Er der kongruensfejl heri? kort

Den nedenstående var en fejl :) Er der nogen kongruensfejl heri? Her selv rettet igennem man kan jo godt være, at jeg har overset nogle. Skal foucus laves om til focuses? Og skal discuss laves om til discusses?

Grammar Questions

Lydia Davis focus in this text in how we speak and sometimes what we say do not make sense.
In line 11- 19 Lydia Davis discuss if a dead person is a body or a thing. How shall you pronounce a person who is dead? Shall you say “he” or “it”? She says that people that did not know him would call him “the body” or “it”. So people who did not knew him will not have a hard time to call him “the body” for an example. Lydia does not know if “he” is the right word to call him. I do not think it is wrong. For her he will never just be some chance body.
In line 20-23 she discuss if you still could call him her father when the body is burned and later buried – is it then the same person? Even if he is dead he is still her father. So shall she uses “he was” or “he is”. It sounds funny to use both words if you look at line 22-23 in Grammer Questions. But if it was myself I would say “That is my father”. Just because he is dead he does not stop being a father. He would be one of the reason why I exist.
In line 24-28 is pretty much the same like from above. In my case I would still say “That is my father” but it is not necessary correct. In line 29-30 she talks about the activity in words. Can you say “he is dying”? Words with ing-forms are dynamic at are something that happens now. And when you have a simple form it is inactive. So is it right to use “dying”? Yes because he is still breathing and that is a sign of life. We meet the contrasts life and death in this case. If we look at the word “is”. Can you use that word for a person who is dead? I would say yes. As said before he has the role as a father for her – so he is her father no matter what.