Laying vs. Lying 2

[rjoubert]

This discussion keeps coming up amongst my friends and I, and I just want to get some opinions. When to use "laying" VS. when to use "lying". I contend that you use "laying" when you are performing an action on an object, such as laying a book on the table. "Lying" is something YOU do, like lying down on the couch.

Thoughts???

 

[Trevoke]

I'm gonna lay down
I'm gonna lie down.

The two are synonyms and, I think, can be used interchangeably. Think typecasting... ?

"That time in Seattle... was a nightmare. I came out of it dead broke, without a house, without anything except a girlfriend and a knowledge of UNIX."
"Well, that's something," Avi says. "Normally those two are mutually exclusive."
-- Neal Stephenson, "Cryptonomicon"

 

[jebenson]

You are correct, with the exception that "lying" is not just something that you do, but something that anything can do. Once you lay the book on the table, the book is lying on the table.

Here's a link:

[URL unfurl="true"]http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/articles/article/992333/8992.htm[/url]


Trevoke
The first example you give - I'm gonna lay down - is incorrect in the sense you mean it - in the sense of "reclining". The meaning of "lay" is "to put" or "to place", so your example reads: "I'm gonna put down" or "I'm gonna place down." As [r]rjoubert[/b] said, "lay" is something you do to an object, not something you do yourself.





I used to rock and roll every night and party every day. Then it was every other day. Now I'm lucky if I can find 30 minutes a week in which to get funky. - Homer Simpson

Arrrr, mateys! Ye needs ta be preparin' yerselves fer Talk Like a Pirate Day! Ye has a choice: talk like a pira

 

[Trevoke]

ooh.. Thanks!

"That time in Seattle... was a nightmare. I came out of it dead broke, without a house, without anything except a girlfriend and a knowledge of UNIX."
"Well, that's something," Avi says. "Normally those two are mutually exclusive."
-- Neal Stephenson, "Cryptonomicon"

 

[SantaMufasa]

This discussion keeps coming up amongst my friends and I...

Since this is the Love of Language forum, and since we are on the topic of correct grammar, we should point out that objects of prepositions are just that, objects (versus subjects) and, as such, must assume the objective sense for any pronouns that are objects of prepositions. In this case, the preposition, "amongst", should have as its objects, "my friends and me", not "my friends and I".

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I can provide you with low-cost, remote Database Administration services: see our website and contact me via www.dasages.com]

 

[AnotherHiggins]

rjoubert,

This subject has come up in this forum before, too. There is no need to look for "some opinions". You are correct; your friends (if they disagree with the synopsis you provided) are not.

In this thread, I suggest this as a mnemonic (I actually came up with this on my own - I'm not usually that clever):

Lie as in recline pronounced recLIEne
lay as in place pronounced pLAYce

[tt]_____
[blue]-John[/blue][/tt]
[tab][red]The plural of anecdote is not data[/red]

Help us help you. Please read FAQ181-2886 before posting.

 

[rjoubert]

Hey Mufasa...I put that in there to see if someone would catch it...you get a point for your keen sense of grammar.

AnotherHiggins...great tip on remembering that! Thanks.

 

[tsdragon]

Regarding "me vs I":

MANY years ago, before I even started grammar school, my mother taught me a couple of rules that have always stood me in good stead.

1. Never put yourself first (i.e. "my brother and I" NOT "I and my brother", or "my friends and me" NOT "me and my friends".

2. If you can take out the part pertaining to the other person(s) (and change the verb as necessary) and it still works, it is correct, otherwise is isn't.

Examples:

"Mom gave my friends and I some cookies" - incorrect, because "Mom gave I some cookies" doesn't work.

"Mom gave my friends and me some cookies" - correct, because "Mom gave me some cookies" works.

"John and me are going out to play" - incorrect, because "Me am going out to play" doesn't work.

"John and I are going out to play" - correct, because "I am going out to play" works.

Those rules are a lot easier for a 4- or 5-year-old (or pretty much anyone else) to understand than the "object vs subject" explanation.

Thanks, Mom!


Tracy Dryden

Meddle not in the affairs of dragons,
For you are crunchy, and good with mustard.

 

[2ffat]

Tracy,
Those are the rules I learned from Elementary through High School. Your Mom was right. (Aren't all Moms right?)




James P. Cottingham
-----------------------------------------
^{I'm number 1,229!
I'm number 1,229!}

 

[jebenson]

"Me am going out to play" doesn't work.

Unless you are in the Bizarro world (from Superman comic books).



I used to rock and roll every night and party every day. Then it was every other day. Now I'm lucky if I can find 30 minutes a week in which to get funky. - Homer Simpson

Arrrr, mateys! Ye needs ta be preparin' yerselves fer Talk Like a Pirate Day! Ye has a choice: talk like a pira

 

[SantaMufasa]

I totally agree with, and typically use, your explanation, Tracy. But, unfortunately, unless one understands the subject-versus-object issue, the replace-me-with-I hint doesn't particularly help: "This discussion keeps coming up amongst...I," versus "This discussion keeps coming up amongst...me" -- there really is not a definitive auditory hint that produces a glaring sense of "right" versus "wrong" (as there is with "The discussion turned to...I" versus "The discussion turned to...me"), unless there is a clear understanding of subject versus object.

Am I correct, or am I incorrect?

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I can provide you with low-cost, remote Database Administration services: see our website and contact me via www.dasages.com]

 

[mmerlinn]

Laying is active (something active is happening) and lying is passive (no obvious activity).


mmerlinn

"Political correctness is the BADGE of a COWARD!"

 

[Thargy]

Santa,
I think you've missed out something with your preposition proposition above (contrived alliteration noWtwithstanding).

What if the object lies in the dative case and not the accusative? For example, 'with who did you speak?' is incorrect, but 'with whom did you speak?' is correct.

I believe that some prepositions force the dative case, so does your rule cater for this? From whom should I seek further advice?

Regards

Tharg

Grinding away at things Oracular

 

[SantaMufasa]

MMerlinn, I believe that the verb classes for which you are looking are "transitive" and "intransitive":

transitive: a verb that requires a direct object. I.e., a verb that acts upon something specific. E.g. "He hit the ball." Hit is a transitive verb in that it always acts on something (its direct object).

intransitive: a verb that does not need a direct object. I.e., an action word that does not need to act upon something specific. E.g. "She is happy." Is does not act (or transform) anything.

Lay is a transitive verb...when it is a verb, it always acts upon something. E.g. "We watched the hen lay an egg."

Lie is an intransitive verb...when it is a verb (either meaning to recline or to prevaricate) it does not act upon anything. E.g. "I lie down when I become tired. I do not lie about things this important."

Does this help to draw the proper distinctions?

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I can provide you with low-cost, remote Database Administration services: see our website and contact me via www.dasages.com]

 

[SantaMufasa]

John (Tharg),

I must have missed something...Your example is yet another case that supports my earlier assertion (regardless of "dative" versus "accusative"):

with: preposition
whom: objective pronoun

Can you clarify the conflict you are trying to articulate?

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I can provide you with low-cost, remote Database Administration services: see our website and contact me via www.dasages.com]

 

[CajunCenturion]

'Whom' is an interesting word because, from an etymology perspective, has an Old English dative remnant (hwam), as well as an Old English accusative remnat (hwone).

==> I believe that some prepositions force the dative case, so does your rule cater for this?
Because modern English does not have declination for its nouns, there is no real distinction between the dative and accusative cases. Today, these two cases have generally been combined into what is known as the objective case. The who/whom question then fits nicely with above rule, with 'who' being used in subjective situations and 'whom' in objective situations.

One area, in modern English, where the dative case does, at least to some degree, continue to have an effect is with indirect objects. A discussion of indirect objects probably deserves it's own thread, but with respect to this thread, indirect objects and are still objects; therefore, objective use (me/whom) applies.

He gave me the book. -- 'me' is used objectively even though it's indirect.
He asked whom a question? -- 'whom' is used objectively even though it's indirect.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein