"Lie"/"Lay" (cf. "Rise"/"Raise","Sit"/"Set"): Usage Errors in Morphologically Related Intransitive/Transitive Causative Verb Pairs

(14 Feb 2008)

Something Amiss?

Consider the following sentence, from the standpoint of "grammatical correctness":

1a) I was laying around the house all day.*

Does all seem well?  (Disregard the relative merits and demerits of idleness and perhaps the implied indolence in the semantic content of the sentence.)  For many native speakers of English, the sentence may seem well-formed, but for some, shall we say "pretentious", observers and users of the language, a glaring usage error stands out.  (Throughout this text, examples deemed "incorrect" are marked with an asterisk.)

Let's try again:

1b) I was lying around the house all day.

Does this alternative seem better, worse, or no different?

If (1a) left you feeling uneasy, while (1b) felt more comfortable, then you would be "right", by textbook standards, although in casual use, (1a) seems have become widespread.  I know you're dying to explore the issue a little further.

Verb Transitivity

If one were to consult a dictionary, one might find "v.i." in the entry for the sense of "lie" in question (not "to tell an untruth intentionally", although coincidentally that would also be marked "v.i.") and "v.t." for the appropriate sense of "lay" (not the past tense form of "lie", which seems to result in considerable confusion, to be explored further below).  "V.i." and "v.t." stand for "verb intransitive" and "verb transitive", respectively.

"Transitivity", as a property of verbs, refers to whether or not verbs (often described as "action words" in elementary school curricula) accept (or require) noun ("person, place, or thing") objects as arguments.  A transitive verb accepts a noun object, while an intransitive verb does not.  For clarification, consider the following simple (perhaps oversimplified) examples:

Transitive Verb Example

2a) Bombers bomb buildings.

2b) What do bombers bomb?

In (2a), we have a clear example of a transitive verb, "to bomb", with "buildings" as its object (and with "bombers" as its subject).  Asking (2b) is grammatical, if perhaps contrived and seeming like a "Jeopardy!" contestant's response, and the object is the obvious answer.

Intransitive Verb Example

3a) Buildings vanish.

3b) What do buildings vanish?*

In (3b), we have an example of an intransitive verb, "vanish" (with "buildings" as its subject), incompatible with an object.  Asking (3b) should be intuitively nonsensical to sober and sane native speakers of English. Someone or something cannot vanish someone or something.

Verb Transitivity in "Lie"/"Lay"

What does this have to do with "to lie" vs. "to lay"?  For the most part, in "standard", "textbook" usage, "lie" is an intransitive verb, while "lay" is a transitive one.

4a) She lies on the bed in silence, alone.

4b) She lays on the bed in silence, alone.*

4c) What does she lie (on the bed in silence, alone)?*

(4a) illustrates grammatically "correct" usage (according to "textbook" standards) of the verb "to lie" as an intransitive verb.  In (4b), "to lay" is used in the same intransitive fashion, which has come to be acceptable colloquially but might well irk a conservative (pretentious?) English grammar teacher.  (4c) is included as an oversimplified test of transitivity and should be perceived as ungrammatical by native speakers of English with reasonable blood sugar and blood alcohol levels.

5a) She lays her clothes carelessly on the bed.

5b) She lies her clothes carelessly on the bed.*

5c) What does she lay (carelessly on the bed)?

Meanwhile, (5a) illustrates grammatically "correct" usage (by "textbook" standards) of "to lay" as a transitive verb, with the noun phrase "her clothes" as its object, and should yield a warm, vigorous nod of approval from our hypothetical teacher of English grammar.  On the other hand, (5b) uses the verb "to lie" "incorrectly" in a transitive manner and should have our English grammar teacher sighing or clicking her tongue admonishingly in disappointed disapproval.  Given (5a), asking (5c) as a facile test of transitivity should be perceived as grammatical and point to the object "her clothes" as the obvious answer.

From a semantic standpoint, the verb "to lie" is typically used to convey a meaning in which the "person, place, or thing" referred to by the subject is the "actor" or "agent" existing in or assuming a reclining state.  In contrast, the verb "to lay" normally indicates that the referent of the object is being placed into a reclining state by the referent of the subject.

To reinforce the transitive nature of the verb "to lay", consider the following present tense examples:

6a) A hen lays eggs.

6b) A hens lies eggs.*

 

7a) A bricklayer lays bricks.

7b) A bricklayer lies bricks.* 

The above examples illustrate certain specialized senses or uses of the verb "to lay" in a clearly transitive manner, where confusion with the verb "to lie" seems rather unlikely, and might be useful to our hypothetical English grammar instructor to hammer home the point.

On the other hand, an old adage might be useful as a contrastive example of the "correct" use of "to lie" as an intransitive verb:

8a) Let sleeping dogs lie.

8b) Let sleeping dogs lay.*

Reflexive Transitive Constructions

Reflexive (i.e., someone/something acting on someone's/something's self, with subject and object bearing the same referent) use of "to lay may contribute to confusion:

9a) Now I lay me down to sleep. (present tense)

9b) Now I lie me down to sleep.*

9c) What did I lay down to sleep? 

9d) Now I lie down to sleep.

9e) Now I lay down to sleep.* (present tense)

9f) What did I lie down to sleep?*

(9a), a poetic and rather archaic use of the verb "to lay" from a traditional children's prayer, passes our simple test of transitivity syntactically but may result in confusion due to its semantic overlap with the also grammatical example (9d).  Semantically, both examples have subjects with reclining referents, although (9a) might be more suggestive of a change of state into a position of repose, while (9d) seems in contrast somewhat more likely to describe a preexisting and continuous condition of supineness or proneness.  Syntactically, the two examples differ in that (9a) represents a transitive construction, if semantically reflexive, with the subject "I", the verb "to lay", and the object "me" (referring back to the same person as the subject), while (9d) represents an intransitive construction, with the verb "to lie" and no object.  (9a) does indeed include an object with a referent being placed into a reclining state, as is typical in the use of the verb "to lie", but the subject and object happen to refer to the same person, potentially leading to confusion.  The child is indeed acted on, maintaining the posited semantic distinction between "to lie" and "to lay", but by the child himself, somewhat blurring that semantic distinction.

Further examples of grammatical, reflexive uses of "to lay" with a "reclining subject" might be constructed, although perhaps also with an archaic, "poetic" or "rustic" feel.

10) Lay yourself down on the straw.

11) I must lay my weary body down.

Causatives 

Clearly "lie" and "lay" are related verbs both semantically (in meaning) and morphologically (in form).  Fundamentally, the meaning of the verb "to lay" might be characterized as "to make lie, to cause to lie".  Accordingly, "lay" can be described as the causative form of "lie".

Syntactic Causatives 

Causativization in English can commonly occur "syntactically", by means of constructs employing additional verbs such as "to make" or "to have":

12a) The troublesome student stayed after school.

12b) The indignant teacher made the troublesome student stay after school.

13a) The remorseful student wrote a 15-page essay on the subject of his wrongdoing.

13b) The vindictive teacher had the remorseful student write an essay on the subject of his wrongdoing.

Lexical Causatives

Lexical causativization may also occur, excluding the non-causative "base" verb and employing another lexical item (i.e., word, or perhaps sense of a word) to similar effect, although perhaps with subtle semantic differences.

Morphologically Unrelated Lexical Causatives

The causative "forms" may be morphologically unrelated:

14a) The overmatched hero died.

14b) The cunning villain killed the overmatched hero.

14c) The cunning villain made the overmatched hero die.

 

15a) The horse drank.

15b) The cowboy watered the horse.

15c) The cowboy made the horse drink.

Morphologically Identical Lexical Causatives (Conversion/Zero Derivation)

Perhaps contributing to the confusion (or merging) of the verbs "to lie" and "to lay", causative verbs in English are often morphologically identical to their non-causative counterparts and intuitively rather indistinct in the internal lexica of native speakers.

16a) The water boiled.

16b) The midwife boiled the water.

16c) The midwife made the water boil.

 

17a) Pinups hang on the walls of the barracks.

17b) Soldiers hang pinups on the walls of the barracks.

17c) Soldiers make pinups hang on the walls of the barracks.

Morphologically Related Lexical Causatives

Returning to "lie"/"lay", the pair is among a relatively small and dwindling number of causative verbs that strongly resemble their non-causative counterparts morphologically while still remaining distinct.  Further examples include "rise"/"raise", "sit"/"set", and "fall"/"fell".

18a) The towel lies on the sand. 

18b) She lays the towel on the sand.

18c) She makes the towel lie on the sand.

18d) The towel lays on the sand.*

18e) She lies the towel on the sand.*

 

19a) The flag rises over the island.

19b) The marines raise the flag over the island.

19c) The marines make the flag rise over the island.

19d) The flag raises over the island.*

19e) The marines rise the flag over the island.*

 

20a) A laptop sits on my lap.

20b) I set the laptop on my lap.

20c) I make the laptop sit on my lap.

20d) A laptop sets on my lap.*

20e) I sit the laptop on my lap.

A transitive, causative sense of "to sit", as in (20e), has by now come into being in Modern English as possibly a more obvious causative form of the intransitive verb "to sit", with "to set" perhaps more obscure as a related causative among many speakers.  This usage seems to have occurred early enough and frequently enough among the "right people" to have acquired a certain respectability among anal-retentive English teachers that the use of "to lay" as an intransitive verb in place of "to lie" still lacks.  From a certain perspective, "sit"/"set" and "lie"/"lay" seem to have gone in opposite directions, with the intransitive, non-causative form supplanting the transitive, causative form in the former case but with the transitive, causative form threatening to usurp the intransitive, non-causative form in the latter.

21a) The proud tree falls.

21b) The lumberjack fells the proud tree.

21c) The lumberjack makes the proud tree fall.

21d) The proud tree fells.*

21e) The lumberjack falls the proud tree.*

The "fall"/"fell" pair may strike many contemporary native speakers of English as obscure, as the verb "to fell" seems to have fallen into disuse colloquially, with an archaic, literary feel.  With some digging, survivors of historically similar pairs that now bear only a tenuous connection might be unearthed, such as "drink"/"drench":

22a) Her tight, scanty T-shirt drank.*

22b) She drenched her tight, scanty T-shirt.

22c) She made her tight, scanty T-shirt drink.*

(22a) and (22c) are perhaps not entirely ungrammatical but would at best represent bizarre figurative uses personifying an inanimate object.

As a class, certain commonalities characterize these verb pairs.  The non-causative members are strong verbs, with vowel changes in their "irregular" past tense forms.  Further, the non-causative members are predominantly intransitive verbs.  On the other hand, their causative counterparts are weak verbs, with past tense forms ending in dental suffixes (/d/ or /t/), although perhaps not entirely "regular".  Naturally, as causative verbs, they are transitive.  A table of the principal parts (infinitival/present, past, and past participial forms) of some of the aforementioned verb pairs illustrates the strong/weak divide.

Curiously, this pattern of a strong non-causative verb and weak causative verb apparently applies to the verb "to hang" only when specifically used to refer to a method of killing, yielding the anomalous weak past tense form (and past participle) "hanged".  Otherwise, the verb "to hang" is inflected as a strong verb in both intransitive, non-causative and transitive, causative usage.

23a) The linguist's body hung from the ceiling fan in his study.

23b) The linguist hanged himself from the ceiling fan in his study.

 

24a) His useless diploma hung on the wall.

24b) The linguist hung his useless diploma on the wall.

Confusing Overlap in Principal Parts - Lie/Lay/Lain vs. Lay/Laid/Laid

In the case of "fall"/"fell" and "lie"/"lay", the present tense forms of the intransitive "base" verbs have come to coincide with the past tense forms of the corresponding causative verbs.  Returning to the subject of the common but "incorrect" use of the verb "to lay" in place of the verb "to lie", this overlap is likely a strong contributory factor.

25a) Their pants lie on the floor.

25b) Their pants lay on the floor.* (present tense)

25c) Their pants lay on the floor. (past tense)

25d) Their pants laid on the floor.*

 

26a) They lie their pants on the floor.*

26b) They lay their pants on the floor. (present tense)

26c) They lay their pants on the floor.* (past tense)

26d) They laid their pants on the floor.

The sentence in (25b) and (25c) calls for an intransitive verb and would be "incorrect" in the present tense, where the third-person plural present tense form of the verb "to lie" would be appropriate, as in (25a), but "correct" in the past tense, with the verb as the third-person plural past tense form of "to lie".  Meanwhile, (26b)/(26c), calling for a transitive verb, would be fine in the present tense, with the verb as the third-person plural present tense from of "to lay", but ungrammatical in the past tense, where (26d) would be grammatical.  Especially without further context, these overlapping cases might well be enough to drive a mad man sane.  In practice, even where further contextual clues are available, the overlap seems to contribute to the blurring together of these once distinct verbs.  The distinction now seems often to be one consciously learned through formal education rather than effortlessly acquired in childhood by native speakers of English.

Hopefully someone out there found this interesting.  Regardless, please remember that displeasing the wrong grammar Nazi may have consequences...

"No grammar for you!"