely what it would mean. However, referring to a person’s *actions* in past tense does not necessarily suggest that they’re dead, merely that those actions are in the past, for any number of reasons.

Has done implies that he can still do more, "Did" implies that he's done doing, in other words, he's dead

Yes that sentence could be context dependent. In this context it’s obvious they’re trying to convey the father has passed away. But in another context someone could ask, “How did the move go?” “It was great, my father did a lot for me.” Meaning the father helped with the move, but now that it’s over the father is no longer helping with the move.

The second one doesn't necessarily imply death but "did" being past tense implies that the action has stopped for whatever reason.

“My father has done a lot for me” certainly means that the father continues to do a lot for the son right up to the present moment, but since fathers naturally tend to do less for their sons as the son gets older, I wouldn’t *necessarily* assume that the father is dead if someone said “My father did a lot for me.” I think I would tend to mentally fill in a time frame like “My father did a lot for me [while I was growing up].”

If you want death implication, the right right should say, “My father had done a lot for me.” It implies he can’t or won’t do much anymore — death, possibly an invalid, or incarcerated.

Part of the interpretation comes the speaker and the circumstances. For example, if you're 40 years old and talking to a coworker and they know you've settled down with a family far from home, you might say "My father did a lot for me" and they might just assume your dad's retired and has a less active role in your life now. But if you're 17 and in high school and talking to your friends... they're probably going to think he's dead or gone, because normally your dad would still be playing a more direct role in your life at that point.

So the picture has clearly been cropped which makes me wonder what the rest of the image would contain, specifically the symbol or extra image down in the purple circle.

Former is the present perfect tense - the subject (my father) is in the present and the things he did for me are in the past. Latter is more simple past tense or maybe perfect tense - the things he did are in the past (whether or not he is still alive in the present)

The main difference lies in the use of verb tense, which also affects their contextual meaning: “My father has done a lot for me.” Grammar: This sentence uses the present perfect tense (“has done”). The present perfect connects the past action to the present moment, emphasising that the effects or relevance of the action are still ongoing or currently felt. Context: The sentence suggests that your father’s efforts or contributions are part of an ongoing relationship. It implies that he is still involved in your life or that his support continues to have a lasting impact. “My father did a lot for me.” Grammar: This sentence uses the simple past tense (“did”). The simple past refers to a completed action in the past, with no direct connection to the present. Context: This sentence places more emphasis on the past, suggesting that your father’s efforts occurred during a specific period that is now over. It may imply that his role in helping you has ended or that you are reflecting on a distinct time in the past. TL/DR: Use “has done” when you want to highlight ongoing relevance or a connection to the present. Use “did” when you want to focus on actions that are firmly situated in the past and feel completed.

Has done: He can still do more Did: He did it in the past

If anyone is looking to make friends or improve their English, feel free to PM me

Has done = did something in the past that has ‘some type’ of meaning in the present. Did = stating something happened in the past without regard to its relationship to the present.

The perfect present construction using "have" tells us that the action was done in the past and that it's relevant to the current moment. You can think of it as emphasizing that the past action was done. The simple past just tells us the action was done in the past. Thus here, the only real difference is the emphasis and relevance of the father's actions to the present.

As a native speaker, I didn't get it from the picture. I had to read the description. I think in some contexts it might be clear, but personally I'd need more context.

Present perfect vs. Past tense Something happened in the past that still affects the present vs. something that is completed in the past. PP: The things the father have done still affect the present moment (in an implied positive way). PT: Whatever the father has done is completed and is completely in the past (meme implies this is negative, but that is not necessarily the case). Hope this helps!

The one on the left implies he is still around, the one on the right implies the opposite, maybe suggesting he passed away...

You got it. That’s exactly what it means and that’s why it’s important to use the past simple and past participle correctly, otherwise, with no context, the person you’re speaking to could misunderstand you.

"Did" doesn't necessarily imply death. It just means that the 'doing a lot' stopped after a certain point, which can be for multiple reasons, a common one being death.

I read them (without the images) as you describe: in the first statement the father is living, in the second he is not.

Even worse: my father did a lot to me

Doesn’t necessarily mean he died, depending on contact. If we’re taking about, say, picking out a car to buy and finance it, one could say the 2nd and it would apply. Ie “…in xyz situation”

Perfect example of how using different tenses can change the whole meaning of a sentence (present perfect vs simple past in this case).

Question has been answered. I’ll just point out your modal verbs here: It’s “depends on,” not “depends of,” and it’s “meaning of,” not “meaning by.”

If you are speaking about a close loved one using a verb that would generally be either habitual or ongoing using the past tense then it is implied that they died (or that you no longer have a relationship with them) My dad loves me Vs My dad loved me Surface level understanding would imply the dad stopped loving them and the most common reason why a father would stop loving their child is because they died. It’s usually for things that would not stop without death normally. My mom reads a lot. My mom read a lot. This gets further away because there are other reasons someone might not read anymore but it would possibly imply she died. My uncle runs marathons. My uncle ran marathons. Dying is a less likely reason for someone to stop running marathons. So this wouldn’t really imply they died. There are examples in movies where someone will ask why they’re referring to a loved one in the past tense as a softer way to ask if they died.

I would not immediately interpret the second sentence as implying that the father is dead, but the context of the meme makes it apparent that this is the intent.