Well, I hadn’t expected to have to do anything for Sycamore Advantage this morning, but two students showed up (one freshman, one transfer) for the Sycamore Advantage transfer day. Susan (who isn’t feeling well) took the freshman and I took the transfer student. Heather’s out, so the closet is pretty quiet now and now’s a good time to work on TKT #2: lay vs. lie.

First off, to understand the difference, you have to know what transitive and intransitive verbs are. (Technically, there are monotransitive, ditransitive, and dual-transitive verbs, but we won’t bother with those.) A transitive verb has a direct object. An intransitive verb does not have a direct object. For simplicity’s sake, let’s just say that a direct object is generally a noun or pronoun that is the object that is more directly affected by the argument (i.e. subject and verb, or the action of the sentence). It’s easiest to see in example. For instance:

1. He smiled.
2. She farted.
3. The cat meowed loudly.
4. I ran in circles like a rabid mongoose.
5. Everyone here is a Jell-o mold.

All of the above sentences are intransitive (excepting number 5 which is in an entirely different class, but it proves a point, so I included it and will explain soon). They don’t have any objects. Nothing is being acted upon. In sentence 3, “loudly” is merely an adverb describing how the cat meowed. In sentence 4, “in circles” describes how I ran, and “like a rabid mongoose” is a simile which also just describes how I ran. The last sentence has a noun in the predicate, but it isn’t being acted upon. Sentences like 5 which have a form of “to be” or a similar verb are what we call “copular sentences” which are neither transitive or intransitive. Essentially, the form of “to be” acts as a sort of equal sign. The subject is the same as the predicate noun. This could be written: “Everyone here = a Jell-o mold.” So even though there is a noun phrase in number 5, it is not a direct object. So let’s look at some transitive sentences which do have direct objects (underlined):

1. He wrote a novel.
2. The woman ate her lunch with a friend.
3. I saw him at nine.
4. I gave him the key.
5. The stinky-ass troll sucker-punched the arrogant unicorn.

Each of these sentences is transitive. Each one has a direct object which answers the questions “who” or “what.” He wrote what? A novel. I saw who at nine? Him. But why isn’t “him” the direct object in sentence 4? Because “he” isn’t what is being given. “He” is the person the object is being given to. That makes “him” an indirect object. Indirect objects aren’t entirely necessary to understanding transitive verbs, but it is something to watch out for.

Okay, so now we know what a transitive and an intransitive verb are. Transitive verbs have direct objects which are nouns or pronouns acted upon by the verb, and intransitive verbs don’t take direct objects. What does this have to do with “lay” and “lie?” Everything. “Lie,” when it is the verb related to positions (I’ll talk about “lie” as in falsehoods later), is intransitive. Here are some examples:

1. I need to lie down.
2. The dog just lies around all day.
3. He asked me to lie on the floor.

Generally, “lie” is used with a preposition such as “down” or “around” or a prepositional phrase as in number 3 with “on the floor.” “Lay” is transitive and takes a direct object as in the following examples:

1. Lay the book down then come help me tie him up.
2. She lays the towel on the floor then sets fire to it.
3. Chickens lay eggs.

Each of these has a direct object, and most also have a preposition or prepositional phrase to help direct the motion of the verb. Laying eggs is, really, a specialized use of the verb, but it helps get the point across. “Lie” = intransitive, “lay” = transitive. Seems simple enough, right? So why do people still mix these verbs up?

The problem with the verbs “lay” and “lie” is generally caused by their strange, irregular forms for the different tenses. “Lie,” when it refers to position, is irregular (i.e., it has strange conjugation rules), but “lie” when it refers to telling falsehoods, is regular (i.e., it follows normal conjugation rules). “Lay” is also irregular. Here are the verb forms by tense so you can see why there’s so much confusion (DO stands for “direct object”):

Notice anything? Like, for instance, the fact that the simple past form of “lie” is “lay?” No wonder people get these confused! The past tense of “I lay a book on the floor” would be “I laid a book on the floor.” So the past tense of “I lie on the floor” is “I lay on the floor,” but without knowing that it’s in the past tense through other indicators (e.g., mention of time or adverbs describing time), it looks like it’s the transitive verb “lay” even though there’s no direct object. If it weren’t for the fact that the preterite form (simple past) of “lie” is “lay,” there probably would be a little less confusion over these verbs. People would still get them mixed up like they do “rise” and “raise” (“rise” is intransitive” whereas “raise” is transitive), but they might be a little clearer than they are now. As it is, sentences such as “He asked me to lay on the floor” is nonstandard, but enough people do it and enough people understand it that I don’t think it’s really a big deal. Knowing the distinctions between the two as well as their irregular tenses is really more a matter for people who write academically or professionally, or for paranoid people who worry about messing up. People will say what they will, and so long as the point gets across, it’s really not that bad. These two verbs are similar enough that the point will get across, and that’s what’s important.

(By the way, the -ing form of “lie” is “lying,” not “lieing” just like the -ing form of “die” is “dying” not “dieing.” English has an odd rule that following a consonant symbol, ie is changed to y before -ing. Again, that’s something for people who write professionally or academically, and I’ve seen more than my fair share of people spelling “lying” and “dying” however they want, enough to know that strange, obscure rules like this aren’t going to stop people from using language however they see fit.)