Q:  What is the difference in the meaning of the verbs lie and lay?

A: My thanks to Illinois correspondent George Miller, who submitted this question and will probably be surprised to learn that the answer is longer than he expected. The reason is that the rule governing the verbs lie and lay is (as Shakespeare said in another context) honored more in the breach than in the observance. Usage changes meaning be-fore dictionaries can record the change. Discussing his newly revised dictionary, columnist William Safire remarked that the meanings of some words in his dictionary had already changed by the time it was published.

It is probably accurate, however, to say that conservative writers and speakers–at least those over age 50–continue to follow the traditional rule for lie and lay. That rule is that lay is a transitive verb (requiring an object) and that lie is an intransitive verb (which does not take an object). Conservative grammarians insist that one cannot "lay" down because it is a transitive verb: you must lay something down, so instead of laying down you must lie down. Language purists consider that the lie‑lay distinction is a shibboleth, separating the truly educated from the hoi‑poloi.

So you can lay books on a desk; you can lay bricks to make a wall, you can lay down rules, but you cannot lay on a bed or anywhere else. The verb lay carries the sense of putting, placing, or setting forth. The past tense of lay is laid. Yesterday you laid books on a desk, and so on.

As an intransitive verb, lie traditionally–and still today–does not take an object, and nobody would add an object to that verb. (You probably have never heard anyone say, "Please lie the books on the desk.") You can lie down; an animal may lie in waiting or lies low. Usually, lie means"recline," but it also means "fail to perform," as in "lie down on the job." It also means "to fail to tell the truth," but that meaning of lie is unambiguous. Were it not for its counterpart, the transitive verb lay, neither of the verbs would cause a problem.

That problem lies in the fact that in most people's speech, lay has encroached on the territory of lie because the past tense of lie is identical to the present tense of lay. Here are the paradigms of the two verbs:

         lay      laid      laid

         lie       lay       lain

So if you say, "Last weekend I just lay around," nobody could complain about your grammar because you are correctly using the past tense of lie. But most people say, "Last weekend I just laid around," and that is ungrammatical, for they are using the past tense ofthe verb lay. When even top-notch writers like journalists who write for The New York Times use lay in places where they should use lie, it is obvious that although the rule about lie and lay may still be in print, it has in fact been repealed by usage.

Young people, who pay less attention to rules of grammar than any population‑group, cheerfully ignore the verb lie. At this southern college, the verb‑phrase lay‑out is also popular, heard in contexts like, "We usually lay‑out at the pool in the afternoon, and on Saturday we laid‑out there all day." (Conservative usage would require, "We usually lie around the pool in the afternoon, and on Saturday we lay there all day.")

The intransitive verb lie has virtually disappeared in general usage, and that is bad news only for purists.

FROM THE MAILBAG: 

Several readers have e‑mailed their objections to my phrase "the TV's stand was broken" to illustrate the short pos-sessive form. One reader wrote that she had found 110,000 Google hits on "TV's stand, "but almost five times as many (502,000 hits) on "TV stand. I was unaware that "hits" constituted the criterion for correctness, but I do agree that the phrase "TV stand" sounds better.

The objection of other readers was more valid. They pointed out that grammatical correctness limits the short possessive form ('s) to animate nouns. That rule, however, has been modified to exclude many common expressions re-ferring to time and measurements. "One day's notice," "the earth's atmosphere," and "this morning's news" are all con-sidered acceptable.

Moreover, the rule has been expanded to include other inanimate possessives like "the sun's brilliance, "The plan's success," and "the building's collapse." Do those shortened possessives sound all right to you? Or would you insist on the periphrastic possessive, "the brilliance of the sun," "the success of the plan," and "the collapse of the building"? If you have an opinion, send it on.

This leads to another question about language that appears widely in the oral and written press. Are you bothered by any of the following statements?

The attorney asked where the suspect was at during the robbery.

I am a proud alumni of this University.

We should win if the defense works like it did last year.

The criteria to be used is our own morality.

If I would have known before what I know now, I would not have gone.

The person whom I voted for had the best credentials.

The gift was sent to a friend who I met last year.

Gertrude Block is Lecturer Emerita at the University of Florida College of Law. Her book ,"Legal Writing Advice: Questions and Answers" (William S. Hein & Co., Inc.) was published in December 2004. Ms. Block is also author of "Effective Legal Writing", 5th Edition (Foundation Press), with an accompanying instructor's manual. She is co-author of the "Judicial Opinion Writing Manual" (published by the American Bar Association, 1991).  Send questions to the ISBA Bar News – Language Tips, Illinois State Bar Association, Illinois Bar Center, Springfield, IL 62701, or e-mail her at block@law.ufl.edu.