English Non-Errors

[Porter]

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nonerrors.html

Here's a list of "errors" that language nazis sometimes correct, but aren't really errors.

A few of them:

• Ending a sentence with a preposition
• Beginning a sentence with a conjunction
• Momentarily
• Near miss
• “Gotten” vs. “got.”
• You shouldn’t pronounce the “e” in “not my forte.”

[Jonathon]

I love that site (the whole thing, not just the list of non-errors). Some of his points are a little stuffy for my tastes, but that's alright.

[Porter]

I think that the differentation between lay and lie should be set aside.

[Jonathon]

What exactly do you mean—that editors should stop correcting it in writing, or that we should all pick one word (presumably lay) and use it for both?

[Porter]

Either one works for me.

I'm just tired of knowing that I'm probably using the wrong word half the time.

[Jonathon]

That raises an interesting question: at what point should we give up on a distinction and call it a lost cause? Does it make a difference if the distinction isn't helpful or productive?

After all, the only difference between lay and lie is that the first is causative (something causes something else to start doing something) and the second is inchoative (something starts doing something). And there are plenty of verbs in English that can be either causative or inchoative, like cook or melt.

For example:

• I cook the meal.
• The meal cooks.
• I melted the butter.
• The butter melted.

But for some things, you need two different verbs:

• He lays the book down.
• He lies down.
• He set the book on the shelf.
• The book sat on the shelf.

So it's not like we're really gaining anything by having two different verbs when one could easily be used for both notions.

[Porter]

Does it make a difference if the distinction isn't helpful or productive?

Absolutely.

[rivka]

Just because there are other verbs that do not make the distinction does not mean the distinction is not useful.

[Jonathon]

What does "I'm going to go lie down for a nap" convey that "I'm going to go lay down for a nap" does not? What semantic content is lost? The syntax is enough to tell us if there's an object or not; marking the verb is redundant.

This is kind of like the discussion about the subjunctive that we had several months ago.

[Porter]

A good way to tell if it's a useful rule or not is whether any clarity is lost when it's not used.

Based on that, I'd say that it's not a terribly useful distinction.  

[rivka]

*shrug* Perhaps because I am used to the difference between reflexive and non-reflexive verbs in Hebrew (which are very useful), I do see a difference -- aside from the fact that one of those sentences is wrong.

[Jonathon]

What difference?

[rivka]

Examples you want too?

I can't think of any right now (which is frustrating, because I know there are lots). I'll try to come up with some later.

[Jonathon]

Examples? No, I just wanted to know what difference you see between "I'm going to go lie down for a nap" and "I'm going to go lay down for a nap" other than the issue of correctness.

[rivka]

Oh! In that particular example, I don't. That there IS a different verb for causative and what'd ya call'em? inchoate? no, inchoative, I do see as useful.

Though I agree that with standard English usage patterns, the difference is subtle. But remember, I think the subjunctive should be kept too.

[Jonathon]

I'm confused. If there's no difference in meaning between "I'm going to go lie down for a nap" and "I'm going to go lay down for a nap," then where's the utility in having causative-inchoative verb pairs like lay and lie?

But remember, I think the subjunctive should be kept too.

So do I, but my reasons are different from yours. I prefer to slow language change, even if it means hanging on to things that are more or less obsolete.

[rivka]

Because there IS a difference between "She is going go lie down," and "I am going to go lay her down." The verbs indicate whether the action is causative or not.

Can this be done by context instead? Probably. Does it make it that much less clear that there is a distinction? IMO, yes.

[Jonathon]

Because there IS a difference between "She is going go lie down," and "I am going to go lay her down." The verbs indicate whether the action is causative or not.

And I'm arguing that the difference is entirely syntactical; if there's no object of the verb, then it's causative, and if there is an object, then it's inchoative. The difference in the verb is totally superfluous, in my opinion.

No one is ever confused when someone uses lay in place of lie (which we all know happens with incredible frequency), which says to me that the verb doesn't indicate whether the action is causative or inchoative.

[rivka]

Can this be done by context instead? Probably.

[rivka]

No one is ever confused when someone uses lay in place of lie (which we all know happens with incredible frequency), which says to me that the verb doesn't indicate whether the action is causative or inchoative.

I have been, on occasion. (No, I can't think of an example at the moment.)

[Jonathon]

No one is ever confused when someone uses lay in place of lie (which we all know happens with incredible frequency), which says to me that the verb doesn't indicate whether the action is causative or inchoative.

I have been, on occasion. (No, I can't think of an example at the moment.)

Okay, so people who actually pay attention to such things may be confused, but I'd guess that most people don't even notice. But if people are confused by misuse of lay, then that's all the more reason to keep the distinction.

[JT]

I think that the differentation between lay and lie should be set aside.

Consider it done.  I haven't given a second thought to which belongs where since junior year of high school, and I've never had even one person comment on it.