When do you use laying; when lying? (this has nothing to do with telling the truth or getting laid.)
When do you use laying; when lying? (this has nothing to do with telling the truth or getting laid.)
Lay verses lie.
The chicken was laying eggs, but Bobby was lying about how many the Chicken layed.
A table cloth? But your right, that is a good example of how using another word would be better, like 'lounging', or 'sprawled', both one words, but more descriptive.
She was laying on the bed and I was lying beside her.
The commando way lying in wait to ambush the terrorist cell while his girlfriend was back home laying in bed.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/how-to-use-lay-and-lie
in brief
What to Know
Lay means "to place something down flat," while lie means "to be in a flat position on a surface."
ETA
Beyond the present tense, the pair can become more confusing because lay is the past tense of lie, and laid is the past tense of lay.
ETA2
lay and lie have been tripping up English speakers for 700 years, and no one should be judged harshly for being among the confused.
Ian
Generally I would use "laying down" for when you're in the middle of placing something down, and "lying down" once it's placed down.
Example: "Rebecca was laying in bed when someone knocked on the door" - Rebecca is in the process of climbing in to bed when interrupted.
"Rebecca was lying in bed when someone knocked on the door" - Rebecca was resting in bed when interrupted.
In that pair of examples, you could make it clear the difference instead of using "laying in bed" you could use "climbing in bed", and instead of "lying in bed" you can use "resting in bed".
'To lay' is transitive and requires a direct object. 'In bed' is not a direct object. Very few people care any more :-(
AJ
'To lay' is transitive and requires a direct object. 'In bed' is not a direct object. Very few people care any more :-(
from Wiktionary:
Usage notes
* The verb lay is sometimes used instead of the corresponding intransitive verb lie in informal settings, especially but not exclusively in spoken language.
* Similarly, laid, the simple past and past participle of lay, may also replace lay and lain, respectively the simple past and past participle of lie.
* This intransitive use dates to Middle English, first appearing in the thirteenth century but only becoming common in the fifteenth century. The usage was still chiefly limited to the present tense and it seems that it was influenced by reflexive or passive use of lay.
* There are several factors that contribute to the loss of the distinction. One is that lay is used as both the base form of lay and as the simple past of lie, another is the use of lay as a reflexive verb meaning "to go lie (down)".
* In any event, similar mergers exist in other Germanic languages; compare Afrikaans lê ("to lie; to lay"), where the two verbs have merged completely.
* Traditional grammars, schoolbooks and style guides object to this intransitive use of lay and a certain stigma remains against the practice. Consequently the usage is common in speech but rarely found in edited writing or in more formal spoken situations.
* Nautical use of lay as an intransitive verb is regarded as standard.
Seems it's since about 600 years that many don't care.
HM.
another is the use of lay as a reflexive verb meaning "to go lie (down)"
That meaning is absent from my 20yo dictionary from the Oxford stable, which does enforce the distinction between 'lay' and 'lie'.
There may be a cultural aspect - I've recently been reading a SOL story by a British author and they were meticulous in distinguishing between lay and lie. I'm aware that anecdotal cases don't represent proof, but I get the impression Muricans are more relaxed about the usage.
AJ
If you really want to confuse them, you could try "The lay of the land" versus "The lie of the land".... LOL
I get the impression Muricans are more relaxed about the usage.
Steve McGarrett in an episode of Hawaii Five-O: "Lay down on the ground with your hands where I can see them."
The ground didn't end up covered with bird feathers ;-)
AJ
Brits are no less likely to use verbs incorrectly. They often use "sat" instead of "sitting" or "stood" in stead of "standing".
There is also the use of the intransitive "sat" instead of the correct "set": "I dragged Cheryl to the shower and sat her in it."
BTW, I don't know if anyone else agrees but I find the repeated use of "Murica" and it's adjectives to be offensive.
They often use "sat" instead of "sitting" or "stood" in stead of "standing".
I'd need examples. Note that past participles can be used as adjectives so they might not be incorrect verbal uses.
There is also the use of the intransitive sat
Sit and its past tense can be transitive.
BTW, I don't know if anyone else agrees but I find the repeated use of "Murica" and it's adjectives to be offensive.
I didn't start it but I liked the way it was used affectionately for those educationally less fortunate than us Brits ;-)
AJ
1. That's common enough in Britspeak to have all British style guides caution against it. It appears frequently in British fiction.
2. No.
3. It's derogatory.
1. That's common enough in Britspeak to have all British style guides caution against it. It appears frequently in British fiction.
Styleguides ruling against using participles as adjectives? I've never seen that.
2. No.
Plenty of grammar sites say it can be used transitively. The usual example quoted uses the subject as the direct object eg 'He sat himself down.' There's no reason it can't apply to other people - your example about Cheryl is fine, although I would wonder about what she was sitting on in the shower.
AJ
1. That's not use as an adjective.
2. Your example is of a reflexive verb, not a transitive verb. It is exactly the same situation as with "lay" or "lie", just less common. Most people realize the phrasing in your story sounds strange.
1. That's not use as an adjective.
Since you claim there are lots of examples, it shouldn't be hard for you to provide some.
2. Your example is of a reflexive verb, not a transitive verb.
No. Reflexive verbs are a subset of transitive verbs eg "I wash myself", which is used both transitively and reflexively, versus "I was my car" which is used transitively but not reflexively. "Hugo sat Tilly in the booster seat" is transitive but not reflexive.
'Sit' can be used transitively and, on a site like SOL with a preponderance of stories in which females are rescued, dominated, mind-controlled , enslaved etc, you can expect to see it used that way more than average.
AJ
"Hugo sat Tilly in the booster seat" is transitive but not reflexive.
And it is also incorrect usage.
The correct word would be "seated", "placed" or "put".
And it is also incorrect usage.
It's the past tense of the transitive verb 'sit'. There's nothing wrong with it as far as English grammar is concerned.
AJ
Just like "lie" (meaning to recline,) "sit", and its other forms are never transitive verbs. You can try to make up your own usage rules and can use it anyway you want, but your use of it as a transitive verb is incorrect.
We're never going to agree on that because grammar sites and common usage clearly show sit to be transitive, and even you accept that it's used reflexively which is a subset of transitive.
AJ
Does this satisfy your request:
We were sat … or were we?
December 1, 2017
Q: Do all British people say "sat" instead of "sitting," as in this example from a Brit's blog: "we were sat around the coffee table"?
A: No, not all British people would say something like "we were sat around the coffee table." That usage isn't considered standard English in either the UK or the US.
However, quite a few people in the UK do indeed use "sat" that way, and the usage shows up once in a while in the US too.
In an Oct. 3, 2012, post on the Oxford Dictionaries blog, the lexicographer Catherine Soanes notes the increasing nonstandard use of the past participles "sat" and "stood" for the present participles "sitting" and "standing" in British English.
She reports hearing several instances of the usage on the BBC, including "She's sat at the table eating breakfast" and "we were stood at the bar waiting to be served."
Soames, editor or co-editor of several Oxford dictionaries, says the use of "sat" and "stood" for "sitting" and "standing" in continuous, or progressive, tenses is "regarded as non-standard by usage guides."
"So are we witnessing a general decline of continuous tenses?" she asks. "Thankfully, no: this error predominantly seems to crop up with 'stand' and 'sit.' "
So why do so many people, primarily in the UK, say things like "She's sat" and "we were stood"?
"The answer's not clear," Soames says, "but my research shows that this usage (which used to be restricted to some regional British dialects) is becoming more widespread in British English, and is even appearing in edited writing such as newspapers and magazines."
She reports finding over 3,000 instances of this construction in the Oxford English Corpus, including these two examples from the database:
"It is 2pm and I am sat in my parents' living room, talking to one of the cats."
"Three hooded kids are stood around the corner drinking alcopops and it's raining."
Although the usage is uncommon in US English, she says, it "isn't completely unknown there, with around 340 examples (11% of the total)" in the Oxford corpus, including this example:
"My Mom and Alison were stood in the hallway watching me as I limped down the stairs."
She also reported finding examples in the Oxford corpus from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and India.
We suspect that in some cases "sat" is being used in place of "seated" (that is, as the past tense of the verb "seat") rather than in place of "sitting." So "we were sat around the coffee table" may be another way of saying "we were seated around the coffee table."
Our own searches of the News on the Web corpus generally confirm Soames's findings, though we've found the usage more overwhelmingly British now than she found it five years ago. Here are a couple of recent examples from London newspapers:
"We were sat in a pub having a drink" (from the Oct. 7, 2017, issue of the Telegraph).
"We were sat there for two and a half hours just studying it, watching it flying around the sky" (from the Sept. 21, 2017, issue of the Sun).
When the usage shows up in an American publication, a British citizen is often being quoted, as in this example from the July 9, 2017, issue of the Washington Post, about tennis fans living in a tent city near the Wimbledon tournament:
"And so all we had was a rucksack and an umbrella, and it started to rain, so we were sat up leaning against somebody's garden wall, and it poured down with rain."
Help support the Grammarphobia Blog with your donation.
And check out our books about the English language.
we were sat around the coffee table"?
That's the past participle used adjectivally. I'm surprised the bloggers didn't spot that.
It may be considered non-standard usage in American English, but it's common enough to be considered standard in British English.
I have to admit some of those examples look grotesque, particularly where the past participle used adjectivally appears in the same sentence as a present participle. As an editor I would flag that for rewording even though it's arguably correct.
AJ
It's not used as an adjective - it's a verb in that sentence. It should be "we were sitting".
Whether it's commonly used by Brits, or not, it's a situation no different from the lay/lie pair.
My original post was in response to your post to point out that such incorrect usage is not confined to one group of people.
It's not used as an adjective - it's a verb in that sentence.
It's used as an adjective, just as the word 'naked' is an adjective in "We were naked around the coffee table."
AJ
That's the past participle used adjectivally. I'm surprised the bloggers didn't spot that.
It may be considered non-standard usage in American English, but it's common enough to be considered standard in British English.
Yes, Wiktionary says:
Adjective
sat (not comparable)
(UK, predicative) Seated; sitting (down).
2007, Bell, Tony, "eighteen", in Life in the Bus Lane, Cambridge: Vanguard Press, page 103:
Hold on, I'm sat on my arse while I'm writing this.
HM.
As the archaic expression claims, even a broken clock is right twice a day ;-)
Which makes me wonder - in these woke times, why haven't advances in materials science enabled us to make cheap, reliable wooden wind-up clocks with better mechanisms than coiled springs? Surely they'd be more environmentally responsible than using Congolese children to mine lithium for batteries?
AJ
Of course, anyone can add any definition they want to Wikionary, no matter how dumb it is.
It is clearly a verb in that example.
Just replace "sat" with "seated" or "sitting": would you claim those were adjectives?
Somewhat related, in an advert for the Beth Rigby interviews on Sky News, they claim, 'We ask the questions you want answered'.
If they had said, 'We ask the questions you want answering', I believe 'answering' would be a gerund, a present participle used as a noun. But grammar sites say only present participles can be gerunds. So what does that make 'answered'?
AJ
I believe 'answering' would be a gerund, a present participle used as a noun. But grammar sites say only present participles can be gerunds. So what does that make 'answered'?
Per this: https://pasttenses.com/answer-past-tense
Answered covers several tenses. In this specific case, I think it's future perfect tense.
3. It's derogatory.
It may have been meant to be derogatory, but 'Murica/'Merica/etc., has been embraced by those it was meant to make fun of. Now, its meaning runs the spectrum between insult to compliment.
One day, I hope to see one group of people yelling 'Murica as an insult to another group of people who are patriotically yelling 'Murica to piss off the group of people trying to insult them.
At one point does it become absurd?
I have to ask: what happened that day?
That's the day it all became absurd.
(Okay, I admit, I picked the date at random).
That's the day it all became absurd.
(Okay, I admit, I picked the date at random).
Why pick a random day, when you have the day of the Capital Hill riots (Jan 6, 2021), that would suit perfectly...
Not seeing where it was adopted by any Americans other than "progressives" who feel those who disagree with them are deplorable.
It's meant to be derogatory by those who use it.
What it was meant to be and how people use it are two different things.
There are a few words like that in the American English vocabulary (probably everywhere).
It may have been meant to be derogatory,
'Murica' seems to be a phonetic spelling of a strongly dialectic pronunciation of 'America' from the Southern States.
As to whether it's derogatory or not, since it has been endorsed by those it was originally intended to mock, you'd have to look at the context of each usage.
AJ
I know what 'Murica means, my post also says that it's meaning varies depending on who is using it.
"Murica" is a pronunciation that has never been used by any group in real life until it was conjured up by the left as an insult. It is still used as an insult and is not "endorsed by those it was originally intended to mock."
"Murica" is a pronunciation that has never been used by any group in real life until it was conjured up by the left as an insult. It is still used as an insult and is not "endorsed by those it was originally intended to mock."
It seems to be a derivation of 'Merica', which was used self-deprecatingly as far back as the 1800s. Some southerners do pronounce 'America' as 'Murica', young Elvis for example.
AJ
You should be able to give examples of that if it's so common. Audio clips would be best.
I have lived in the south for long periods during my life and never heard that, even from people with very strong accents, except in an insulting way.
I have taken up enough time and space on a forum where I really shouldn't be posting.
I have taken up enough time and space on a forum where I really shouldn't be posting.
Good point.
We obviously disagree but I would defend with my life your right to disagree.
Keep well,
AJ
Example: "Rebecca was laying in bed when someone knocked on the door" - Rebecca is in the process of climbing in to bed when interrupted.
That's a pretty terrible example, to be fair.
You don't use "laying" when you're "resting" or "reclining."
Unless you plan on becoming a grammarian, you need a cheat sheet.
https://www.writersdigest.com/write-better-fiction/lay-vs-lie
https://grammarist.com/usage/lay-lie/
If I say two plus two is less than four I am lying down.
Don't be silly. Everyone knows that 2+2=22
I monitored three one-hour episodes of US TV Dramas tonight (yay for the pathetic excuse).
100% of the occurrences of 'lie' had the 'politician speaking' meaning.
100% of the occurrences of 'lay' had the 'being or becoming horizontal' meaning.
The number of occurrences of 'lay' barely exceeded those of 'lie' because one of the progs, a crime drama, involved a habitually dishonest character.
There were no occurrences of the bricklaying meaning of 'lay'.
An interesting snapshot of how the meanings of lay and lie are evolving into disambiguity in US English.
AJ
how the meanings of lay and lie are evolving
The major problem with lay/lie is when "laid" is used when "lay" is the correct word.
"He laid down on the bed" is what most people will say when they mean "He lay down on the bed."
As an editor, all those uses of 'lay' I heard in the TV progs I would have converted to 'lie' in any story document I was editing. I'm pretty sure none of them were usages of the past tense of 'lay' eg "Lay on the ground with your hands above your head" and "Why should I hurry into work when I've a beautiful woman laying beside me."
Normal language evolution seems to increase ambiguity eg "I could care less" and "Me either" and "Wicked" and "Sick".
AJ
"Lay on the ground with your hands above your head" and "Why should I hurry into work when I've a beautiful woman laying beside me."
Those should be "Lie" and "lying", respectively.
Remember the song "Lay Lady Lady"? It's wrong.
Those should be "Lie" and "lying", respectively.
I agree.
But "lay" and "laying" seem to have become normalised in popular US vernacular. It was only 3 hours of TV but the incorrect usage was 100%. There's a point at which you have to admit the dam is broken and just nod sadly as you let them pass.
AJ
But "lay" and "laying" seem to have become normalised in popular US vernacular. It was only 3 hours of TV but the incorrect usage was 100%.
Let me play devil's advocate here.
Have you seen the printed script? Maybe it was just (regional) American pronunciation.
HM.
Have you seen the printed script?
Nothing as thorough as that, but I checked audio against subtitles.
AJ
subtitles.
I don't do well understanding accents and for some reason I've been watching a lot of British shows and movies. So I turn on subtitles. I can't believe the words that are spoken. I guess many are slang, but I'm not sure all are.
One word that shocked me is "Oi" to begin a sentence. Is that really commonly used in England?
The only "oi" I know is "oy", the Yiddish for "Oy vey."
One word that shocked me is "Oi" to begin a sentence. Is that really commonly used in England?
I can't speak definitively for others, but I used to use 'oi' quite a lot as a sort of informal but direct way to get someone's attention, blithely unaware of its connection to skinheads and violence.
Nowadays I very rarely say or hear it in real life. I'd probably use 'hi' instead which is politer because it combines the interrupt with a greeting.
I suspect it's very dated, almost archaic.
I can't speak for others so I hope other Brits will contribute their own experiences.
AJ
It was only 3 hours of TV but the incorrect usage was 100%.
On the local news today during lunch, the reporter said, "They found a man laying on the ground with gunshots" (or something like that).
So it's said wrong on TV here too.
John McWhorter discussed this in his podcast, Lexicon Valley. His conclusion is that the language is changing, and there is basically no way to stop it. You can listen to the episode here:
Let Sleeping Dogs Lay
Site link (with all episodes):
Lexicon Valley on Substack.
No subscription required for the basic podcast (Apple Podcasts).
You LIE down on a bed
The problem is past tense. "Lay" is the past tense of "to lie."
So in past tense it would be, "You lay down on a bed." But most people would say, "You laid down on the bed."
Okay… try this….
"I've been laying your girl for over a year, and she's been lying to you about it."